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

[bojackx]

Although art has a completely different meaning to what I'm going to say, games are technically art.

Art looks pretty, games look pretty.
Art can be interpreted in multiple ways, games can be interpreted in multiple ways.
And they both take a long time to create in order to be good (generally).

I think art is just something that people can get opinions from it which differ with other's opinions, or something like that, so yeah games are art.

 

[Bvenged]

I make a thread on this subject and pour loads into it and I get less than 26 replies. You make a paragraph and now you're full steam ahead for a page 3 and 4. *Sigh*

Yeah, I'm butt-hurt, but so would anyone else who spends half an hour writing a bloody thread to have it shrivel up and die in an hour... I suppose we've all had threads do that though.

My opinion is this: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.336546-Where-do-we-draw-the-line-Videogames-are-not-art

It's that long-winded and detailed, it could be a report in itself. Enjoy.

 

[Dondonalien44]

To ask "Is x art" is a largely meaningless pursuit. Too many use "That's not art!" as a subtitution for the phrase "That does not appeal to my own personal tastes!". The main problem is that everyone seems to have a different definition of what art is. Comic theorist Scott McCloud's holds particular meaning for me: ?Art, as I see it, is any human activity which doesn?t grow out of either of our species? two basic instincts: survival and reproduction.?
Yes, games are art. And they're GOOD art, a relatively new medium that whether the silly elitists like it or not, is gaining a lot of mainstream acceptance as an art form. Every aspect of game production, from the writing to the concept art to the music and voiceacting, is regarded as a form of art. Where is the doubt in skeptics' minds? Is it the interactivity? If so, then we need to embrace the idea that the gamer is himself a part of the artistic process.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I'm gonna be honest... this sort of bugs me.

Anything can be art. I can take a picture of my shit and call it art. The stain on my shorts from where I just spilled ketchup can be considered art.

Art doesn't automatically make it a good thing. There can be shitty art pieces, just as there can be shitty games.

 

[Gearhead mk2]

Gaming takes elements from every other medium(writing, sound, visuals), combines them together, and adds inteactive and the chance to make your own story. Imagine what DaVinci, Shakespear and Mozart what have thought of this.

 

[wottabout]

Well, I have a rather broad definition of art, tending toward cartoonist Scott McCloud's definition of it being anything not done for reproduction or survival (although it is more complicated than that, of course). I don't think that art needs to necessarily elicit an emotion, require effort, or be in any way "good". Although most people would disagree with my definition, I think we can agree that if drawing and music and writing are art then [most] video games at least contain elements of art.

But there are a lot of people who think that calling something "art" implies a value judgment. "Oh, that painting looks like it was made by a two-year-old, it isn't art." "That video game is just running around shooting things, it isn't art." I disagree entirely with that definition, but, if someone insists on using it, then there is really no way for me to argue one way or another because then the classification of something as "art" becomes almost entirely subjective.

 

[Gabanuka]

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.

When I say useless I don't mean it isn't wonderful.

 

[Xanadu84]

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.

Not neccisarily. Those equals signs could be simple modus ponens. If it is useless, it is art. Games are useless, therefore it is art. That's likely what he meant, its just useing a kind of informal expression of the idea that bears a superficial resemblence to a logical falacy.

 

[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.

When I say useless I don't mean it isn't wonderful.

I see. So you must go and enjoy museums then. My apologies.
But let's not say that everything that's useless is art... Or can it be?

 

[Archer666]

The most important thing to ask yourself when considering if games are art: Why should you care? Will you enjoying gaming more when its "art"? Does that single word add anything more of value to a game?

 

[devotedsniper]

Personally the writing and the design/graphics of a game make it art, and when look at an image like the one below how can you argue.

Spoiler

Either way i don't care what other say, i play games for fun not art.

 

[Latinidiot]

Heard once that to be art, the piece must have no function other than existing. Paintings are not to cover walls. They are only visual input, and with that they inspire something in us. Same goes for music, but with sounds instead of colours. The list goes on, and then you get videogames. The medium that can combine all the previous ones, and on toP of that lays it all in the hands of the audience, making them part of the craftingprocess. All the ideas in the game are realised by us. To compare it with music; the notes are there, the melodies are finished. The song is written. But then the performer, in this case, the player, takes up the instrument and adds passion, expression, and emotion. That is the difference between having a computer bleep a schubert concert, and a human adding severity, or grace, or melancholy to vibrations in the air. And of course there are the popsongs, meant to amuse or to serve as a background for something else, like dancing. But in the end, any medium can have examples of art. Some are just harder to find.



And now, back to study for that math test tomorrow. Good night!

 

[OmniscientOstrich]

'Once a soup can became art, all the rules went out the window.'

- Dogbert

Yeah, as people have perennially will continue to state; art is purely subjective, when people are garnering money and reputations not for their actual talent but through the validation of overly analytical bearded tossers who attribute profundity to works that are utterly banal (my username is a dig at this very kind of behaviour) then I really don't see how anyone can have the sheer audacity to write off an entire medium as being not worthy of an already nebulous term.

 

[kyogen]

I presume that everyone on this website would say that games are art (me included), my question is why do we think this. I'm a philosophy student and I want to write a paper about why videogames should be considered art. I just want to have a discussion about why we think that games are art and get some tangible reasons to write about.

Thanks

Games are an expressive medium and thus have the potential to be art. Not all games are art. Not all books, films, sculptures, or paintings are art, either.

For your paper, have a look at:

Homo Ludens (Johan Huizinga)
Man, Play and Games (Roger Callois)
Unit Operations (Ian Bogost)*

*UO focuses specifically on video game criticism, but have a look at this guy's other books as well since his PhD is in Philosophy and Comp Lit and he's also a small indy developer

 

[Xeno-the-Hedgehog]

I see most art as fitting two basic criteria; someone deems it worth creating, and someone deems it worth their attention, even if only momentarily and subconsciously. It's value is determined by how much attention it garners and how passionate its creator(s) are in making it. A video game is the epitome of this logic. So much work goes into the creation of something whose sole purpose is to keep its players' attention for extended periods of time, from the concept stages to level design and programming and everything else, how could it not be considered a form of art?