Games will never be accepted as an art form
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Kagim's guide to something being art...
Step one: Make something.
Step two: As the creator, declare it is art.
Step three: Realize that something being art is not a matter of subjectivity. Everything that is created can be an art if the creator of it deems it so. Also realize that just because it's art doesn't mean it can't be a steaming pile of donkey dicks slow roasted over an open fire of horse shit with a creamy walrus semen sauce.
Seriously people. It's not that hard. Art doesn't need redefining. Art is merely a creation. You will ALWAYS ALWAYS AL-FUCKING-WAYS have detractors in ANY medium saying X isn't art.
That's how people work. They see something that isn't the same as them and their definition and deny it. That is completely normal.
In this case, you also have to realize the grand majority of people couldn't fucking care less. This is essentially a case of one minority group bitching and whining at another minority group. Just like the vast majority of people don't read a book or watch a movie then spend twenty minutes debating whether it's art or not. It doesn't fucking matter.
Step one: Make something.
Step two: As the creator, declare it is art.
Step three: Realize that something being art is not a matter of subjectivity. Everything that is created can be an art if the creator of it deems it so. Also realize that just because it's art doesn't mean it can't be a steaming pile of donkey dicks slow roasted over an open fire of horse shit with a creamy walrus semen sauce.
Seriously people. It's not that hard. Art doesn't need redefining. Art is merely a creation. You will ALWAYS ALWAYS AL-FUCKING-WAYS have detractors in ANY medium saying X isn't art.
That's how people work. They see something that isn't the same as them and their definition and deny it. That is completely normal.
In this case, you also have to realize the grand majority of people couldn't fucking care less. This is essentially a case of one minority group bitching and whining at another minority group. Just like the vast majority of people don't read a book or watch a movie then spend twenty minutes debating whether it's art or not. It doesn't fucking matter.
Video games are art. That much is pretty much indisputable fact; I have not yet seen a single argument that gives any real reason to think otherwise. I've seen some good and well-thought-out arguments, but none of them hold up under scrutiny. They are art. It's just a matter of time.
Perhaps we need to get rid of the word "game," but we don't need to change anything in how we make them to qualify, or eventually be culturally recognized, as art. We should expand what games are capable of, sure, and we've started to do so: visual novels like Clannad and interactive dramas like Heavy Rain have already pushed those boundaries, but still technically fall pretty squarely into both the categories of "video game" and "story." Interactive story, for that matter. But then, so do Mass Effect, Bioshock, Beyond Good and Evil, even games like Mario. Games do not need to change to be art, because they already are. Whether that fact is culturally accepted is simply a matter of time.
And to those saying it doesn't matter whether video games are considered art or not, you obviously don't know about the recent Supreme Court case, else you wouldn't be saying something so blatantly stupid. We really need to put the "I just want to have fun, so why does it matter" argument to bed; it's entirely self-centered and has absolutely no regard for the medium as a whole, which, ironically enough, does affect you pretty intensely. It affects us all intensely. It's time we stop being lazy, selfish idiots and start standing up for our medium.
Perhaps we need to get rid of the word "game," but we don't need to change anything in how we make them to qualify, or eventually be culturally recognized, as art. We should expand what games are capable of, sure, and we've started to do so: visual novels like Clannad and interactive dramas like Heavy Rain have already pushed those boundaries, but still technically fall pretty squarely into both the categories of "video game" and "story." Interactive story, for that matter. But then, so do Mass Effect, Bioshock, Beyond Good and Evil, even games like Mario. Games do not need to change to be art, because they already are. Whether that fact is culturally accepted is simply a matter of time.
And to those saying it doesn't matter whether video games are considered art or not, you obviously don't know about the recent Supreme Court case, else you wouldn't be saying something so blatantly stupid. We really need to put the "I just want to have fun, so why does it matter" argument to bed; it's entirely self-centered and has absolutely no regard for the medium as a whole, which, ironically enough, does affect you pretty intensely. It affects us all intensely. It's time we stop being lazy, selfish idiots and start standing up for our medium.
I think that games can be art, are art, and will eventually be accepted as art. But it's going to take a while before people realize that games aren't just children's toys and that they can be as expressive and artistic as any other medium.
For example, people consider that film is an art form. There will always be those There Will Be Bloods and there will always be those Conan the Barbarians. It can have the thoughtful, provocative works, and it can also have the fun, popcorn flicks. It's the same with games. There will always be those Bioshocks and those EDF: Insect Armageddons.
Plus, I don't know why many gamers think that having artistic qualities in games makes them less fun. That makes no sense. I hate to bring out the overused Bioshock card again, but it's the best example. That game was ridiculously fun, and it had a great, thoughtful story. That line of reasoning that games can't be fun and art at the same time makes no sense.
For example, people consider that film is an art form. There will always be those There Will Be Bloods and there will always be those Conan the Barbarians. It can have the thoughtful, provocative works, and it can also have the fun, popcorn flicks. It's the same with games. There will always be those Bioshocks and those EDF: Insect Armageddons.
Plus, I don't know why many gamers think that having artistic qualities in games makes them less fun. That makes no sense. I hate to bring out the overused Bioshock card again, but it's the best example. That game was ridiculously fun, and it had a great, thoughtful story. That line of reasoning that games can't be fun and art at the same time makes no sense.
Honestly, "art" is just a word. An intangible, subjective concept. If games aren't art, what are they? Toys? I doubt that. Maybe games are better than art. Maybe in a few years, "art" will be passé, and artists will all be clamouring to attain the label of "interactive experience", or whatever new label that games take on, if not "art".retyopy said:
I don't really care if it's considered art or not by any authority. I think it's art, and I'm sure many people on this forum think its art.
But I think it will be considered art all over the world soon. The USA have ruled that it's art already. Not long before a movement grows in other countries to get the same thing put through. As the US is quite passionate about gaming, of course they got the bill first.
Other countries just need a little longer. Gaming is art, everything about it is art. Including the hacky slashy maimathons.
But I think it will be considered art all over the world soon. The USA have ruled that it's art already. Not long before a movement grows in other countries to get the same thing put through. As the US is quite passionate about gaming, of course they got the bill first.
Other countries just need a little longer. Gaming is art, everything about it is art. Including the hacky slashy maimathons.
The problem though is that there's no clear definition of art because it's just something we make up, something that exists because we say it exists. The dictionary definition of art is "Something that effects the emotions" which is very broad, because with this defintion Genocide is art, I mean I'm sure anyone who even reads about a genocide is effected emotionally.retyopy said:
Even then it's still a matter of perspective, I can see the Mona Lisa and I don't give a shit, it's just a picture nothing that special to me yet to countless other people it's something beautiful.
Being art does not equal being a movie. I really cannot see why fighting off a horde of zombies is not artful, sure it's not what snob people want you to believe art is but if it speaks to you in a conscious or subconscious level then it's good enough to be art. For example, I consider almost any survival (survival-horror more specifically) art because it makes me feel alone and helpless, a game like Dungeons of Dredmor is art in my opinion because I know I will never win it, just like life.
You explicitly ignored pretty much everything that can make games art. No, games with extended sequences of enemy killing between cutscenes are not and will not be art. Yes, super linear games that are basically movies that you "control" by moving from point A to point B to point C are barely games. You're ignoring the advantage of games, interactivity, exploration. Take, as a micro example and not necessarily as an example of a game that is art, Half-Life 2.
Other than the events that happen to you immediately in the game, most of the plot is entirely optional because it is in the form of things sitting around the game world. An abandoned house full of zombies of resistance members. Newspaper clippings that mention some war you think you heard mentioned by a random npc earlier. Casual mentions of things in conversations that become meaningful if you walk into a random room and read something on a desk.
A film that showed everyone of these little things would be long and seem kind of boring. A novel that interrupts the story to print out these documents every chapter or so would be disjointed. But most of all, in either of these cases these things would be obvious. They are obviously important. That's where games shine. In giving you the freedom to move where you want and how you want, you can discover things that may be pointless, they may be trivial, or they may be part of the narrative. You can unravel things for yourself, unlike the guided tours of the story you get in film or writing.
Now I guess I've been talking about games as a narrative form rather than as art, but in my personal opinion (since art is basically what any individual thinks it is) narratives are the best kind of art.
Other than the events that happen to you immediately in the game, most of the plot is entirely optional because it is in the form of things sitting around the game world. An abandoned house full of zombies of resistance members. Newspaper clippings that mention some war you think you heard mentioned by a random npc earlier. Casual mentions of things in conversations that become meaningful if you walk into a random room and read something on a desk.
A film that showed everyone of these little things would be long and seem kind of boring. A novel that interrupts the story to print out these documents every chapter or so would be disjointed. But most of all, in either of these cases these things would be obvious. They are obviously important. That's where games shine. In giving you the freedom to move where you want and how you want, you can discover things that may be pointless, they may be trivial, or they may be part of the narrative. You can unravel things for yourself, unlike the guided tours of the story you get in film or writing.
Now I guess I've been talking about games as a narrative form rather than as art, but in my personal opinion (since art is basically what any individual thinks it is) narratives are the best kind of art.
Wait, waitwaitwaitwait. Maybe we need to get our definition of "art" straight, here. Games have potential. Are you trying to say that making them artistic would require taking out the interactive aspect? Because that's...that's idiotic. Games as an artistic medium need that interaction. It's what makes them what they are.
Case in point: Portal. Widely considered one of the best games out there. I would call it art, and there's almost no cutscenes or story at all. Would you be able to "watch" the game and get the same experience?
Case in point: Portal. Widely considered one of the best games out there. I would call it art, and there's almost no cutscenes or story at all. Would you be able to "watch" the game and get the same experience?
All games are already art. That's right. Halo is just as much "art" as Shadow of the Colossus which is just as much "art" as the Mona freaking Lisa. Whether or not they are good art is where the real discussion lies, and whether or not you enjoy them is another discussion entirely.
This is the same stupid discussion as "Herpaderp is rap real music?". Yes it is. Even Soulja Boy is making music, and he is indeed a musician. He's just really bad at it.
This is the same stupid discussion as "Herpaderp is rap real music?". Yes it is. Even Soulja Boy is making music, and he is indeed a musician. He's just really bad at it.
*Cracks fist*
I bet you also think Mega Man Legends 3 won't be a good game too.
Joking, buddy. It's not that it won't be accepted; the elders of our society won't accept it; us, the youth of developed society will accept it (you'll be surprised by how many people like video games these days, I was 0.0). Us, the new future, will allow games as an art. just as drawing started it, just as books became so, just as movies did; Gaming is the next evolution of art.
I bet you also think Mega Man Legends 3 won't be a good game too.
Joking, buddy. It's not that it won't be accepted; the elders of our society won't accept it; us, the youth of developed society will accept it (you'll be surprised by how many people like video games these days, I was 0.0). Us, the new future, will allow games as an art. just as drawing started it, just as books became so, just as movies did; Gaming is the next evolution of art.
*slow clap*Crash 9000 said:
You are wonderful, sir/ma'am. Welcome to the Escapist, and judging from your argument, you are VERY welcome here!
But a lot of art isn't deep, or spiritual or though-provoking. That's why we have Michael Bay movies and Twilight. Gaming happens to have more of these titles because A) it's a young medium that still sorta sees itself as a toy, and B) gaming has other things going for it than though-provocation.
Think about it, paintings and poems that aren't thought-provoking won't have much merit.
Less so with books, they could be well written I guess, but they still kinda need to provoke thoughts.
Movies, they can look nice, have good effects, so you get some that aren't thought-provoking.
Games, they can be mindless fun, where you just mash buttons and shit happens and you laugh. So you get quite a bit of non-thought-provoking stuff.
However, you can get deep videogames, for example, I think Half-Life 2 has very good writing, and one of my favourite villains of all time. And not just out of videogames, out of media, full stop.
Think about it, paintings and poems that aren't thought-provoking won't have much merit.
Less so with books, they could be well written I guess, but they still kinda need to provoke thoughts.
Movies, they can look nice, have good effects, so you get some that aren't thought-provoking.
Games, they can be mindless fun, where you just mash buttons and shit happens and you laugh. So you get quite a bit of non-thought-provoking stuff.
However, you can get deep videogames, for example, I think Half-Life 2 has very good writing, and one of my favourite villains of all time. And not just out of videogames, out of media, full stop.
This whole argument is just a game of semantics. Every person posting here has a different idea of what the words "art," "games," and "fun" mean. Nobody here could ever be completely right or wrong because you're each assuming that these words mean something differently before you continue. In the end, this is just an exercise in pointlessness...
...and what kind of nerd would I be not to join in the pointlessness?
To those that think art will ruin the sense of fun, let me ask you? Is it really impossible to believe that their are "artistic" drawings and "fun" drawings, or "artistic" music and "fun" music? In both of these media, both art and fun exist, so why can't the same be true in gaming?
To those that think that art is simply graphics, would you say that literature and music aren't art? If not, then why can't the narrative of a game be art? Why can't the gameplay? Have you honestly never felt triumph when you succeeded in a game? Or dread when you near death or failure? Or shock when something unexpected happens?
To those that don't see the point of getting games legitimized, ask yourself: Are you willing to put up with censorship? With certain games getting banned for content? With titles getting dropped for the sake of political correctness? With stagnation? With gaming making you more suspicious in the eyes of authority, like how teenagers and blacks are often viewed? With gaming becoming illegal? All of these things could possibly happen if games aren't viewed as legitimate in the eyes of both the public and the governments of the world.
To those that think that art and entertainment or profit (or both) cannot coexist, do you not find Shakespeare entertaining? Do you not find Beethoven entertaining? Do you not find the Mona Lisa entertaining? Perhaps you don't, but each of these things was originally made for one of two goals: profit and/or entertainment. Yet these things are all viewed as art.
To those that think that art and fun can and already are present in the same titles, that all aspects of games contribute to the artistic experience of it, and that games should be recognized, not just by a governing body, but by the general public as such, then I have one thing to say to you: I'm on your team.
I don't know who will take the time to read this wall of text, but to all those that do, regardless of what your opinion is: thank you for being respectful enough to read this rather than ignore it. Just remember: all of our opinions are pointless.
...and what kind of nerd would I be not to join in the pointlessness?
To those that think art will ruin the sense of fun, let me ask you? Is it really impossible to believe that their are "artistic" drawings and "fun" drawings, or "artistic" music and "fun" music? In both of these media, both art and fun exist, so why can't the same be true in gaming?
To those that think that art is simply graphics, would you say that literature and music aren't art? If not, then why can't the narrative of a game be art? Why can't the gameplay? Have you honestly never felt triumph when you succeeded in a game? Or dread when you near death or failure? Or shock when something unexpected happens?
To those that don't see the point of getting games legitimized, ask yourself: Are you willing to put up with censorship? With certain games getting banned for content? With titles getting dropped for the sake of political correctness? With stagnation? With gaming making you more suspicious in the eyes of authority, like how teenagers and blacks are often viewed? With gaming becoming illegal? All of these things could possibly happen if games aren't viewed as legitimate in the eyes of both the public and the governments of the world.
To those that think that art and entertainment or profit (or both) cannot coexist, do you not find Shakespeare entertaining? Do you not find Beethoven entertaining? Do you not find the Mona Lisa entertaining? Perhaps you don't, but each of these things was originally made for one of two goals: profit and/or entertainment. Yet these things are all viewed as art.
To those that think that art and fun can and already are present in the same titles, that all aspects of games contribute to the artistic experience of it, and that games should be recognized, not just by a governing body, but by the general public as such, then I have one thing to say to you: I'm on your team.
I don't know who will take the time to read this wall of text, but to all those that do, regardless of what your opinion is: thank you for being respectful enough to read this rather than ignore it. Just remember: all of our opinions are pointless.
