worst arguments why games aren't art.

[nuba km]

So for my English class I had to do a presentation and I did it on why games are art. After the presentation (in which I clearly defiant art as 'something meant to be admired in and of itself') I got asked questions and one person said 'how can games be art if they are fictional' this is not out of context and word for word what he said (trust me you don't forget that kind of stupidity) of course all of my class apart from the people who play call of duty went 'what!!!' and I explained to him most great works of art are fictional and he said 'ya but those ain't games' meaning that he thought something could be art if fictional but not for games. after class he asked me why I thought call of duty (specifically modern warfare 2) was bad art and I told him because the bad writing voice acting and lack of story and he replied 'it has to be art because 7 million people bought it on opening day' and his other reason 'it is hyper realistic' this isn't out of context he also thought he was better at saying what art is because he those art gcse even though I researched the development of the word art from its original meaning to modern times.

So two things:
1. What to you think of this guys response?
2. What stupid arguments have you heard to why games aren't art?

edit for some reason when I tried to post my topic it said it failed at doing so so tried again and this as resulted in two of the same topic sorry.

 

[Jamboxdotcom]

the guy is an idiot. but the biggest argument i have a problem with also seems to be the most often used: it's interactive/it changes as you play it. riiiiight... because no one ever has a different perspective on a book or a painting or a piece of music, etc. there's just *more* perspective here, is all.

 

[Mr.Amakir]

it is hyper realistic

What am i reading? Seriously he thinks that Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is realistic? Tell him that he should go and play Red Orchestra or something because this guy is clearly an idiot.

 

[Mr. Omega]

1: That man is not only an idiot, but he contradicted himself.
2: "Games are harmful to your health. They're extremely addicting." The guy saying this said that with a box of cigarettes on the table and a beer in his hands.

 

[Daveman]

I don't think games are art because you shouldn't be able to "win" art. That guy however, is an idiot.

 

[Eponet]

1: Sounds somewhat hypocritical

2:"Because they're games"

 

[newwiseman]

"Games are fun, so they can't be art" to that I replied "You don't have fun painting"

also, "Interactive is not art" to that I replied "Have you ever seen or heard a Stradivarius?"

 

[theriddlen]

Because i sez so.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

That guy was contradicting himself from what i see. First he says "oh games can't be art.." then 5 seconds later "But Call of Duty 6 Modern Warfare 2 is tots def art because this many people bought it and such". If going by his logic then the only "art" Vincent Van Gogh had was Starry Night.

 

[newwiseman]

Should we really be focusing on stupid arguments? Arguing against a stupid argument is sort of showing a sign of weakness. If we want to support a view that video games are art, we need to address the stronger arguments against our view.

For example:

I don't think games are art because you shouldn't be able to "win" art.

This is a very good point that I have never considered. I still think some games are works of art though, and this makes me think that the already abstract and uncertain word "art" should adapt to include the possibility of winning. In other words, I think that video games are the first artistic medium in which you can win, instead of being disqualified as art because you can win.

I'm no art expert though, so maybe there is a more specific definition I'm not aware of that simply cannot include the ability to interact and win.

The game it's self is the work of art, the interaction (winning) you have with the art is something else.

To clarify the music is art, listening to music isn't.

*edit - I just found one of my college art books, "...what your attempting to create in art is a visceral experience for the observer. The more impact the project has, the greater the influence on those who view it..."

 

[twistedheat15]

Kinda depends on what you consider art. If art is a expression of ones self, then anything that a person is passionate about could be considered art. If art is something that invokes emotion and thought then are games art because to the story behind it, or the aesthetics they use, or are being being drawn in simply because they're interactive. A lot don't consider games art because ppl have different views on what art is. If Mass effect was just a story would ppl still consider it an art? Or if Okami was just a collection of paintings?

 

[Sarcastic_Applause]

personally i've never had someone give me a stupid (or any) reason as to why games arent art. From earlier on in this thread that games cant be art because they're interactive with cinematics, well in that case, why is it that hundreds of films can be designated as art? There are MANY examples of art in games i can think of, not just from scenery, graphics, etc but from their implicit meaning. A very easy example would be Hideo Kojima's Metal gear solid series, whether that comes from the characters, the designs, but mostly from the symbolism and what the game in itself is: an artistic piece representing anti-war.
Digressing from this point, my opinion of art is an exhibit on display that evokes an emotional reaction from the viewer (or the player), if a painting gives you a feeling of sadness or frustration then its art, i cant tell you how many games that have evoked an emotional response from me. Sorry for going off on a tangeant

 

[Waaghpowa]

I feel that someone can't tell you what is, or isn't art, it's up to the individual to decide what is art and what is meaningful to them.

But yes, the guys an idiot if he thinks Call of Duty is "hyper" realistic. I think Killzone 2 is more realistic to CoD because of atmosphere and sound and setting. Yes, I realize that Killzone is a Sci Fi, but play the game and compare things like how your character moves, and how guns behave.

 

[HT_Black]

I dunno. I convinced everyone I know to the contrary. The stupidest argument I can think of is that games are interactive, but I'm not sure whether or not that's widely used or not.

 

[wammnebu]

"something with that much gratuitous violence and sexuality cannot be art"

i was so stunned and amazed by his argument that i burned my books on picasso and salvador dali

 

[ecoho]

1. smack that kid for stupidity
2. ok i had someone tell me that mass effect 2 was a murder simulater.....im not even kiding you. Funny thing though i didnt have to respond my mother did she said "and i guess Saving PVT Ryan was a millitary recruitment video!"

 

[Hussmann54]

(So one thread wasnt enough? Im seeing two..

Listen, I have never felt that art needed to be defended in terms of its title. Some people see layers of paint on a canvas, others see carefully crafted masterpieces, and some even see both. The point is
if you think its art, why the hell do you feel it needs to be defended?
if you think its not art, why the hell do you need to attack it?

Seriously people, what prize is there to be had in proving somethings status when it is subjective anyway? What great award is to be had when people (even on the flippin internet, no doubt) feel the need to argue it. I have never seen "official art" or "unofficial art" just "art" or "not"

this kind of behavior leads me to wonder IF PEOPLE EVEN UNDERSTAND *WHY* SOMETHING IS ART AND NOT JUST WEATHER OR NOT IT QUALIFIES......

the fact that people have to argue it just makes me want to put a *NOT ART* stamp on it just to prove a point. I am not a professional, neither are most people on this forum.(((( AND NO! AN ART DEGREE DOESNT MAKE YOU A ******* EXPERT ON IT, IT MEANS YOU CAN SIT THERE AND WRITE A BULL**** ANALYSIS ON A PAINTING. ughhh.... egotistical, self righteous little pricks)))) Point is, why the hell do you need a professional to give you a thumbs up or thumbs down on this, isnt your own opinion enough? So what if people think some video games are offensive, that isnt what is stopping people from calling porn "Art" (actually only a government grant is in that case lol)

So 1) you feel the need to have "Official people call it art for you to feel good about it.
and 2) if they dont give it the "Thumbs up" then you whine and cry on a forum and feel the need to defend YOUR OPINION from the BIG NASTY EVIL MEANIES!

COME ON PEOPLE! it is YOUR OPINION, and for that, it shouldnt need to be defended..

unless......

You are part of what more and more people consider the B**** generation who have no self security and are continuously seeking it from other in order to feel good about it.

To quote Yahtzee "Why dont you roll over and let them stomp on the other side of your face while they are at it?" The fact that it is even a debate for them proves how insecure some people are.

Your welcome..