Games as Art--- Why do you think so?

[Scrustle]

In general I don't consider games art. I guess this is mainly because what I have been taught is art is boring. The most boring books I've ever seen is art, while good books are not. Basically my impression of art is that you are supposed to say more about it than it says. A book that says nothing, but you can write books about is art. A book that says enough to keep you entertained is not. Also I wont consider Call of Duty art just because it doesn't entertain me.

Sounds to me like the reason you find "art" boring is because perhaps it was forced on you, and you were expected to find something in it that you don't find there. I think a lot of people have had this kind of experience from education. It's pretty much the reason why I don't read books and I hate To Kill A Mockingbird. But I still regard literature as an art form, I just don't enjoy most of it.

If my assumption is accurate then I ask why stick to that definition? Why does art have to be boring just because you were told something was art which you didn't enjoy? There must be some other kind of art form which you enjoy. What about painting, sculpture, music, film, animation, or even photography? You must enjoy at least something out of those media? Is it not art purely because you enjoy it? What if you enjoy an example of something in a certain art form but another? Does that mean the thing you enjoy isn't art, and the thing you don't is?

 

[Yopaz]

In general I don't consider games art. I guess this is mainly because what I have been taught is art is boring. The most boring books I've ever seen is art, while good books are not. Basically my impression of art is that you are supposed to say more about it than it says. A book that says nothing, but you can write books about is art. A book that says enough to keep you entertained is not. Also I wont consider Call of Duty art just because it doesn't entertain me.

Sounds to me like the reason you find "art" boring is because perhaps it was forced on you, and you were expected to find something in it that you don't find there. I think a lot of people have had this kind of experience from education. It's pretty much the reason why I don't read books and I hate To Kill A Mockingbird. But I still regard literature as an art form, I just don't enjoy most of it.

If my assumption is accurate then I ask why stick to that definition? Why does art have to be boring just because you were told something was art which you didn't enjoy? There must be some other kind of art form which you enjoy. What about painting, sculpture, music, film, animation, or even photography? You must enjoy at least something out of those media? Is it not art purely because you enjoy it? What if you enjoy an example of something in a certain art form but another? Does that mean the thing you enjoy isn't art, and the thing you don't is?

Well, it is in part because that it was forced on me through school, but mostly because our teachers had a very strict view of what could be considered art and not. The definition I have heard in recent years is that a piece of art is quite simply something meant to inspire thoughts and feelings. By that definition there is no reason why games should not be considered art. However we learned that not all books are art, Sherlock Holmes or The Lord of The Rings which represent some great classics are not art. A book about someone wandering around in a city being hungry who keeps repeating that he's hungry, now that is art.
Because of what I have been taught about what I should connect to art and what is merely entertainment I am unable to see anything entertaining as art. 6 years of being fed this definition of art makes me unable to dismiss the definition. I also don't enjoy either paintings, sculptures, photographies or the kind of music or movies I've been taught can be considered art. Sure I can appreciate that a picture looks nice or that it's painted well, but it fills me with no emotions whatsoever.

I also think this could be in part because I don't really see a reason to consider the things I like art. I like the things I like and if someone wants to say it's not sophisticated then I consider that a bonus. I've had several arguments with my teachers that if I had the choice to don't give a damn about their art or sophisticated books and be considered a simple man I'd prefer that over reading even one of them and be considered sophisticated. I am quite satisfied not caring about art and I see no reason to change my ways.

 

[MetalMagpie]

I've always been the behind the definition of "art" to be anything that is produced by someone who could be describe as an "artisan" (a skilled worker who uses creativity in what they do). It wasn't that long ago that people who made products as diverse as furniture, wallpaper, carpets and even some types of bread were described as "artisans", and so what they made was "art".

However, the Oxford English Dictionary (great lord of all the English language) defines art as "works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power". Which rules out furniture, bread, video games and even most books and films, as they have a primary purpose which is not simply "beauty or emotional power". They're designed for sitting on, eating, entertaining the masses, etc.

So by the first definition, video games are art in that they are produced by creative skilled workers. And by the second definition they aren't.

As I said, I personally prefer the first definition. Long live artisan bread!

 

[Scrustle]

Well, it is in part because that it was forced on me through school, but mostly because our teachers had a very strict view of what could be considered art and not. The definition I have heard in recent years is that a piece of art is quite simply something meant to inspire thoughts and feelings. By that definition there is no reason why games should not be considered art. However we learned that not all books are art, Sherlock Holmes or The Lord of The Rings which represent some great classics are not art. A book about someone wandering around in a city being hungry who keeps repeating that he's hungry, now that is art.
Because of what I have been taught about what I should connect to art and what is merely entertainment I am unable to see anything entertaining as art. 6 years of being fed this definition of art makes me unable to dismiss the definition. I also don't enjoy either paintings, sculptures, photographies or the kind of music or movies I've been taught can be considered art. Sure I can appreciate that a picture looks nice or that it's painted well, but it fills me with no emotions whatsoever.

I also think this could be in part because I don't really see a reason to consider the things I like art. I like the things I like and if someone wants to say it's not sophisticated then I consider that a bonus. I've had several arguments with my teachers that if I had the choice to don't give a damn about their art or sophisticated books and be considered a simple man I'd prefer that over reading even one of them and be considered sophisticated. I am quite satisfied not caring about art and I see no reason to change my ways.

Well I've certainly not come across anyone with an opinion of art anything like yours before. Curious indeed. But I think it's wrong to say that something entertaining is not art. Art is entertainment. We don't need it. Most people would say art is more profound than something purely created to entertain, but it does entertain and art can be found within entertainment media.

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Hahhh...it's complicated. Art is relative, subjective and has various definitions to different people. I'd say that numerous video games are art, while others aren't, which is the case with most mediums. I think Michael Jackson's music was art, while Lady Gaga's isn't (because she's a talentless hack who ripped off Madonna and relies on cheap sex appeal and gimmicks like dressing up like a pretentious tramp and calls it "fashion"). I absolutely adore Akira Toriyama's work, while I don't see what the big deal is about Picasso. I love J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter books, yet hate Stephanie Meyer's Twilight books. And the list goes on.

 

[Xanadu84]

What is art? It is impossible to give a definition that includes so many disparete fields like music, painting and movies that don't include games unless you bend over backwards to exclude them. Art is something constructed to evoke an aesthetic response. But along the way, as some people sought aesthetic wonder, others were busy lifting heavy things (Terry Pratchett once wrote that a philosopher is a person smart enough to get a job that requires no heavy lifting), and there was this elitist sense of a few artists pursueing a more noble goal, which is ripe for a pretentious old boys club. So this club held there stuff as the greatest things ever, and art took on a hidden meaning of some ill defined notion of quality, rather then the more reasonable and useful definition of intent." Not art"became an insult, not a definition. So saying games are not art is useing a useless definition that is entirely subjective and close minded. Most debates about what art is are made of this bickering. Rest assured that if ones definition of art excludes games, then it is art that is poorer for it.

 

[Charli]

This topic has reared it's ugly head on the Escapist alot of times and each time my answer has not wavered nor changed from the last time it appeared.

So... Yep I guess I'm going to be the lazy bastard this time and say go rifle through my posting history if you are desperately curious about my opinion, but the consensus is pretty much 'yes, they are art'

 

[DoPo]

This topic has reared it's ugly head on the Escapist alot of times and each time my answer has not wavered nor changed from the last time it appeared.

So... Yep I guess I'm going to be the lazy bastard this time and say go rifle through my posting history if you are desperately curious about my opinion, but the consensus is pretty much 'yes, they are art'

Good work on reading the OP, then. TC already mentioned that consensus in the very beginning. The question isn't "Are games art?", but rather "Why?" - how do we tell explain it to others.

And the popular opinion here seems to be that it is actually a question of "What is art?", since we cannot claim something is art without knowing what art is.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I could write a whole essay on this, but in the end I can't do better than Tycho Brahe's response to Roger Ebert, which can be summarised thus:

'If hundreds of artists create art for ten years, how could the end result not be art?'

 

[J-Dig]

Weren't a lot of the great paintings commissions, i.e. made for money? The best of today's games have scripts, animation and voice acting like the movies, original musical scores and beautifully designed environments. All of these are already recognised artforms. Of course, a lot of games still have all the merit of a toddler's drawing.

 

[Phlakes]

if Leonardo made a sandwich it was food not art

food has been artistic for as long as they have booth existed.

I must be missing something here. And even then, what makes food artistic but games not?

do i really need to tell you that their is a big difference between food and a digital discs content? the thing that gives food its artistic value is the thing games dont have. physicality.
artistic food is art because of the delicate blend of coulors and textures and the way its sculpted.

Alright, it looks like your definition is very narrow. Not wrong (opinions are opinions are subjective are opinions), but restricted to physical things that are made to be visually appealing. At least that's what I got.

 

[Logodaedalus]

Considering the things that have been called art of the last 100 years (Dada, pop-art and the like.) I think you can't really make a definition of art based on properties of the piece alone. I think something becomes art the moment someone admires the object for its beauty and the emotions it invokes and not just for its use and practicality. Of course this isn't a very useful definition as it leaves you with the situation where anything can be called by art as long as someone admires it for its artistic merit alone.

Under this definition there is no doubt that there are games that people admire for their beauty, not just in pure graphical terms but more in art style like Bioshock or Shadow of the Colossus.

oh well, there's my two p.

 

[Gabanuka]

Art=Useless
Games=Useless
Games=Art

 

[DoPo]

Art=Useless
Games=Useless
Games=Art

That is the very definition of invalid logic right there

All A's are U;
G is U;
Therefore, G is an A.

 

[pilouuuu]

Games as art, just like movies. Sadly we know that most movies are not GOOD art, so let's hope game don't fall into the same trap of commercialism.

What's great about games is that they include painting (textures), sculpture (3d models), architecture, acting, music... And the thing that they need is where more art needs to be included: interactivity.

There are some games that are really good art like Bioshock, Grim Fandango... Even The Sims can be a great example of interactive art, depending how you play it. The possibilities are amazing! Now let's see more examples of this kind of games and less Call of Duty.

 

[pilouuuu]

Art=Useless
Games=Useless
Games=Art

Art is not useful. You don't need it to live, but it makes living much better and gives much sense to human existance. You sir must live a very sad and limited life really... Try to go to a museum once in a while. It'll make you feel much better and you won't say art is useless anymore.

 

[x EvilErmine x]

First ask what is art?

Then ask what is art for?

If you can't see that games are art by that point then you never will so don't worry about it coz you are entitled to your own opinion as I am entitled to mine.

 

[Charli]

This topic has reared it's ugly head on the Escapist alot of times and each time my answer has not wavered nor changed from the last time it appeared.

So... Yep I guess I'm going to be the lazy bastard this time and say go rifle through my posting history if you are desperately curious about my opinion, but the consensus is pretty much 'yes, they are art'

Good work on reading the OP, then. TC already mentioned that consensus in the very beginning. The question isn't "Are games art?", but rather "Why?" - how do we tell explain it to others.

And the popular opinion here seems to be that it is actually a question of "What is art?", since we cannot claim something is art without knowing what art is.

Oh for goodness sake. Yes I did read, Art is whatever it means to me. It's subjective. I discussed this many times before. Not doing it again.

Why? That is a pointless question, and no one could agree. Okay? Good enough a response?

Art is not about why. Art is created for too many different reasons and is different things to different people. Games are not art to my Grandmother. I don't particularly need to justify it why I perceive differently. We don't all need to agree. I don't think blobs on a canvas are art, thousands of people disagree with me. What to do.