Games AREN'T Art

[Rancid0ffspring]

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.

What about story driven games where the purpose of the gameplay mechanic is nothing more than a means to advance to the next part of the story?

Cut scene heavy RPGs spring to mind.

Yes, the ultimate goal is to finish the game. But that's not "winning", it's more about finishing the story isn't it?

Do you realize how bloody competitive the world of art is? How much these people must strive to get their work recognized? So no, nobody will say I won the art competition at the EXHIBITION/GALLERY (museum? seriously?).

They'll say things like "my work has been recognized X gallery and I've received a grant to do whatever"

Translated to "our game has been successful and a publisher wants to invest some money in our IP"

Finally, the fact that you've also added 2 "Edits" kind of suggests you've seen several holes in your opinion.

 

[Astoria]

The games themselves are art, playing them is not. Art is meant to be anything that is designed creatively and games certainly fall into that. The level design, voice acting, storyline, all of that stuff is what makes them art. Someone playing the game isn't art, that's entertainment. Sort of think of it like a live performance. The music the artists are playing is art and the stage show they put on but the crowds interaction with that performance isn't. That probably doesn't make any sense does it.

 

[Abengoshis]

"Art appeals to some aesthetic which really isn't based upon this dichotomy of win/lose."

And I don't find just winning something the entire fun of a game. Experiencing the game as a whole is what appeals to me, finishing a game makes me kind of peeved sometimes since there isn't any more for me to experience. Also the graphics of the game appeal to me, if I was playing a game such as that crap ET game I wouldn't give a damn if I won or lost, I'd not enjoy it because I wouldn't be able to comprehend what was actually supposed to be on my screen.

I actually hate it when I play online against people who find it fun just to WIN something no matter what - be it choosing the easiest or spammiest class in a shooter or rpg, or even cheating completely. It takes the fun out of the game if you can't have a good experience. When I played Crysis 2 I chose the worst perks and weapons I could just to have a bigger challenge (I stopped playing when everyone decided to use either the Jackal or the Feline -___-).

 

[evilneko]

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.

That's it?

You didn't provide any real support for your claim that doesn't boil down to "I don't accept games as art."

 

[Dark Knifer]

My cynical self says someone is going for a badge or to. Also, this thread seems to have /threaded a while back. I think we're done here people.

 

[Palademon]

Music, and Films are considered art, even if every example of them aren't artistic.

 

[alucard1997]

Well before this thing ends, I would just like to throw this last opinion here.

In a sense, games are absolutely art. Granted there are some that are simple,hardly any story at all, and have gameplay that an untrained monkey could learn. But aside from that, you have to remember that each game despite the simplicity, is made with just as much intricacy, meticulously, and precisely as any painting that you would see at the MoMA. It just has to be seen through the right eyes. If you're one of those people that looks at the game as a whole, and only sees it as a game to entertain the simple minded, then I would say that you live an empty life. But if you see that each detail of whatever game you're playing has been made with care, and by extremely skilled hands, then you can see the beauty of it. My boyfriend has a degree in animation, but all the time he works on his ability to animate characters. Granted I've only seen a couple of his animations, but once you see that when you get a person motivated enough, they can accomplish amazing things.

And so with all that said, Video games are absolutely considered art. By way of seeing that it takes talent to pull every single piece that makes a game, a game; story, animation, character design, etc, can make a masterpiece just as amazing as the Mona Lisa.

 

[Knight Templar]

Games are not art because in many you can win?

So if I create a picture or act in a play as part of a competition, these things are no longer art? Is "Self portrait Janus faced" no longer a artwork because the creator wanted to win (and did) the Archibald Prize?

There can be win conditions, so what? A game can be or not be art just as a book or movie. To say that all are or are not is foolish. If you accept the phrasing "movies are art" or pictures, or whatever, then you must accept "games are art" because it is equaly true.

 

[lovestomooch]

I completely agree with you. Games are most definitely not art. Maybe we would like to believe they are, but to call games art means we dilute one form of expression in order to strengthen another, and by doing that we ADD nothing.
I think nearly everyone here has missed a trick. Games can be well designed, richly animated emotive slices of wonder that tug on us in ways we forgot things could, but to call them art implies that they are not games. Art is something that could not possibly anything else. Games are therefore games (which could be made by artists), and art is art.

Well done OP, for choosing to discuss something most would disagree with and defend games and not art.

 

[Varitel]

Games are definitely art. Games are an art form in the same sense that film, television, music, and literature, are. I'm not just talking about those so called "Indie" games either, even AAA action titles like "Gears of War" are still art, the same way that action movies like "Die Hard" are still art.

In addition, I think Thamous brings up an interesting question.

Why does it matter if they're art?
I feel like gamers as a whole are so dead set on getting their favorite passed time classified and accepted as an "art" so they can justify their enjoyment of it.
Why? Stop giving a shit what other people think and just enjoy what you enjoy.

One of the major reasons for getting games classified as an art form is to try and keep people from trying to Jack Thompson the damn things. If games are considered a legitimate art form, they will be subject to more legal protection, and we may even see indie developers being funded by some of the many grants dedicated to the arts.

 

[boyvirgo666]

Art is subjective.

I don't see Jackson Pollock's work as art.

Yet, he's known as a famous artist.

So I guess what I'm saying is "I disagree, but I'm not about to try to change your mind."

I dont consider Modern art to be true art so much as someone making a mess on expensive paper.

 

[IronicBeet]

Who fucking cares if anybody says that something isn't art? It's subjective. Some 4 year old kid did a bunch of paint splotches on a piece of paper and she's being heralded as a great artist. Idiots will find any excuse to call something art so they can feel sophisticated. I'm impressed by people displaying talent to draw or create something that's visually stunning, not somebody taking all their clothes off and rolling around on a canvas covered in paint then selling it to a museum.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

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

Let's not and say that we did.

Define "games" and "art" first, then we'll talk.

 

[UmJammerSully]

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.

F: "Hey son, what's that video game you playing there?"

S: "Minecraft."

F: "Are you winning?"

S: "..."

 

[kingcom]

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.

Wait what? What if ones primary interest is one of experiencing the story? The narrative? The characters? The atmosphere? These are expressions of beauty and/or emotinoal power, thats what drives the creation of memorable characters and emotional attachments drive stories which in turn drives good gameplay.

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.

I disagree again. 'Game' is a form of play and 'Play' is engagement in activity for enjoyment and recreation to go by the standard definition. Touring a museum is an activity, just like watching a movie or reading a book. All are forms of play. A game is simply an extension of these same activities the only difference being they require interaction something which all games do.

Games are most definitely not art. Maybe we would like to believe they are, but to call games art means we dilute one form of expression in order to strengthen another, and by doing that we ADD nothing.

Art is something that could not possibly anything else. Games are therefore games (which could be made by artists), and art is art.

Two points here, the first: if we call games art we dilute one form of expression? How so, how is one form diminished by another? How can two independent objects directly interact? Though saying all video games add nothing of value is fairly hilarious.

Second: Art is something that could not possibly 'be' anything else? So film is not art? Painting is not art? Painting is painting and film is film.

 

[karloss01]

Would you call a paintbrush art?

paintbrush as art
By Lisa's Random Photos on flickr
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lisasrandomphotos/5737415287/
anything can be art and can be made of anything.

EDIT: seems it doesnt allow want to be displayed.

 

[evilneko]

I completely agree with you. Games are most definitely not art. Maybe we would like to believe they are, but to call games art means we dilute one form of expression in order to strengthen another, and by doing that we ADD nothing.
I think nearly everyone here has missed a trick. Games can be well designed, richly animated emotive slices of wonder that tug on us in ways we forgot things could, but to call them art implies that they are not games. Art is something that could not possibly anything else. Games are therefore games (which could be made by artists), and art is art.

Well done OP, for choosing to discuss something most would disagree with and defend games and not art.

Either I absolutely disagree, or you broke my sarcasmometer.

 

[peruvianskys]

Tell me, you have artists for the backgrounds (art), musicians for the soundtrack (art), voice actors for the characters (art), programers to make the cinematics (art), and grapic designers for the cover art and additional art work (art).

All these things come together that make...not art?

I. Fucking. Call. FOUL.

Yes, in the same way that you could a masterful wood sculptor make a beautiful chessboard but the game of chess itself would not be art.

 

[Cyrax987]

Your first point already has a flaw saying games have a goal when not all games have a goal. Some games don't even have an end and go on forever and there is nothing to achieve because it doesn't stop.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

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.

Except in that case, the illustration is only a single scrap of art that adds to the political campaign, as well as the fact that it's intended purpose is for advertisement alone.

Music, graphics, and narrative are all artistic media alone, but, in the case of games, they are the foundation and focus of nearly everything the player experiences. They are what make the games (again, from the perspective of the player). The only thing that separates games any of these other artistic mediums is interactivity. That alone can't condemn a medium to be categorized as "inartistic" (I'm not even going to bring up your argument regarding the "goals" in video games since so many people have said exactly what was need to debunk that argument).