worst arguments why games aren't art.

[Psycho Cat Industries]

He be trollin!
As for bad responses,"games aren't art because it is self expression" "Aren't you expressing yourself as the developer or the team?" "No,because that isn't self expression"

 

[veloper]

Gaming won't get any respect nomatter how we spin it and gaming doesn't need respect to prosper, only money.

I like gaming as entertainment and I would love for game studios to cater to nerds again. The opposite of pandering for the respect of the public. Less casual fratboy games and more games like JA2, MOO2, XCOM, PST, Elite.

First: I hope I didn't mess up when I shortened the quoted text...


No, to the topic.
You said that gaming doesn't need respect, and I agree with you, mostly. The main reason to get games accepted as art is freedom.

In "proper" art, pretty much anything can be depicted and the more it moves outside of social norms, the more it gets admired for daringly crossing borders and questioning morale or whatever the critic can think of at that moment (after all, art critics are the kind of people who are able to know someone personally who was just invented for a fictional biography, someone like Nat Tate).

If a game shows scenes people know from films like "Saving Private Ryan" or, in Germany, a swastika, even if the game is SUPPOSED to realistically depict the second world war, it usually gets banned or at least cut down to a "safe" version, in some cases even removing gameplay elements. I remember one game where enemies could bleed to death when wounded badly enough, and there are quite a few (like AvP) where you could remove limbs from enemies, so they couldn't attack you with them, or were bound to one place or whatever. This is not possible in Germany.
And then, there's nudity...
If an artist paints a picture of a naked woman, they get admired for the lines, the colours, the correct anatomy, and several more things.
A game where sex is hinted at? Remember Mass Effect, the hideous lesbian porn game? That's what happens.

So, if games are officially made an art form, we can get braver, more grown-up games, with (hopefully) deeper stories, even touching sensitive topics.
Oh, and museums would suddenly turn from a place to hang up dirty sheets and take money for that ( I admit there are a lot of great artists, but some of those guys just seem to empty a paint bucket on ten square metres of linen and sell it) to something far more awesome, enjoyable and probably funny.

Of course, the downside will be games becoming an attraction for people who actually believe pouring paint over a canvas is art, and apply the same principle to gaming.

I don't think there is much chance of arty farties ever putting their stamp on our hobby. I think the bad is more likely to come from another group, that likes to associate itself with art.
A much more likely scenario than the splashed canvas, is B-narrative replacing most of the gameplay. We can already see how this works in Fable3 and Heavy Rain.

So you wanted games accepted as art, so game studios will have more freedom.
More freedom to fulfil their ambitions in the story department I suppose. This is not something I can get excited over.

We can already have violent games. You mentioned Mass Effect as the example, but that game remained uncensored and sold very well, despite complaints by some irrelevant media.
So we can't play as "taliban", but as "opposing force" instead. This doesn't bother me.

I can appreciate a premise and some explanation in a game, describing what is is your game character is doing, but I feel we're going overboard with lengthy, crappy stories nowadays, especially in my favourite pet genre, the WRPG.
Now if those stories were any decent like Planescape, that would have been something, but all we get is second rate and lot's of it.

Come to think of it, Ps:T wasn't controversial and still BIS managed to produce something pretty good.
The no russian and the taliban controversies now, were just for the negative publicity in the media and those stories had no artistic merit whatsoever.

Anyway, games are already "art" in the broad meaning of the word and games can already depict anything if publishers accept an AO rating, while almost everything goes under M.
This won't convince any opponents of gaming or cowardly publishers and nothing ever will.

All old school gamers can do is BUY good games and let the industry know we still exist.
This whole art and story push isn't our fight. The worst thing that might come of it is gameplay getting buried even deeper.

 

[GiantRaven]

yes, Oscar Wilde is art, Twilight is not. Jiri Menzel is art, Avatar is not. The list goes on

I'm sorry, you don't get to pick and choose what becomes art or not. Just because you don't like Twilight doesn't mean it isn't a piece of art.

Hell, bad art is still art right?

If a game shows scenes people know from films like "Saving Private Ryan" or, in Germany, a swastika, even if the game is SUPPOSED to realistically depict the second world war, it usually gets banned or at least cut down to a "safe" version, in some cases even removing gameplay elements. I remember one game where enemies could bleed to death when wounded badly enough, and there are quite a few (like AvP) where you could remove limbs from enemies, so they couldn't attack you with them, or were bound to one place or whatever. This is not possible in Germany.
And then, there's nudity...
If an artist paints a picture of a naked woman, they get admired for the lines, the colours, the correct anatomy, and several more things.
A game where sex is hinted at? Remember Mass Effect, the hideous lesbian porn game? That's what happens.

I wonder if the whole hysteria about video games (like the Mass Effect stuff you mention) is holding back the idea of the medium as an artform. It must be easier for the masses to accept the video game for it's entertainment value and then the appreciation as an artform can come later.

Of course, the downside will be games becoming an attraction for people who actually believe pouring paint over a canvas is art, and apply the same principle to gaming.

Is this really a downside? I would absolutely love to see some games like this!

I don't think games are art. I mean, they can have art in them, the scenery could be artistic like a painting, the plot and dialogue artistic like a book, but as a whole, they're just entertainment.
I personally think it comes down to this; true art is made to express a message or emotion from the creator, whereas games, as proved by the 7 Call of Dutys, 6 Halos, and however many Mario games there are out there, exist to make money.

This is why we need more gaming auteurs.

Also, 'true art' is an annoying pretentious term and should be erased from existence.

 

[BaronVonBob]

how to you know that and how to you know that some game developers don't pure their heart into the games they make?

We're back to exactly what I said before. A level designer could make a level artistic, or a writer could make the plot artistic, like in Bioshock, but at the end of the day companies make games, as companies do, to make money.

 

[nuba km]

how to you know that and how to you know that some game developers don't pure their heart into the games they make?

We're back to exactly what I said before. A level designer could make a level artistic, or a writer could make the plot artistic, like in Bioshock, but at the end of the day companies make games, as companies do, to make money.

but by that logic movies aren't art because the writers may write a beautiful story and the designers make beautiful costumes and sets but at the end of the day companies make movies, as companies do, to make money. .

 

[Deacon Cole]

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.

That is the logical fallacy of special pleading."where a proponent of a position attempts to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule or principle without justifying the exemption"

...and he replied 'it has to be art because 7 million people bought it on opening day'

This is argumentum ad populum, appeal to the majority. "Where a proposition is claimed to be true solely because many people believe it to be true."

and his other reason 'it is hyper realistic'

This one is a little tougher to place, but it looks similar to the naturalistic fallacy "whenever a philosopher attempts to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition of the term "good" in terms of one or more natural properties (such as "pleasant", "more evolved", "desired", etc.)." But it could also be a fallacy of the single cause "when it is assumed that there is one, simple cause of an outcome when in reality it may have been caused by a number of only jointly sufficient causes." In this case, realism makes a game art, when realism is but one factor.

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.

I assume there's a typo here. I don't know what "gcse" is. Don't particularly care. Assuming it's something that would make him think it gives him greater authority on the matter, it's an appeal to accomplishments fallacy, "where an assertion is deemed true or false based on the accomplishments of the proposer."

What stupid arguments have you heard to why games aren't art?

The one I like the least is that art is the product of a singular vision of a single artist. It's most annoying when it comes from the field of film, like say Roger Ebert, because film has this same problem as well. They are collaborative art forms. The auteur theory of film that designates the director as the source of the singular vision is but a means to avoid the problem.

Personally, I think art is poorly defined, especially in the popular culture. It's because of centuries of art referring to so-called fine art which was usually expensive and something reserved for the wealthy. There's a whole mass of assumptions involved along these lines that just make the term pretentious. Does it need to be carved out of marble, or can poured concrete also be art?

I could go on, but I'd be rambling. I don't really have these thought well organized. The skinny is that art is not as difficult as most seem to think. Nor does art require most of what many seem to think. It's far simpler than that, but more complex as a result. Art is not up in an ivory tower. Some art is, but art in general is much more accessible.

 

[Jumplion]

There you have another reason why some of us aren't too keen about this whole games as art push: not our prefered type of games. Should it catch on, our genres will get buried even deeper.

Oh bullhonkey,

games are not art because they're an industry. As soon as crap stops being mass produced, things will improve

This to (hello? Ever seen the drivel pumped out by Hollywood? The industry is pretty much like that)

Now, I'm not going to get into your entire argument with nuba or whatever, but let's make one thing clear; "artsy" games will never become the majority!

I see the argument all the time with "anti-art" people (lack of a better word), and it's an entirely silly sentiment. You don't have to worry about "arsty" games popping up everywhichway and "taking over" your beloved "fun" games, why anyone would think that I do not know. You still got your standard, meaningless, action movies coming out in Hollywood (not that they aren't good movies, but they are meaningless), and you'll still get your silly, crazy, standard games out there. This is something that a lot of people misinterpret from the "artsy" people, that somehow every single game must now by "artistic" or something. Of course not!

There's nothing wrong with wanting to just play your "fun" games and leave it at that, but some people want more from their medium. I come from the thought of "good art vs bad art", so while I'd say Call of Duty is "bad art" that doesn't make it a bad game and it's perfectly alright to play the game for fun.

To semi-quote/paraphrase MovieBob: "I hate the sentiment of 'not everything has to be about something!'. Well, isn't it better when something is?"

Anyway, back on the topic, the guy, from what we're given on your side, seems to be a moron (again, from what you've given us). If you extend "art" rights to everything fictional, yet stop at the fictional video games because of "interactivity", he's not even following his own rules as he didn't say that they could not be interactive. But past that loophole, with "why isn't CoD art?", it's because it isn't really trying to be, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

 

[BaronVonBob]

but by that logic movies aren't art because the writers may write a beautiful story and the designers make beautiful costumes and sets but at the end of the day companies make movies, as companies do, to make money. .

That would be a very good point, if I'd ever said movies were art. I think the only movies truly recognised as art are the sort of independent ones that put message before money anyway, and even they aren't proper art.

 

[GiantRaven]

but by that logic movies aren't art because the writers may write a beautiful story and the designers make beautiful costumes and sets but at the end of the day companies make movies, as companies do, to make money. .

That would be a very good point, if I'd ever said movies were art. I think the only movies truly recognised as art are the sort of independent ones that put message before money anyway, and even they aren't proper art.

Would you please enlighten us as to what your standards of 'proper art' and 'improper art' (I know you didn't say this but if proper art exists then this must also) and why exactly you are the one who gets to define these standards (or, if not you, why anybody gets to define these standards).

 

[Thaliur]

Of course, the downside will be games becoming an attraction for people who actually believe pouring paint over a canvas is art, and apply the same principle to gaming.

Is this really a downside? I would absolutely love to see some games like this!

I was only using the "splashed canvas" as a metaphor.
Obviously, a game with an artstyle and according gameplay based on spilled paint could get really awesome.

The thing I was referring to, though, was the amount of work put into it. Imagine Call Of Duty, with all the environment untextured, all the characters just boxes, and a proud "developer" advertising it as a revolutionary statement on the futility of war.

 

[GiantRaven]

Of course, the downside will be games becoming an attraction for people who actually believe pouring paint over a canvas is art, and apply the same principle to gaming.

Is this really a downside? I would absolutely love to see some games like this!

I was only using the "splashed canvas" as a metaphor.
Obviously, a game with an artstyle and according gameplay based on spilled paint could get really awesome.

The thing I was referring to, though, was the amount of work put into it. Imagine Call Of Duty, with all the environment untextured, all the characters just boxes, and a proud "developer" advertising it as a revolutionary statement on the futility of war.

Eh, my statement still stands. I think it's good to have ideas from both sides of the artistic coin no matter what the media. It may not be loved by everyone but it's nice to have it exist so you can experience it.

 

[nuba km]

but by that logic movies aren't art because the writers may write a beautiful story and the designers make beautiful costumes and sets but at the end of the day companies make movies, as companies do, to make money. .

That would be a very good point, if I'd ever said movies were art. I think the only movies truly recognised as art are the sort of independent ones that put message before money anyway, and even they aren't proper art.

Ah so what is proper art I gave my definition (something that is meant to be admired in and of it self good and bad art depends on how much of a meaning the art has(money therefore never directly effects it)) of art please give me yours and this debate will be over a lot quicker.

 

[BaronVonBob]

Would you please enlighten us as to what your standards of 'proper art' and 'improper art' (I know you didn't say this but if proper art exists then this must also) and why exactly you are the one who gets to define these standards (or, if not you, why anybody gets to define these standards).

Well, somebody obviously gets to define these standards, because I don't see any galleries of games or the fluff you get in your pockets springing up anywhere. And if somebody can, then why not me?
And I'd say it's in the same way that there is bad music and good music, bad writing and good writing. You can say this is down to opinion, but when you go all the way back there is a sort of standard that you can actually compare it to. Take Katy Perry's music, for instance, and compare it to an actual musician who spends years working on a piece, making sure every line is as good as it can be and each melody weaves and harmonises. Some people will like one more than the other, but everyone with sense can agree which is truly better.

 

[BaronVonBob]

Ah so what is proper art I gave my definition (something that is meant to be admired in and of it self good and bad art depends on how much of a meaning the art has(money therefore never directly effects it)) of art please give me yours and this debate will be over a lot quicker.

I agree pretty much with your idea of art, but money does affect it, because if something is made to bring in a substantial profit, then it's likely to not have as much meaning. Real art has message, or meaning, even if it is just to inspire, and has care and thought put into it. You can say this relates to games, but again, it's an individual part of a game, not the whole thing.

 

[Halo Fanboy]

There you have another reason why some of us aren't too keen about this whole games as art push: not our prefered type of games. Should it catch on, our genres will get buried even deeper.

Oh bullhonkey,

What a compelling argument!

games are not art because they're an industry. As soon as crap stops being mass produced, things will improve

This to (hello? Ever seen the drivel pumped out by Hollywood? The industry is pretty much like that)

Now, I'm not going to get into your entire argument with nuba or whatever, but let's make one thing clear; "artsy" games will never become the majority!

I see the argument all the time with "anti-art" people (lack of a better word), and it's an entirely silly sentiment. You don't have to worry about "arsty" games popping up everywhichway and "taking over" your beloved "fun" games, why anyone would think that I do not know. You still got your standard, meaningless, action movies coming out in Hollywood (not that they aren't good movies, but they are meaningless), and you'll still get your silly, crazy, standard games out there. This is something that a lot of people misinterpret from the "artsy" people, that somehow every single game must now by "artistic" or something. Of course not!

There's nothing wrong with wanting to just play your "fun" games and leave it at that, but some people want more from their medium. I come from the thought of "good art vs bad art", so while I'd say Call of Duty is "bad art" that doesn't make it a bad game and it's perfectly alright to play the game for fun.

To semi-quote/paraphrase MovieBob: "I hate the sentiment of 'not everything has to be about something!'. Well, isn't it better when something is?"

Anyway, back on the topic, the guy, from what we're given on your side, seems to be a moron (again, from what you've given us). If you extend "art" rights to everything fictional, yet stop at the fictional video games because of "interactivity", he's not even following his own rules as he didn't say that they could not be interactive. But past that loophole, with "why isn't CoD art?", it's because it isn't really trying to be, but that doesn't make it a bad game.

You're kind of right except your bad taste has forced you to praise the low art and disparage the high art. Heavy Rain is not "more," It is less. Its possibility space is limited and QTE mechanic is obnoxiously restricted, there is no sense of interesting challeng. The creators of great games are the high artist like the people working on Bayonetta or Starcraft II and the lower (con)artist work on things like Fl0w. Vanquish and Donkey Kong Country Returns are the Inception and Black Swan of this year (I don't actually care about or have seen those movies I'm just trying to phrase this in a way you will understand.) Heavy Rain can be Twilight: Eclipse if you want to make that compartison.

And I have to say that an abundance or even just a small minority of bad games is harmfull. Harmfull to the player's taste. Especially if those games are accepted. Just as JRPGers have dulled themselves to repetitive grind and console gamers have gotten used to inferior ports. A microcosm of the current state of viedo games can be seen in the fall of the western arcade industry as a result of gamers becoming accostomed to bad game design. I'm creating a new topic with an essay I wrote on the subject if you are interested.

Link to topic: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.249198-How-continues-ruined-the-western-arcade

 

[nuba km]

Ah so what is proper art I gave my definition (something that is meant to be admired in and of it self good and bad art depends on how much of a meaning the art has(money therefore never directly effects it)) of art please give me yours and this debate will be over a lot quicker.

I agree pretty much with your idea of art, but money does affect it, because if something is made to bring in a substantial profit, then it's likely to not have as much meaning. Real art has message, or meaning, even if it is just to inspire, and has care and thought put into it. You can say this relates to games, but again, it's an individual part of a game, not the whole thing.

a big part of books, movies, music, and paintings is to make money because if they don't make money the person doesn't eat and he can't make more books, movie, music or paintings money doesn't affect the meaning citizen kane was made they knew they needed to make money so they made what they thought people would enjoy a deep experience and making art compelling is a great thing because more people then can enjoy the message. would Beethoven have made his great music if he didn't get paid no because then he couldn't pay the musicians to be a individuals that makes an experience, would Shakespeare have made his plays if he didn't get paid no because how could he have made the sets and hire the actors to be part of a greater experience, would the developers of the original silent hill have done their jobs of their wasn't a pay check in it no because they needed to eat and needed the money to help craft the next great experience. all of these people had a meaning and message behind their work but they also did it to make money because guess what money makes the world go round but it doesn't make something have less of a meaning. Also by using the term real art you don't seem intellectual you just seem snobby.

 

[Jumplion]

What a compelling argument!

I meant that as a silly little comment, not a snide one. If I did, I would have said "bullshit", but I didn't.

You're kind of right except your bad taste has forced you to praise the low art and disparage the high art. Heavy Rain is not "more," It is less. Its possibility space is limited and QTE mechanic is obnoxiously restricted, there is no sense of interesting challenge.

Did I even mention Heavy Rain in my post?

But since you somehow brought that up, Heavy Rain is more "artistic" because it's trying to be anyway. The game tackles mature topics in a mature manner, whether or not it succeeds for you personally is not the issue. If Heavy Rain is not for you, it's not for you, but I for one appreciate a game that's trying to be different and mature compared to the pitiful attempts at storytelling that some games have.

And why does "challenge" need to be brought into this? Challenge has nothing to do with the "artistic" side, that's on the "fun" side which is totally fine. I'd say the challenge in Heavy Rain comes from the choices you have to make, and I have to say I struggled to make some while playing it. If you didn't, fine, to each his own.

The creators of great games are the high artist like the people working on Bayonetta or Starcraft II and the lower (con)artist work on things like Fl0w. Vanquish and Donkey Kong Country Returns are the Inception and Black Swan of this year (I don't actually care about or have seen those movies I'm just trying to phrase this in a way you will understand.) Heavy Rain can be Twilight: Eclipse if you want to make that compartison.

Again, where did I mention Heavy Rain? (And conartists? Why is thatgamecompany, behind flOw, conartists?)

Are you seriously comparing Vanquish (a fast paced, shoot 'em up with lots 'o 'splosions and Russian terrorists (original!)) and Donkey Kong Country Returns (a return to the classic retro games of ole) to Inception (an intellectual, cerebral action film delving into the subconscious of a deranged man) and Black Swan (a ballerina who is tormented to go as far as she can for success or something)? And Heavy Rain (a dark, mature themed game about how far someone is willing to go for a loved one) to Twilight (a vampire film with sparkles)?

Look, if you didn't like Heavy Rain, that's fine, I don't blame you. I'm sure Vanquish and DKCR are a blast to play. But I don't seem to quite follow your examples here. I'm guessing you're judging their merits based on gameplay and "fun" factor, and that's not the discussion here.

And I have to say that an abundance or even just a small minority of bad games is harmfull. Harmfull to the player's taste. Especially if those games are accepted. Just as JRPGers have dulled themselves to repetitive grind and console gamers have gotten used to inferior ports. A microcosm of the current state of viedo games can be seen in the fall of the western arcade industry as a result of gamers becoming accostomed to bad game design. I'm creating a new topic with an essay I wrote on the subject if you are interested.

Link to topic: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.249198-How-continues-ruined-the-western-arcade

You've got to take your victories where you can find them. Am I saying Heavy Rain or the like are perfect? Of course not, and I trust future game designers to pick out the problems with it.

You are under the impression that somehow games like Heavy Rain will become the norm and everyone will copy them, which is not true. Heavy Rain, as far as I can tell, is pretty much the first of it's kind or at least the first in a long while (I've heard it be compared to Shenmue). At this point, nobody is accepting "bad game design", they are accepting "good game concept".

When it comes to the point where games like Heavy Rain are the norm (like FPSs are now), then it will start when average/mediocre games sell well despite their poor game designs (like FPSs are now. Not saying all FPSs are like that, but you get the point.).

From what I can gather from your whole post, I feel like your giving me a strawman here, though I'm terrible at pointing fallacies, but whatever.

And I'll read your article, it sounds intriguing. I love the odd trip to the arcade

 

[CarpathianMuffin]

Worst argument that I saw was "You kill people!"
I don't get the logic behind that at all.

 

[The Stonker]

Hyper realistic, I think he needs a smack on the head.
With a brick.

How about I help you and bring my vacum cleaner so we can combine them into something horrific?

But really? MW2? WHAT!
You should have buried that guy, because people should be punished for having such high amounts of stupidity.

Now a argument for that games are art.
There are paintings that are gracious and move us and sometimes fright us.
Then why can't video games, move us and inspire us to do great things?
Because if you just look at for instance the EVE game, then look at the galaxies, only in video games can you create such depth that you are the experience.
You are living art as it is, not just staring at it.

Now I don't know if it's a good arguement, but hoho.

 

[imperialreign]

I've heard "because it's interactive" . . . which, dumbly, struck me as inane.

Anything that conveys or kindles emotion, or thought, is (IMHO) art. At the same time, simply because the majority of people love a specific game does not mean I will, or any of my friends. Much like - how many people hold Shakespeare in extremelly high standing, while I think his writing is simply garbage (I'd much rather cast my vote for Dante instead).

Really, I can only consider some games as "art" - usually of the type that force the player to re-think their typical gaming approach, or to experience a world in ways they're not accustomed to. Titles like "Black & White," "Myst," "Bioshock" are great examples.