extra credits: my thoughts

[shootthebandit]

again another interesting issue sort of on topic but taking a detour back on topic.

can engineering be described as art. engineering is something which has always amazed me i find engineering so much more interesting than art, music or film. im not sure but in university they dont consider an engineering degree as an arts degree (i believe they have different classifications of degrees?). plz correct me if im wrong

edit: sorry for typos and grammar, im in my bed on my PS3. i gotta get some sleep, its been a good discussion

 

[Jumpingbean3]

I think yahtzee said it best when he said "art is subjective. The fact that these games are not "passive" may exclude it from art to some people but to me it makes it an art like no other". personally I side with Yahtzee here. What I'm about to say will probably result in several death-threats from people who like to analyse the Mona Lisa WAY too much but to me the interactive element makes games among the highest forms of art. Unlike paintings or films where you simply observe the art, with video games you take part in it and sometimes even get some control over the story (the Mass Effect games are some of the better examples of this). Of course you're entitled to your opinion but from my point of view not only are games art but the status of being art doesn't take away from the fun at all.

 

[maddawg IAJI]

Are books designed to make you have fun or tell an enjoyable tale? Video games could be much more then just bloody gory gun fests that Call of Duty, Halo and some of the more popular shooters have made it. Games can be like Mass Effect and Heavy Rain in which the stories are well crafted and fun to follow. Or they can be like Bad Company and MW2 in which the plot is basically hollow, inconsistent or may as well not even be there.

I don't like to keep up with the debate on whether Video Games can or can not be art, mainly because it doesn't go anywhere. Most gamers say yes, everyone else in every other medium says no and then we get arguments going. But I still stand firmly on the notion that games can be both fun and artsy. You don't separate the two. If Nintendo has taught us anything in the last 20 years, its that you can make a beautiful vibrant lush world that is perfect to look at, craft it with a decent story and still make it fun.

 

[SideSlyGuy]

again another interesting issue sort of on topic but taking a detour back on topic.

can engineering be described as art. engineering is something which has always amazed me i find engineering so much more interesting than art, music or film. im not sure but in university they dont consider an engineering degree as an arts degree (i believe they have different classifications of degrees?). plz correct me if im wrong

I'm pretty sure a degree in engineering is not a degree in art. Now, again art is very subjective, but engineering something can easily be art. You might not consider something like a bridge art, but I'm sure the guy who designed it sure things it is.

 

[LazyAza]

Their is absolutely no reason what so ever a game can't be artistic, meaningful and intellectual. The whole 'games should only be fun' argument is complete bullshit.

 

[shootthebandit]

I think yahtzee said it best when he said "art is subjective. The fact that these games are not "passive" may exclude it from art to some people but to me it makes it an art like no other". personally I side with Yahtzee here. What I'm about to say will probably result in several death-threats from people who like to analyse the Mona Lisa WAY too much but to me the interactive element makes games among the highest forms of art. Unlike paintings or films where you simply observe the art, with video games you take part in it and sometimes even get some control over the story (the Mass Effect games are some of the better examples of this). Of course you're entitled to your opinion but from my point of view not only are games art but the status of being art doesn't take away from the fun at all.

thank you, youve just given me a brainwave. games arent art, games are so much more than art. they are a blank canvas

now that settled i can sleep, night everyone

 

[D Moness]

and i think its better off not being an art, in my opinion a game is designed to make you have fun, its not some poncy show peice with narrative and diverity. i think by classing games as art it would ruin the purpose of a game. The minute that V8 muscle car is classed as a peice of art it ruins its soul, its meant to be driven in the same respect that a game is meant to be played and enjoyed, if you start judging a game on narrative and diverity then youre losing track of what a game is: sheer childish fun.

Then Mass effect is out of the window for you to play (showpiece of narrative and diversity.

also sheer childish fun ?

Mass effect (yes again)
Heavy rain
Alan Wake
Silent Hill 2
Fallout 3

yep CHILDISH fun sureeee (and yes i used sarcasm)

 

[shootthebandit]

again another interesting issue sort of on topic but taking a detour back on topic.

can engineering be described as art. engineering is something which has always amazed me i find engineering so much more interesting than art, music or film. im not sure but in university they dont consider an engineering degree as an arts degree (i believe they have different classifications of degrees?). plz correct me if im wrong

I'm pretty sure a degree in engineering is not a degree in art. Now, again art is very subjective, but engineering something can easily be art. You might not consider something like a bridge art, but I'm sure the guy who designed it sure things it is.

obviously an art degree isnt an engineering degree but some degrees (that are not "art") are called bachelors of arts

 

[Arkhangelsk]

i respect your opinions but i just cant see a game as an art form. art is something passive eg you look at a picture or listen to a song. gaming is not about that its about YOU what YOU do in a game. some of my best moments in gaming have been down to ME not a preset passive cutscene or QTE or set peice. in a way i would say that gaming is much more than art. its engineering

Since when isn't an experience artistic? Art is about emotion. And why does the artistic side of a medium be in the way of the fun? And artistic games are already being made, even without an official label.

 

[JaymesFogarty]

Their is absolutely no reason what so ever a game can't be artistic, meaningful and intellectual. The whole 'games should only be fun' argument is complete bullshit.

I completely agree with you, and your avatar perfectly reflects how tired I am at hearing that statement.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

because games unlike movies and songs are functional

Art is: "the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."
It doesn't say anything about be "functional" or not. As a side note, how is playing a guitar not functional?

 

[Erlec]

I think yahtzee said it best when he said "art is subjective.

And that's the point.
Art is subjective and everyone is entitled to their opinions. Therefore we will always have a hard time to define what the true meaning of art is (most people claim it's humanity, but that's a other topic).

I for one, feel that when I experience something that fills me with something other then mere amusement/boredom will claim that it's an art. Even when it's the music of chopain or watching an amazing engineering achivement.

 

[RatRace123]

Play Heavy Rain, then come back and say games aren't art.

Hell yes! I agree completely with this, and I disagree with the OP's opinion, respectably of course.
I believe that games can be artistic as much as films, concertos, paintings and sculptures.
All art is basically the same thing, the creator's creative vision being belched out at us, the audience. It doesn't matter what medium the art is presented in. Art is also not above being fun, they're not mutually exclusive.

And games are not exclusively childish fun, in fact that's what most gamers want to distance games away from, and that's what the SCOTAS case may restrict games to be.

Which is bad.

 

[Woodsey]

I agree that games are not art, but then I don't consider books, films or music to be art. Artistic - in cases - yes, but not actual art.

How do you define art then? According to Websters the definition (in our sense) is:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1289004804

a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced

And I think most games would arguably fall under the "works so produced" clause.

Yeah, well lots of things can fall under that technically.

Paintings, sculptures, etc. They're art. Everything else has the potential to be artistic in my mind, but not actual art.

 

[Akalistos]

i really enjoy extra credits, hes a cool guy who always tries to remain unbiased and i respect him. I agree with the controversy topic but i disagree with his underlying theme of 'games as an art'. games will never be an art because games unlike movies and songs are functional, similarly a wonderfully crafted V8 muscle car is not art sure its as beautiful as one of Monet's finest paintings and sounds as great as an orchestra but its functional so its not an art.

Then again, that mean that everything isn't art. Painting was invented by cavemen as a sort of story telling medium as well as embellish their cave. Hieroglyph are the same thing. Even the Mona Lisa or the Sixteen chapel were made for embellishing their environment. That make them functional. You can argue that they don't serve any purpose collecting dust in a museum but then again, It's unthinkable that artists did make their art just so their government can make money selling tickets to see them.

In fact, i can't name anything that isn't functional or wasn't build with a specific function in mind... otherwise there's no point in making them.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

A person asks "why?"

An artist asks "Why not?"

 

[Falconcry]

for me art is culture and culture is the world we create around us, we define almost every aspect of our daily lives. Every single item in your bedroom is designed and each item has its own design process, and mainstay requirements of design are functionality and asthetics. If something is percieved as ugly or unattractive then it is undesireable so art is part of everything we do as humans. However items on their own are nothing without us, we define their purpose wither is be functional or for uses of pleasure and whimsy. This is the main argument for modern art, even a toilet can be art, lets look at it. All toilets have the same function really but unless its a public restroom you're unlikey to find two that are the same, even toilets in the same house are often different there is no logical reason for this. It is purely to fit a design based around the room it occupies and the room has to fit the design of the house it is in and the house must conform to a street plan to fit and have access to utillities. So to say that games can't be art is wrong because evrything we do is art but we split it down into groups so that it is easier to communicate to each other when we want to specify.

 

[Fridge]

i really enjoy extra credits, hes a cool guy who always tries to remain unbiased and i respect him. I agree with the controversy topic but i disagree with his underlying theme of 'games as an art'. games will never be an art because games unlike movies and songs are functional, similarly a wonderfully crafted V8 muscle car is not art sure its as beautiful as one of monets finest paintings and sounds as great as an orchestra but its functional so its not an art.

and i think its better off not being an art, in my opinion a game is designed to make you have fun, its not some poncy show peice with narrative and diverity. i think by classing games as art it would ruin the purpose of a game. The minute that V8 muscle car is classed as a peice of art it ruins its soul, its meant to be driven in the same respect that a game is meant to be played and enjoyed, if you start judging a game on narrative and diverity then youre losing track of what a game is: sheer childish fun.

I have to say I agree with an earlier response to this post. Games may not be considered an art-form now, but there is no need for them to remain that way. Photography and the movie industry started the same way, they were seen as nothing more than entertainment (or in photography's case a way to cheat at painting).
And by the by just because something is functional doesn't mean it isn't art.
Also just because the game is designed so that you have fun doesn't mean you can't learn something from it or about yourself through it.

As for judging a game on its narrative and diversity... do you actually read reviews? Narrative is VITAL to any game. Its what drives the damned plot, games that don't have a narrative generally aren't very good (or are solely multiplayer which is a different kettle of fish). And diversity should always be sought! Its what gives us different ideas for settings and characters and their motivations and needs.

A final piece on that, the 'sheer childish fun' bit. Some games are for that no question there. But others are meant for a older and more mature audience who demand more. Whether that mean it include aspects violence, horror, sexuality or whatever. It becomes an experience rather than just a game.
A good example in films Schindler's List and Clockwork Orange are held up to be considered works of art, they're meant for adults to watch and try to understand the subtext. The Carebares movie and the Transformers movie (the 1980's one) are for the childish thrill. There's room for both.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

sorry shootthebandit but I cannot respect your opinion, for it is biased, prejudiced, and well have you played Shadow of the Collossus? if you can't say that game's artistic then I'll have to start calling you Skynet; for you won't even open your mind to the possibility that games can be art. let me put it this way:

when televised shows were invented people said it wasn't art.
it is now.

When comics/graphic novels were invented people said it wasn't art.
it is now.

when cartoons were invented people said it wasn't art.

it is now (eg. Avatar: The Last Airbender, FMA, Cowboy Bebop)

when movies were invented people said it wasn't art.
it is now.

when video games were invented peaople said it wasn't art.
it will be.

 

[MegaManOfNumbers]

i really enjoy extra credits, hes a cool guy who always tries to remain unbiased and i respect him. I agree with the controversy topic but i disagree with his underlying theme of 'games as an art'. games will never be an art because games unlike movies and songs are functional, similarly a wonderfully crafted V8 muscle car is not art sure its as beautiful as one of monets finest paintings and sounds as great as an orchestra but its functional so its not an art.

and i think its better off not being an art, in my opinion a game is designed to make you have fun, its not some poncy show peice with narrative and diverity. i think by classing games as art it would ruin the purpose of a game. The minute that V8 muscle car is classed as a peice of art it ruins its soul, its meant to be driven in the same respect that a game is meant to be played and enjoyed, if you start judging a game on narrative and diverity then youre losing track of what a game is: sheer childish fun.

I have to say I agree with an earlier response to this post. Games may not be considered an art-form now, but there is no need for them to remain that way. Photography and the movie industry started the same way, they were seen as nothing more than entertainment (or in photography's case a way to cheat at painting).
And by the by just because something is functional doesn't mean it isn't art.
Also just because the game is designed so that you have fun doesn't mean you can't learn something from it or about yourself through it.

As for judging a game on its narrative and diversity... do you actually read reviews? Narrative is VITAL to any game. Its what drives the damned plot, games that don't have a narrative generally aren't very good (or are solely multiplayer which is a different kettle of fish). And diversity should always be sought! Its what gives us different ideas for settings and characters and their motivations and needs.

A final piece on that, the 'sheer childish fun' bit. Some games are for that no question there. But others are meant for a older and more mature audience who demand more. Whether that mean it include aspects violence, horror, sexuality or whatever. It becomes an experience rather than just a game.
A good example in films Schindler's List and Clockwork Orange are held up to be considered works of art, they're meant for adults to watch and try to understand the subtext. The Carebares movie and the Transformers movie (the 1980's one) are for the childish thrill. There's room for both.

Hey! you watched Schindler's List? that movie's freaking awsome!