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

[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.

 

[ElPatron]

Games are art.

Some have pretty piss poor artistic value.

But you don't need to be a pretentious hipster making a super indie game nobody will ever hear about to have artistic content. "Artsy" games are only filled with giant egos in my opinion.

 

[DoPo]

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.

Maybe before insulting people,

Spoiler: read the thread

don't take things out of context

I've actually read a lot of articles and opinions on the matter over several years and I think I have finally reached a conclusion.

In the words of Oscar Wilde "All art is quite useless". I think this is one of the most concise definitions of the nature of art[...]

(emphasis mine)

Oh for goodness sake. Yes I did read,

You just repeated part of what the OP said, instead of actually offering anything on top. That's why I assumed you hadn't read it. You have to agree, just rephrasing the OP isn't really being on topic or useful to a discussion.

 

[Palademon]

All the components of games are considered art. Why wouldn't they be when combined?

But while I do think they games come under art, I do not think that makes them all 'artistic'.

I did a presentation about a piece of art in Philosophy too. Most people chose classical art. I chose Shadow of the Colossus. My presentation was the longest and I didn't even finish.

 

[orangeban]

Because sometimes games make me go, "Huh, hadn't thought of that", and sometimes they make me look at my hands and go, "Jesus, what kind of a monster am I?" and sometimes they make me cry and sometimes they make me giggle and high-five my nearest buddy, and sometimes they make angry. They evoke emotional responses from me is what I'm trying to say.

Plus, if a five year olds finger painting is "art" then something like Amnesia: The Dark Descent is definetly art.

 

[Hiroshi Mishima]

I'm on the edge as to whether or not games are art. Some games, such as Psychonauts and Shadow of the Colossus have high artistic properties. Excellent focus on story-telling, "painting" intrinsic, beautiful worlds, and then populating those worlds with truly interesting or intriguing characters. Note, the "storytelling" part doesn't really apply to SotC, but the Colossi themselves are most certainly interesting and beautiful creations.

On the other hand, you have games which I wouldn't call "art" anymore than I'd call a snuff-film a "Hollywood blockbuster". Unless you think painting the walls red with the blood of endless waves of baddies "artistic", or the mindless swearing of characters to be "beautiful". Don't get me started on the games which sometimes have borderline pornographic material, or pander to a specific audience.


I suppose one could draw a parallel to a child's finger-painting. Who really considers it art? The child? The parents? The random person who sees it pinned up on the fridge? Surely one of these people would call it art, but not all of them.

 

[Daniel Rongskog]

I'm a philosophy student and I want to write a paper about why videogames should be considered art.

you should probably read this: http://www.bogost.com/blog/the_metaphysics_videogame.shtml