Oh god not this shit again. I'll just say that the same thing was said about comics. Now stop making these kinds of threads.
Games will never be accepted as an art form
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Oy, I don't know if I can really disagree more, but in order to illustrate this, I have a to dip into other fields commonly dismissed in their time.
You see, back before the 1940s, movies, like videogames, were facing a similar controversy. High brow at experts had engaged in a battle of whether movies had the same artistic value as say, painting or literature. This was a tenuous debate based on singular authorship, and anybody here who has watched Bob Chipman's "Game OverThinker" knows exactly where I'm going with this. Long story short, a movement called "Nouvelle Vauge" presented the argument that, while a movie does not have singular authorship, it does have a primary influence in the form of a director. This movement lead an entire social movement that allowed movies to be considered of artistic value on par with literature, sculpting and painting.
But, not content with ripping off MovieBob's arguments, I can also think of a couple other mediums who faced this particular controversy. Science Fiction Literature is probably my first example, as it was not too long ago. You see, in the 1950s, like film, Science Fiction literature was under scrutiny of whether or not we can consider it art. Though it did have hilarious implication (in the form of Sturgeon's Revelation), it had the benefit of being able to live discover exactly how wrong it was. Instead of going through the history of this, I'm going to just point out that Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is considered the crowning achievement of contemporary literature despite having an essentially Science Fiction Premise (set in then future, having Televisions that could monitor people, etc.). Even in other mediums, Stanley Kubrick's re-visioning of Arthur C. Clarke's Science Fiction Classic: 2001: A Space Odyssey, is considered amongst the most artistic movies to date.
Though, I'm not going to say your argument has no merit. I mean, after all Comic Books have been under the same controversy for years and they are to date nearly 90 years old. Though a strong argument can be made for, with the rise of popular comic book movies, such as The Dark Knight and the Spiderman movies, that there is a large shift social perspective regarding this medium. I would not be at all surprised if Comics, with their rise in popularity, begin to engage in this debate themselves.
But the most compelling argument to this case is one in which retyopy actually dismisses in his thesis. And that is the Dada movement. In the 1910s a small movement of "found art" and "anti-art" had began to sweep several nations. The best example of this is of course Fountain. If you do not know what Fountain is, let me give a small history lesson. A studio called the Society of Independent Artists had began scrutinizing pieces of art, considering the Dada movements (amongst others) to be inherently unartistic. Marcel Duchamp, a member of the board had decided to submit Mens Public Urinal signed under the pseudonym R. Mutt. This was accepted into the SIA, until shortly after it was revealed to be a farce. So what was point of this? Some say that Marcel Duchamp was trying to illustrate to his colleagues that art is not something that can be readily defined, nor scrutinized. As a result Fountain is still under display in several museums (including the Nelson in my home town of Kansas City) and is championed as one of the great contemporary artistic achievements.
I guess the point of this exercise is to illustrate a long history of other controversial mediums that have been since canonized as art. In this, I can conclude, through reason of history, that considering video games to "never be accepted as art" is not only inherently shortsighted, but ignorant of even recent history. And for those of you who say that you don't care whether or not society considers our favorite medium art. I'm going to say something very controversial here: You have either not reached your mid to late 20s yet, or you are lying. You see, as you begin to approach this humble age you will realize that the world judges you based on not only what you do, but what you do on your off time. Any gamer of this age wishes our medium to be considered an artform, if not only to not feel like people aren't thinking of you as a child when you say you play video games on your off time.
In conclusion, I do not believe this it altruistic to think that video games can be considered art, especially in 20 or so years when the generation that grew up appreciating video games begin to reach the majority. History repeats itself, and we must remain aware that this is not the first or last time this battle will be fought, and it may simply take the rise of another generation and the shift of the social Zeitgeist in order to realize artistic potential of video games. But saying "never gonna happen" is just as shortsighted as when IBM said that the personal computer will never catch on.
You see, back before the 1940s, movies, like videogames, were facing a similar controversy. High brow at experts had engaged in a battle of whether movies had the same artistic value as say, painting or literature. This was a tenuous debate based on singular authorship, and anybody here who has watched Bob Chipman's "Game OverThinker" knows exactly where I'm going with this. Long story short, a movement called "Nouvelle Vauge" presented the argument that, while a movie does not have singular authorship, it does have a primary influence in the form of a director. This movement lead an entire social movement that allowed movies to be considered of artistic value on par with literature, sculpting and painting.
But, not content with ripping off MovieBob's arguments, I can also think of a couple other mediums who faced this particular controversy. Science Fiction Literature is probably my first example, as it was not too long ago. You see, in the 1950s, like film, Science Fiction literature was under scrutiny of whether or not we can consider it art. Though it did have hilarious implication (in the form of Sturgeon's Revelation), it had the benefit of being able to live discover exactly how wrong it was. Instead of going through the history of this, I'm going to just point out that Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell is considered the crowning achievement of contemporary literature despite having an essentially Science Fiction Premise (set in then future, having Televisions that could monitor people, etc.). Even in other mediums, Stanley Kubrick's re-visioning of Arthur C. Clarke's Science Fiction Classic: 2001: A Space Odyssey, is considered amongst the most artistic movies to date.
Though, I'm not going to say your argument has no merit. I mean, after all Comic Books have been under the same controversy for years and they are to date nearly 90 years old. Though a strong argument can be made for, with the rise of popular comic book movies, such as The Dark Knight and the Spiderman movies, that there is a large shift social perspective regarding this medium. I would not be at all surprised if Comics, with their rise in popularity, begin to engage in this debate themselves.
But the most compelling argument to this case is one in which retyopy actually dismisses in his thesis. And that is the Dada movement. In the 1910s a small movement of "found art" and "anti-art" had began to sweep several nations. The best example of this is of course Fountain. If you do not know what Fountain is, let me give a small history lesson. A studio called the Society of Independent Artists had began scrutinizing pieces of art, considering the Dada movements (amongst others) to be inherently unartistic. Marcel Duchamp, a member of the board had decided to submit Mens Public Urinal signed under the pseudonym R. Mutt. This was accepted into the SIA, until shortly after it was revealed to be a farce. So what was point of this? Some say that Marcel Duchamp was trying to illustrate to his colleagues that art is not something that can be readily defined, nor scrutinized. As a result Fountain is still under display in several museums (including the Nelson in my home town of Kansas City) and is championed as one of the great contemporary artistic achievements.
I guess the point of this exercise is to illustrate a long history of other controversial mediums that have been since canonized as art. In this, I can conclude, through reason of history, that considering video games to "never be accepted as art" is not only inherently shortsighted, but ignorant of even recent history. And for those of you who say that you don't care whether or not society considers our favorite medium art. I'm going to say something very controversial here: You have either not reached your mid to late 20s yet, or you are lying. You see, as you begin to approach this humble age you will realize that the world judges you based on not only what you do, but what you do on your off time. Any gamer of this age wishes our medium to be considered an artform, if not only to not feel like people aren't thinking of you as a child when you say you play video games on your off time.
In conclusion, I do not believe this it altruistic to think that video games can be considered art, especially in 20 or so years when the generation that grew up appreciating video games begin to reach the majority. History repeats itself, and we must remain aware that this is not the first or last time this battle will be fought, and it may simply take the rise of another generation and the shift of the social Zeitgeist in order to realize artistic potential of video games. But saying "never gonna happen" is just as shortsighted as when IBM said that the personal computer will never catch on.
I honestly don't care if games were to be classed as art or not, it's a silly argument. I have to say though, some "arty" games such as Enslaved and Knytt have to be some of the best games I've played, hell Ico is the token art game and it's my favourite game of all time.
So a watered-down, shitty Silent Hill game that could accomplish the same thing, and be a good game, while being a real Silent Hill game?retyopy said:
First, you're playing the wrong games if you think the game part only consists of violence and puzzles. Your ignorance is deafening, and I won't bother giving many effective artistic games as examples.retyopy said:
Second, you're not saying anything new, we get a "are games art?" thread every week for years now.
You do realise that cutscenes in videogames (already an outdated form of storytelling) is an incredibly limited way of looking at the creative expression found in a videogame?
Art is only art when judged by the audience. Videogames are accepted as art already as most people have already pointed it out, sorry if that upsets you.
http://img571.imageshack.us/img571/7960/artofvideogames.jpg
The art of videogames is now going to be shown at the Smithsonian from March - September 2012 [http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/#games].
Sure it won't. Just like movies never were.
For me anyone who condemnes games because of grind is not someone whos opinion I care about.
For me anyone who condemnes games because of grind is not someone whos opinion I care about.
OMG that's horrible. It'll never catch on. This Monet is clearly a no-talent hack!AmrasCalmacil said:In its time people said impressionism would never be art.
If that's so, what is this?
>.>
Personally, I think all video games are art. But in general, they're all just video games.
If your going to make any visuals in a game, whether its a enemy made of red pixels, a weapon made by polygons and metal textures, or a cutscene/FMV using live actors, you need art to bring it across and make it represent what you want it to. But you don't just call games 'a work of art' in the same way you don't call games 'a work of engineering/coding/acting/literacy/production.'
If someone want to make a game because they have an artistic vision or story, then fine. It's 'art', but it doesn't necessarily make it good art. Super Mario wasn't made to be art (FACT: Mario was given a mustache because it was easier than animating a mouth), but the art it contains does it's job well. It's simple and creative, sacrificing detail for clarity, The pixelated art of Mario is now the symbol of a leading game company, as well as a symbol of gaming in general.
If your going to make any visuals in a game, whether its a enemy made of red pixels, a weapon made by polygons and metal textures, or a cutscene/FMV using live actors, you need art to bring it across and make it represent what you want it to. But you don't just call games 'a work of art' in the same way you don't call games 'a work of engineering/coding/acting/literacy/production.'
If someone want to make a game because they have an artistic vision or story, then fine. It's 'art', but it doesn't necessarily make it good art. Super Mario wasn't made to be art (FACT: Mario was given a mustache because it was easier than animating a mouth), but the art it contains does it's job well. It's simple and creative, sacrificing detail for clarity, The pixelated art of Mario is now the symbol of a leading game company, as well as a symbol of gaming in general.
If one is so insecure to require popular-justification for their opinions or appreciation of works (whatever they might be), then they have no business criticizing what others consider "art".
Honestly; it's just meaningless trolling at that point.
Especially if it's about a point of obvious controversy.
Honestly; it's just meaningless trolling at that point.
Especially if it's about a point of obvious controversy.
I could also shot back many never feel anything from a painting. It's just a pretty picture on some cloth. Art give only what you put into it.Generic Gamer said:
Architecture has long been considered a form of art and it houses a very specific purpose(the purpose of housing. Actually, a strong argument can be made that most of all art has a specific purpose. Whether to revere the gods (Michelangelo's the Creation of Adam on the Sistine Chapel, Dante's Divine Comedy, Jesu, Joy of Man's Desires by Bach) or To make a comment about current societal conditions and the track in which society seems to heading (1984 by George Orwell, In Praise of Folly by Erasmus, The Jungle). More on subject, most of these pieces of art have had great utilitarian Uses of in our lives. The Jungle played a big role in the formation of Unions and public empathy toward the working class, allowing for better working conditions and fair pay in the jobs we enjoy today. In Praise of Folly was an argument for humor in a time in which there was little to be found, changing the common ideals on life and leading to a great rennaisance of humor, paving the way for writers like Jonathan Swift and eventually allowing the Ben Croshaws and Doug Walkers of the world to have their voice. 1984 simply made n accurate prediction 20 years after it had projected it, ok so not ALL of it changes the world.DexterNorgam said:
The point is art has one of the most powerful purposes, it defines the society it exists in. To the point that to this day we judge past societies off of their art.
So what if people who don't play games don't consider it art? We don't need there approval. games are art because they are made of art. every texture, every 3D model, all of the music, and all of the story is art. but i don't need to make others believe it is. simply put, I accept games as an art so to me games are a accepted form of art.
Honestly I thought games had transcended the general idea of 'art' ages ago, I mean a drawing is considered art, a symphony is considered art, a good novel is something considered a piece of art... most good games now days have a million carefully put together three dimensional pictures, a couple novels worth of dialogue and story, and several symphonies of music all put together in such a way that they can sneak past your defenses and change your mood without you even noticing their presence, combine that with the amount of computer programming and science behind making the game engines and you can hardly compare something like portal 2 or a modern final fantasy game to some crummy picture of a lady smiling or hell even works of famous artists like mozart.
Video games can't be considered art because they already surpassed art so much that there's no real comparison. I mean seriously, how much joy are you really going to get from a single picture or a single song? Art can share an emotion, a VG though? that shares an experience.
Video games can't be considered art because they already surpassed art so much that there's no real comparison. I mean seriously, how much joy are you really going to get from a single picture or a single song? Art can share an emotion, a VG though? that shares an experience.