Games AREN'T Art

[drummond13]

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.

 

[Thaius]

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.

 

[6_Qubed]

If brevity is wit, then games are art.

 

[Chefodeath]

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.

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.

 

[Infernai]

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.

Don't feed the trolls

Unless of-course you laced the food with Cyanide first, then by all means feed them.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

You are using a very binary black and white form of logic here, simply because it's one thing it cannot be something else as well. That logic is incredibly flawed. For example I have a fake plant sitting in the corner of my room, however it's not just a fake plant it's also a decoration and, if you really wanted to get fancy, a interior design aesthetic. Yes video games are games, but they are also entertainment and it's not out of the realm of possibility that they could also be art; esp. since art is largely subjective. And really what difference does it make to you? How does video games being classified as art detract from your enjoyment of them?

 

[Chefodeath]

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.

Don't feed the trolls

Unless of-course you laced the food with Cyanide first, then by all means feed them.

Beauty is subjective, if the word 'art' is to have any meaning whatsoever, we must have a definition for it.

 

[FallenTraveler]

EVERYTHING IS ART! A statement to live by, as someone will believe that it is art. By it I mean anything. I personally think that you can call the creators of games artists, depending on the game there is room for appreciation of aesthetics, so some games may be deemed interactive art. But, as stated before, everything is art, and so who are you, or I, or anyone, to define art when it is subjective. I agree with you, in some cases games are not art, but in others it most definitely is.

An example of my thoughts on this whole "Games are meant to be won, they have a goal other than art for arts sake" would be, there are beautiful paintings in the world, amazing pieces of creative genius, and then there are houses, all of them are painted, but would you call it art?

The mainstream of gaming are the houses, and the niche titles are the pieces of masterwork (not to say that indie games are all good or that mainstream games can't be art, but you get the point)

 

[AwkwardTurtle]

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.

I like being passive-aggressive. More often than not it keeps me out of trouble.

I posted simply because I felt like it. It's why most people do things I suppose.

Well personally, when I see a thread that I've seen before (or even just one with a lot of responses) with a new post, I simply click the "new" part to see who posted something new in it. I'm sure a lot of people would have seen your opinion that way. Unless I'm the only crazy person who uses that function of the forums...

I suppose what provoked my passive aggressive post was that after reading your opening post I sort of went "Okay...that's nice to know. :3 What exactly am I supposed to say to a person who apparently has a set opinion on this matter?" I suppose you can say that I didn't get a feel for the point of the thread.

There wasn't even a question to start off the discussion. It was just your opinion, which is nice and all, but it didn't strike me as a discussion starter.

I hope you have a lovely time continuing the discussion. Have a nice day.

 

[lord canti]

I'll just ask you this, if a group of a hundred artist spends years on a project, how can the end result not be art?

 

[Dense_Electric]

Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win.

Right there is the problem with your argument. The vast majority of single-player games in the last decade haven't been built with the intention of providing a challenge, they've been built with the intention of telling a story through gameplay (some more successfully than others). The last time I used the phrase, "I beat *game title*," it was probably, "I beat Super Mario 64," or "I beat Banjo-Kazooie." By contrast, in recent years I've "played" Half-Life 2, Bioshock, and Mirror's Edge.

Once games started being made to tell stories and provide aesthetic and literary experiences instead of being made strictly to kick the player's ass, they started becoming an art form. I agree with the Extra Credits guys, this medium needs a re-branding. "Game" isn't really accurate anymore, at least not for single-player experiences.

 

[Chefodeath]

Games are goal oriented, the purpose is to win.

Right there is the problem with your argument. The vast majority of single-player games in the last decade haven't been built with the intention of providing a challenge, they've been built with the intention of telling a story through gameplay (some more successfully than others). The last time I used the phrase, "I beat *game title*," it was probably, "I beat Super Mario 64," or "I beat Banjo-Kazooie." By contrast, in recent years I've "played" Half-Life 2, Bioshock, and Mirror's Edge.

Once games started being made to tell stories and provide aesthetic and literary experiences instead of being made strictly to kick the player's ass, they started becoming an art form. I agree with the Extra Credits guys, this medium needs a re-branding. "Game" isn't really accurate anymore, at least not for single-player experiences.

Hmm, well that was really the entire point II was getting at. I should have reworded my argument to make that more prominent, porobably would have cut flame significantly. As Video games become art, they begin to become not-games.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

I am an art student a semester away from graduation and throughout my college career the question "what is art?" has came up a lot as it is something that has been debated throughout history. a lot of artists today would give you drastically different definitions if asked what art is and the general definition that most people see as correct is given to change as the culture changes.

Are games art? My opinion has always been that what makes a work art or not is the intention of it's creator. For example I am pretty sure that the people that made "Shadow of the Colossus" made the game with the intention of it being a work of art and so I would say that it is just that. On the other hand some games have been made with no other intention than to be entertaining games, simply as that; and those games are not really art their just games.

 

[lacktheknack]

Think of how bizarre the statement "I won at art meuseum!" is.

It's about as bizarre as "I finished watching an art museum!"

Or "I just read an art museum!"

Or "I just listened to an art museum!"

Are books, music and movies not art anymore either?

Anyways,

<spoiler=General definition of art as stolen from Dictionary.com>noun
1.
the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2.
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3.
a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4.
the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5.
any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

I fail to see how games don't technically fit that. If you refuse to use this definition of art, then you're admitting that you follow your own not-generally accepted definition of art. Good for you.

If you see a political campaign which has various drawings being used to further its agenda, would you call that art?

Yes, see definition five above.

 

[daemon37]

I started to write a response, but then decided it isn't worth it. This topic of discussion is old and tired and has been brought up far too often. The worst part is, the answer to the question "Are games art?" is entirely inconsequential besides momentary argumentative satisfaction. Games will continue to evolve, and will some day surpass the movie and television industries in terms of their popularity. When that day comes, I believe that people will stop asking this pointless question.

Until then, please quit doing the following:

 

[Warforger]

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.

The definition of art is "anything that effects the emotions", this definition is so loose that by it Genocide is art. The reason why it's so difficult to decide if something is art or not is because art doesn't exist. It's like currency the only reason you think it's so valuable or that it exists is because someone says it does and you went along with it. The judges of whats art is supposed to be you, if you see something and it changes your view on something by portraying it a new way or whatever then it should be art. But I personally look at paintings, things like the Mona Lisa, and I just see a picture, sometimes when they're even more creative they do lots of weird stuff that makes little sense and is just creepy, none of it effects me emotionally at all and it makes me worried why so many people would line up just to see some picture.

 

[Machati]

Games aren't like other forms of art. That doesn't mean they aren't art. They're just a new kind of art.

 

[nokori3byo]

Personally, I don't think the win/lose dichotomy has a place in art.

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.

The idea of winning is in no way alien to art.

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.

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.

Sophomoric shmophomoric. Your first point is nonsense as it assumes the same sort of hard (and imaginary) divide you've been attempting to make all along. Art and craft may be distinctive; they are not seperate. As far as the second point goes, modern reception theory invests readers/viewers etc. with a large degree of agency in creating meaning in a work of art. If winning and losing is indeed a new development, it may be an iteration of something much older. Either way, there is no reason to say it's not valid.

You can talk around this argument all you like, but you've so far offered nothing rigorous enough to achieve the very difficult task of logically proving a negative.

 

[Syzygy23]

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.

Edit: People keep bringing up games like minecraft as an example of a 'game' that doesn't have a definitegoal of winning or losing connected to it. This is PRECISELY the example I would point to to say that games could evolve into something that is art. They won't be games at this point anymore. As far as minecraft itself goes, I'm not sure I would call it art. More like a tool of art. Would you call a paintbrush art?

Edit 2: People keep bringing up the amount of artistic materials like music, voice acting etc. used in games. I don't think this makes the game itself art though. If you see a political campaign which has various drawings being used to further its agenda, would you call that art? The drawings might be artistic, but their purpose is just to illustrate some political slogan or end.

I'll tell you what I tell everyone else:

If video games aren't art, then why do developers always hire ARTISTS? Lead Artist, level artist, 3D artist, senior artist, etc.

You don't hire an artist unless you are making ART. It isn't that hard to connect the dots. Criminy.