Well, at least he admits that he doesn't hate games. I'd agree that most games aren't art yet, but there could be some, but I can't think of them now. Some might say Braid is art, or Heavy Rain, or Half Life 2, or whatever, but no one can agree.
BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
Recommended Videos
See, this is why I like living in Britain.
The BBC arent saying games are art, but at least they're not rejecting the possibility,, unlike Fox.
The BBC arent saying games are art, but at least they're not rejecting the possibility,, unlike Fox.
There is one thing that always troubles me in these discussions. They go on and on about whether games are art? They go on and on about these standards of what art is. Such as this wonderful statement from one of this debates participants
"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."
Well using that definition, exactly how much of what we commonly call "art" is in fact art? What separates "Art" from decorative architectural accessories? Because it would seem that 99.9% of what is commonly viewed or bandied about as art, be it physical art such as paintings, sculpture etc, performance art be it stage, film, song, or freaky chick giving birth in a museum, just really isn't art. At least not anymore than Grand Theft Auto games are.
"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."
Well using that definition, exactly how much of what we commonly call "art" is in fact art? What separates "Art" from decorative architectural accessories? Because it would seem that 99.9% of what is commonly viewed or bandied about as art, be it physical art such as paintings, sculpture etc, performance art be it stage, film, song, or freaky chick giving birth in a museum, just really isn't art. At least not anymore than Grand Theft Auto games are.
Why exactly does the bar for what counts as art need to be so high? If something requires creativity and imagination, it is art. If something makes the person experiencing it ask profound questions, it is profound. There. Problem solved.
I don't really care about the games as art debate, but to choose Minecraft as an example seems like a bad choice. Sure it could be argued it's art, but there are so many more artistic games out there. I'd pick SotC in a heartbeat, and I'd say it fits Eshun's definition of art very nicely.
Many games are art. A sensible person would have realised this quite a while ago.
Though this is a major concession; originally, the art snobs would have scoffed at merely the thought of mentioning games and art in the same sentence.
Games which place a high value on aesthetics, atmosphere, and story are definitely art. Deus Ex for one. Considerable attention was placed on getting the game just right. Similarly, Bioshock visualised a new world, it had an artistic vision embedded in Rapture and its steampunk aesthetics. Videogames comprise another dimension of creativity which puts alot of "contemporary" art to shame.
I don't care how generous they are trying to be, if art critics want to narrow that down to "pure" art then they're being closed-minded and foolish philistines.
Though this is a major concession; originally, the art snobs would have scoffed at merely the thought of mentioning games and art in the same sentence.
Games which place a high value on aesthetics, atmosphere, and story are definitely art. Deus Ex for one. Considerable attention was placed on getting the game just right. Similarly, Bioshock visualised a new world, it had an artistic vision embedded in Rapture and its steampunk aesthetics. Videogames comprise another dimension of creativity which puts alot of "contemporary" art to shame.
Even with that silly purist definition of art, there are many, many games which have the power to make people ask deep questions about many things. Deus Ex, for example. The game is filled with social commentary and piercing dialogue. The criticales elite don't seem to grasp that the artistic value of games is embodied with the game experience, within details big and small.
I don't care how generous they are trying to be, if art critics want to narrow that down to "pure" art then they're being closed-minded and foolish philistines.
This is getting silly. I'm not sure why anyone should care whether or not the big boys have let us into their club yet.
There are hundreds of games with millions of frames that you could take a still of, stick it on a wall and any number of people would call it art, but somehow when you take all the frames, a score of brilliant music, deep storylines in an interactive experience, it no longer is. Presumably because its fun to participate in or something.
Art, as I choose to understand it, is a deep, unique, thought provoking experience. Though I don't claim to spend dramatic amounts of time in museums or theaters, I can still say unequivocally that I've found tons more of said experiences in video games than I ever had in other forms of art. Not all of them have been winners, but the same is true of other mediums.
In the end, while societal recognition of the medium would be neat, I don't think we need to be waving our arms around trying to explain it. Anyone that doesn't recognize the parallels is either incredibly thick, or purposefully ignoring them. We should simply take pride and joy in that which our favored industry has already created.
There are hundreds of games with millions of frames that you could take a still of, stick it on a wall and any number of people would call it art, but somehow when you take all the frames, a score of brilliant music, deep storylines in an interactive experience, it no longer is. Presumably because its fun to participate in or something.
Art, as I choose to understand it, is a deep, unique, thought provoking experience. Though I don't claim to spend dramatic amounts of time in museums or theaters, I can still say unequivocally that I've found tons more of said experiences in video games than I ever had in other forms of art. Not all of them have been winners, but the same is true of other mediums.
In the end, while societal recognition of the medium would be neat, I don't think we need to be waving our arms around trying to explain it. Anyone that doesn't recognize the parallels is either incredibly thick, or purposefully ignoring them. We should simply take pride and joy in that which our favored industry has already created.
Well, I'd agree with this to a point. IMHO, Myst IV: Revelation was totally art. The puzzles, the characters, the environments, the game mechanics, all of it formed an enthralling and immersive story impossible to capture in a movie or book. Battlefield 3, not so much. Im guessing the "art" aspect will change based on game to game, just like with movies, cause some games are purely artistic, and some are just entertainment. (I mean, there is no way "Dumb and Dumber" was classified as art)
Hm, I agree. Games aren't art, but they are entertainment. After all, games are meant to entertain.
After all, I don't have a Scrabble board hung up on my wall with little decorations here and there--nor would I consider taking a game like Modern Warfare 2 and putting it anywhere I could visually see it.
As for games like Heavy Rain and stuff that are considered to be story heavy or whatnot, I'd go so far as to consider them "artistic", but I reserve the classification of 'art' for things that are meant to actually be art.
Video games are meant to be entertaining money-absorbing schemes these days, not art. If you want art, get The Flowers of Robert Mapplethorpe on CD-I.
After all, I don't have a Scrabble board hung up on my wall with little decorations here and there--nor would I consider taking a game like Modern Warfare 2 and putting it anywhere I could visually see it.
As for games like Heavy Rain and stuff that are considered to be story heavy or whatnot, I'd go so far as to consider them "artistic", but I reserve the classification of 'art' for things that are meant to actually be art.
Video games are meant to be entertaining money-absorbing schemes these days, not art. If you want art, get The Flowers of Robert Mapplethorpe on CD-I.
the question is, do we - as gamers want games to be considered art? i mean, somebody smearing peanut butter on a floor is considered art. i dont want my favorite hobby to be compared to that....
besides, art was meant to entertain people. games entertain people. what is the discussion about?
besides, art was meant to entertain people. games entertain people. what is the discussion about?
For the sake of a lasting debate - people *have* to forget the game, or else BBC's debate is over. Though I do agree, 99.999% of games do not reach an artistic level.mediarulestheworld said:
I agree with most of what the BBC special went on about.
We're getting there and I'm sure one day there'll be classes in "Video Game Studies" at fancy universities, in the same building as "Advanced Studies in Milton". Art takes time guys. Better yet, scholarship takes time and its relationship with a medium.
I love how we all play games and enjoy them but how many of us have read an academic study on games? Yeah. The crowd just got a lot thinner. Why are we so focused on calling games art? What does that help? Is it to validate your spending time with the medium? Is it to prove something over just the enjoyment you have? Is calling a game art make you a better player? Can you then stand beside a Shakespeare student and say you're just as good as him?
Who cares?
I just don't see why there is such a rush to call games art. Maybe I'm a cynic. Or maybe the advocates on this subject have never had to sit down and compare a great game to a great film or great book or great painting. Games don't hold up yet folks. Sorry.
We're getting there and I'm sure one day there'll be classes in "Video Game Studies" at fancy universities, in the same building as "Advanced Studies in Milton". Art takes time guys. Better yet, scholarship takes time and its relationship with a medium.
I love how we all play games and enjoy them but how many of us have read an academic study on games? Yeah. The crowd just got a lot thinner. Why are we so focused on calling games art? What does that help? Is it to validate your spending time with the medium? Is it to prove something over just the enjoyment you have? Is calling a game art make you a better player? Can you then stand beside a Shakespeare student and say you're just as good as him?
Who cares?
I just don't see why there is such a rush to call games art. Maybe I'm a cynic. Or maybe the advocates on this subject have never had to sit down and compare a great game to a great film or great book or great painting. Games don't hold up yet folks. Sorry.
Art can be perceived by anybody as what they think it is... In other words there is no right or wrong answer to the question "what is art?".
While this is a cute thing to say, there are in fact ways to govern what is and is not art. You may not agree with the theories and you may have your own but just saying there is no argument here is redundant. Because in fact there is an argument and there is always an argument when new mediums or facets of mediums pop up.joshperry94 said:
So I disagree with you... is what I'm getting at.
Let me just clarify something. When these people say "art" they mean "high culture". These elitist who think they know something about high culture, often mistake the word art as high culture for their ignorance.
In the traditional sense of the word all video games are art, but are video games part of high culture? Are video games be broken down and studied in academia?(not including game career classes) Yes, but by a still very small group at not many established Universities. Video games are still on the line of High Culture and will be for some time. Mostly because they are a newer medium.
In the traditional sense of the word all video games are art, but are video games part of high culture? Are video games be broken down and studied in academia?(not including game career classes) Yes, but by a still very small group at not many established Universities. Video games are still on the line of High Culture and will be for some time. Mostly because they are a newer medium.