Games will never be accepted as an art form
- Thread starter retyopy
- Start date
By my definition, Games are already Art, if you consider Art to be a means by which humans express themselves creatively. A game can be the blandest bland bowl this side of blandsville, and I'd still call it art.
Now whether or not this medium will be accepted by hoity-toity rich people sipping martinis in an art gallery... wait, who cares about those guys again?
Now whether or not this medium will be accepted by hoity-toity rich people sipping martinis in an art gallery... wait, who cares about those guys again?
I understand you don't want to debate over your points, but I'd like to question two things just to get a better understanding of your argument:retyopy said:
Firstly, you seem to think art can only be found in cut-scene. That's movie, rather than game-related art. If games are supposed to be artistic it is from the fact that they are can be interacted with. Enemies and obstacles in games can be something other than just fulfilling the 'game' parts in so the entire premise isn't a cut-scene. Whether or not this has been done well is arguable. Can I ask why you think that playing something prevents it being art.
Secondly, the idea of the Dada movement is an art. The very fact that they displayed a meaning that you both understood and recognise as a form of art shows that it worked. What are you definitions of art if it isn't to project a meaning or feeling to other people?
I'm just pondering and giving my own input, please don't see this as an attack.
This is what I was thinking as well when reading his/her post but we shouldn't assume things like that because we can never be 100% sure, and it's not nice.The-Epicly-Named-Man said:
OT: I believe anything that can entertain people is art. Art does not have a proper definition and it always comes down to peoples personal preferences (like your opinion), and that's because everyone finds different things entertaining because that's their personal preference.
You can grab the most entertaining movie, game and most powerful song and it won't probably entertain even 50% of the whole world.
I do believe however, that there is great art and absolute crap art, and that they can be determined by people who understand what quality really is.
Ahhh the hypocrisy of the internet... God I love it.
I dont care if games are art or not. All I care about is how often I can think of HK-47's "love" definition while looking down the sights of a sniper rifle in a game. At the end of they day why should anyone care? Is convincing the world that games are art going to win you a Nobel prize? Will it cure cancer? Will it make your life any more enjoyable or miserable than it currently is? My line of thinking is probably not. So who gives a shit? As long as you enjoy yourself who cares?
Edit: One final thing. I would rather games be ridiculous and fun like Bulletstorm or ridiculous and fun and outrageous and made up like mass effect than games like heavy rain or other games where the protagonist has more life problems than I do.
I dont care if games are art or not. All I care about is how often I can think of HK-47's "love" definition while looking down the sights of a sniper rifle in a game. At the end of they day why should anyone care? Is convincing the world that games are art going to win you a Nobel prize? Will it cure cancer? Will it make your life any more enjoyable or miserable than it currently is? My line of thinking is probably not. So who gives a shit? As long as you enjoy yourself who cares?
Edit: One final thing. I would rather games be ridiculous and fun like Bulletstorm or ridiculous and fun and outrageous and made up like mass effect than games like heavy rain or other games where the protagonist has more life problems than I do.
Why do you guys want games to be taken as art? Why can't they be in a class of their own or better yet just be fun. I don't play games to be accepted or be part of a group I play them for fun and that's how games should stay.
I accept your rationale, though i disagree with it (brilliant idea with the self derogatory tone, it may keep this from being a poop slinging match for a couple of posts at least).
On topic, i offer you the same challenge as i offered Roger Ebert: Provide a definition of art that does not include video games.
My definition of art is an emotion expressed through a technical medium*, designed to convey a message and create an emotional response in the responder. By this logic, i can't see video games being anything but art, even if the player doesn't feel very "arty".
*By technical medium i mean something that requires skill or finesse to achieve. Snapping a quick pic on your iPhone doesn't count, Adjusting the exposure on a camera to saturate a shot does.
I have another problem with your argument, that a games content can be replaced with cutscene. I disagree. I want to avoid spoilers here, so take the most interesting part of any game, then imagine watching it on youtube. Hell, ACTUALLY watch it on youtube. It doesn't click. It doesn't feel real. It doesn't FEEL at all. When you're not engaged in the activity, you aren't immersed in it. The part of your brain that corresponds to emotion is limited when you watch it happen to someone else. At best you'll get a feeling of sympathy, at worst, complete apathy.
Now, to actually address your point. I feel that games will be accepted as an art form
1. When peoples perception of art changes. Right now it's too focused on the visual. On "outside, looking in". Artisans and art culture are often disregarded as fruitcakes when they are seen looking at a toilet and saying, "yes, i see a fragmented soul reaching out, trapped in the chains of morality" but this is only because people don't understand the thought processes behind it. They see a picture/photo/film that looks weird and say "oh it's supposed to be ARTY".
2. When this medium and its audience grow up a bit. Goes without saying really. Having the predominant stereotype of game enthusiasts being hyped up 13 year olds screaming into their mics and fat 30 year olds living in their parents basement is hardly helping matters.
3. When the people involved start caring about making good games, instead of games that will sell well. I'm mostly talking about publishers and investers here, but designers are not out of the fire. I am currently in my final semester undertaking a degree in video game design, and no shit, three quarters of my lectures are about marketability and advertising appeal.
Heh, turns out this is a wall of text too. I tend to ramble when i'm passionate about a subject, hope this helps you. Otherwise, by all means, tear my argument down, i'm always ready to defend Video Games.
On topic, i offer you the same challenge as i offered Roger Ebert: Provide a definition of art that does not include video games.
My definition of art is an emotion expressed through a technical medium*, designed to convey a message and create an emotional response in the responder. By this logic, i can't see video games being anything but art, even if the player doesn't feel very "arty".
*By technical medium i mean something that requires skill or finesse to achieve. Snapping a quick pic on your iPhone doesn't count, Adjusting the exposure on a camera to saturate a shot does.
I have another problem with your argument, that a games content can be replaced with cutscene. I disagree. I want to avoid spoilers here, so take the most interesting part of any game, then imagine watching it on youtube. Hell, ACTUALLY watch it on youtube. It doesn't click. It doesn't feel real. It doesn't FEEL at all. When you're not engaged in the activity, you aren't immersed in it. The part of your brain that corresponds to emotion is limited when you watch it happen to someone else. At best you'll get a feeling of sympathy, at worst, complete apathy.
Now, to actually address your point. I feel that games will be accepted as an art form
1. When peoples perception of art changes. Right now it's too focused on the visual. On "outside, looking in". Artisans and art culture are often disregarded as fruitcakes when they are seen looking at a toilet and saying, "yes, i see a fragmented soul reaching out, trapped in the chains of morality" but this is only because people don't understand the thought processes behind it. They see a picture/photo/film that looks weird and say "oh it's supposed to be ARTY".
2. When this medium and its audience grow up a bit. Goes without saying really. Having the predominant stereotype of game enthusiasts being hyped up 13 year olds screaming into their mics and fat 30 year olds living in their parents basement is hardly helping matters.
3. When the people involved start caring about making good games, instead of games that will sell well. I'm mostly talking about publishers and investers here, but designers are not out of the fire. I am currently in my final semester undertaking a degree in video game design, and no shit, three quarters of my lectures are about marketability and advertising appeal.
Heh, turns out this is a wall of text too. I tend to ramble when i'm passionate about a subject, hope this helps you. Otherwise, by all means, tear my argument down, i'm always ready to defend Video Games.
Portal
Beyond Good and Evil
Mass Effect
Fallout 3
Deus Ex
Thief
Silent Hill 2
Prince of Persia
All of these games are works of art, and yet they defy your definition of artful games
And just for reference. In the infancy of motion pictures, many people thought they were just a shallow novelty with no artistic potential.
Beyond Good and Evil
Mass Effect
Fallout 3
Deus Ex
Thief
Silent Hill 2
Prince of Persia
All of these games are works of art, and yet they defy your definition of artful games
If you don't believe that video games will ever get the respect they deserve as an art form, that is your business, but your narrow view of what can and cannot be art will not inform my hobby, or my opinions about it.retyopy said:
And just for reference. In the infancy of motion pictures, many people thought they were just a shallow novelty with no artistic potential.
I dunno, maybe if the people in the development team are trying to express themselves through the game they're making then yeah games are art. Take those games that relly on a well written story more than on graphics and all that. Literature is art. Music composed for games. That's art. If anything a game can be a mixture of various art forms, and well I guess that could be a new art form in itself.
You're right. Imagine university courses that tackled game analysis. They'd be very rich since they'd have to tackle literature, music, cinema, painting, sculpture and all the history behind the arts in order to understand certain influences. Not to mention that people from different countries having different sources of inspiration due to their own cultural heritage work in games and bring their own influences to the table.animehermit said:
I'm just going to leave this here and move on.
But since I'm an attention whore, I'm also going to add that games, to my personal experience Role-playing games but possibly other games for others, the game can be an expression of the gamer (the artist) rather than the creator. I've certainly learnt a lot about myself through RPing, when I don't play as myself, about my reasoning and aspects about myself and what not. They have done that far better than any film or book for me.
But since I'm an attention whore, I'm also going to add that games, to my personal experience Role-playing games but possibly other games for others, the game can be an expression of the gamer (the artist) rather than the creator. I've certainly learnt a lot about myself through RPing, when I don't play as myself, about my reasoning and aspects about myself and what not. They have done that far better than any film or book for me.
To every one who thinks calling games art is a bad thing, or that it'll take the fun away think of this, painting is art, but some people paint houses, they use the same medium for very different purposes the movies are art and some of them are oscar worthy or only get shown at the caann film festival and are in finnsh and you never hear of them because the local cinema is playing cheesie romantic comedies to fill seats.
We really can have our cake and eat it too, EB or gamestop will always stock lots of cod clones and and racing games, party games, sports simulators, whatever your into, but some people will make games that test boundaries and you'll probably never know about it.
Also even as far back as 2007 one of my uni lecturers accepted the artistic merits of games aswell as the educational benefit of games in there current format claiming that games just based on play still helped develop problem solving and cognition skills
We really can have our cake and eat it too, EB or gamestop will always stock lots of cod clones and and racing games, party games, sports simulators, whatever your into, but some people will make games that test boundaries and you'll probably never know about it.
Also even as far back as 2007 one of my uni lecturers accepted the artistic merits of games aswell as the educational benefit of games in there current format claiming that games just based on play still helped develop problem solving and cognition skills
Wrong. About what I bolded. I'm sorry, but that's just the way it is. Interactivity has a totally different impact than cutscenes and accomplishes artistic goals in different ways. Go watch the Extra Credits Episode about Narrative Mechanics.retyopy said:
Also, it is already considered an art form outside of the gaming community. The US supreme court decided that it's an art form, and a few weeks or months ago some art thing added video games to it's list of accepted forms of art.(the US Foundation Of The Arts, I believe) So I don't really see what you are saying here.
Lastly, time changes everything. 100 years ago, movies didn't even exist, and now they are the most prevalent art form out there. No one is wise enough to tell where mankind will be in 50 or 100 years.
OT: As gaming in general has already been accepted as art among a large portion of the art community of the world, and will likely be recognized as an art form by the general populace within the next 20 years, I can't really address the original topic.
H...hhh...Hah...Hhahahah...No! I can barely contain myself! A whimpering fool, a pseudo-intellectual, a person utterly depraved of the knowledge of the meaning of the word "art", it's definition, it's purpose, it's source, everything! dare says, nay! accuses, mind you, the new form of medium, that unforseen piece of innovation, the yet unseen way of delivering emotion, feeling, sentimentality, atmosphere and countless other expiriences, that it is not art?! Haha! Amusing, indeed! What dost thou know of art, sirrah? Or rather, what dost thou know of games, for that matter? Comparing them to the bloody Dada movement! Prepostorous! The Dada movement, good sir/madame, was not a new type of movement, it was not a new 'form of art', at least, not in and of itself... It contributed to an already long-existing movement called Avant-garde, or rather Abstract expressionism, or Impressionism - movements that arose way before this particular one. It was only one of the many branches of the new-fangled post/pre-war movements.
And what of gaming, hm? You claim to know a lot about games, or at least you look it, so how much do you know of games? Have you ever actually played a game in which you don't kill anything? How much have you explored this medium? So I thought. You know nothing of it. Check-out games like "Crayon Physics", "Braid", "World of Goo", "Limbo"; and then speak of there not being games that resemble art.
And, even so, you're missing the big bloody point. Do you not know what the major difference is between games and all the other mediums/forms of art that are out there?! Do you really think it's "killing hordes of zombies" and such bollocks?! No! Have you never heard of the term, that is rarely used to describe games, and which is "Interactive Medium". INTERACTIVE. INTERACTIVE! (Gosh! why aren't there even bigger letters!) That's the keyword here, sonny. Not the fact that you 'kill things'. Sure, that may well be a big part of almost every game in existance, so far, but it most certainly is NOT a definitive trait of any kind. That's a preposterous notion! It's like saying "Theatrical performances should be called dramas, and should be considered as such, because the majority of them are exactly that!" No! Wrong! Drama is not a form of art. Drama is a genre, a sub-definition of an already existing form of art called Theatre! But I digress... My point was: The fact that games possess the ability to directly engage the audience in the story and make it a driving part of the plot, speak only of one thing, that we've embarked on a new way of expression. And 'expression' - that is a definitive trait of art itself! Only one medium so far has managed that in the past, and that is theatre, but even it is limited to the players indulging in the story, and still relies on the 'audience factor'. But not games, no! they are not limited to that. Everyone can be a player, a participant, and that is something no art form out there is capable of claiming!
And you can argue all you want, that "a medium is not necesseraly a form of art", and that not every medium is considered as such, for instance like radio and what not. But, fact remains, that games, like the Theatre, which I mentioned earlier, is capable of uniting several other art forms into one, such as scenary, music, and so on, and making them it's own.
And I know for certain, that a snivelling coward would hide behind that poor excuse of an argument "well that's my own opinion, blah blah" - I don't care about that. If one is willing to argue, based only on his/her opinion, then he/she is not worth my time. Good day.
And what of gaming, hm? You claim to know a lot about games, or at least you look it, so how much do you know of games? Have you ever actually played a game in which you don't kill anything? How much have you explored this medium? So I thought. You know nothing of it. Check-out games like "Crayon Physics", "Braid", "World of Goo", "Limbo"; and then speak of there not being games that resemble art.
And, even so, you're missing the big bloody point. Do you not know what the major difference is between games and all the other mediums/forms of art that are out there?! Do you really think it's "killing hordes of zombies" and such bollocks?! No! Have you never heard of the term, that is rarely used to describe games, and which is "Interactive Medium". INTERACTIVE. INTERACTIVE! (Gosh! why aren't there even bigger letters!) That's the keyword here, sonny. Not the fact that you 'kill things'. Sure, that may well be a big part of almost every game in existance, so far, but it most certainly is NOT a definitive trait of any kind. That's a preposterous notion! It's like saying "Theatrical performances should be called dramas, and should be considered as such, because the majority of them are exactly that!" No! Wrong! Drama is not a form of art. Drama is a genre, a sub-definition of an already existing form of art called Theatre! But I digress... My point was: The fact that games possess the ability to directly engage the audience in the story and make it a driving part of the plot, speak only of one thing, that we've embarked on a new way of expression. And 'expression' - that is a definitive trait of art itself! Only one medium so far has managed that in the past, and that is theatre, but even it is limited to the players indulging in the story, and still relies on the 'audience factor'. But not games, no! they are not limited to that. Everyone can be a player, a participant, and that is something no art form out there is capable of claiming!
And you can argue all you want, that "a medium is not necesseraly a form of art", and that not every medium is considered as such, for instance like radio and what not. But, fact remains, that games, like the Theatre, which I mentioned earlier, is capable of uniting several other art forms into one, such as scenary, music, and so on, and making them it's own.
And I know for certain, that a snivelling coward would hide behind that poor excuse of an argument "well that's my own opinion, blah blah" - I don't care about that. If one is willing to argue, based only on his/her opinion, then he/she is not worth my time. Good day.
Metal Gear Solid: Peace Walker.
I can tell you for a fact that being interactive made that scene sink deeper than just watching someone else do it. I had to shoot two innocent beings back to back, even though I didn't want to. Movies can make you feel bad for the characters you connect to. Videogames make you carry out the actions of the characters, and have the ability to make you feel guilt implicitly. It's an advantage of the "Game" aspect, and one that opens up new possibilities for emotional storytelling.
Big Boss runs a horse to the ground in desperate chase, and it's clear that the horse won't live much longer, it's on the ground and it's in pain. Button prompt tells you to press R. You know that if you press that button, you'll pull the trigger. It belonged to The Boss, your mentor and a legend - the person you held most dear. Flashback, you stand over The Boss as she lies beaten on the ground. The scenes mirror each other perfectly.
Back to the horse, Press R. The screen goes black and you put the animal out of its misery. Flashback, you stand over The Boss, press R. You do the same to her.
Back to the horse, Press R. The screen goes black and you put the animal out of its misery. Flashback, you stand over The Boss, press R. You do the same to her.
I can tell you for a fact that being interactive made that scene sink deeper than just watching someone else do it. I had to shoot two innocent beings back to back, even though I didn't want to. Movies can make you feel bad for the characters you connect to. Videogames make you carry out the actions of the characters, and have the ability to make you feel guilt implicitly. It's an advantage of the "Game" aspect, and one that opens up new possibilities for emotional storytelling.