worst arguments why games aren't art.

[ntw3001]

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

In competitive games, I guess that could be a fair argument, the same as how when people describe sports as 'art' they're likely to get sideways glances. But you don't really 'win' a single player game; you just get to the end. It's like finishing a book or film, except with the word 'win' grandfathered in from the days when games were typically intended to present a challenge rather than a narrative or other creative form (choosing words is hard).

Anyways, regarding 'games as art': Neither of those words actually have a concrete meaning, so debates invariably end up as 'well I define games as this and art as this and they are not the same' versus 'well I define them like this and they are'. It's a completely vacuous debate.

The worst argument I've ever heard: 'well I define games as this and art as this and they are not the same', as stated by every single person who has ever commented on the topic.

 

[SEPECAT]

"Because they're mindless."

 

[PeePantz]

snip

I personally did not get that from God of War. It was fun, but I had no emotional attachment to Kratos and did not relate to him or the story past GOW1. While I agree some games are more immersive than movies, I don't think this qualifies it as art. Like I said earlier, while games most certainly contain different types of art, they are not. The art just helps make the game more enjoyable.

PS - I'm sorry you're dyslexic and had I known this, words like "slop" would have been toned down. I sincerely had a lot of difficulty reading it and because of this, I felt it only got a small amount of what you were trying to say, across. I tried though and didn't just not read it.

 

[nuba km]

snip

I personally did not get that from God of War. It was fun, but I had no emotional attachment to Kratos and did not relate to him or the story past GOW1. While I agree some games are more immersive than movies, I don't think this qualifies it as art. Like I said earlier, while games most certainly contain different types of art, they are not. The art just helps make the game more enjoyable.

PS - I'm sorry you're dyslexic and had I known this, words like "slop" would have been toned down. I sincerely had a lot of difficulty reading it and because of this, I felt it only got a small amount of what you were trying to say, across. I tried though and didn't just not read it.

before I continue in this debate I want to know your definition of art. This will help with seeing why we are disagreeing on this.

 

[nuba km]

Games are toys and intended almost exclusively for purposes of mindless entertainment. Oh wait.

so you are saying silent hill 2 and bioshock are mindless. Also games are not mindless entertainment the most fun games dent to be the ones that challenge our mind and reflexes. Also games ORIGINALLY were just made for entertainment same with books and paintings but this has changed now and f people are stuck in the past we can't take a step towards the future.

 

[Possum TheGreat]

I've always thought games (especially the video variety) are not art. They include art, but this does not make it art.

Does this mean that films are not art because of the B-movies? That graphic novels are not art because of the Penny Dreadfuls? Dismissing a whole medium on the basis of a small sample is an error to be avoided, my friend.

Also, on the note of "winning" a game: I believe it has been mentioned that many games have a conclusion, but not all have a victory condition, but I would reference "The Path" here. I don't suppose many of you have played it (heck, neither have I, only having heard of it through my brother) but from what I understand it is based on the story of Little Red Riding Hood, where you gain nothing by following the given path and reaching your grandmother. The only progress can be acheived by dismissing the game's only instruction and leaving the path, thus playing on the player's already pre-conceived idea of a game where, if you follow the instructions, you will win. This level of complexity is quite interesting to me.

 

[Krythe]

The ONLY reason people want games to be art is because they want to justify what society (perhaps justly) percieves as a waste of time.

"I'm not just sitting alone in a dark room stairing at a screen for hours! I'm supporting ART!"

The easiest way to summarize the arguement is that once you start censoring art (art at its core being about expression, the antithesis of censorship), it really isn't art anymore.

+ Video Games are HEAVILY censored from start to finish. First, you need to sell your idea to a cabal of soulless money-grubbing corporate directors - who likely won't go for any idea that deviates too much from an established norm.

+ Next, you need to dumb-down any radical elements for the simpering PC sheeple. (Point in case - Resident Evil 5; which resulted in a plethora of Mary-Sue black characters and whiter-than-white villains who were just cartoonishly evil.)

+ Finally, you need to further attenuate your game to get an M rating because Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and other corporate superpowers refuse to sell AO.

Bottom line - they could be art in theory, but at present they're a far cry. Most people who argue for their status as art are in denial.

 

[Newbonomicon]

I don't care whether games are art or not. In fact, I deny the existence of "art" entirely. There are paintings, there is music, there are video games... But that's it. I'm not going to bother thinking about what *is* art. From now on, nothing is.

 

[Eclectic Dreck]

His argument has no basis. His thesis is "Games are not art" which he supports by asserting that "Games portray fictional events". When it was pointed out that much of what is generally also considered art also portrays a fictional event he says that they are art because they are not games.

The logic he is using is games are not art because they are not fictional but art can be fictional so long as it isn't a game. The self reference makes it a meaningless statement.

He is free to think that games are not art but convince others he would have to choose a different argument. For example, something is classified as art generally on the basis of a subjective notion as to what art is (conceptually). If the basis he gave was truly an accurate representation of his opinion on the subject (and not the best thing he could come up with on the spur of the moment) then he is obviously free to not consider games art.

 

[PeePantz]

I've always thought games (especially the video variety) are not art. They include art, but this does not make it art.

Does this mean that films are not art because of the B-movies? That graphic novels are not art because of the Penny Dreadfuls? Dismissing a whole medium on the basis of a small sample is an error to be avoided, my friend.

Also, on the note of "winning" a game: I believe it has been mentioned that many games have a conclusion, but not all have a victory condition, but I would reference "The Path" here. I don't suppose many of you have played it (heck, neither have I, only having heard of it through my brother) but from what I understand it is based on the story of Little Red Riding Hood, where you gain nothing by following the given path and reaching your grandmother. The only progress can be acheived by dismissing the game's only instruction and leaving the path, thus playing on the player's already pre-conceived idea of a game where, if you follow the instructions, you will win. This level of complexity is quite interesting to me.

You misunderstood me. I was saying that video games contain art in each individual game. However, the video game itself is not art. It's a game.

I believe you are wrong about winning or beating a game. In order to reach a conclusion to a game, one must overcome a series of challenges. When one overcomes all the obstacles, they have won and reached an end. All games (although sometimes it doesn't feel like it in the case of Risk or Monopoly) have a conclusion, including Little Red Riding Hood.

 

[PeePantz]

snip

I personally did not get that from God of War. It was fun, but I had no emotional attachment to Kratos and did not relate to him or the story past GOW1. While I agree some games are more immersive than movies, I don't think this qualifies it as art. Like I said earlier, while games most certainly contain different types of art, they are not. The art just helps make the game more enjoyable.

PS - I'm sorry you're dyslexic and had I known this, words like "slop" would have been toned down. I sincerely had a lot of difficulty reading it and because of this, I felt it only got a small amount of what you were trying to say, across. I tried though and didn't just not read it.

before I continue in this debate I want to know your definition of art. This will help with seeing why we are disagreeing on this.

Art is finite like a book, song, picture, or painting. Games are not. No one has ever played a game exactly the same. People use strategy and puzzle solving, as well as hand eye coordination to overcome tasks. People may use similar tasks but it will not be exact. A song will always remain the same. A picture does not morph. A book will always tell the same story. Games challenge someone while art can just be presented.

 

[WorldCritic]

1. Contradictory idiot who goes down in my book of hilariously stupid comments.
2. I had someone tell me that videogames would never be considered art because "art is only portrayed in black & white, never in color." Which begs the question WTF? Out of curiosity of what he would say I showed him footage of Mad World and he said, "it's almost art, but there's still too much red."

 

[zama174]

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

The reason someone gets a game is not to rent it, its to experience it. Just like cinema is an art form, it has an end. The Mona Lisa ends as soon as you stop looking at it, and it starts again when you go back to it. The reason games can be art is because of the depth they can have, they can be visually stunning, and can really make you question some aspects. (I am not trying to say you are wrong or anything, just giving you a bit more food for thought on how you view video games.) And this is not to say all games are great pieces of art, most aren't but the same can be said for many paintings and films.

 

[Daveman]

snip

You sir, must learn to use more punctuation.

snip

snip

I'll respond to all you guys because you all said more or less the same thing which is that in many games you don't "win" you just finish/beat it/get to the end. The trouble is that games almost always require technical skill to complete and not everyone will posess this skill so in a way games are excluding some material to people who did not reach the end. No other medium does this and it's because of this that I say games are always about winning in some respect.

ntw3001, you said that the words "games" and "art" lack concrete definitions and all arguments comparing the two are pointless semantics (I think that was the gist). While I agree they lack concrete definitions I also think the arguments help to find definitions which we can agree upon and thus determine whether we can fit "games" into a sub-section of "art".

 

[renzozuken2002]

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

How is the protagonist winning in a game any different from the protagonist from a movie or book winning?

 

[PleasantKenobi]

The trouble is that games almost always require technical skill to complete and not everyone will posess this skill so in a way games are excluding some material to people who did not reach the end. No other medium does this and it's because of this that I say games are always about winning in some respect.

I don't agree at all. T. S. Elliot's 'The Wasteland' is a modernist poem full to the brim with various references that someone not educated in, for example, the classics simply will not get. Now, I know this is not literally the same thing. But if you do not understand the allusions made by a text, whether it be a film, a poem, or a novel, then you can not fully understand its pre-stated message or meaning, and thus not appreciate it as art. This functions as a barrier in much the same was that interactive gameplay does with video games when considering them art. Not that I believe that a pre-set meaning means much in when considering art from a post-structuralist point of view.

It is for this reason that I would happily agree that interaction, especially literal challenge, acts as a barrier for video games as an artistic medium. But much in the same way as the background and intertextual information associated with pieces of literature, or paintings, it does not single-handedly answer the argument.

How is the protagonist winning in a game any different from the protagonist from a movie or book winning?

Quite simply, this argument is based upon the idea that you need skill to complete a game, but not a movie. This is an absolutely absurd argument in my eyes, as you do not simply sit and watch a movie, or read a novel and digest it at face value. It requires a high level of interaction, of interpretation, of understanding, to become involved with. We do not simply digest media, or art (if the two can really be separated) without interaction. The Hypodermic Needle Model of audience reactions to texts would suggest you do, but that model of thought is largely acknowledged as obsolete.

We all bring different readings to texts, thanks to the complex relationship between writer, text and reader due to semiotics. Hardly any narrative, or even supposedly non-narrative based art is ever seen the same, due to subjective viewpoints.