loa said:
arguing whether or not something is "art" is time you could've spent better
Aristotle would beg to differ, for debate of all forms allows man to take full advantage of his unique qualities and to better himself. So would I. Obviously, I'm not going to tell you to read this inane wall of text if you don't want to.
Original text:
Eh, fuck it, I'll rewrite essentially the same post I've made a million times before. The vast majority of people here are going in the wrong direction. The definition of art is as subjective as the quality of the art piece itself, and as such it can be argued that this whole debate is completely pointless given that it's just a matter of opinion. But we're not happy with that, we need an objective definition and an irrefutable proof that a given medium is art while another isn't. You also can't arbitrarily draw a line and say so and so examples of a medium are art while the rest aren't. If you do that, you're just saying a painting isn't art because you don't like it or because it didn't get the same emotions out of you that someone else got. You need to prove the entirety of the medium qualifies. For that reason, what you need isn't the artsiest thing in existence, it's not Spec Ops, it's not Infinite, it's not Journey or Torment or Kana: Little Sister. You need an example that stands as a representative of the entire medium. You need the most base yet pure example of the medium. More bare than even Doom, more dumberer than Call of Duty. This is why I?m nominating Tetris.
Tetris is art.
Tetris is art because I can't think of a single definition of art that applies for every painting, every sculpture, every movie, every book, every porno and every Loire valley chateau that doesn't also apply to Tetris. Off the top of my head, here are the criteria I've got:
Art is pointless - Well, obviously we enjoy it, but in a strictly utilitarian sense... Also, I am aware that architecture is partly responsible for all of us not being burried under rubble, but there's no real reason buildings have to adhere to certain aesthetic codes and what not.
Art is subjective - Duh.
Art is unique - You can make as many copies of the Mona Lisa as you want and destroy the original, as a concept there was only every one image.
Art is irreducible* and unmodifiable ? Though this is an extension of the previous I believe, I also think it?s the most important, so it gets its own paragraph. You can't draw a mustache on the Mona Lisa. You can't change the brush strokes and say it's the same thing. You also can?t abridge or describe a work of art so someone and expect them to have the same response as if they had experienced it for themselves.
In all likelihood, I?ve missed a few criteria that I?d have added had I thought of them. Anyway, here is what art isn?t: Art does not have to provoke a goopy-feely response. You would practically empty any modern art museum if you added the criteria of being ?pretty?. Music doesn?t have to be catchy, lest Beethoven?s 5th not be art. These are the types of things people use to say some games aren?t art.
I?m tired of writing already so enjoy this ham-fisted and rushed conclusion. Tetris is an art-piece. It?s pointless ? it?s a game after all, and a life-crippling time-sink for some, and it?s subjective because not everyone wants to marry Tetris, and it?s unique. Sure the game has been reformatted and repackaged into a billion different versions, but Tetris on the Gameboy would still be recognizable as a hologram using cats instead of blocks.
The most important part though, is that it?s demonstrably irreducible. I mean, tell someone who?s never heard of the game before what it?s about (you know, arranging falling blocks that represent nothing into lines) and they?d look at you funny. But put it in their hands and they might never want to put it down. You can apply that to any game, too. A lot of people have played Doom, but you know there?s no point in saying ?Oh man, that one fireball, I just dodged to the right, and then I shot him? and expect someone to get as excited as you were. It?s the same as giving someone half a painting, or the Black Square on White background without context, or even using someone else?s joke without the same delivery.
You also can?t fuck with Tetris? design at all without making a totally different game. The game being made with tetrominos (four-blocked) isn?t some fluke. Imagine the game with three- or five-blocked pieces, and what that would do the game, for I feel that with four you have the perfect amounts of predictability and complexity to make the game fun. But it?s not like it?s a scientifically generated number either. It?s not ?the more the better?. To make a better example, a lot of people like the movement speed in Doom, which is satisfyingly fast in order to give a feeling of kinesis and lets you dodge fireballs with skill, but put it in Call of Duty and it feels out of place. Those are subjective, artful design choices, the same type that allow modern theater to go nuts with story pacing and complexity without rendering the old three-unit classical theatre obsolete.
I don?t feel like giving a proper conclusion, but you know what I?m saying I hope and are probably already scrambling for a way to tell me I?m wrong.
Allow me to stop you on one.
?Call of Duty/FIFA/yearly sequel game isn?t art, it?s a cold design-by-committee cash-grab.?
Yes it is, but it can be art too. Those games function as cash-grabs because there are at least a few modestly talented designers who know how to make games that would hook specific demographics (and I like to think that they enjoy their own games at least somewhat). Also, this is the same principle that brought us kitsch, and if dogs playing poker isn?t art, then I?ll shoot myself.
Anyway, having said that, having a nice story and music and whatnot helps too.
*Special thanks to MrBTongue for the phrasing.
