Games AREN'T Art
- Thread starter Chefodeath
- Start date
Recommended Videos
No? Ever hear of a little thing called "The Art of War"? How about "martial arts"? Art works themselves are routinely given awards that designate them as more worthy than other works in the same medium. Elsewhere, artists compete for grant money to keep their careers alive. Western dramatic art as we know it began with hotly contested competitions between the tragic poets at the Festival of Dionysis in Athens and when a major player like Eurypides failed to win, it was big news. In medieval Iceland, competitions between bards reciting satirical poetry were sometimes used to settle otherwise bloody feuds between rival families. Lastly, the zero sum game of public debate is both a clear derivative of rhetorical art and a major determining factor in world history.Chefodeath said:
The idea of winning is in no way alien to art.
Michael Bay movies and shitty knock-offs like Snakes on a Train are technically art, because film is an accepted art form. If that shit's art, games damn well better be.
Sorry, but there is a concrete definition for art in this context. It is as follows:
**edit**
*looks up*
hmm... ninja'd, sort of...
So yes, even ET for the Atari 2600 is art (even if you merely count the physical cartridge). Whether or not art is good, bad, popular or unknown has no bearing on defining it as art.
**edit**
*looks up*
hmm... ninja'd, sort of...
"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."
By definition, videogames are art.
Besides, no painting has ever made me cry. When Aerith was killed in FF7, i was shocked, sad and almost teared up.
No painting has ever made me stand and cheer like i did in Jade Empire when
Videogames are more art then entertainment. Look at all the artists it takes to produce a single game. Graphic designers, script writers, musicians! And thats just the tip of the iceberg!
The purpose of art is to invoke emotions. The simple fact people are willing to defend videogames with such passion even proves that point!
By definition, videogames are art.
Besides, no painting has ever made me cry. When Aerith was killed in FF7, i was shocked, sad and almost teared up.
No painting has ever made me stand and cheer like i did in Jade Empire when
You could enslave your team by binding their souls to their bodies so they had to follow your every command till the day you die. I mean, come on! How friggan awesome was that decision!?!?
Videogames are more art then entertainment. Look at all the artists it takes to produce a single game. Graphic designers, script writers, musicians! And thats just the tip of the iceberg!
The purpose of art is to invoke emotions. The simple fact people are willing to defend videogames with such passion even proves that point!
Which is silly, because we have other art with direction.emeraldrafael said:
It does seem to be the gist here, though. The "Games Aren't Art" argument has always struck me as similar to a line from a George Carlin routine, where he discounts gymnastics as a sport because it's "something Romanians are good at."
Except, being George Carlin, it was a joke.
This is like saying "Music isn't art because you can also dance to it."
Funny, I "Won" at All-State in the local Jazz Band at my High School. Well, we won. It's hard to say "I" when it was a team effort. There were also choiral groups, orchestral groups, jazz singers, and so on and so forth.Chefodeath said:
In fact, there are a lot of ways art can be competitive. Especially since a lot of art can be performed. It's a little harder to justify "winning" at painting, but not all art has to meet every criteria for it to be valid.
And honestly, I don't mind retreading an old topic if there's new thought, but this is pretty much old thought with an arbitrary exclusion.
Maybe I'm just hung up on semantics here, but that's a completely different issue, at least according to the wording of the opening post here.Sean951 said:
"Art" as defined within the English language is very different from "protected art forms" as defined by law in any given place. It may be that's what the OP was referring to, but if so, their post was poorly worded.
I almost agree with some of the stuff you say. Minecraft is more of a tool to make art not art itself. As for games being made of art, well boardgames often are made of art, but not considered art. My monoploy board has a picture on it (art) but is just a game.
However, as a counterpoint, many chess games are made to be art. I seen a shiny chessboard/pieces set out as a display. So there's an example of a game being art. Why can't videogames be art?
Not that it matters, since art is in the eye of the beholder and if you screw with a beholder they will hit you with disintegrate.
Not related: An easy way to win minecraft. Dig down three blocks, place one above your head. I would call that winning, but readily admit it is boring and pointless.
However, as a counterpoint, many chess games are made to be art. I seen a shiny chessboard/pieces set out as a display. So there's an example of a game being art. Why can't videogames be art?
Not that it matters, since art is in the eye of the beholder and if you screw with a beholder they will hit you with disintegrate.
Not related: An easy way to win minecraft. Dig down three blocks, place one above your head. I would call that winning, but readily admit it is boring and pointless.
That's a sophomoric mistake. When the word art is used in the context of the martial arts or the art of war, it uses the word in a older sense, more like a craft.nokori3byo said:
As far as the contests concerning art are considered, those are measures of the artist's skills to make an appealing piece of art. They do not infest the actual medium.
Allow me to clarify. I probably could have worded that better. I said that all these "games are art" debates generally just boil down to definitions. What "art" generally came to be defined as was something that a creator creates that appeals to the senses. That definition came about sometime in the 1500s or so, and before that and "artist" was just a person who had a skill. In that way, all things created by a creator or creators that appeal to the senses are art. It is just that some of it is good art, while some of it is bad. Transformers 2 is art just the same as Citizen Kane, it is just that Citizen Kane is high art, while Transformers 2 is low art. Lets try to apply this to video games.Chefodeath said:
Chrono Trigger=High art
Portal=High art
Ninjabread Man=Low art
Sorry about the confusion.
All Art is subjective, so in my own opinion what you call art could not be art. What I call art could not be art, yet everyone fights about it.
So in theory, sit down, shut up, and enjoy the show.
Oh and my Opinion, whatever MIGHT be considered art is Art, because it will mean something to someone in some way shape or form. No one can dictate what is and what isn't. Just not how it's supposed to be.
So in theory, sit down, shut up, and enjoy the show.
Oh and my Opinion, whatever MIGHT be considered art is Art, because it will mean something to someone in some way shape or form. No one can dictate what is and what isn't. Just not how it's supposed to be.
By your definition of art, they aren't.
By my definition of art, they are, though currently a rather avant garde branch of art.
Nobody's going to your mind about this because your definition is set. There's nothing wrong with this: we all have our own personal feelings on what "art" is. But there's absolutely no point in debating the matter because we're each holding games to a totally different interpretation of the word "art". I don't see how the concept of winning and losing suddenly makes games any less an art form than movies but hey, as I said, that's based on my definition not yours.
By my definition of art, they are, though currently a rather avant garde branch of art.
Nobody's going to your mind about this because your definition is set. There's nothing wrong with this: we all have our own personal feelings on what "art" is. But there's absolutely no point in debating the matter because we're each holding games to a totally different interpretation of the word "art". I don't see how the concept of winning and losing suddenly makes games any less an art form than movies but hey, as I said, that's based on my definition not yours.
Ugh. If I can be completely frank, I'm tired of this old and entirely meritless argument.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if you took the gameplay out of a game, it would be art. That a game has artistic elements (which essentially amount to film if you take the gameplay out), but since there is gameplay video games are not art. You're saying games and art cannot coexist. This makes no sense.
Do not mistake this fact; the point of modern video games is to have a complete experience, not to "win." Failure gives you an immediate option to retry; even if some progress is lost, you are placed in a situation allowing you to continue on, because video games are not about overcoming challenges for the sake of "winning," they are about overcoming challenges for the sake of experiencing the entire artwork.
Even then, what do you do with things like the story choices of Mass Effect or Heavy Rain, or moments like the end of Shadow of the Colossus or the plot twist in Bioshock? Moments that completely throw aside the goal of "winning" for the sake of emotional impact based on interactivity?
Fact is, you're saying that "art" plus "game" equals "game." Could it be possible that this medium is something between the two, a game that is also art, an artwork experienced through a game? What about this combination disqualifies it from being art? To argue that video games aren't art because they're "games" is arguing semantics on a level no worse than saying a "motion picture" isn't a storytelling art because it's just a moving picture.
Essentially, what you are saying is that if you took the gameplay out of a game, it would be art. That a game has artistic elements (which essentially amount to film if you take the gameplay out), but since there is gameplay video games are not art. You're saying games and art cannot coexist. This makes no sense.
Do not mistake this fact; the point of modern video games is to have a complete experience, not to "win." Failure gives you an immediate option to retry; even if some progress is lost, you are placed in a situation allowing you to continue on, because video games are not about overcoming challenges for the sake of "winning," they are about overcoming challenges for the sake of experiencing the entire artwork.
Even then, what do you do with things like the story choices of Mass Effect or Heavy Rain, or moments like the end of Shadow of the Colossus or the plot twist in Bioshock? Moments that completely throw aside the goal of "winning" for the sake of emotional impact based on interactivity?
Fact is, you're saying that "art" plus "game" equals "game." Could it be possible that this medium is something between the two, a game that is also art, an artwork experienced through a game? What about this combination disqualifies it from being art? To argue that video games aren't art because they're "games" is arguing semantics on a level no worse than saying a "motion picture" isn't a storytelling art because it's just a moving picture.
As much as I respect you respecting my opinion, the entire point of me opening up this thread is for you to try and convince me otherwise. A good definition will include all the commonly viewed paradigm examples of that category; No one would try to create a definition of science that didn't include biology or chemistry. I want you to tell me what makes video games such a paradigm example of art that not including them in my definition would be foolish.drummond13 said:
Look, as everyone has explained, art is subjective meaning what we believe to be art may not be art to someone else. To me, i think games are as much art as books, films, and drawings. So, by all means, i feel free to classify them as art.
Unless of-course you laced the food with Cyanide first, then by all means feed them.Officer Crayon said: