Convincing my art teacher that video games are art

[tlozoot]

Start off by breaking it down. We consider certain drawings and paintings to be art, do we not? Well a lot of drawings go into making a game world/characters. We consider certain music to be art, and composers have to work on a lot of music for a game. We consider certain books and stories to be art, and a lot of work goes into writing the story for a game.

So why shouldn't the culmination and eventual combination of all of these things be considered art?

They're nothing but hijacked elements from other mediums unless the gameplay is also artistic, and that seldom happens.

 

[projectX42]

Is painting art?
Is music art?
Is writing art?
Is story telling art?
Is performance art?
Does the application of code truly counteract any of these things?

i have never herd that argument so simply and yet completely put, thank you. and do you mind if i use it?

 

[cannyskills]

Assassin's Creed as an example of art is not the greatest example of the medium though it can be accomplished. Try to steer clear of the trap of talking about game visuals (which you seem to be falling into) as that is hard to justify as something that is completely unique to games. What is unique and something AC does very well is make you feel as if you are in a living breathing world. Talk about how the aesthetics make you feel when you are hunting down a target or how the gameplay leads you into choices in how to approach a problem.

Also it can be very hard to convince someone who has grown up with without video games that they are fun, let alone art. Just be prepared for your teacher to reject this idea, just like how a previous generation rejected movies and before that comic books.

 

[BrailleOperatic]

Is painting art?
Is music art?
Is writing art?
Is story telling art?
Is performance art?
Does the application of code truly counteract any of these things?

i have never herd that argument so simply and yet completely put, thank you. and do you mind if i use it?

I would be flattered if you did.

 

[Stall]

You won't be able to, since video games aren't art. The whole belief that games are somehow art is nothing beyond crap created by people who feel uncomfortable playing video games (most likely that they associate their hobby with childishness), thus feel the need to invent the whole "games are art" thing in order to justify their hobby to what they perceive is society, but is actually themselves. In their mind, they aren't playing the toys of children, but pieces of art... it makes them feel better about play games.

 

[tlozoot]

Start off by breaking it down. We consider certain drawings and paintings to be art, do we not? Well a lot of drawings go into making a game world/characters. We consider certain music to be art, and composers have to work on a lot of music for a game. We consider certain books and stories to be art, and a lot of work goes into writing the story for a game.

So why shouldn't the culmination and eventual combination of all of these things be considered art?

They're nothing but hijacked elements from other mediums unless the gameplay is also artistic, and that seldom happens.

I disagree. Is a movie no longer a movie because it contains music? Or CGI, which in essence would be an element hijacked from video games? Without all of the elements working together, there is no whole. These are drawings and music and storylines often times designed in complete originality for a video game. Thus the world would never hear or see them without that video game's existence. We would lose that art.

Everyone accepts that music and paintings can be art - the point is in showing that the element unique to videogames - the interaction, the gameplay, the mechanics - can work alongside the music and visuals to create an artistic experience. You could have the most beautiful graphics ever alongside a heart-wrenching soundtrack but if it was paired with imprecise, repetitive shooting then it would fail to convince that videogames can be artistic.

Cinema wasn't taken seriously until it was shown that the mediums unique attribute - cinematography - could be used in alongside the established forms to create an artistic experience.

Don't be fooled into thinking that having good music and good visuals and good writing in a game is proof for games as art. It's crucial to have thought through how the gameplay and mechanics of the world are going to work together with everything else. If the gameplay is isolated from the rest then it proves nothing - that experience could have been told in any other medium. You have to make people see that this particular story could only work so well in a videogame and that requires gameplay to be linked.

 

[tlozoot]

You won't be able to, since video games aren't art. The whole belief that games are somehow art is nothing beyond crap created by people who feel uncomfortable playing video games (most likely that they associate their hobby with childishness), thus feel the need to invent the whole "games are art" thing in order to justify their hobby to what they perceive is society, but is actually themselves. In their mind, they aren't playing the toys of children, but pieces of art... it makes them feel better about play games.

I've seen you scatter around this same post on separate topics and I'm tempted to call you out for flame-baiting. Art is subjective and this topic is about people with a different subjective opinion on the nature of art, who believe that videogames are art, deciding how best this opinion might be conveyed to someone else. Fair enough if you hold a different opinion but know that this topic isn't for you, though I think you probably knew that anyway...

 

[neonsword13-ops]

Just say "Surpreme court said so, that's why."

Worked for me.

 

[Manji187]

I'm starting to wonder what the contra-arguments could be. Why would someone consider games NOT being art?

Games are often not considered art by people who mostly grew up with TV and movies...that's the majority of government officials and teachers. Let's wait and see what will be considered art in 30-40 years from now.

Just say "Surpreme court said so, that's why."

Worked for me.

Oh man...I bet that shuts em right up, doesn't it? Wonderful.

 

[Haz88]

Start off by breaking it down. We consider certain drawings and paintings to be art, do we not? Well a lot of drawings go into making a game world/characters. We consider certain music to be art, and composers have to work on a lot of music for a game. We consider certain books and stories to be art, and a lot of work goes into writing the story for a game.

So why shouldn't the culmination and eventual combination of all of these things be considered art?

They're nothing but hijacked elements from other mediums unless the gameplay is also artistic, and that seldom happens.

I disagree. Is a movie no longer a movie because it contains music? Or CGI, which in essence would be an element hijacked from video games? Without all of the elements working together, there is no whole. These are drawings and music and storylines often times designed in complete originality for a video game. Thus the world would never hear or see them without that video game's existence. We would lose that art.

Movies are still art even though they contain parts of other mediums, but that doesn't lead to them being art only on the basis of them using other mediums. If that were so my keyboard would be art on the basis it is made of plastic since some sculptures are cast in similar plastics. This only makes a definition of art so broad that it is useless.
About using Assassin's Creed 2 as an example, I don't think it's the best for the purpose. It contains artwork (concept art, music, models and so on), but the atmosphere they create does not inform who the characters are or how the story evolves. It might as well have been set in present day, and the plot and characters could have worked unchanged sans the italian accents.

*edit*

Just say "Surpreme court said so, that's why."

Worked for me.

I think I need to pull this one on my parents

 

[Stall]

I've seen you scatter around this same post on separate topics and I'm tempted to call you out for flame-baiting. Art is subjective and this topic is about people with a different subjective opinion on the nature of art, who believe that videogames are art, deciding how best this opinion might be conveyed to someone else. Fair enough if you hold a different opinion but know that this topic isn't for you, though I think you probably knew that anyway...

The post is on topic, so I fail to see why it is flame-baiting. Games simply are not art. This is why I feel people who HAVE to run around and white knight the medium as artistic must have some kind of "problem" with games, since we haven't had something that truly justifies this medium as art. Ultimately, no game has come along that shows that the elements exclusive to video games can make them art. Most people simply define an artistic game as one with good writing and good visuals (and perhaps music as well), which is a narrow and shallow definition: the visuals are subpar compared to painting and film, and the writing subpar to stage, literature and film, due to the fact that games have to AT LEAST be 8 hours, which comes down to a quantity over quality thing (I don't think the gaming community will ever accept more and more games of significantly shorter length, even for greater artistic merit, which is sort of ironic when you think about it).

We haven't had the Citizen Kane of gaming yet, so to speak. Is it coming? Maybe... maybe not.

 

[MassiveGeek]

So I've been in an art class for 2 years now I need to make a נןע finishing work in the third year, so I decided to make a video game


So I've spoken to the head of the art subject in my school and she wants me to send her an explanation as to why video games are art(Which is at least better than outright dismissing video games as art, like most people I know do).

I watched the Extra Credits episode on introducing people to gaming and I know she ls fascinated by the renaissance era so I am using Assassin's Creed 2 as an example



Any advise or opinion would be welcome

Frankly, if she would agree that painting/drawing, movies and music(and more I can't think of right now) are art she's already sort of accepting video games since they incorporate all these mediums into one.

Now, I've many times stated that I don't really care if videogames themselves are considered art, but there's no denying that it's lined with it and that it's an extremely vital part of them, at the very least in developing them.

Maybe she'd argue that the interactivity is something that makes it less art, maybe she thinks that it takes away the expression value of them. Though I don't really see why, because videogames are versitile and can make you experience everything from happiness, fear and sadness(plus more of course) and many of they convey some sort of "message" and more so make you think.

 

[tlozoot]

Start off by breaking it down. We consider certain drawings and paintings to be art, do we not? Well a lot of drawings go into making a game world/characters. We consider certain music to be art, and composers have to work on a lot of music for a game. We consider certain books and stories to be art, and a lot of work goes into writing the story for a game.

So why shouldn't the culmination and eventual combination of all of these things be considered art?

They're nothing but hijacked elements from other mediums unless the gameplay is also artistic, and that seldom happens.

I disagree. Is a movie no longer a movie because it contains music? Or CGI, which in essence would be an element hijacked from video games? Without all of the elements working together, there is no whole. These are drawings and music and storylines often times designed in complete originality for a video game. Thus the world would never hear or see them without that video game's existence. We would lose that art.

Everyone accepts that music and paintings can be art - the point is in showing that the element unique to videogames - the interaction, the gameplay, the mechanics - can work alongside the music and visuals to create an artistic experience. You could have the most beautiful graphics ever alongside a heart-wrenching soundtrack but if it was paired with imprecise, repetitive shooting then it would fail to convince that videogames can be artistic.

Cinema wasn't taken seriously until it was shown that the mediums unique attribute - cinematography - could be used in alongside the established forms to create an artistic experience.

Don't be fooled into thinking that having good music and good visuals and good writing in a game is proof for games as art. It's crucial to have thought through how the gameplay and mechanics of the world are going to work together with everything else. If the gameplay is isolated from the rest then it proves nothing - that experience could have been told in any other medium. You have to make people see that this particular story could only work so well in a videogame and that requires gameplay to be linked.

Regardless of how in tune the gameplay is with the rest of the elements, there's no other medium in which they can all be found working together so seamlessly. Sure, a movie might be able to sufficiently tell a story, but does it have the length to lay out the details of a whole book? Does it have parts in it for upwards of twenty main characters? Does it have several CDs worth of musical tracks?

The interactivity of a video game is one of the things that makes it special, and that can certainly contribute to a game's artistic value, but is not the sole basis for whether or not a game can be considered art. The fact that a single video game can bring together so many seemingly conflicting elements of art in such great quantities also makes the medium special.

Take Flower, for example. The gameplay is near non-existent. But we still call it a video game and can still admire and even get lost in all of its other elements.

Put simple: quality over quantity. Most videogames today have stories and characters that would get laughed at but that's fine because the medium is still finding its feet.

You can argue for artistic merit in a game that's bad as a game but has nice music and good graphics, but that would be missing the point of this topic - that to convince someone that games can be artistic, and indeed to demonstrate that videogames can be their own artistic niche you need to show the critical element working with all that writing and music.

Flower is a great example. Know why? Sure the gameplay might be 'near non-existent' but that's the point. The gameplay was carefully mediated, tweaked and fine-tuned because the developers knew they had to make it fit with their desired tone. Flower worked as a whole because the gameplay, mechanics and design were a product of the intention, not the other way around.

 

[RadiusXd]

I've seen you scatter around this same post on separate topics and I'm tempted to call you out for flame-baiting. Art is subjective and this topic is about people with a different subjective opinion on the nature of art, who believe that videogames are art, deciding how best this opinion might be conveyed to someone else. Fair enough if you hold a different opinion but know that this topic isn't for you, though I think you probably knew that anyway...

The post is on topic, so I fail to see why it is flame-baiting. Games simply are not art. This is why I feel people who HAVE to run around and white knight the medium as artistic must have some kind of "problem" with games, since we haven't had something that truly justifies this medium as art. Ultimately, no game has come along that shows that the elements exclusive to video games can make them art. Most people simply define an artistic game as one with good writing and good visuals (and perhaps music as well), which is a narrow and shallow definition: the visuals are subpar compared to painting and film, and the writing subpar to stage, literature and film, due to the fact that games have to AT LEAST be 8 hours, which comes down to a quantity over quality thing (I don't think the gaming community will ever accept more and more games of significantly shorter length, even for greater artistic merit, which is sort of ironic when you think about it).

We haven't had the Citizen Kane of gaming yet, so to speak. Is it coming? Maybe... maybe not.

what makes film art?

 

[Alexnader]

Is painting art?
Is music art?
Is writing art?
Is story telling art?
Is performance art?
Does the application of code truly counteract any of these things? Games are art through simple Gestalt, if nothing else (and given the complexities a nuances of computer code, I'd go so far as to assert that it too is art) and every game is art. Not every game is GOOD art mind you, but judging video games by Mortal Kombat is a lot like judging books by Twilight, and no one is questioning the legitimacy of literature as a medium.

Coding is definitely not an art and while many feats of genius are performed by coders each day I'm sure most of them would describe what they do as a mix of engineering and science. Sure there's an artistry involved of sorts but coding and the resultant programs aren't art. You might as well say mathematics is an art and I'm pretty sure you'd annoy a fair few professional mathematicians in doing so.

The answer to all your questions is "Yes, they can be". Games CAN be art, music CAN be art. Thing is a lot of it isn't art. Even visual media can not hit the "art" mark, concept art for instance is mostly not art as it exists to serve a functional purpose (it's concept art, it does what the name says it does). (However this all comes down to your definition of art).
-------
Playing devil's advocate here I'd say your art teacher would err on the conservative side of art insofar as it comes to its definition. She most likely will not buy "art is subjective, anything can be art", on the most cynical level saying such a thing denegrates a large part of her chosen subject though I doubt that would be the only reason she'd oppose such a view.

If you want to get her behind this (and you need your teacher's support for any project, her entire role is to help you succeed in producing not only something full of artistic merit but also full of the stuff markers like), you'll want to be extremely cautious in what you show her. Don't show her mere concept art, as that's not a game. Show her something like Krystian Majewski's "Trauma", something indie and groundbreaking. Show her that interactivity is a powerful means of conveying emotion/meaning and not a gimmick, not something just for "fun". I'd rule out anything like bioshock, not only because it's primary purpose is the $$$ but also because the reality is your project will be nothing like a AAA title or even like "Trauma" (which took years to create).

As for your own game (and the following qualities would be great in any game you show her) you'll want something short, with a simple and engaging premise, striking visual style (even though you'll be lacking graphical fidelity) and great music (going to be tough but there's some good non-copyright work out there). Honestly making a game is a huge amount of work, however I would not discourage you from making an electronic interactive work that borrows heavily from videogames.

If you want to continue making a videogame, you're going to be working against skepticism from your markers and technical limitations. However it is possible and if you have a clear idea of what you want to do and a plan to implement then it don't let anyone get in your way.

 

[Stall]

So, then, you're suggesting that you're the ultimate authority on what can and what can't be considered art. And boom, just like that your argument is invalid.

God dammit... I hate this argument. It's such a cop-out. Just because I never said "I think/feel/believe" doesn't mean I am throwing around my opinion as fact, or that I somehow I feel I am the ultimate authority on this. Listen... just because someone doesn't say that they are stating their opinion every second doesn't mean they are assuming their opinion to be fact. You are taught in any college argumentative writing class to NEVER EVER say things like "I think/feel/believe" since your audience understands its your opinions since you are writing it.

Of COURSE its my opinion... I'm not pretending to be the authority on ANYTHING. Just because people don't remind you they are stating their damn opinion every other word doesn't mean they aren't.

what makes film art?

The elevation and use of the elements exclusive to film to tell a story in a significantly different way than that of a book or play. Film isn't art because of the writing or visuals, but because of how filmmakers use what makes film film to tell stories in a way not possible without them. If you took a well constructed film and tried to tell that story as a book or play, then you'd lose a lot. I think games are getting closer and closer to doing this, but I don't think a game has come along that couldn't have its theme or story told in a different medium without losing much. We need to focus on what makes games games to cause widespread acceptance that this medium is art... not just show people that games can have good writing and pretty visuals, since that alone isn't enough.

Like I said, we haven't had our Citizen Kane yet. Perhaps it is coming... perhaps it is not. Who knows?

 

[tlozoot]

The post is on topic, so I fail to see why it is flame-baiting. Games simply are not art. This is why I feel people who HAVE to run around and white knight the medium as artistic must have some kind of "problem" with games, since we haven't had something that truly justifies this medium as art. Ultimately, no game has come along that shows that the elements exclusive to video games can make them art.

For you perhaps. Once again: art is subjective. I feel happy in saying there's been some games I've had artistic experiences with. Certainly not all, but a few.

Most people simply define an artistic game as one with good writing and good visuals (and perhaps music as well), which is a narrow and shallow definition: the visuals are subpar compared to painting and film, and the writing subpar to stage, literature and film, due to the fact that games have to AT LEAST be 8 hours, which comes down to a quantity over quality thing (I don't think the gaming community will ever accept more and more games of significantly shorter length, even for greater artistic merit, which is sort of ironic when you think about it).

I agree with you here - nice music and nice visuals an artistic game does not make. Are the visuals bad compared to film and painting? Many times yes, but not in all cases. However, I'm willing to forgive a lapse in visual fortitude if it means I can explore the world in three-dimensions. That kind of exploration makes up for a lot of the raw technical skill you see in film.

Usually we see a lot in the way of quantity of quality in games, but that certainly doesn't mean that this will continue. Developers will get better at telling stories in games. Developers will find better ways in which to entwine the gameplay and mechanics with the tone of the game. I think that is inevitable. Also, thanks to digital distribution we're seeing a surge of indie developers and indie games coming to readily accessible platforms. Many of these games are of the appropriate length, even today.

We haven't had the Citizen Kane of gaming yet, so to speak. Is it coming? Maybe... maybe not.

Then at least you acknowledge that such a thing could come one day. While I personally disagree with the statement, I can understand why someone would say 'no game today is a piece of art'. However, to say 'no game ever will be a piece of art' is, I think, an awfully short-sighted thing to say.