Games as art - why do we even care?!?

[AD-Stu]

I hate this question because it hardly ever considers the perspective of the artists. Having been an artist for quite a long time, best I can tell art can be most easily described as an emotional or creative outpouring via some kind of medium. The modelers, designers, musicians, animators and even the programmers are most likely all doing this to some extent. Video games are often times a massive artistic undertaking and to trivialize the very real artistic achievements and accomplishments of many an artist by saying "does it even matter if we call it art?" is a huge insult.

Ah. That establishes why developers care. But (and I know this sounds callous) it still doesn't give me a reason to care. How validated Ken Levine feels when he goes to bed at night has no bearing whatsoever on my life, or my enjoyment of a game.

Plus there are plenty of people around who consider video games to be art and give validation to the people that created them. I simply can't believe those creators are going to storm off in a huff and stop making games just because the portion of the population that considers their work to be "art" isn't big enough.

First amendment protection would actually be very valuable to the industry and it's good that we finally got it.

In other words, games getting first amendment protection keeps a bunch of panicky, moralizing weirdos from trying to deliver us all from their temptation.

A thought: is the government really the biggest threat when it comes to games and censorship?

I guess they've got the power to make the biggest difference with the least effort, but they're unlikely to bother unless there's a whole heap of their constituents getting all up in their grill demanding they take that action.

Which brings us to the root of the issue: IMO, the bigger threat is people power. If a (for the sake of the argument, please don't think I'm singling them out as the only group that would do this) fundamentalist christian group got its panties in a bunch over a game and got millions of people to start sending hate mail to stores carrying that game, saying they were going to boycott the store until the game was pulled from the shelves... how does the first amendment protect you when the store caves to their demands?

It was that kind of action, not anything handed down by a government, that got Six Days in Fallujah shelved. And it happens in the music industry all the freaking time.

The first amendment doesn't required a privately-owned business to carry a particular title (as far as I know - as mentioned, I'm not American), and the protesters certainly couldn't care less whether the game was "art" or not. So does having games classified as art really solve the problem?

 

[somonels]

I care because someone is trying to pass a turnip for a carrot.

Games are not art, they are games; not to say games can't be art but most that claim to be definitely aren't. A lot of artists work on games but a lot of arty bits does not make a big piece of art.
Come at me, grammar nazis.

 

[Laser Priest]

Not all games are art. Games can be great and have fantastic narratives without needing to be art, something idiots like Chipman don't understand.

It's a diverse medium, and anyone who thinks that all games are either art or not is a fool.

Personally, though, I couldn't care less whether they are classified as art or not.

 

[Fappy]

I don't.
People are all like "GAEMS ARENT ATR" and I'm all like 'whatevs, imma go play some vidja games.'

Yeaaah, that's pretty much me as well. Indifferent to the whole thing. I really don't care if people disagree with me about something that is, quite frankly, a meaningless discussion. I play video games because they are entertaining. I am entertained by some art and believe some games have artistic merit. Therefore I believe many of my video games (which I play because they entertain me) are artistic. You don't agree? Cool. I still think its art. You disagreeing with me isn't going to magically make me feel bad/guilty about my hobby.

 

[Bealzibob]

I think it's a bit offensive to belittle games under the trite title of art. Games are much more than art will ever be and deserve to be consider entirely on their own merits as oppose to constrasted against art.

 

[Seanfall]

I've been gaming since I got my first Game Boy (the black and white one) and played Pokemon on it. I never have, never will care if games are considered 'art'. Maybe it's just that I never really cared what other's thought about me or my hobbies. I don't think you can define the best games as simply 'art' and even then a lot of people have taken the meaning of the word 'art' to mean something it doesn't. Art is a subjective, scratch that VERY subjective thing. Paintings, suclputres, music, movies etc. etc. etc. What one person loves another will hate.

And just because something can or is considered 'art' doesn't mean, DOESN'T MEAN, it's above scorn, crictisism, and out right hate. Especially if the people offering up that scorn, crictisism, etc. was lied to about it and paid money for it. And as far as 'artistic integrity' goes. The moment money enters the equation it goes right out the window.

 

[AD-Stu]

If games are considered art they will be afforded the first amendment rights they rightfully deserve. They can tell Fox to shove off and they'll have the courts on their side.

without it? Games are Fox's whipping boy. Without the 'art' status games are seen as a force for evil in the world, a way to corrupt young minds, and they won't be protected by the courts.

It's a load of bullshit. Gangster rap gets ignored entirely by Fox, yet video games get singled out time and again.

Again, this might be me not being American and therefore not understanding, or not being aware of some relevant precedent (in addition to not being American I'm definitely not a lawyer)...

...but I really, really don't see how the first amendment protects games in that instance. It doesn't (as far as I can tell) include any specific mention of protecting art but it does specifically protect freedom of the press.

So am I wrong, or isn't it Fox's side the courts would be on if anyone tried to tell them to "shove off". I'm pretty sure having their work considered art hasn't stopped Fox criticising musicians or film makers either - I simply refuse to believe that they never give negative press to any media other than video games.

 

[Aprilgold]

So that 1 Million Moms can't sue the shit out of anyone who doesn't agree with them.

Books being art gave it protection from people who wanted to censor it, same with movies and music. Games need that defense so that developers aren't left jobless if they make a game with a sex scene in it. It helps stop censorship, which is great.

Also it makes it more respectable, which also helps stop people from crusading about how evil they are.

 

[axlryder]

I hate this question because it hardly ever considers the perspective of the artists. Having been an artist for quite a long time, best I can tell art can be most easily described as an emotional or creative outpouring via some kind of medium. The modelers, designers, musicians, animators and even the programmers are most likely all doing this to some extent. Video games are often times a massive artistic undertaking and to trivialize the very real artistic achievements and accomplishments of many an artist by saying "does it even matter if we call it art?" is a huge insult.

Ah. That establishes why developers care. But (and I know this sounds callous) it still doesn't give me a reason to care. How validated Ken Levine feels when he goes to bed at night has no bearing whatsoever on my life, or my enjoyment of a game.

No, that establishes why WE SHOULD care. I can't speak for the developers so I haven't actually established why the developers do or don't care. Only they can do that. However, we should care because to not recognize art as art is just categorically wrong and insulting to the individuals who create content for "our" medium. Needing more reason than that to simply "care" doesn't sound callous, it sounds illogical and rude. Not trying to be mean, but I don't know how to phrase that more tactfully. Whether or not you feel compelled to pursue this beyond mere contemplation is your business, and I can understand if you'd just rather not be assed about it, but I've already given you a good enough reason to give a crap.

Plus there are plenty of people around who consider video games to be art and give validation to the people that created them. I simply can't believe those creators are going to storm off in a huff and stop making games just because the portion of the population that considers their work to be "art" isn't big enough.

No one said that; you're moving the goalposts here. My original quote answers your question perfectly fine. You have yet to rebut it. If you were attempting to ask something other than "why should we, as a community, care if games are considered art", then you should learn to phrase your questions better.

 

[AD-Stu]

In all seriousness though, if we look at the kind of content that's in games today, what exactly are we missing out on? What's being censored, that we would otherwise get to see if games could hold up a magic shield labelled "art"?

The answer in my country is "quite a bit, actually", but that's an issue that has absolutely nothing to do with whether games are art or not because our government does exactly the same thing to other "artforms", including movies.

But games like GTA, Modern Warfare, Mass Effect and others all suggest to me that developers are being allowed to put pretty much whatever the hell they want into their games already. The mind boggles thinking about what else they could possibly be hoping to include...

Also it makes it more respectable, which also helps stop people from crusading about how evil they are.

FWIW, I don't think the "art" label will do anything to stop that kind of behaviour.

Being legitimate art didn't stop people crusading over how "evil" a work like Piss Christ was. Someone mentioned earlier that comics are largely considered art now, but it didn't stop the million mums crusading over Archie either.

 

[Aprilgold]

Also it makes it more respectable, which also helps stop people from crusading about how evil they are.

FWIW, I don't think the "art" label will do anything to stop that kind of behaviour.

Being legitimate art didn't stop people crusading over how "evil" a work like Piss Christ was. Someone mentioned earlier that comics are largely considered art now, but it didn't stop the million mums crusading over Archie either.

Helps deter that type of behavior. You won't see many people saying that the Mona Lisa is a sin, so it does work to deter this type of behavior.

Also, comic-books are not considered art by the government, which really is the final say on this at the moment.

 

[xDarc]

I'm actually kind of pissed off about the whole games as art thing. Since I started playing them, games have changed from deeply involved and intricate forms of entertainment that challenged you- to boring narratives, slowed down and simplified games that can you can play with one hand free so as not to interrupt couch potato activities such as stuffing your face, getting stoned, or playing with your prick.

Games have become a shadow of their former selves as they have moved away from their own standards in reflexes and strategy.

The best games were on PC in the late 90's to very early 2000s. The debut of xbox360 marked the end of a golden era as far as I'm concerned. I buy 3 games or less a year now. I thought I'd never stop being a gamer, but now I don't think people see being a gamer as having anything to do with actually being good at playing video games... especially games that aren't even challenging anymore.

More like games have stopped being for gamers. Now they're main stream pieces of narrative trash for the same folks who watch network television.

 

[GeneralFungi]

I believe that games are art. Now, before you stop reading this post and disregard it completely, hear me out. Do you find certain video games to have a significant emotional impact on you? Do you enjoy the way gaming makes you think, and tests things like your adaptability or your reflexes? Do you simply find shooting a guy in the face with a shot gun entertaining?

Well, that's good for you.

Does the above make gaming art? That is up to you. I'm so sick and tired of people PREACHING to each other about whether gaming is an art form or not. This banter back and forth annoys me to no end. People are forgetting that art is subjective. Art is not as black and white as people make it out to be. If you don't think it's art? That's what you think. If games don't meet your personal criteria of something that is art, no amount of me shouting in your face is going to change that. Trying to convince someone that gaming is art is NOT enlightening them.

That's akin to me thinking that rocky road ice cream is the best ice cream and demanding that everyone come to recognize that. It doesn't serve any function other then to drive people insane. Art can be anything to an individual if it meets their criteria.

If gaming fits in your criteria for art, then as far as you are concerned, it's art. If it doesn't fit in your criteria, it's not art. It's your decision. I still think that the government trying to single out things as art to be extremely ham-handed, but that's my opinion.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I think the word "art" should be taken out back and shot, then burned to ashes and pissed on.

I'm so sick of hearing it in regards to gaming, and people using it as a "we matter" arguement for the outside world. Games are a billion dollar industry; We already matter. The label of "art" isn't going to change anything.

All that this "games are art" bullcrap reminds me of is anime fans desperately trying to get non-anime fans to like/approve their shit; "See, see, Cowboy Bebop and Baccano are good. See, see, look."

 

[Varrdy]

This is something that's been bouncing around in my head for a while now:

Why do we even care if games are considered "art" or not?

As long as we're enjoying them, what does it matter if the rest of the world doesn't think they're art?

Are our egos really so fragile that we need games to be considered art in order for the time we spend playing them to seem worthwhile? Will our lives somehow be different if people see gaming as something akin to visiting a gallery or watching a noir film rather than just sitting in front of a screen mashing buttons?

Fans of all sorts of music - be it metal, electronic, hip hop, punk, whatever - have had people telling them for years that their preferred music is "just noise" and "not real music". But do they care? On the whole, no, they don't. They're too busy having fun. Should gamers be taking a leaf out of their book and just ignoring the whole issue?

I more or less agree with you completely!

Why can't games just be games? It wouldn't diminish my enjoyment of them one iota if that's all they would ever be seen as!

Besides...The "art" label these days can be tagged to pretty much anything. Take for instance that un-made bed covered with soiled underwear and drug paraphernalia that Tracy Ermin wheeled out a few years ago.

What a bloody benchmark, huh?

 

[Sehnsucht Engel]

Are our egos really so fragile that we need games to be considered art in order for the time we spend playing them to seem worthwhile? Will our lives somehow be different if people see gaming as something akin to visiting a gallery or watching a noir film rather than just sitting in front of a screen mashing buttons?

I don't think that games should ever be on the level of visiting a gallery. It doesn't even feel like it fits them. I think it should be an accepted medium of creative expression though, like a movie maybe.

 

[-Samurai-]

I've been asking this question since the first "Can games be art?" threads started popping up, and I've come to the conclusion that I personally don't care.

You can call them art, you can call them not art. You can call them games, experiences, wastes of time, or you can call them ham sandwiches. It has no affect on my enjoyment of them.

I enjoy them for what they are, not for the title they have, or the category they're placed in.

 

[Eamar]

Sure I'd like it if I could discuss gaming with a non-gamer and not get the eye-rolling treatment, but it's really not much of an issue in my mind. I mean, who wants the gaming equivalent of "Oscar bait" movies?

In all seriousness though, I'm firmly of the opinion that it'll happen eventually, we don't need to crusade for it. Games will eventually be accepted, just like films, pretty much every "new" genre of music, even novels (if we're going far enough back) were. The ignorant backlash that considers games the root of all evil is nothing new and is not unique to gaming: everyone knows that rock music was considered some corrupting influence, but we should also remember that the exact same things were said of Elvis, jazz, blues... it'll pass and some other medium or genre will emerge to be stigmatised and belittled.

Also, once that does happen developers won't all be getting a free pass to hide behind the "art" shield. Just as lots of very fun, perfectly good movies will never seriously be considered "art," not all games will earn or even want that title.

Having said all that, I don't really think games are ready to be considered art yet. Sure there are a few titles that can be, but overall I feel that this is very much an *emerging* medium. It's just coming out of its infancy. To be honest, even writing or acting (for example) that are praised as shining examples of games' highest achievements just wouldn't be considered that good when compared to their equivalents in other media. We just accept that most games have poor stories, terrible acting or unsatisfying endings (NOT trying to turn this into a discussion about the obvious current example here, but it is something that's been brought up in those arguments from time to time). I love games, and I'm not saying that we should always be comparing them to movies or whatever, but we've got a way to go yet. Like I said though, it'll happen eventually. In the meantime there's really no point in getting worked up about it.

That's what I think anyway.

 

[Suicidejim]

I started writing a response to this, then realized I've already done one before on an earlier thread, and it was probably better than what I was going to write, so here's that one instead:

There are actually quite a few reasons from what I can see.

Obviously, there are the legal benefits and protections to begin with, which pretty much can constitute an entire argument on their own. A lot of people want games to be able to approach and deal with mature subject matter without being threatened with censorship or crusades against them "for the sake of the children."

Next, social perceptions. Firstly, the obvious one, wherein gamers aren't singled out and mocked by non-gamers. Now, a lot of people seem to consider this a petty or selfish one, but if we remove the stigma from being a gamer, and allow it to become something that anyone can indulge in, it could benefit gaming as a whole. If gaming were to be respected as a normal pursuit like reading or watching movies, more people would buy and become interested in games, and the industry could find vast, untapped reserves of customers, all with varying tastes and desires, and create a wider range of new products to cater to them. Secondly, working in the game industry would no longer be stigmatized either (well, no more than working in any artistic industry . . . so, still a lot, but an improvement nevertheless). Being a game developer would be a respectable career choice, and you wouldn't get talented individuals turned away from that path because of parents/friends etc. considering it to be childish and stupid, like wanting to be a rockstar or an astronaut. It's possible that more people would go into colleges and universities and take courses on game design and theory, and it's in such an environment that you'd get some true innovation, and maybe a few new concepts that could change the entire face of gaming if we're lucky.

Now, many gamers, myself included, are blinded by the passion of the fanatic. We believe that, if we just get people to play some of these games, suddenly everyone will realize they were wrong all along, and games are awesome, and everyone will want to play games forever and ever and it'll be rainbows and sunshine and all that. Obviously this won't be the case. If games aren't a person's thing, they just won't care. But some people are genuinely turned away by the stigma of playing games, even though they do enjoy them. That is a tragedy, and it saddens me that silly social concepts turn people away from enjoyable or enlightening experiences.

Lastly, why the hell not? Many people here would probably agree that games are art, so why shouldn't that be recognized? I genuinely can't see a decent downside to it. It's not like we'll suddenly end up knee deep in obscure arthouse games or anything like that.

Heck, plenty of other mediums are considered art, and it's not as though they magically became less awesome, and there's plenty of benefits. So why not?

 

[SnakeoilSage]

Video game developers, meet me at Camera 4: you know it's really kind of arrogant and pretentious for anyone to declare their effort to be "a work of art" right? You can slap a scene of the Illusive Man silhouetted before a dying star and it's all colorful and sci-fi, but five minutes later you'll be shooting robots in the face and having sex with blue alien women who are culturally and biologically required to have sex with everything in the galaxy, so don't pretend there's something fucking sacred about your cash cow.

Bioware, MovieBob is bullshitting you. He says you could be making art instead of a product. But that isn't true. You are entertainers. You don't write Shakespeare. You don't even write Tolkien. You create pulp. You create TV serials. You're Stephen King at best, comic book hacks at worst. And right now, you're leaning closer to Rob Leifeld than anyone.

Art isn't decided by the artist. Art is decided by people 50, 100, 500 years from now who hold your creation up as symbol of the timeless human condition, or as a cornerstone of your culture and era. History decides if you leave any kind of legacy, and at best you're looking at a shitty Hollywood film that spectacularly fails the spirit of your story in favor of some cheap garbage designed to fill in the pre-summer Blockbuster season.

Do you think you can just slap a video game together and be called next Tolkien? Do you think that selling a million units of a video game on its first day will mean we'll still be playing it or even talking about it in fifty years?

"Don't change my art" is the weakest excuse you can give not to correct your work. Before you start whining about fan backlash, try reading the Evil Overlord list, Rule #12: "One of my advisors will be an average five-year-old child. Any flaws in my plan that he is able to spot will be corrected before implementation."

It's not a hard concept to grasp, so grow the hell up. You fucked up. You can deny it all you want but none of us, including yourselves, are being fooled by it. You. Fucked. Up. Learn from it and move on. Do you hear what I'm telling you? LEARN and MOVE ON.