Games AREN'T Art

[Chefodeath]

The idea of 'winning' at a game is essentially non-existant anymore. Sure, there are a few games that have various scoreboards in their multiplayer facets. However, most games are told as a story that the audience takes part of. Rather than piggybacking onto the protagonists like movies and books do, a video game- or lets call them interactive experiences as that is really what they are now- makes the audience become the protagonist for the time that he or she interacts with the media. If the game happens to be an RPG or have RPG elements, then it is the audiences choices that have a major impact on the story.

Yes, games like Angry Birds are probably not an art in your own definition. With both indie and AAA games you have a plot arc that starts climaxes then concludes, and you never really 'lose' if you die, then you just reload from the last saved point and try to continue on with the story line. You don't start over, and there is an end point, unlike many arcade games of the past.

You know, thats a really interesting argument. I want to say "well no, the point is still to get to successfully get to the end of the game." but I suppose that can be argued true of literature. A story is given context in progressing from point A to point B. Still, I think theres an essential difference between a game progressing to the end and a story doing the same.

 

[the spud]

Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

...So? Music is art, too. "I listened to some art today" is an equally bizarre statement. And just because we play games doesn't mean they can't be art. Often what you are considering to be the "game" part of the game is just another means for the artist to tell his story. Also, don't most "games are art" debates generally just boil down to definitions? By my definition, an art is just something that a crafter creates. All paintings are art, all films are art, all music is art, and all games are art. It's just that some of it is high art, and some of it is low art.

 

[Owen Robertson]

Webster's says that art is anything that is the result of a creative effort. Going by that definition, games are art. Ergo, if games aren't art, Webster's is invalidated and "Aardvark" is now a synonym for "lightbulb".

Websters also accepts Dawg as a spelling of dog. Yay Websters?
Oxford definitions in the future, if you please.

 

[Chefodeath]

Including a wide-open word word like "art" in such a categorical statement pretty much demolishes any hope of saying anything definitive.

A conceptual artist could put a pinball machine in a gallery and call it "art," and while you might (correctly) dismiss that as so much stupid wankery, people would still defend its merits. And what's more indicative of art than controversy?

Nope, no hard divide here.

Well thats the entire point of having arguments about it I think. We are trying to define what we call art. In essence we are filling the definition and laying a blueprint for what we want future art to look like. Personally, I don't think the win/lose dichotomy has a place in art now and shouldn't have a place in art in the future, hence its pretty clear for me to argue against it.

 

[Sean Steele]

There is nothing in the definition of Art that says that a game cannot be Art.

Art is defined as such.

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Are Videogames the expression of human creative skill and imagination? Check, thus videogames are art.

 

[Sean Steele]

There is nothing in the description of Art that says that those experiencing it cannot do so with a goal no older artform had any means of external input though. As that point is left open the fact that games have a goal to them dose not disqualify it as art.

 

[Chefodeath]

Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

...So? Music is art, too. "I listened to some art today" is an equally bizarre statement. And just because we play games doesn't mean they can't be art. Often what you are considering to be the "game" part of the game is just another means for the artist to tell his story. Also, don't most "games are art" debates generally just boil down to definitions? By my definition, an art is just something that a crafter creates. All paintings are art, all films are art, all music is art, and all games are art. It's just that some of it is high art, and some of it is low art.

So if art is something a crafter creates, what does that make a thoughtless scribbling or a door latch? When I make my bed, is that art? Hell, even factory machines could be considered crafters, does that make the plastic products they soullessly turn out in droves art?

 

[Paragon Fury]

So because a game's goal isn't to be "art" but to be a "game" it cannot be art?

By simple logic you are wrong sir.

All art is not games, but all games are art.

Granted, not all games are great art, by they are art none the less. Just because their end goal isn't to be art doesn't make them not art.

 

[SquirrelPants]

My opinion:
Films are considered an artform. Does the everyday shoot-em-up action film count? Nope. Does every obnoxious screamy rock song count as art? Probably not. Can things under those categories come into art? Sure!

It's subjective what counts, and 90% of it doesn't.

 

[pppppppppppppppppp]

Ya, let's try reopening this can of worms.

Its my belief that video games are by definition not art. Plenty of artistic elements certainly, and perhaps even the potential to evolve into some kind of interactive art form, but not art. The reason why video games aren't art is because they are games. Even though the purpose of both art and games are entertainment, they achieve this end through very different means. Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

As I said, I believe that video games could eventually become some sort of art form, but at that point I don't think it will be proper to call them games.

Wow, I didn't realize Roger Ebert visited the Escapist...

 

[BreakfastMan]

You are aware of the fact that art is one of those funny, squiggly terms that mean different things to different people, right? Under your personal definition of art they might not be art, but they are under my definition. Please don't try to pass off your definition as the real one. Because it isn't, and it comes across as being intellectually dishonest, which I doubt was your intent.

 

[Chefodeath]

There is nothing in the definition of Art that says that a game cannot be Art.

Art is defined as such.

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Are Videogames the expression of human creative skill and imagination? Check, thus videogames are art.

Games aren't to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power though. They are to be appreciated primarily as games, as a closed system with rules that you try to win at.

And if all expressions of human imagination and creative skill are art, then there wouldn't be a point in having a word to delegate art from other creative endeavors. This post is spawned from human creativity and imagination to some extent, does that make it art?

 

[Furioso]

Yea and I didn't think "The Kings Speech" was art either but everyone else thinks so

 

[Chefodeath]

You are aware of the fact that art is one of those funny, squiggly terms that mean different things to different people, right? Under your personal definition of art they might not be art, but they are under my definition. Please don't try to pass off your definition as the real one. Because it isn't, and it comes across as being intellectually dishonest, which I doubt was your intent.

Its not a word with hard edges, but certainly its not entirely meaningless. It is my belief that video games are at odds with what is generally taken to be art.

 

[TheRealLasor]

I disagree with that reasoning. All stories require conflict, and as a medium Literature and Movies are considered art, and without conflict they would have no story and thus lose almost all of what makes them considered art. A goal oriented structure is merely a way of clearly defining the conflict for the player's sake.

To get hung up on the name 'Game' is counterproductive to both your argument and the movement to create games as a viable art form. To get hung up on aesthetics such as semantics is a rather weak point. Comic Books were viably art before they gained the name 'Graphic Novels', a name change enacted only because people refused to purge an idea from their head.

However, I'd like to get to the meat of my argument, which is that the goal oriented structure of gaming is not an indication of it's lack of artistic integrity. While I'm not sure how you define art, I think that if you consider books or movies an art form, then you'll understand the importance of conflict. You'll also understand that games reach up to 10+ hours on average, thus requiring constant goal settings. The story must move on, and in a long stretching medium such as games have, with the disadvantage of not being able to rewind to turn back a few pages to remind yourself what's going on, goals must be implanted in order for the player to move the story along.

Should a clear pathway truly bother you that much, try a slightly less linear game structure. Every Day the Same Dream is a flash game that could help, or a Half-Life 2 mod, the Stanley Parable, is another good choice.

 

[Sean Steele]

There is nothing in the definition of Art that says that a game cannot be Art.

Art is defined as such.

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Are Videogames the expression of human creative skill and imagination? Check, thus videogames are art.

Games aren't to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power though. They are to be appreciated primarily as games, as a closed system with rules that you try to win at.

And if all expressions of human imagination and creative skill are art, then there wouldn't be a point in having a word to delegate art from other creative endeavors. This post is spawned from human creativity and imagination to some extent, does that make it art?

In a way your post is a work of art literature is an artform after all. The point behind this is that art is a very broad term and games sit comfortably within that term.

 

[archvile93]

If stacking soup cans on eachother can be art, then games better be too.

 

[Chefodeath]

You know...I honestly don't know what you're expecting by making a thread out of your very close ended opinion. (I'm not entirely sure whether I'm supposed to use "closed ended" or "close ended". If someone could please show me the proper way that would be fantastic.) I'm tired of these types of threads and believe that you should receive a warning because this thread has absolutely no discussion value at all.

We can all either agree to you and worship you as the messiah who hath delivered unto the people the one and only one right opinion from the mind of God herself.

OR

We can waste our time pointlessly trying and failing to change your opinion on something that you apparently feel really strongly about. (So damn strongly you believe that it was worth making a thread about your bloody opinion.)

Either way there is no discussion to be found here.

Also, if you only wanted to share your opinion on the concept of games as art and such, you could have done a simple forum search and found a good amount of other threads that have already brought up the subject.

Don't take this post as a personal attack on you. I have nothing against you as a fellow human being, I just don't like your post. It strikes me as something belonging in another thread, not as the opening post to a new thread.

Of course that's just my opinion.

OT: I would have to disagree, and I believe that games can be art as well as "proper" games. That is all.

Wow, what a passive-aggressive post. If you didn't like the thread, why did you even bother posting?

The entire point of this thread is to facilitate discussion. I neither expect people to bow down and worship me or to mindlessly object. I would hope to provoke some thoughtful insight. I didn't resurrect an old one because I felt like putting my opinion to the forefront to be judged.

 

[Chefodeath]

There is nothing in the definition of Art that says that a game cannot be Art.

Art is defined as such.

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Are Videogames the expression of human creative skill and imagination? Check, thus videogames are art.

Games aren't to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power though. They are to be appreciated primarily as games, as a closed system with rules that you try to win at.

And if all expressions of human imagination and creative skill are art, then there wouldn't be a point in having a word to delegate art from other creative endeavors. This post is spawned from human creativity and imagination to some extent, does that make it art?

In a way your post is a work of art literature is an artform after all. The point behind this is that art is a very broad term and games sit comfortably within that term.

Ya, and my point is that definition is useless. If all elements of human endeavor can be classified as art, why have the term at all? When I create a piece of art, I want to create something specific, more than just a simple act of conversation.

 

[NedroidPrime]

Ya, let's try reopening this can of worms.

Its my belief that video games are by definition not art. Plenty of artistic elements certainly, and perhaps even the potential to evolve into some kind of interactive art form, but not art. The reason why video games aren't art is because they are games. Even though the purpose of both art and games are entertainment, they achieve this end through very different means. Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win. Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose. Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

As I said, I believe that video games could eventually become some sort of art form, but at that point I don't think it will be proper to call them games.

I actually did an extensive paper on this argument in college...

The flaw with your argument is that movies are considered art today, yet when it was first introduced, it was seen much as video games are seen today; a technical toy for wasting time. It took about 20 years for film to start being seen as an art, and it took some visionary directors to make this happen through sheer passion and talent.

Same thing with recorded music. Seen initially as a nifty gadget, it became a vibrant art. Pink Floyd is a perfect example of this, but even earlier you could look at Louis Armstrong, or Billie Holiday. Even almost 100 years later, those songs are still relevant, and still stir emotion.

Granted, there are many games that couldn't be considered "art" because they suck. But with games there is the additional dimension of game play to evaluate. Look at the Batman: Arkham games as an example of this. What they have done with the battle system is so well conceived and executed, it can easily be considered art.

Just look at the definition of "art", and you see that your argument falls to pieces. "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"