Well for one, arguing about something subjective makes you a philosopher, not an idiot. Same thing
Seriously though, this is a huge problem. We're focusing too much on the actual definition of art and completely ignoring the fact that certain things are labeled and considered art by the general public. This labeling is vitally important, because it is an indication that the society is willing to take it seriously, and thus more thought and effort will go into many of the works, and innovative risks will be taken where there would otherwise be nothing but repetition of old concepts. Society takes things like sport seriously without considering them art. Games don't need "Art" status to be taken seriously.
This is not about trying to make various works fit a subjective definition, it is about attaining a social status that allows the medium to be worth exploring artistically. And that hardly "doesn't matter." Labelling it art won't help at all with that (well, okay, maybe it will give it support from wankers with goatees and Berets. But they don't do anything anyway.)
Philosophers are idiots? I'm starting to question whether this would even be worth it... But seeing as how I love a good argument, I'll continue.
Society does take sport seriously: I never argued otherwise. What I did say is that video games still aren't seen as a legitimate sport, thus meaning you're vying for the same thing I am, only for competition rather than art. I agree that video games need to be recognized as a legitimate form of competition: a sport, if you will. But you're basically trying to elevate the importance of video games as a sport by downplaying the importance of video games as an art. They're both important, because video games have the potential to be great examples of both. There is absolutely no reason a well-designed video game cannot be a perfectly legitimate and awesome form of competition, and due to interactivity, video games have the ability to take art to places it's never been capable of going, and has already done this to an extent. They're both true, and you don't need to actively participate in both to recognize them. So if you want video games to be absolutely nothing but a sport, good for you, but considering they have the potential to be so much more, why would you advocate for one possibility and purposefully discount the other?
As for artistic status meaning nothing... I will once again link to this video. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech] If you don't understand after this, I don't know what to say.
I would like you to describe to me how games would scour the soul in a way no other medium can. You say they could do it, and as using it as a point to establish games in art have put an onus on yourself to demonstrate how, otherwise they are merely empty words.
I don't personally understand how games can be art. If the story of the game is good enough to be art, then it is the story that is art. You could print the story and the gameplay would become irrelevant. If the visual presentation of the game is good enough to be art, then these visuals are art. Again gameplay is irrelevant. If the score is brilliant, you can remove it and listen to it, the game is irrelevant.
For a game to be art you have to show me an interaction between the player and the game that you can classify as art. The gameplay has to be art. Is pushing sequences of keys to cause reactions on the screen art? I've yet to see it.
Watch Extra Credits. Seriously, the narrative power of interactive storytelling (read: video games) has been discussed and displayed so many times, I'm not even going to bother trying to explain it. Just watch this. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1974-Enriching-Lives]
I will also post this quote from this article. [http://www.destructoid.com/exploring-i-bioshock-i-s-storytelling-flaws-46498.phtml]
"Noninteractivity is used brilliantly within the context of the scene: for perhaps the first time in the entire game, the player doesn?t want to kill Andrew Ryan, but Jack?s violent nature and refusal to question his orders are too much and the player is forced to watch, horrified, as he mercilessly and uncontrollably batters Ryan to death.
"It stands as the single greatest noninteractive cut scene in gaming history. Ever. As a storytelling device, noninteractivity is used as a weapon against the player: you don?t want to question why you?re doing what you?re doing? Fine -- you?re nothing better than a mindless, robotic slave, and you have essentially given up the human gift of choice. Having control taken away is, within the context of the story, a tangible punishment for accepting things on face value and blindly following orders."
As for gameplay itself being art, that's not hard to argue. One approach could be that it is a new way to approach the idea of "art imitating life," in that it is literally an artistic imitation of life and the various actions performed in the game. That could actually be argued very strongly. Beyond that, however, even if gameplay itself is not art, interactivity in storytelling most definitely is. It makes it so that... you know what, just watch freaking Extra Credits. I won't even bother trying to explain it as well as they do.
I will point out, however, that gaming is still a relatively new (and largely due to the lack of cultural acceptance, still largely unexplored) art form. Meaning that, by claiming gameplay as unartistic, you are attacking an area of artistic theory that has not yet been developed. That may make it an easy target, but any sort of victory will be shallow and incomplete.
2xDouble said:
Looks like I have to post Extra Credits again... how about this one this time [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech].
See, this person has it right. Good show. And yes, that video displays very well how important it is that video games are seen as art.
Halo Fanboy said:
The fact that you view being a game as a "restriction" makes your words about a good game being good art seem hollow. If you think art is culturally important then how important are games? Go has been around before the Greeks founded their empire. How long do you think wrestling has been around? Even animals play games FFS.
Games are important as well, but as I said to Compute, single player video games contain little to nothing of what makes games culturally important (competition against other worthy opponents), and multiplayer games are not yet culturally accepted as a legitimate form of competition. Meaning that single-player games have little to offer if we are only viewing them as "games," and multiplayer games are in a similar situation as artistic games in that neither of them are culturally recognized, so neither of them will see the advancement and attention they deserve. So really, your argument only comes down to, "We shouldn't be worrying about video games as art, we should be worrying about video games as competition!" It's perfectly valid to value one over the other, but it's near-sighted and ignorant to view the other as not worth exploring.
Douk said:
Games as a whole are not art, but the components that make them up are definitely art.
Every art form is a combination of other art forms. Are you going to claim music is not art because it involves composition, playing various instruments, singing, and poetry? Is film "not art" because it involves photography+movement, audio, music, acting, writing, and much more? Is stage drama not art because it involves acting, writing, staging, lighting, music, and more? Only with video games do people claim that a joining of various art forms into one cohesive, independent work is not in itself art; it really is an illegitimate argument.
No, it doesn't bother me, because I like games because they're fun.
If some wanker with an Arts degree wants to proclaim all games as Art and are the most culturally influencing thing since berets, black framed spectacles and turtlenecks that's fine with me, just please stop fucking telling me about it.
And here I thought the most important aspect of society was its ability to govern.
For one, I never said art was the most important aspect of society, but it is pretty dang important. A basic understanding of sociology reveals this much. If you're going to try and effectively undermine my argument, don't twist it.
More importantly, you don't need to appreciate games as art. That's fine if you don't. But not caring about it effectively means you don't care about the advancement of the medium. Video games are going somewhere, and to only care about your personal enjoyment is to not care about where that is, or how the medium will get there. Even if you don't personally care about artistry in games, if you have any affection for the medium you should care about the public perception. [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech]
lies on the scale of importance I have to honestly say I don't know. From my point of view, art is a nice by-product of society when it's not busy tearing itself apart or trying to support itself. Even more simply, you can live without art.
I have to respectfully disagree with your second point. My personal enjoyment (and millions... maybe billions now of others) has been the focus of game developers since the beginning, because it separates me from my hard earned money.
And I am unconcerned about the 'Free Speech' thing you've linked (I also can't watch it @ work) because it's in the same basket as the 'I'm scared of the internet because I don't know how to use it, but my kids do and I want to protect them so I'll vote to ban / filter it' issue.
[Sweeping Generalisation]
If ever the internet or videogames are banned/controlled/whatever, when the bulk of the ignorant become too old to make policy and the young and tech-savvy hold sway again these things we value so much will return. Failing that, we can always resort to violence.
I didn't say exactly because exact importance of pretty much any societal element is up for debate. Yes, it is possible to live without art, but all we really need for life is food, water, and warmth. Are you suggesting anything other than that is unimportant? Art is unimportant to existence, but it is vital to a society. And society, the ability to coordinate and live among each other under a common set of rules and goals, is one of the main things that separates us from animals. Art has always been an important part of society, even if it's not necessary for life itself.
And actually, I recommend watching that video anyway, because it's not that simple. This is actually a case where video games will either be seen legally as an art or be subject to regulation no different than a controlled substance. Check it out when you're not at work.
I know the "games as art" debate has gotten rather old and tired among gamers lately (though considering its importance, I really don't know why), so this is not about that. Rather, this is about a certain attitude toward the concept that I find rather troubling: some people think it simply doesn't matter.
I've seen far too many people say that as long as the game is fun, they don't care if it's art or not. I've also seen people say that as long as they enjoy their games, artistic or not, they don't care if the medium is culturally accepted as art. Is it just me, or is this nothing short of near-sighted selfishness?
Art is an extremely important aspect of culture and society; this much is accepted fact. So why, when we have the ability to move storytelling art into the exciting new realm of interactivity, somewhere it has never successfully been until video games, would we downplay its importance by only caring about our personal experiences? How can you possibly justify that?
Has this outlook bothered anyone else?
Edit: I was going to post my opinion after hearing those of some others, but Scobie said it as well as I ever could have. Consider his opinion to be mine.
How can not caring be selfishness in this case? There is no purpose for intent for video games to be art. Do you think that developers really care about the video game they are making to be considered art? I bet most of them are praying that their video game coming out will not bust and put them in the red. Maybe in about 20 plus years from now, the makers will care that people will appreciate their game they made back then, but as art? I don't know. In my opinion, the number one reason why I don't care about video games being considered art. The word "game". I define game to playing it. Not looking at it to find some meaning out of it. But I do find sometimes that playing a game has meaning, but the game itself, I don't know what the game means or if it is supposed to mean something enhence I don't care to think about the game except to grade a game whether it is good or bad by it's play.
But don't be offeneded by that because I think like that about video games. I do that to movies as well. I don't go to watch a movie for it's artistic value. For whatever $$ it cost me to go watch it, it better be entertaining, period. That's it.
I believe that it doesn't matter whether something is widely accepted as art as long as the ones that "matter" accept it to be.
What's art and what's not will always - not only in the case of video games - be a matter for discussion. Take some traditional paintings for example: What I see in them may be a blob of colours without meaning worth practically nothing, while someone else might declare it as art and buy it for millions of Euros. Is it art now or not? Both and neither depending on who sees it.
I don't think it would be right to say that games in general are "art" while it would be just as wrong to say that in general they are not.
Art, to me, is more than just a certain kind of craftmanship such as painting or game development - it's a specific piece worth being declared as art for being special to me - in whatever way -, and thus something very personal.
@Thaius; Very impressive description on the vital importance of story telling to the existence of humanity. I'm pretty sure that research totally backs up play as an important part of child development. Especially in terms of things like developing an imagination and socialisation.
I'm not sure why you narrowed down on competition as something that is required to make games important. Competition often adds spice to a game and is very important games that need spectators but it isn't a requirement for a game. Nor is playing with other people. Playing the game of walking home while avoiding the cracks on the pavement is a pretty common game and can be played solitaire with no real consequence for failure.
Being on TV like Starcraft in Korea isn't any sort of good measure of the importance of games since you are not fully engaging with the games by watching someone play them on TV. Lot's of people play video games, a lot of them single player.
Am I saying that games and narrative can never be joined? No, you can clearly attach a narrative to a game but it is a fallacy of definition to say that doing so somehow makes the game art. There is some crossover in how the two elements can be combine, like creating a story about how if you step on a crack in a pavement you will fall in to a shadow world, but the two are not the same thing. Creating the story about falling into the cracks without allocating more significance to the act of actually avoiding the cracks is less interesting.
So, games are mainly fun and games, not art, but playing is something we are hard wired to enjoy and we gain something from it. Play can also take many forms from riddles and word games to develop language, solitary imaginative play to develop more introspective and creative skills, mimic type play where you copy actions to learn skills, social type play where you learn rules of socialisation and organisation. Probably many others. Sure, video games can be made with all of those things that have a high level of challenge and competition but that isn't needed for them to have importance. Any more than stories are not important to you unless you are the best at reading and interpreting hard books or writing screen plays for oscar winning movies.
So your calling a good movie art 'cos it's good? Or did I just miss your point?
... Thinking about it, what is art? Seems to be the most simple question. When I think of art I think of the great art that is stuff like the Mona Lisa and the shite like a film of David Beckham sleeping in a loop.
I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".
How we learned of art in school is too simple to be relevant. In the US, at least: our school system is beyond crap. Point being, art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this is general consensus. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+art]
As for my argument regarding Fight Club, yeah, you missed the point. I was assuming you understood film's place as an art form. The point was that, if not for its artistic quality (its status as art is not up for debate), it would not be as entertaining. Any work of art (again, this includes film and other storytelling mediums) is dependent on the quality of the many artistic elements that comprise the whole; in the case of the movie, good writing, good cinematography, good story, good music, etc. In any artistic medium, good artistry equates good quality; even mindless action movies depend on good fight choreography, good animations and special effects, good cinematography, and good music to be effectively good at what it's trying to accomplish.
That link basically says everything is art, which means the word is useless. "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively" Everything needs some level of creativeness to be made.
"the creation of beautiful or significant things" As the saying goes beauty is in the eye of the beholder and define significant? If the Mona Lisa had never been painted, would the world be so radically different to this one?
"a superior skill that you can learn by study and practice and observation" Brain surgery fits that description but Not many would consider that art.
"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, sculpture, and paintings" is the only one that fits but as you said this thread isn't about whether games are art, it's about whether we should care if they are or not.
I think I just provided the future argument for every "are games art thread that will now ever exist
If you cut the word (or other forms of the word) "art" out of your post it still makes sense, if even one part of the film's making was crap it would bring down the rest of the film in terms of quality, that isn't to say that quality is artistic quality.
Wow, people keep talking to me. I enjoy it, but dang. Okay... prepare for another wall-o-text.
Impposter said:
How can not caring be selfishness in this case? There is no purpose for intent for video games to be art. Do you think that developers really care about the video game they are making to be considered art? I bet most of them are praying that their video game coming out will not bust and put them in the red. Maybe in about 20 plus years from now, the makers will care that people will appreciate their game they made back then, but as art? I don't know. In my opinion, the number one reason why I don't care about video games being considered art. The word "game". I define game to playing it. Not looking at it to find some meaning out of it. But I do find sometimes that playing a game has meaning, but the game itself, I don't know what the game means or if it is supposed to mean something enhence I don't care to think about the game except to grade a game whether it is good or bad by it's play.
But don't be offeneded by that because I think like that about video games. I do that to movies as well. I don't go to watch a movie for it's artistic value. For whatever $$ it cost me to go watch it, it better be entertaining, period. That's it.
I am not saying that you personally should deconstruct and artistically evaluate all works of art. But understanding that a certain medium is in fact artistic is vital to the growth of said medium. If people recognized video games as a valid way to communicate messages artistically, do you think Six Days in Fallujah would have been shot down like it was? Would the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 have been as controversial as it was? Would video games be allowed to cover controversial topics and explore more ways to make interactivity an effective storytelling tool? All these things are being held back by the lack of public acceptance of video games as art. Heck, on November 2nd, if the Supreme Court of the United States decides video games are not art, they will be subject to regulation no different from a controlled substance. You don't need to study and appreciate something as art, you simply need to understand its status as such. Until that happens with video games, the medium will be held back by public misconception.
As for not knowing if the game is intended to have meaning and such, welcome to the world of the English/Literature major. Analyzing works of art is always like that. It's not for everyone; it's fine if you have no interest in that kind of analysis. I'm simply saying it's important to know that it's there, and it's significant.
Anoctris said:
See, instead of labelling games art (which given the choice here I would happily make) I'd be more interested in stopping 'hidden-agenda puritanical moralists' from being placed in positions of power. Because, once they're done with this issue, who knows what bat-shit crazy thing they're going to try next?
I definitely understand that, but there is a bit more at stake here. Imagine what games could be if people looked at them more artistically, and if gamers cried out for more artistic games. We would have more games that challenge our perception of morality, that shake our moral views and inspire us to think more deeply into who we are and what we believe, more games that will actually make us cry, or inspire us to be better than we currently are. Again, watch that video, then watch pretty much all the rest of theirs, mainly the one after that, entitles Enriching Lives. I admit I cannot say it nearly as well as they do.
More Fun To Compute said:
@Thaius; Very impressive description on the vital importance of story telling to the existence of humanity. I'm pretty sure that research totally backs up play as an important part of child development. Especially in terms of things like developing an imagination and socialisation.
I'm not sure why you narrowed down on competition as something that is required to make games important. Competition often adds spice to a game and is very important games that need spectators but it isn't a requirement for a game. Nor is playing with other people. Playing the game of walking home while avoiding the cracks on the pavement is a pretty common game and can be played solitaire with no real consequence for failure.
Being on TV like Starcraft in Korea isn't any sort of good measure of the importance of games since you are not fully engaging with the games by watching someone play them on TV. Lot's of people play video games, a lot of them single player.
Am I saying that games and narrative can never be joined? No, you can clearly attach a narrative to a game but it is a fallacy of definition to say that doing so somehow makes the game art. There is some crossover in how the two elements can be combine, like creating a story about how if you step on a crack in a pavement you will fall in to a shadow world, but the two are not the same thing. Creating the story about falling into the cracks without allocating more significance to the act of actually avoiding the cracks is less interesting.
So, games are mainly fun and games, not art, but playing is something we are hard wired to enjoy and we gain something from it. Play can also take many forms from riddles and word games to develop language, solitary imaginative play to develop more introspective and creative skills, mimic type play where you copy actions to learn skills, social type play where you learn rules of socialisation and organisation. Probably many others. Sure, video games can be made with all of those things that have a high level of challenge and competition but that isn't needed for them to have importance. Any more than stories are not important to you unless you are the best at reading and interpreting hard books or writing screen plays for oscar winning movies.
You are right about that: games are worth more than simply competition. I admit I was being a bit narrow on the value of games; I thought you were talking about how our culture values sports. But I still don't see logic in your idea as to why video games are not art. You seem to be saying that simply because games are games, they are not art. Which really doesn't follow. So can you clarify as to why interactivity disqualifies video games from being art? Or for that matter, why a game cannot blend gameplay and story into one cohesive creation?
omega 616 said:
Thaius said:
omega 616 said:
I don't think of books/films as art. When you took art at school it was drawing/painting etc not "lets film a scene".
How we learned of art in school is too simple to be relevant. In the US, at least: our school system is beyond crap. Point being, art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this is general consensus. [http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define:+art]
As for my argument regarding Fight Club, yeah, you missed the point. I was assuming you understood film's place as an art form. The point was that, if not for its artistic quality (its status as art is not up for debate), it would not be as entertaining. Any work of art (again, this includes film and other storytelling mediums) is dependent on the quality of the many artistic elements that comprise the whole; in the case of the movie, good writing, good cinematography, good story, good music, etc. In any artistic medium, good artistry equates good quality; even mindless action movies depend on good fight choreography, good animations and special effects, good cinematography, and good music to be effectively good at what it's trying to accomplish.
That link basically says everything is art, which means the word is useless. "the products of human creativity; works of art collectively" Everything needs some level of creativeness to be made.
snip...
If you cut the word (or other forms of the word) "art" out of your post it still makes sense, if even one part of the film's making was crap it would bring down the rest of the film in terms of quality, that isn't to say that quality is artistic quality.
I didn't post that link to say, "This is what art is." I posted it to say that, "art is a heck of a lot more than just painting and drawing; however debatable the term may be, this [that art is more than just painting and drawing] is general consensus." All I was saying was that art is generally considered to be far more than just drawing and painting; very few of those definitions were exclusive to that type of art (and those that were are pretty far down in priority). "Art" is a term that is very hard to define, so I definitely wasn't trying to do that. But you have to understand that "art" does not only refer to pictures, but to a great many products of human creativity combined with skill (or at least an attempt at it). But if you're going to insist that art is that narrow, I'm not sure this discussion can go anywhere.
@Thaius; Interactivity is not enough to make a game by itself. Paintings are interactive and non linear in that you can look at them how you want to or even interact with them by slashing them with a box cutter if you wanted to. Naturally, I think you can find the edges of what is a game and what is art or even what is narrative and get confused wondering where the boundaries are but there are some things that are games and others that are art.
I think that it is possible to have an art game if it was created to be art by an artist and made for people who like art with whatever game aspect it had totally subservient to the art. But then it would mostly be art and not a normal game. This is a case where it would be a misrepresentation to call it a game. Although you could fault it if it included bad gameplay just like you could fault a game for having bad art. It is totally possible to include both elements in a video game but it is a video game that has elements of art.
The important thing is that the vast majority of games are created first to be played as games so representing them as art is not useful. Take away the game and you do not have good art but in many cases you could take away most of the story and graphics have a decent game. The cases where taking away either leaves nothing good are more interesting but possibly an example of something that lacks something fundamental.
By the same token those people who get so worked up about games not being taken seriously as art are just insecure & self-important, desperate for acceptance from the cultural elites they crave to be a part of but cannot access through traditional channels.
I don't just not care about art. I want it eradicated from games. Art is not just worthless to games but is also ruinous to them. Games that focus on graphics or story or message will inevitably lose focus on the things that matter. Art is seperate from games and you yourself reinforce it every time you bring up meaning or narrative or any other things which are NOT NECESSARY TO GAMES AT ALL. Even a child understands how different basketball (a game) and the Mona Lisa (art) are. It's common sense! One is a challenge to overcome and the other is something you enjoy looking at or listening to. Why is there a need to combine these things? Because one is more highly regarded than the other? Lets just be like the ancient Greeks; they had their great works of art and had the Olympics.
Competition is the only way games can gain cultural legitimacy because that is the only merit necessary to GAMES.
How can not caring be selfishness in this case? There is no purpose for intent for video games to be art. Do you think that developers really care about the video game they are making to be considered art? I bet most of them are praying that their video game coming out will not bust and put them in the red. Maybe in about 20 plus years from now, the makers will care that people will appreciate their game they made back then, but as art? I don't know. In my opinion, the number one reason why I don't care about video games being considered art. The word "game". I define game to playing it. Not looking at it to find some meaning out of it. But I do find sometimes that playing a game has meaning, but the game itself, I don't know what the game means or if it is supposed to mean something enhence I don't care to think about the game except to grade a game whether it is good or bad by it's play.
But don't be offeneded by that because I think like that about video games. I do that to movies as well. I don't go to watch a movie for it's artistic value. For whatever $$ it cost me to go watch it, it better be entertaining, period. That's it.
I am not saying that you personally should deconstruct and artistically evaluate all works of art. But understanding that a certain medium is in fact artistic is vital to the growth of said medium. If people recognized video games as a valid way to communicate messages artistically, do you think Six Days in Fallujah would have been shot down like it was? Would the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 have been as controversial as it was? Would video games be allowed to cover controversial topics and explore more ways to make interactivity an effective storytelling tool? All these things are being held back by the lack of public acceptance of video games as art. Heck, on November 2nd, if the Supreme Court of the United States decides video games are not art, they will be subject to regulation no different from a controlled substance. You don't need to study and appreciate something as art, you simply need to understand its status as such. Until that happens with video games, the medium will be held back by public misconception.
As for not knowing if the game is intended to have meaning and such, welcome to the world of the English/Literature major. Analyzing works of art is always like that. It's not for everyone; it's fine if you have no interest in that kind of analysis. I'm simply saying it's important to know that it's there, and it's significant.
Well, now you are putting some context to your arguement and where you are going with this thread. Now, your adding censorship and regulation to gaming because it is not considered art, is different. So then let's take Dante's Inferno for example. If I recall, they took lust boss as likeness to Cleopatra. Let's say that people related to her got pissed and had request for injunction in court to stop the game being made. The game would lose? Glutton, glutton boss is some FAT, dirty monster made all obese people offended saying that not all fat people are gluttonous. Some people have a thyroid problem or something. So they order an injunction in the courts to stop the game. The game would lose?
Video games have some degree of abstractness it them. Game Artists/designers have to come up with something from their imagination to fill parts if not all. How can that not be considered art to them? Shouldn't they have the right to express their game how they see fit? It seems so simple to me it seems ludicrous. Doesn't suprise me though. It seems alot of stupid things are going to court just for the sake of job security for the courts in this economy.
But from my experience, games as art should matter. Because they -are- art. Doesn't matter if we take them seriously. (Who took Scary Movie seriously?) It's the fact that if they are art, they should be considered art. It would be retarded to call it something else.
..Also i'm sure most people don't even understand what "art" is.
As a limited defense of single player I would like to point out that while you don't compete against anyone real you still are gaining skill and overcoming obstacles which effectively makes what you are doing a game.
Most single player games do have actual competition though. Ranks/scoring create a rubrik for seperating better and worse players and even without that their usually a subjective way to determine if a player is good or bad based on competition against AI. A guy with a shit build order in single player is probably not much of a multiplayer opponet either.
I've seen far too many people say that as long as the game is fun, they don't care if it's art or not. I've also seen people say that as long as they enjoy their games, artistic or not, they don't care if the medium is culturally accepted as art. Is it just me, or is this nothing short of near-sighted selfishness?
Okay, here comes probably the (to you) most alien reply you'll get.
I do not care about... "society". I don't care if "we" (of which i'm not part) get "justified" by others via acceptance. As long as videogames are not outright banned (thus, are allowed to exist), i don't give crap about what "the others" think. And for THAT (right to existence), no acceptence should be necessary. By my ethics, everything and everyone automatically has the "right" to exist, as long as it does not significantly disadvantage others.
I care about how healthy (which not just means popularity or profit) the medium "videogames" is. But for this, no acceptance is necessary. In fact, hasn't gamedesign, game-experience and in fact the whole IT-world gone downhill (except of technologically), since it became so popular? Oh, no fear - i'm not proposing to "get rid" of them. I'm just saying that there is no evidence to support that game diversity and quality depends on popularity (sure, you need a certain minimum market, but that minimum is a tiny fraction of where we are today).
What i'm getting at: The acceptance of "the others" is not relavant for a healthy gameculture at all (it may even be unhealthy). So what is this seek for acceptance and justification then good for? A lot of things, that all have little to do with the games themselves - all of them being things that don't matter to me.
You ask if thats egoistic? Do i owe "the gamers that want to feel justified" anything? Not? Then how do you come to this conclusion? I think i know how: "If you do not act altruistic, then you must be egoistic. Either you're with us, or you're against us." - well, that didn't exactly make your cause more sympathetic to me.
But to get to the meat of "my case". This whole searching of humans for stereotypes, imaginary institutions and "we're sooo indie... and we want to be accepted and assimilated into the collective"... i really cannot take this stuff seriously. More importantly: It has nothing to do with games. It isn't about the act of creating games, talking about them (culture!), experiencing them, etc.... it purely is society politics. Not just that, by trying to establish these stereotypes and stamps like identities, it even calls to modify games for the sake of those politics.
This is not something that i wish to support. I just like the "interactive medium" to be explored in many different kinds of ways. Heck, i don't even want these things to be "games". I'm perfectly fine with the medium being explored in ways, that don't fit the term games. I'm also fine with it being used for "art" (whatever that is). I'm fine with all of that as long as these .... interactive content things.... are made for their own sake:
For the sake of exploring them, for doing what one likes to do, for talking about it with likeminded people, for experiencing it together/alone, for fun/emotion/skillbuilding/curiousity/whatever... all that stuff - but not for some f****** "Daddy, accept me for who i am"-politics, nor for missionary "we need to convert the unbelievers"-conquests or for stereotypes.
By your own admission were not here to define what is art, were here so you can tell us why we should care if games should or shouldn't be classed as art.
Although I haven't read the other essays on this subject, I haven't read one thing from you to me, to persuade me to give a rats ass whether or not games are or are not art.
EDIT: will it effect games if they are considered art? Will it effect them if there not? To me the answer is not one little, teeny, tiny, bit.
I am not saying that you personally should deconstruct and artistically evaluate all works of art. But understanding that a certain medium is in fact artistic is vital to the growth of said medium. If people recognized video games as a valid way to communicate messages artistically, do you think Six Days in Fallujah would have been shot down like it was? Would the airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 have been as controversial as it was? Would video games be allowed to cover controversial topics and explore more ways to make interactivity an effective storytelling tool? All these things are being held back by the lack of public acceptance of video games as art. Heck, on November 2nd, if the Supreme Court of the United States decides video games are not art, they will be subject to regulation no different from a controlled substance. You don't need to study and appreciate something as art, you simply need to understand its status as such. Until that happens with video games, the medium will be held back by public misconception.
As for not knowing if the game is intended to have meaning and such, welcome to the world of the English/Literature major. Analyzing works of art is always like that. It's not for everyone; it's fine if you have no interest in that kind of analysis. I'm simply saying it's important to know that it's there, and it's significant.
Well, now you are putting some context to your arguement and where you are going with this thread. Now, your adding censorship and regulation to gaming because it is not considered art, is different. So then let's take Dante's Inferno for example. If I recall, they took lust boss as likeness to Cleopatra. Let's say that people related to her got pissed and had request for injunction in court to stop the game being made. The game would lose? Glutton, glutton boss is some FAT, dirty monster made all obese people offended saying that not all fat people are gluttonous. Some people have a thyroid problem or something. So they order an injunction in the courts to stop the game. The game would lose?
Video games have some degree of abstractness it them. Game Artists/designers have to come up with something from their imagination to fill parts if not all. How can that not be considered art to them? Shouldn't they have the right to express their game how they see fit? It seems so simple to me it seems ludicrous. Doesn't suprise me though. It seems alot of stupid things are going to court just for the sake of job security for the courts in this economy.
There you go. That there is my exact point. Games are absolutely a form of expression, and whether you necessarily value that about them or not, acceptance of that fact is vitally important to their existence and advancement in our society. That's all I'm saying, and the entire reason I made this thread: not caring about games' status as art basically just says, "As long as I can have fun, who cares about everything and everyone else," even though games will have to advance to that point if we want them to continue growing.
I don't just not care about art. I want it eradicated from games. Art is not just worthless to games but is also ruinous to them. Games that focus on graphics or story or message will inevitably lose focus on the things that matter. Art is seperate from games and you yourself reinforce it every time you bring up meaning or narrative or any other things which are NOT NECESSARY TO GAMES AT ALL. Even a child understands how different basketball (a game) and the Mona Lisa (art) are. It's common sense! One is a challenge to overcome and the other is something you enjoy looking at or listening to. Why is there a need to combine these things? Because one is more highly regarded than the other? Lets just be like the ancient Greeks; they had their great works of art and had the Olympics.
Competition is the only way games can gain cultural legitimacy because that is the only merit necessary to GAMES.
Do you know why movies are called "movies?" Or "motion pictures," for that matter? It's because when they were first invented, they were nothing but that: moving pictures. The term "movie" is just some cute word adapted from the word "move."
Let's say, when stories and sound was being added to the screen, people said the same thing. "We don't need stories! By definition, these are just moving pictures! Anything else is just peripheral at best, harmful at worst!" Let's say they saw no value in adding stories, characters, music, voices, or any other dramatic element because, based on the name, they are just "moving pictures."
By your own admission were not here to define what is art, were here so you can tell us why we should care if games should or shouldn't be classed as art.
Although I haven't read the other essays on this subject, I haven't read one thing from you to me, to persuade me to give a rats ass whether or not games are or are not art.
EDIT: will it effect games if they are considered art? Will it effect them if there not? To me the answer is not one little, teeny, tiny, bit.
Then start paying attention to what's going on. Heck, if video games have no artistic value, they will be regulated in the US no different from a controlled substance starting November 2. How the crap is that not important?
Beyond that, how do we expect developers to shape up and start giving us games with better writing, more detailed stories, and multi-dimensional characters if we're sitting here denying the need for such things? Do you really think they'll give us all of that if we're content with the safety of the status quo?
Acceptance of games as art is absolutely vital to the advancement of the medium. Otherwise, developers will keep coloring inside the lines, governments will regulate games with an ignorant iron fist, and we gamers will forever be known as immature children who never "grew out" of playing with these worthless toys.
If none of that is important to you, I have nothing more to say on the subject.
But from my experience, games as art should matter. Because they -are- art. Doesn't matter if we take them seriously. (Who took Scary Movie seriously?) It's the fact that if they are art, they should be considered art. It would be retarded to call it something else.
..Also i'm sure most people don't even understand what "art" is.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
