BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet

[BreakfastMan]

I have to say, he is pretty off on this one. We have had games that asked profound questions since the mid-80's. Sure, there was only 1-2 that did, but they existed, and there numbers have been ever increasing since then. I can name a dozen of the top of my head right now.

 

[z121231211]

Why are we using Minecraft as an example as art? We might as well of pointed at Call of Duty and asked if that was art as well.

We have to search deeper. Think Killer7, ICO, Catherine, etc. I think that the major critics aren't accepting games as art because the games that might actually be art by their definitions are under their radar.

 

[Samurai Silhouette]

Most of us consumers don't treat games like art regardless if it's technically artistic. That's probably what all the fuss is about. 13 year old boys wouldn't know what art is even if the Mona Lisa slapped them in the face, it's just a tool to them.

 

[Kestor]

If games are not art, neither are movies or books/comics.
Its as simple as that.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

that's bull, entertainment IS art

That is a bit subjective.

Some people, (such as my self) that all things made to entertain are art, weather they are bad or good.

However, he thinks that art has to make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. That would make Clock Work Orange art in his eyes, but disallow, say... the King's Speech.

Although, I do disagree with him and their have been games that made us question our selves.

Bioshock on the nature of how much one really has on control in ones life, and Shadow of the Collassus on how far one should go for love.

 

[Jumplion]

Though the games-as-art debate remains as popular as ever, you do have to wonder if there's any point to it. "Art," both as a concept and a definition, is often arbitrary and nebulous, there will never be any real consensus on the matter. A far more interesting question is why acquiring the "art" label, a label you'd be sharing with such luminaries as Tracey Emin [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Emin], matters to the gaming community in the first place.

Because the sooner games are recognized as a legitimate medium for artistic expression, the sooner we'll get better games.

Really, I don't think it's the public we need to convince that games are art, I think it's the gaming community itself. There is so much potential within games that is not being tapped because developers are content with just pumping yet another FPS with 'splosions, gore, maybe some zombies thrown in, but never developing those ideas further. Sure, those 'splosions, gore, n' zombie games are fun and all, but there's no reason why we shouldn't demand more from this medium.

To go "oh, why does it matter if they're art? Just have fun!" (on a gaming centric site like The Escapist no less) is just undermining the whole potential that they have to be more than just fun. There are ideas that have yet to be tapped, that have yet to even be considered because developers just end up making your standard fare of games.

It's just a shame when passionless crap like this [http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/call-of-juarez-the-cartel] can be made, and even more depressing when crap like that is blindly accepted as "whatever, just a game." Games can be more than that, and there's no reason why a developer can't put in the effort to at least not put up that kind of stuff.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

The Art label matters for legal reasons that were explained at length during the entire US Supreme Court fiasco.

Of course, he is in the UK, so they would not be in effect of any definition of what is and is not art.

 

[That_Sneaky_Camper]

If people would actually adhere to the strict definition of art then we could get rid of this pretentious bullshit about media needing to be cultured, sophisticated or meaningful to be classified as art.

Art is defined in the dictionary as: "Anything arranged in such a way that it influences the senses, emotions, or intellect."

Graphics: Our sense of sight is being influenced by the environment and the characters in the game.

Sound: We hear the music, environment, and the characters.

Gameplay: This requires your input to control so your intellect is being challenged in some sense.

Story: This can obviously affect all 3 and can influence the other elements of the game as well.

With this in mind every video game by the strict definition of the word is obviously art. A great video game is one that challenges all 3 of those guidelines at once. What I am getting at is that art can be average or even bad, truly good art will affect you on a far deeper level than normal art would.

 

[The Gnome King]

BBC Debate: "Games Aren't Art ... Yet"

Ekow Eshun, former director of the UK's Institute of Contemporary Arts, doesn't think games are art right now but he sees their potential.

Come on, people. This is art 101 stuff. A drawing on a paper napkin is technically "art" - there is absolutely no question that games are art.

The question is; is it art that is important to you? Is it art that you appreciate? The answer to THAT might be no, but again, as anybody who has taken a basic intro to Art class can tell you - yes, games qualify as art. So does the crayon drawing your 6 year old made and brought home to you, and stick figures cavemen drew on cave walls.

It might not be art that is important to you or art that you appreciate; but by every definition of the word games are definitely art.

 

[zehydra]

that's bull, entertainment IS art

That is a bit subjective.

Some people, (such as my self) that all things made to entertain are art, weather they are bad or good.

However, he thinks that art has to make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. That would make Clock Work Orange art in his eyes, but disallow, say... the King's Speech.

Although, I do disagree with him and their have been games that made us question our selves.

Bioshock on the nature of how much one really has on control in ones life, and Shadow of the Collassus on how far one should go for love.

The mona lisa does not make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. I am quite sure that he would not go so far as to say that the Mona Lisa isn't art.

The reason the mona lisa is art, is because it is a man-made thing which is designed to instill emotional feed-back on the viewer.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

that's bull, entertainment IS art

That is a bit subjective.

Some people, (such as my self) that all things made to entertain are art, weather they are bad or good.

However, he thinks that art has to make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. That would make Clock Work Orange art in his eyes, but disallow, say... the King's Speech.

Although, I do disagree with him and their have been games that made us question our selves.

Bioshock on the nature of how much one really has on control in ones life, and Shadow of the Collassus on how far one should go for love.

The mona lisa does not make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. I am quite sure that he would not go so far as to say that the Mona Lisa isn't art.

The reason the mona lisa is art, is because it is a man-made thing which is designed to instill emotional feed-back on the viewer.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, WE DO NOT KNOW.

Art's definetion is as subjective as art itself.

 

[zehydra]

that's bull, entertainment IS art

That is a bit subjective.

Some people, (such as my self) that all things made to entertain are art, weather they are bad or good.

However, he thinks that art has to make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. That would make Clock Work Orange art in his eyes, but disallow, say... the King's Speech.

Although, I do disagree with him and their have been games that made us question our selves.

Bioshock on the nature of how much one really has on control in ones life, and Shadow of the Collassus on how far one should go for love.

The mona lisa does not make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. I am quite sure that he would not go so far as to say that the Mona Lisa isn't art.

The reason the mona lisa is art, is because it is a man-made thing which is designed to instill emotional feed-back on the viewer.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, WE DO NOT KNOW.

Art's definetion is as subjective as art itself.

It is not totally subjective. Nobody would agree that ONLY cheese sculptures are art, and nothing else is. (Anybody who would be is either joking, insane, or high)

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

that's bull, entertainment IS art

That is a bit subjective.

Some people, (such as my self) that all things made to entertain are art, weather they are bad or good.

However, he thinks that art has to make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. That would make Clock Work Orange art in his eyes, but disallow, say... the King's Speech.

Although, I do disagree with him and their have been games that made us question our selves.

Bioshock on the nature of how much one really has on control in ones life, and Shadow of the Collassus on how far one should go for love.

The mona lisa does not make us look into ourselves and ask deep questions. I am quite sure that he would not go so far as to say that the Mona Lisa isn't art.

The reason the mona lisa is art, is because it is a man-made thing which is designed to instill emotional feed-back on the viewer.

Maybe he does, maybe he doesn't, WE DO NOT KNOW.

Art's definetion is as subjective as art itself.

It is not totally subjective. Nobody would agree that ONLY cheese sculptures are art, and nothing else is. (Anybody who would be is either joking, insane, or high)

The art world has had some weird things be considered "art." One time, their was a scuplture that was on a plinth. The face was rejected, instead they wanted the PLINTH. Their been such a problem of police throwing away piles of "trash" that turned out to be art pieces that some art filled cities have to train their police forces how to tell the difference. Also Human Centipede.

 

[Fuselage]

Hey, he's better than the people who scream games will never be art.

 

[Therumancer]

The Art label matters for legal reasons that were explained at length during the entire US Supreme Court fiasco.

Of course, he is in the UK, so they would not be in effect of any definition of what is and is not art.

I would be very surprised if the UK does not have legal protections of artwork similar to those of the US, even if not identical. As a result the label still probably matters which is why it's worth discussing in the UK.

I didn't intend my statement to imply that the US rulings mattered there, but simply to make an analogy to why it's an issue. I'd imagine the same basic logic applies there as here.

 

[The Great JT]

I...kind of agree. Not everything has to be high art, y'know. Sometimes it's good to just turn off your brain and enjoy. Granted SOMETIMES is the key word there, but even so, not every game has to be some deep, philosophical issue or the piece that starts the revolution.

I applaud the BBC for actually approaching this maturely. I realize that may not be saying much since they're only being compared to Fox News, but even so.

 

[DubMan]

"Art" is a buzzword that intellectuals who think that they own a monopoly on meaningful thought use to explain why what they find to be aesthetically pleasing is more valid than what you do. No piece of music, no drawing, no writing, and certainly no game has ever actually diminished in quality because some pompous shits who get paid way too much to pontificate about nothing important "aren't ready" to call it art. Just saying that sounds asinine. I'm indifferent towards whether or not games are art. I always will be, but I'll always play them. I frankly don't see any reason to be anything more than indifferent towards these people.

 

[Treblaine]

The problem with the "It's just entertainment" line is how it opens the door to draconian censorship as what is to be lost? IAs far as they are concerned. It is after all "just entertainment" nothing of artistic worth is lost by government bodies throwing their weight around making demands of "how they can entertain" rather than the artist's artistic vision.

This is typical of Britain, as opposed to America where the burden is on the establishment to prove that it is obscene - of no artistic worth - to be possibly worthy of any sort of censorship. In the UK it is the other way, only the highest art is immune from censorship and it is the burden of the creators to prove that.

 

[Not G. Ivingname]

The Art label matters for legal reasons that were explained at length during the entire US Supreme Court fiasco.

Of course, he is in the UK, so they would not be in effect of any definition of what is and is not art.

I would be very surprised if the UK does not have legal protections of artwork similar to those of the US, even if not identical. As a result the label still probably matters which is why it's worth discussing in the UK.

I didn't intend my statement to imply that the US rulings mattered there, but simply to make an analogy to why it's an issue. I'd imagine the same basic logic applies there as here.

No, since the UK doesn't have a constitution, and only a very weak Bill of Rights that had parts already disregarded (such as the right to bare arms).

 

[Vault101]

Of coarse they are Art right now, Just not super popular games, look at "The most anticipated game ever." It's call of duty Modern Warfare 3.
*Megafacepalm*

If we just invested our talent into more creative, less repititive media, then hell yeah it'd be better than that goddamn De Venci.

thats like saying films are not art because of transformers