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

[mgirl]

things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us

Hm, well if thats the criteria, I can think of a few examples of that sort of thing from games that might not be considered 'arty'.

Fallout 3 - the mission where you are given the choice of kidnapping a baby from its parents for the good of a large group of slaves. I paused the game and had to think for a long time before I made my decision. It made me consider whether the right of a child to be brought up by its parents who clearly love it should be sacrificed for the good of the many. It made me consider my own morals and what I deem to be right and wrong.

The same can be said when during mass effect 2, during Legion's loyalty mission, you choose between destroying or rewriting the geth that are your enemy. I wasnt as torn during this one, but it seriously made me think.

Could either of these games, in causing me to reflect on myself and my morals, be considered art? and surely the things that cause us to reflect on who we are, how we live and so on will be entirely subjective?

 

[Baldry]

But let's face it - most games aren't art. Fallout 3 might have a very nice style and contemplative moments... but at the end of the day you are still using a shot-gun to blast a Super Mutant's face into gory chunks. There's not much artistic merit to games like Quake or Call of Duty or Battlefield (and I play and love all those types of games... they're just not art. I certainly wouldn't put any military FPS in a museum and show it to future generations).

To be fair Fallout 3 did make me question whether or not I am a good person and if I was in the same situation as the vault dweller would I make the same decisions despite the consequences.

And they say art is moving but I've never actually been moved by a drawing, some movies and games have actually moved me and made me think about the world so does that mean art is not art?!

 

[Alandoril]

Games are art, but not all games are art.

 

[GonzoGamer]

If you don't think entertainment and art cross (which is a bit absurd; that seems to make the assumption that as soon as art is entertaining it's no longer art), then no of course games aren't going to be art, very few movies, songs, and books too.
But I was always under the impression that most art is entertainment.

 

[mb16]

art/ärt/
Noun:
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination.

well i think we can all agree that to make a game you need some "creative skill and imagination."

 

[TheBelgianGuy]

Do we really want pretentious hipsters to ruin games as well?

 

[instantbenz]

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.

Source: Eurogamer [http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-01-bbc-debate-games-arent-art-yet-but-thats-okay-article]


Permalink

Money. Grants are available now as the Endowment looks at it as an art form. Grants that could lessen the amount of day-job crap that some innovative code-writers need to do to get cool stuff to the masses.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

The fact that the industry needs the approval of people who neither know nor care about games in order to improve is quite sad actually.

Again, you could say the same about Music (X-Factor/Pop Idol), Literature (Genre Fiction still isn't recognised), Journalism, Cartoons, Graphic Novels etc.

All Industry's need approval of those who don't know about the Industry. Because they're the ones with the ability to promote it to those who don't care.

And once there, then it receives the all important funding.

What would Computer Games be without people like Clive Sinclair, Alan Sugar, Gail Wellington?

Long before we saw the likes of Gates and Jobs.

The entire idea of the console industry is taking games to those who don't know and don't care; and making them know/care.

 

[Chevy235]

Considering what is considered art these days (hey look, a circle! And my name IN BIG BOLD PRINT right below it) maybe games are better off not being considered as art.

I'd rather games be, you know, fun and enjoyable than retarded egotrips lauded only by beret'd know-nothings seeking to prove they're hip and with it (yes, that is my actual opinion of the current "art" scene").

 

[OuendanCyrus]

Are people still really that bothered whether video games are art or not? To me, it does not change a single thing on my view of video games; they're entertainment, escapism.

 

[Axyun]

The definition of art is unclear and every interpretation I've read boils down to making art a subjective matter. Borrowing from ye olde Wikipedia:

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

Therefore a cup of coffee can be art since it engages the senses (taste and smell) as well as emotions (relaxing). Only elitists harp about something having to be intellectually engaging to be considered art. I've seen plenty of works of art that are purposely repulsive and/or meant to engage very base emotions (fear, anger, hate, lust) but are in no way intellectually stimulating.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I've yet to encounter a game with a layered story, or one that actually deals with such important questions of life. A lot of games have tried for both. A lot of japanese-based games try to evoke the profound life questions throughout the game, but it usually just comes off as pretentious bull coming from an unlikely source. Like some spikey haired man-teen saying how the good must sacrifice in order to stop the bad, right before they mow down an army with a sword bigger than a car. It's all rehashed dialogue we've heard before that sounds pretty but doesn't say a lot. Even Bioshock was just an Ayn Rand novel/Republican Tea Party talking point. But even if a game has profound dialogue, all of its profoundness is lost the moment you start walking the streets with a rocket launcher, or mowing down waves of enemies. In games, no matter how great the artistic tones or exposition or presentation, it's the gameplay that sets the emotional tone of the game. And, for almost all games, that tone has to be fun.

It's hard to evoke serious life questions and keep the player having fun at the same time.

"What can change the nature of a man?"

Planescape: Torment was the first game I ever played that did make me think about important questions. It was the first game where I played through and thought what the protagonist's experiences would mean to me as a human being. That game has layers upon layers, too, some of them incredibly subtle. Importantly, you cannot get to these meanings through passive observation (it's not pretty pictures or pretty cut scenes or a forced, branchless narrative - any of these would be examples of other art forms with in a game). You need to play and choose in order to experience them.

I'm pretty sure that everyone's answer - not the choice in the game, but the answer in their mind - when Ravel Puzzlewell asks, "what can change the nature of a man?" is subtly different.

Other games have affected me that way since, though few so completely.

 

[SwishiestB0g]

Honestly, go play the Witcher for a game that can make you question who you are, the world around you, humanity even. No good, evil, right or wrong.

Is it okay to kill something because it's not like you. Something we're struggling with even today, racial, societal and cultural acceptance. That game makes me think and question how we deal with those issues.

Though that's just my opinion.

Since the witcher is based off Andrzej Sapkowski novels and short stories, which aren't themselves considered art, so why would the game be? What is with the obssession of Games ARE art, anyone who say otherwise is wrong, what is so special to be labelled art? Is it because this is a gaming website and its the favoured media? All games have been inspired by books, films, music and art movements. I can honestly say I have not played a game which was completely original or moving which I haven't already seen elsewhere in another form.

This is a kind of arguement where fans of darts, snooker, curling call their activities sports. I still prefer Clarkson's definition of art "for something to be art, it must have no purpose other than itself, no function"

The girl in the Mona Lisa is not art by herself yet that painting is one of the best examples of "art". The inspiration of an idea should not be a reason something can't be better than what is inspiring it.

The obsession with games being art is more to be accepted in the form of media. Your point of games only copy what other media have done while it can be true, the same media games "copy" have been copying for centuries. Why wouldn't games follow suit?

 

[Crazycat690]

In a world where you can put a rusty can on a table and call it art I'd say you can call games art. Still, you can't call everything art, the Mona Lisa is art, a rusty can isn't, MGS is most certainly art while CoD is far from it. Get my drift? That's my opinion atleast.

 

[newwiseman]

I'd say MineCraft is as much 'Art' and a bucket of paint. Take your side after thinking about that for a bit. In the mean time anyone who says "games are not art but they could be" clearly hasn't played enough games; unless they think movies are not art yet.

 

[gigastrike]

If we're trying to determine whether or not an entire medium is artistic or not, why are we looking at individual games? Why would it matter if some are and some aren't? If the potential is there, it's an artistic medium, and how people use it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The weird thing is that he sees this potential, yet still denies the entire medium.

 

[oktalist]

Oh look, someone else who thinks they have a valid definition of art that excludes certain items.

 

[marurder]

I agree, many games are not art. And many don't try to be. There are some gems in the masses, but not many at this time for reasons stated by all the critics who have made movies here in the past.

 

[Okysho]

I will point this man to Extra Credits' episode on enriching lives. ME2 is a good example as is shadows on the colossus and FF7 for those who think deeply enough into it.

Problem with the debate when you get into more specifics is that it's up the the reviewer's opinion whether or not it's art. If "art" means reflecting on your own life then yes, many games can and should be considered works of art. Not everyone stares at "The Scream" (see the image attached to the article) and says "This piece says so much to me and has made me reflect on my life!" or something to that effect. In fact some (like myself) say "Those proportions are tragic and I learn nothing."

Tl/dr: games are art, if you dive into specifics then it's opinionated.

 

[Phuctifyno]

Really? This again?
Every other week someone's gotta say it, and someone here's gotta write about it. At this point, only the converted are being preached to and everyone's running in circles. It all sounds like "kablaaahhh, hurr-urr, ghgkgghk, squeeee!!!".

Games "as a medium" have been art since chess was invented.
It's not a debate. Put it to bed, please.