Games as Art Rant

[Soviet Heavy]

One thing that bothers me about the Games as Art argument is the divide between both groups.

The first group seems to think that All games should be classified as art, whereas the second group feels that games should not be classified as art.

I say this: Not every game should be viewed as art, but certain games should.

What I mean is, both sides have merit to their arguments. Would you list any sports game as art? Of course not, why would you when there is the real thing? Sports games are entertainment, not art.

Would you list a game as personal as Planescape: Torment as a toy? No way, the personal insights into the character's personal quest makes it much more elaborate and evocative. It should be deemed a work of art.

TLDR: Games should be classified as art, but not all games need to apply to this form of thinking.

 

[jack583]

this is true
if something can be made, it can be art.
but you can't put random doodles of boredom next to the "Mona Lisa"

 

[Soviet Heavy]

this is true
if something can be made, it can be art.
but you can't put random doodles of boredom next to the "Mona Lisa"

Agreed. I like to relate it to my favorite quote from Ratatouille.

Anton Ego
"Not anyone can become a great chef, but a great chef can come from anyone."

Replace the word chef with the games as art argument, and it works very well.

 

[jack583]

this is true
if something can be made, it can be art.
but you can't put random doodles of boredom next to the "Mona Lisa"

Agreed. I like to relate it to my favorite quote from Ratatouille.

Anton Ego
"Not anyone can become a great chef, but a great chef can come from anyone."

Replace the word chef with the games as art argument, and it works very well.

OI!
Glad to have a responce that is not in the form of someone yelling at me.
and nice quote

 

[IBlackKiteI]

But even those games you've said are not artworthy may be to some people.
All games show the coming together of various media forms to make an interactive form of entertainment, you've got all these different people in different fields making something, which fits together and sort of combines to make a potentially great product.

This is why I appreciate games as art, just the idea of people working toward a goal like that. Not often the game itself I see as art, seeing as the majority of games I've played involve little more than shooting guys in the face with a boring cliche storyline and stereotypical characters which only serve to get the player to another location in the game to shoot more guys in the face.

 

[no oneder]

I gave up on this stupid discussion a long time ago. It bothers me that people actually spend time thinking about this.

 

[KalosCast]

This is basically the "Movies vs Films" argument. There are Movies, such as the Michael Bay explosion orgy summer extravaganza, these are created solely to entertain. Then there are Films, which are things like Requiem for a Dream (I know it's based off a book, shut up) which have a distinct message to tell that's reinforced through many aspects of the movie.

All in all, it ends up being a pretty dumb argument, because where people really draw the line is generally going to lead to contention, bad definitions, and good old-fashioned snobbery.

 

[Bobic]

Why must games be classified as art anyway, art is just applied pretentiousness.

 

[no oneder]

I gave up on this stupid discussion a long time ago. It bothers me that people actually spend time thinking about this.

Agreed, we can stop the arguments now. Those who still have different opinions aren't going to change.

To a certain degree, yes, but what really really bothers me is that the discussion ever existed. Who would have enough free time or lack of brain to ask himself the question "are games art?". Who would actually care if they are or aren't?? [/mild rant].

 

[MulticolorCharizard]

Why must games be classified as art anyway, art is just applied pretentiousness.

Or applied creativity depending on who is responsible for it

 

[Atmos Duality]

Why must games be classified as art anyway, art is just applied pretentiousness.

It's subjective either way. So what seems like "pretentious" to one person might be inspiring to another. Likewise, what looks like random garbage to one might have a completely different meaning to someone else.

The only "pretentious" part is people who insist that THEIR OPINION is the only one that matters. That's where we get the "snobs", which introduces an entire plethora of issues.

I've found great philosophical, social, and even behavioral insights because of video games. I appreciate the work that goes into some of the experiences and environments, and I know that games can be more than entertainment. But you won't see me forcing my opinion down people's throats because of it.

Video games can represent experiences, emotions, and ideas just like any other medium. From a purely objective point of view, this means that even though video games made primarily to entertain, this does not make them any less eligible for the purposes of "art".

If someone can appreciate a video game as something more than just a collection of digital strings and logic that form pretty lights sounds and explosions, does it really matter if the rest of the world disagrees?

 

[Tsaba]

SNIP

The problem your going to run into (with everything), is that some people are always going to go out of there ways to abuse the system the best they can, they usually give those who are honest hard working individuals a bad name.

EDIT: just think in these terms, there is "good taste" and then there is "bad taste," just because its "art" doesn't mean its "good." If we try to narrow down the definition because of these ass hats then we are no better than those people that we are "fighting" right now.

 

[P.Tsunami]

I agree with OP in general, but this quickly leads to another, heavier argument; what is art? I'm sure we can all agree that the symphonies of J.S. Bach, literary works of Franz Kafka or Ingmar Bergmans movies could be called art in most definitions of the word. However, is all music, literature and cinema art? Where do you draw the line? If we assume we draw the line somewhere (barring some works of the previous mediums), then I'd definitely say that not all video games can reasonably be called art. Be it FIFA 11, Farmville or Dead Or Alive: Xtreme Beach Volleyball, it's clear to me that some games (which may very well be just as good as others) aren't art, unless you're operating with a very inclusive definition.

The remaining question then is whether -any- games currently produced are art. Personally, I'm not entirely sure. The aspects in video gaming I see could potentially qualify it are narrative structure and aesthetic quality. Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy, God of War or Planescape: Torment are all examples of games that could qualify under their story-based narrative. They are all games telling a story of reasonable quality, and I'd argue that there is little reason to think these games should be relegated below works of other media based on their narrative. Secondly, an active and conscious work within aesthetic boundaries could qualify. For example, if we classify Mona Lisa as art (hint: we do), who's to say that Ico, Katamari Damacy or Limbo shouldn't be lumped into the same VIP Club?

Frankly, I think that's what the video-games-as-art discussion really boils down to. It's a VIP Club. Some game designers (or gaming enthusiasts) want in for the legitimacy it offers, and I sympathize. On the other hand, established artists have nothing to gain short-term by diluting the term, and that's exactly what you'd do by allowing video games through the finish line. After all, if everything (a double rainbow, a kitten's first meow or a new-born baby, to be hyperbolic) is art, then the entire term loses any real significance.

At any rate, I don't think the discussion matters. If game designers keep delivering remarkable works, drawing from other, accepted media, sooner or later there'll be an acceptance that video games can be a form of art. Maybe established artists may also realize what they can gain from working within an interactive medium with mass appeal. If game designers don't deliver the works needed, the discussion is a moot point, since I doubt we'll ever live in a world where Bejeweled or BMX: XXX are commonly accepted as expressions of art.

I've found great philosophical, social, and even behavioral insights because of video games. I appreciate the work that goes into some of the experiences and environments, and I know that games can be more than entertainment.

See, here's where I can conclude my rambling post. This right here is exactly why I'd decide in the end that some part of video games as a medium has legitimacy as a work of art. When a video game can contribute in some meaningful way - other than ways to pass time - to human insights and our culture as a whole, there's something tangible there that is not easily dismissed.

 

[Burck]

Why must games be classified as art anyway, art is just applied pretentiousness.

Only in certain cases is "art just applied pretentiousness".

As for why games should be classified as an art: that's a good question.

I think games need this classification because games haven't received the same appreciation for their artistic values and should be given an evaluation equal to that of other art forms to prove that video games aren't just childish indulgences. This would hopefully lead to more renown and/or money being given to developers that deserve it, and thereby create an increase in stylistically unique and refreshing games.

Maybe then, video game developers AND publishers wouldn't focus so much on just becoming more photo-realistic or gritty (without a purpose): they would strive to give our games a much needed layer of depth.

The only problem is, games don't function as an art the same way movies, books, photography, painting, and so on do. Finding how we can make video games an art will lead to better, deeper games. But as Extra Credits explained in their deconstruction of "Missile Command", that doesn't necessarily mean making the games more complex. It just means making video games human.

As for why we'd want to make our games human...

We typically play video games to escape reality, hence why this site is called "The Escapist", its a site that explores the depth of this thing [video games] we are using as a means of escaping. However, all too often, we just try to escape reality, and remain removed from reality. We then just stay in our virtual worlds while feeling cynical about our own.

But if we made games human, then they could bring us back to reality.

They could give us strength.

They could teach us about the world.

They could make us care.

 

[More Fun To Compute]

I've been convinced that some games could be called art but only if they were not made to be distributed through normal channels and made exclusively for a traditional art audience. Being judged by art critics and not game critics.

 

[Jabberwock xeno]

The whole debate is pointless.

Art is, by definition, in the eyes of the beholder, to some, the mona lisa is merely paint on a canvas;

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Wow, these annoying cliche topics are getting easier to spot every day. Next, I expect to see a topic called "Horrific Event in the News Coupled With Insufferable Cynicism" or "Hype Thread for a 2011 Release" or maybe even a "Thread Wondering Some People Don't Like Something the OP Likes".

*sigh* If only.

Anywhoo, OT: The debate is pointless because art is subjective, meaning that what qualifies as "art" has no formal definition. Art is, quite simply, whatever you want it to be. I have said this so many goddamn times.

 

[josemlopes]

Art is subjective, something that you must take in consideration, everyone directly connected with art (like teachers of that matter) will tell you that about art. For me games are art, and that is my opinion.

 

[MalevolentStaircase]

I don't understand why this website keeps ranting on about games as art it doesnt matter. Just play the games and appreciate them for what they are.

 

[Tupolev]

One thing that bothers me about the Games as Art argument is the divide between both groups.

The first group seems to think that All games should be classified as art, whereas the second group feels that games should not be classified as art.

I say this: Not every game should be viewed as art, but certain games should.

This still rigidly assumes that a given game either is or isn't art.


I find it exhausting and useless to tag things as "art" or "not art", rather prefering to discuss the artistic value within them.
In this light, describing something as a "work of art" would imply it has lots of artistic value.