Why is it so imporant for video games to be considered art?

[Erana]

One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Psh. Most peoples' perception of art is decades, if not centuries behind the contemporary state of the art world. For one, people seem think that art is particularly definable.

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I want to see games as art because it is a new medium with a mind-blowing level of artistic potential. I can feel my heart swell for the seemingly endless possibilities.
If video games became acknowledged as a form of art, more people would be willing to view games on a different level, willing to challenge what is there and push the limits of what can be done to communicate emotion, make commentary, and generate discussion which leads to new revelations about the medium and ourselves as human beings. Just as art should.

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

 

[renegade7]

1.) Legal protection from the Jack Thompsons and Leland Yees of the world
2.) Removing social stigma towards certain themes in games (violence, sex, etc.) and towards games on the whole
3.) And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't companies producing art get tax breaks of some sort?

 

[Vault101]

snip

the way I see it, its not about being considered "art" I dont think theres any question there

I think its more about being held to a higher standard and reaching the heights they can go

kind of like Alan Moore and comic books

 

[DioWallachia]

Games have never not been an art form

Are you looking hard enough before saying that?? If your answer to this question is "i dont really care" or "i have better things to do than do any research" then congratulations, you have achieved the same lvl of thinking that any non gamers has over games in general. Now we have to solve this lazyness that people has so we can show them that games arent a waste of time without shoving the truth right up their's throat.

 

[DioWallachia]

Video games need to be considered an artistic medium so that other people realize what they've been missing out on when they summed up all games as "blood and tits". After that they will, hopefully, join in and have their minds blown by good games.... or they'll just feel bad. I prefer the former, but the latter isn't so bad either.

Aaaaah irony, so delicious

I wonder why there isnt someone that is a film critic and can actually compare some games to films, in such a way that people will understand that games are not so diferent from movies but ALSO they can achieve even MORE than films??

Also, i love how some people dont buy comic books but they do buy graphic novels (even if its the same shit) We just devolved back to the medieval age where if you mention Alchemy you will get the pitchfork and torches greeting, but if you say "Chemistry" then its aaaaaaaawright. Its not like they are the same thing......oh wait

 

[DioWallachia]

1.) Legal protection from the Jack Thompsons and Leland Yees of the world
2.) Removing social stigma towards certain themes in games (violence, sex, etc.) and towards games on the whole
3.) And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't companies producing art get tax breaks of some sort?

And what does that law says about art? What does that law considers "art"?

One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Psh. Most peoples' perception of art is decades, if not centuries behind the contemporary state of the art world. For one, people seem think that art is particularly definable.

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I want to see games as art because it is a new medium with a mind-blowing level of artistic potential. I can feel my heart swell for the seemingly endless possibilities.
If video games became acknowledged as a form of art, more people would be willing to view games on a different level, willing to challenge what is there and push the limits of what can be done to communicate emotion, make commentary, and generate discussion which leads to new revelations about the medium and ourselves as human beings. Just as art should.

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

Waiting? no offense but that isn't the way to do it. We need people that we, the gamers, can trust to expose and debunk any myth and misconception about games by the time the world decides to ask a professional about it. It NEEDS to be well documented for EVERYONE to see and we need to pass the voice in such a way that people will be forced to talk about it even if they are not gamers due to the sheer impact and pressure over public (remember, humans are social creatures and in order to belong to a group they had to share the same ideas as the group)

Lets just hope, however, that the people we "elect" as our voice don't become obnoxious assholes like John Romero whose GALACTIC EGO wasn't precisely a good image for us, isn't it?

 

[DioWallachia]

I really don't know, to me a game is a game. But, I'll admit, many games have made me feel something so maybe that has something to do with it. /shrug

I am surpriced that no flame war started by your statement of "a game its a game". I was expecting the same reaction like when you say to a bunch of Star War fans that "its just a movie"

 

[DioWallachia]

Mainly because people keep viewed it as a childish waste of time and we all want to be more like Yahtzee.

They want to be an Asexual Misanthrope Supreme that play bad mainstream games for the rest of his career?

That is a rather accurate description of Yahtzee. His constant negativity and bile starts to take a toll on a person. I suppose that is why I no longer watch reviews anymore; there is too much negativity and not enough talk about the positives.

His REAL reviews are in the Extra Puctuation not the "comedic" ones.

But anyway, do you think that he is one of the many people we need in the front by representing the games as a legitimate medium?? (Along with the Extra Credits people)
Or he is too munch of a train-break that people WILL seek excuses to devalidate his opinions?? Maybe we SHOULD get him just for that, after all, it will act as an STRAWMAN-BAIT. If the anti-game people is stupid enough to use those as an excuse then we can make them look bad because they lowered themselves to doing so AND Yathzee and the others will refute them easily. What do you think?

 

[dyre]

One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Psh. Most peoples' perception of art is decades, if not centuries behind the contemporary state of the art world. For one, people seem think that art is particularly definable.

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I want to see games as art because it is a new medium with a mind-blowing level of artistic potential. I can feel my heart swell for the seemingly endless possibilities.
If video games became acknowledged as a form of art, more people would be willing to view games on a different level, willing to challenge what is there and push the limits of what can be done to communicate emotion, make commentary, and generate discussion which leads to new revelations about the medium and ourselves as human beings. Just as art should.

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

I think these are really separate issues. I mean, for gamers to dismiss contemporary art movements while insisting that gaming is art is no doubt hypocritical, but really, doesn?t most of the public dismiss contemporary art? So it?s no gain for art enthusiasts, but not much of a loss anyway since the gamers? feelings on art is the same as the status quo anyway.

Also, I think gamers who want gaming to be ?art? really just want it to be a more mature and respectable medium. They don?t really want it to be like art, especially not stuff like Duchamp. Maybe more like realism or impressionism would be better, lol.

I mean, they want games to move from something like Eragon to something more like Song of Ice and Fire, but they?re uninterested in seeing any Faulkner, if that makes any sense.

Sorry if I missed your point, I found myself a little confused at what you were trying to say.

 

[NiPah]

The question is in the title . Why is it so important for video gakes to be considered art? Does it really matter? If they are considered art , then what? Gamers could pride themselves at being art fans? I just don't see the importance of videogames being considered an artform or not .

Now i am not saying i don't see games as art but art or not i will continue playing videogames . Is it just so the media would see gamers as somethin more than childish adults? If you are ashamed of gaming and need validation from the outside world for you hobby, i think theres a problem .

Discuss

You're showing a bit of bias in your post, no this has nothing to do with a feeling of validation from the outside world. Some would define art as an object without purpose, it just is, this is why most modern art is abstract and ugly to most viewers, it is meant to portray itself as art and nothing else. Art is not made to entertain, or help you out in daily life, a car cannot be art since it serves a purpose and thus cannot fit the description. Games on the other hand can fit the description but almost never do, games are meant for entertainment and enjoyment, they are not merely there to be the object alone, with enjoyment not factored into the development.

Art also lacks a definite definition so there are some differing ideas out there, some think art is meant to express emotions and feelings, others think that something a person perceives as pretty is art.

Do some see the label of art as a badge of honor? Sure, but I doubt those people know the true battle that is going on between the art world and games to really know why it even matters. Some developers are trying to use games as an outlet for art, like another medium in the same respect that paint or even music. These are the true people who want to change the status quo, don't worry your games will most likely never be considered art much in the same way country music and heavy music isn't considered art either.

 

[Vanilla_Druid]

His REAL reviews are in the Extra Puctuation not the "comedic" ones.

But anyway, do you think that he is one of the many people we need in the front by representing the games as a legitimate medium?? (Along with the Extra Credits people)
Or he is too munch of a train-break that people WILL seek excuses to devalidate his opinions?? Maybe we SHOULD get him just for that, after all, it will act as an STRAWMAN-BAIT. If the anti-game people is stupid enough to use those as an excuse then we can make them look bad because they lowered themselves to doing so AND Yathzee and the others will refute them easily. What do you think?

Well, I guess I just have a problem with "comedic" reviews. They all seem to emulate the Angry Video Game Nerd to some degree and say nothing but "this x sucks!" I am sorry if I seemed like I was speaking ill of Yahtzee (I respect the man), I just think he should be less bitter. Also, he is far from being a train-wreck.

 

[Erana]

One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Psh. Most peoples' perception of art is decades, if not centuries behind the contemporary state of the art world. For one, people seem think that art is particularly definable.

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I want to see games as art because it is a new medium with a mind-blowing level of artistic potential. I can feel my heart swell for the seemingly endless possibilities.
If video games became acknowledged as a form of art, more people would be willing to view games on a different level, willing to challenge what is there and push the limits of what can be done to communicate emotion, make commentary, and generate discussion which leads to new revelations about the medium and ourselves as human beings. Just as art should.

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

I think these are really separate issues. I mean, for gamers to dismiss contemporary art movements while insisting that gaming is art is no doubt hypocritical, but really, doesn?t most of the public dismiss contemporary art? So it?s no gain for art enthusiasts, but not much of a loss anyway since the gamers? feelings on art is the same as the status quo anyway.

Also, I think gamers who want gaming to be ?art? really just want it to be a more mature and respectable medium. They don?t really want it to be like art, especially not stuff like Duchamp. Maybe more like realism or impressionism would be better, lol.

I mean, they want games to move from something like Eragon to something more like Song of Ice and Fire, but they?re uninterested in seeing any Faulkner, if that makes any sense.

Sorry if I missed your point, I found myself a little confused at what you were trying to say.

For a medium as a whole to generally be accepted as a form of art on a general level, you need the existing institutions of fine art to consider it so. Therefore, it needs to be indoctrinated as a form in the same way other mediums experienced a rebirth in the modernist/postmodernist era.

The art world has huge clout in the national subconscious of what is art. They're the ones who need to be convinced, and the only way that's going to happen is by speaking their language.

 

[Mylinkay Asdara]

The question is in the title . Why is it so important for video gakes to be considered art? Does it really matter? If they are considered art , then what? Gamers could pride themselves at being art fans? I just don't see the importance of videogames being considered an artform or not .

Now i am not saying i don't see games as art but art or not i will continue playing videogames . Is it just so the media would see gamers as somethin more than childish adults? If you are ashamed of gaming and need validation from the outside world for you hobby, i think theres a problem .

Discuss

For me, it is much less about seeing all (or even most) games rise to the Art title by becoming interactive Mona Lisas... it's more that I want the medium to be validated and recognized for what it does already have to offer. Much like the early novel - which was, for a long time, not considered literature, but rather a diversion for people of little means and less class to fill empty hours with. Yet now we study them and we recognize what those authors have done, by providing that entertainment, to give insight to the day-to-day life of their times, address social issues (or at least bring them up), and reflect the intellectual processes of their era. I want to see video games recognized as a medium that does these things too - yes, in the name of entertainment - yes, as a diversion to fill empty hours... but still - there is so much they can offer and so much we can learn from them as they stand. Without some recognition of being an art form they remain just toys in the eyes of society, and that perception is an inaccuracy that should be addressed.

 

[AyreonMaiden]

Socially speaking, I don't give a shit about games ever being "art" or "important" to others. I like myself more than enough to handle something as insignificant as having some coolguy dude show his ignorance by telling me games are toys or whatever.

Legally, though, it matters because it adds more protection. Freedom of speech and all. So in that regard, I kinda care. But not all that much. As the industry is now, every game I could ever wanna play has or is being made. And the older I get, the less thrilled I get with "museum bait" stuff, across any medium.

 

[sumanoskae]

Simple, because they deserve it. They're as artistically valuable as literature and cinema and deserve the same respect. Games shouldn't have to live in fear of being judged, misunderstood, or unappreciated.

Besides, the more people take games seriously, the more potential designers we have, and the more the developers already here will be encouraged to take themselves seriously.

Games getting the respect they deserve should be an end in and of itself, even without the good it would do the industry.

 

[Tiger Sora]

More government funding, I mean so that people can feel they're making something more. And they're are examples of interactive art out there. So a video game is just an interactive movie, so why not.

Now I'm to tired to think of anything more solid or iron out anything further.

 

[Chefodeath]

I think it's less about being "art" and more about being "Not just kid's shit."

Gamers in large want respect for their medium, and while I think this desire is entirely legitimate, I don't think games are actually art. Unfortunately whenever I voice that opinion, people interpret me as saying "Video games are just kid shit." so I get jumped.

 

[Deadyawn]

Urgh. It looks like there is a really long discussion here that I can't be arsed reading. I shall simply give my opinion and if it happens to coincide with yours, consider it a compliment.

I would like for video games to be considered a form of art because it would help legitimise it in the eyes of the general society. Partially because it would curb ridicule regarding it but mostly because I love video games and what they are capable of and want more people to be able to experience them.
It's a relatively young medium and it would really suck if it got snuffed out before we could properly explore it. It needs the support of the wider communtity to really flourish.

 

[somonels]

Some prancy reason, like some consider alcoholism, sex, grilling or cooking and art, not to mention art itself.

Art, like bureaucracy, serves the one goal of propagating itself, making it a form of communal parasite.

 

[Waffle_Man]

The question is in the title . Why is it so important for video gakes to be considered art? Does it really matter? If they are considered art , then what? Gamers could pride themselves at being art fans? I just don't see the importance of videogames being considered an artform or not .

Now i am not saying i don't see games as art but art or not i will continue playing videogames . Is it just so the media would see gamers as somethin more than childish adults? If you are ashamed of gaming and need validation from the outside world for you hobby, i think theres a problem .

Discuss

It isn't about games being considered art.

It's about games being art.

In fact, there has been large amount of needless pretentiousness in the games community lately, not because they actually care about games as art, but because "art" is a magic label that protects things from censorship. Sadly, I'd say that even with all the talk about games becoming more sophisticated and such, it's always in the worst possible way. "Gritty realistic" stories and "adult themes" do not make something deep or make it worth while. Sexual content and moral ambiguity are tools not ends. Blood and gore doesn't make the vast majority of violence in video games less juvenile.

This may be a shock to a number of people here, but when the world looks at our hobby and says that it's childish, they're right. Don't get me wrong. I love stupid fun, but it isn't fulfilling. I can't think about most games as being some metaphor for real life because they have absolutely no redeeming qualities with regards to context. I only have a certain amount of time to live, and I don't want most of it to be wasted on only semi-conscious action.