How to argue "Games aren't art."

[AlexK1991]

Not at all. A lot of people look to a combination of story, gameplay, visual design, etc... for fulfillment when playing a game, but a lot of people don't. And then there are people in between who play one game for its aesthetics and design, and less for pure entertainment, but also play games for good old-fashioned dumb fun. As I mentioned earlier, "To the Moon" is one of my favorite games of all time, and it isn't a very good game. I play it for what I consider to be a masterfully told story, and some truly heartbreaking music, but at the same time, the Dynasty Warriors series is one of my favorite game series, and I don't think there's much of anything in that series that could be considered artistic for the sake of being artistic. It all comes down to player preference, and no, as long as you aren't slinging around hate to people who like artsy games, there's nothing wrong with you not personally enjoying them.

 

[James Elmash]

In the same way that painting, in of itself isn't art.

Some games are art. Some paintings are art.

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

See you can't really argue that something is art, when that something is an expression of it.

To compare the latest designed by committee, dev team of 500 FPS to an game that is actually art (I'd cite The Stanley Parable, others may cite Braid) would be like saying "Paintings are art" including the Mona Lisa as well as the painting I did age 5 where the head is larger than the rest of the body.

Pottery can be art, but not all pottery.

Anything that may be considered an art is not art because it is that thing. A sculpture like the statue of David is not art because it is a sculpture.

i may be laboring the point a bit here, but in short, if x is art, its not art because its x.

Another way of arguing that games aren't art could simply to be say that its made of various types of art.

After all, character design, music, backgrounds, story writing, all are art. But a game is made out of these. You could make the point that to say games are art is akin to saying that music is sounds, or that the internet is just ones and zeros. Its made up of these things and as a result transcends it. Games aren't art, they are made of art.

That second point sounded really pretentious, but I kind of think that many of the people who claim that games are art would respond well to that kind of argument

 

[Chemical Alia]

This stems from a lack of ignorance about art, and it's place in history. Take one art history class and you will see immediately that art in the past was 10X more restrictive to the artists "creative vision" than anything today ever was. The concept of artists as creative visionaries is a new movement that's only been made possible due to mass production. Back then artists only had their talent, and their skills. Any sort of "vision" they had was regulated to sketchbooks. And if said vision was especially controversial? You kept it to yourself, and take great care to make sure that nobody finds it in your life time.

For many artists their entire livelihood was dependent on only three types of clients. The King/Queen, the church, and the upper class. That's it.

The royal family wanted either religious paintings, or pictures of themselves with religious pictures, or doing acts of valor.

The Church just want's religious paintings.

And the upperclass(the ones that have the most variety- although that isn't saying much) wants either pictures of them, them with religious figures, or paintings of outside religions that isn't Jesus.

That was it. Jesus, or thousand dollar selfies. Take your pick, because that's what your going to be doing for the rest of your life.

Those who went against or refused to do that found themselves either homeless, or on the business end of torture/execution device of the day.

So if you were to ask an artist of the past which they would prefer- angry comments on tumblr or internet forums, or a guiltiness, it's pretty damn obvious which one they favor.

Exactly. Not only this, but the whole concept of the visual arts as a means of self-expression is a fairly modern one as well. Historically the definition of art (in Europe, anyway) has been a skilled trade, which encompassed painting/sculpting/printmaking (visual art), applied art and crafts, science, etc. Which is why the phrase "the art of dentistry/education/whatever", which doesn't use the word in modern context, may be confusing to a lot of people.

 

[Ryallen]

I think of artful video games, I think of Bastion, Transistor, Journey, and Shadow of the Colossus. TLoU is not art, under any circumstances, because a lot of the game isn't meant for experiencing, but interacting. The world is pretty, yes, but it never attracted my attention, as the focus of the game is the characters and the actions they are performing, whereas with Bastion, a lot of the draw is the art style, as well as the soundtrack, with the combat, while important, not being the reason people play it. At least, not to me, anyways. Shadow of the Colossus is another great example of this, with only having 16 action sequences in the entire game and having to trek there, either by horseback or on foot. Art isn't meant to be a singular object on a metaphorical canvas, but rather a collection of objects of any shape and size on a canvas, and the story behind it certainly doesn't add to the singular object's appeal.

 

[Ieyke]

There is no valid argument to make against video games being art.
There are a few games here and there that are specific exceptions where you MIGHT be able to argue that they aren't art, but they are extremely rare.

 

[MrHide-Patten]

I like Yahtzee's summarisation of what art is (I think it was Yahtzee that said it, but he could've been paraphrasing somebody else). If what is created doesn't serve a practical application like a tool, then it is art. Of course there is a fine line between what is considered good art and what is considered bad art.

 

[Lightknight]

I like Yahtzee's summarisation of what art is (I think it was Yahtzee that said it, but he could've been paraphrasing somebody else). If what is created doesn't serve a practical application like a tool, then it is art. Of course there is a fine line between what is considered good art and what is considered bad art.

Even then, you have tools and practical appliances that have an entirely different department designing the aesthetic appearance of the tool. Sometimes it is incredibly artistic in it's own right. I mean, is a home not practical despite architecture being an accepted form of art? I think of things like swords that were incredibly practical but have always been elaborately decorated.

Honestly, we're just going to have to come with the term that art is everywhere we look because human beings strive to add the artistic flair to most anything we do. It's core to the human experience to create for the sake of appreciation.

I think the extra step is the intention of making something beautiful or even dreadful. Something that evokes feelings in some way rather than just making something to serve a purpose. Function and aesthetics are not mutually exclusive concepts. If it was I'd never have survived as a professional blacksmith making damascus patterned blades from scratch or etched wrought iron blades with a steel core. People didn't pay me hundreds of dollars for a knife. They paid me hundreds of dollars for a beautiful or cool knife. In other words, they paid for the art, not the tool.

 

[Lightknight]

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

What kind of painting would not be art? I could see paintings being shitty art. But all art all the same. Same with literature and most other categories that fall within the defined fields of art.

Games are generally a composition of things that are inherently art. Music, video (cutscenes), story/writing, acting, and of course all of the model and landscape designs. Some games may be missing a few but nearly all have some.

Sure, there are some games that you couldn't honestly consider art. Pong, for example, served little more than a crude purpose rather than something intended to be engaging on any artistic level. But the vast majority of games are art, even the shitty ones.

 

[Charli]

It boils down to 'I don't like nor am interested in the medium therefore to me it isn't art' for a larger percentage

However as a larger majority grow up with video gaming being part of their lives the larger conscious opinion will change.

The entire argument has been bickered about to death and the side that argues it isn't really never comes up with a better defence than 'but it can't be, because it isn't', and shouting it louder.

Now is the time to play the waiting game and wait for half of them to inevitably die off. Because half of them are over 60.

 

[Windcaler]

What I'm wondering is whether or not people consider me a bad person for only buying games because they look fun or are fun. Some people seem to say so, but I don't know. I tried art games, and they were just boring to me. I could see all the messages they were trying to tell and it was still as entertaining and engaging as watching paint dry.

Theres an old saying "I dont know much about art but I know what I like" and I feel that falls into your statement really well. Many artistically focused games have trouble getting to the audience (the cat and the coup being a prime example IMO). Theres nothing wrong with just buying a game that you enjoy and forgoing the discussion about games being art or the artistic merit within the game. However even some AAA games are art. Dark souls, Bioshock, Far cry 3, and many more are good depictions of video games as art and most people have bought them solely for the "fun factor"

Ultimately its your money and only you can decide whats worth buying and whats not. Buy what you want, play what you want, and dont worry about the artistic discussion if you want. That doesnt make you a bad person, just someone who isnt interested in the discussion

 

[OneCatch]

So what are some games I HAVE to play in order to argue against "Games aren't art"?

As Zhukov said, without a concrete definition of 'art', it's difficult to make an objective argument. And defining 'art' would itself probably take you hours of further argument, and that's even assuming you could reach an agreement. So I'd instead argue by explicitly comparing to other forms of media which are commonly or generally accepted as a suitable medium for art. Film, books, music, etc.


For example, most would agree that The Heart of Darkness and Apocalypse Now are art (or at the very least that they have artistic and thematic elements). Spec Ops: The Line is basically the same except it messes with the agency of the character in order to concentrate on some of the themes of the book/film. Thus, art.

Now I'd agree that most games aren't quite on par with films or books when it comes to thematics, but that doesn't mean that they can't. We are seeing steady improvement, with even straightforward shooter series like Crysis gradually transitioning into having overarching themes. For Crysis you've got the whole transhumanism thing being brought to light in the latter games for example, or in the BioShock series the games revolve around Randianism, cultism, and religious fundamentalism/dictatorship, respectively.
In some cases, games have actually surpassed film; the Ukranian studios behind Metro and S.T.A.L.K.E.R have become renowned for combining traditional Western paranormal horror elements with radioactive postapocalyptic settings to create their own niche genre - and it's bloody effective. The film 'Chernobyl Diaries' tried to emulate it, and even though it was made by an otherwise successful horror director, it was utterly crap.

In terms of pure visuals, draw comparison between 'artistic' effects in films or artwork, and those that are increasingly used in games. Sanctum, Dishonored, Borderands, even things like TF2 have extremely distinctive artstyles. One can't have it both ways - if things like A Scanner Darkly or Waltz with Bashir are defined as 'artistic' partly on the merits of an original visual presentation, then presumably games should be also.

Also talk music in games and it's effectiveness. Point out that even people like Hans Zimmer are moving into video game soundtracks. Notable mentions; Metro 2033 / Last Light, Crysis soundtracks.

Then I'd move to the experimental/indie fringe. They tend to have the freedom to be more... inventive than mainstream releases. I'd draw a comparison to arthouse cinema in some cases. Things like AntiChamber, Papers Please, Slender. In many cases developed by a person or a small team who had an original idea and decided to express it, except they made a game instead of making the films Primer, or 1984, or The Blair Witch Project, or the books A Wrinkle in Time, We, or The Mist.

 

[James Elmash]

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

What kind of painting would not be art? I could see paintings being shitty art. But all art all the same. Same with literature and most other categories that fall within the defined fields of art.

Games are generally a composition of things that are inherently art. Music, video (cutscenes), story/writing, acting, and of course all of the model and landscape designs. Some games may be missing a few but nearly all have some.

Sure, there are some games that you couldn't honestly consider art. Pong, for example, served little more than a crude purpose rather than something intended to be engaging on any artistic level. But the vast majority of games are art, even the shitty ones.

If a factory produced paintings on mass to be sold cheaply. That lacks the artistic expression that would make something art (Based on the result of googling definition of art). Then that painting wouldn't be art.
If a school child with no interest in art has to paint a given scene for school or fail, then that too would lack artistic expression.

 

[Ieyke]

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

What kind of painting would not be art? I could see paintings being shitty art. But all art all the same. Same with literature and most other categories that fall within the defined fields of art.

Games are generally a composition of things that are inherently art. Music, video (cutscenes), story/writing, acting, and of course all of the model and landscape designs. Some games may be missing a few but nearly all have some.

Sure, there are some games that you couldn't honestly consider art. Pong, for example, served little more than a crude purpose rather than something intended to be engaging on any artistic level. But the vast majority of games are art, even the shitty ones.

If a factory produced paintings on mass to be sold cheaply. That lacks the artistic expression that would make something art (Based on the result of googling definition of art). Then that painting wouldn't be art.
If a school child with no interest in art has to paint a given scene for school or fail, then that too would lack artistic expression.

A copy of art is still art.
Forced art is still art.
They're just not the original copy and possibly not GOOD art, respectively. Neither is relevant to whether they're art or not.

 

[Henkie36]

This is like people 80+ years ago saying that movies aren't art. But since then, we got movies like Fantasia, which I am more inclined to put into the category art than entertainment. Games have been around for about 40 years now, but it wasn't until 10 years ago that they started dominating mainstream media. Before that, games were exclusively for weird geeks. Nowadays, people who claim they have never played games are simply liars. My point? The tides are turning, and in favor of games. I don't say that all games are art. Something like CoD Ghosts is such a sea of mediocrity and military fetich porn even a Michael Bay movie would discard it. (Which incidentally also aren't art) But a game like Shadow of the Colossus is much closer, and just the design of The Sands of Time triology make it worth a look. So games may not be art yet, but I can certainly see it happening in the next 10 years or so.

 

[Artaneius]

Games have been around for about 40 years now, but it wasn't until 10 years ago that they started dominating mainstream media. Before that, games were exclusively for weird geeks.

Honestly, seeing how poor the gaming industry has become with making most games for the lowest common denominator, I honestly would of preferred games being exclusively for the "weird geeks". We would be playing a true successor to Quake or Unreal Tournament now instead of CoD.

 

[James Elmash]

Some games are not. Some paintings are not.

What kind of painting would not be art? I could see paintings being shitty art. But all art all the same. Same with literature and most other categories that fall within the defined fields of art.

Games are generally a composition of things that are inherently art. Music, video (cutscenes), story/writing, acting, and of course all of the model and landscape designs. Some games may be missing a few but nearly all have some.

Sure, there are some games that you couldn't honestly consider art. Pong, for example, served little more than a crude purpose rather than something intended to be engaging on any artistic level. But the vast majority of games are art, even the shitty ones.

If a factory produced paintings on mass to be sold cheaply. That lacks the artistic expression that would make something art (Based on the result of googling definition of art). Then that painting wouldn't be art.
If a school child with no interest in art has to paint a given scene for school or fail, then that too would lack artistic expression.

A copy of art is still art.
Forced art is still art.
They're just not the original copy and possibly not GOOD art, respectively. Neither is relevant to whether they're art or not.

Forced art and a copy of art lack expression. Expression is the key word of the definition art I found.

Expressionless or forced paintings/sculpture/games/music simply wouldn't fit the definition.

The entire question of 'are video games art' comes down to the definition of art. the one I use is the one google provides me:

"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."

 

[zen5887]

Just a heads up, I ignorantly haven't read the other posts here except OPs, so forgive me if I'm repeating what's already been said or of the conversation has moved on. Or don't I probably should read everything else.

Anyway.

There are lots of games that aren't art. And that's totally okay.

The primary reason for a piece of art existing is to be a piece of art. I has to say something, mean something, challenge something So a table or a gun or a car that functions primarily as a table, gun or car can't be art unless it's context is changed in a way that makes it's primary function to be art. For example, a table I buy at an up market furniture store, no matter how aesthetically pleasing or well designed it is, can't be art. However, if I used it in a piece demonstrating the monotony of the middle class (or something), then people can start calling it art (maybe not good art... But art). This doesn't make it any less of a table though, and that's important. What is and isn't somethings primary function can get messy (especially in pop art), but I guess that's where the subjectivity comes in, and that's why we are having these conversations.

Going back to videogames and we can see there are a bunch of games that don't try to tell a story, they don't ask the player to question their ideas, and they don't really have anything to say. Games like puzzle games, racing games, sports games, strategy games, simulation games, fighting games. There are exceptions within these genres but for the most part these games are a series of objectives with something in the way, and it's the players job to overcome the obstacles, with very little in between. There might be a lore or a backstory, but they are secondary. Who plays Tekken for the story, right? Compare these games to Limbo or Spec Ops: The Line. I feel like there is a pretty clear distinction between games that exist to be overcome, and games that exist to be experienced.

The fun thing is though, these definitely aren't hard and fast rules. I'm sure a bunch of people have had more powerful experiences playing Dark Souls then they'd ever get from any kind of high art, and who am I to deny that? It's not an easy question (which is why I enjoy it so dang much).

 

[gargantual]

What people consider art is highly contextual, the ability for any game in its visuals or sensibilities to engender that reaction in us is possible, despite any of our rigid definitions here. It may be made crudely or depict crudeness. Two people will still consume the media in different context.

There's a point that Kojima sort brought up when talking about risk taking in MGS5 and Cheshire Cat Studios podcast really hit on.

Which is "we're eager to call games 'ART' until they go in directions we're uncomfortable with and they're suddenly garbage? Or unworthy of the definition." One's trash is another's treasure. Our perspectives are our own, even if commonly held.

I see it almost as a holistic add-on to the sentiment "art can't be relevant and not responsible for its messaging." Of course all messaging has to be somewhat responsible but that rule doesn't absolve viewers of responsibility in interpreting what they consume either. Its a two way process. No side should expect each other to just 'fix it'.

Not just for protecting from reinforcement of negative ideas but also to limit knee jerk reacting and misinterpreting what we view based on our perspective and not seeing the bigger picture or how others perceive the same media, its important to have clear, distant, and thorough understanding of WHY certain things resonate with or disturb us.

Just like errant signal said its lazy for a reviewer to just say something is fun, but should explain what about it makes it fun.

we cant accurately 'minority report' how bad of a psychological social impact any media is going to have on all humanity. We don't operate as a hive mind. Even moviebob said something similar concerning his big picture vid after Aurora Colorado. We might have general ideas how influential media can get, but it only resonates negatively where there's no education and balanced understanding of how the world society, civility and decency matter.

 

[carnex]

To be sarcastic, first ask that person to define what ART is. Hint: there is no accepted definition of ART since, however you define it, you can make a counter example to make it invalid.

But realistically best approach if what

-snip-

said.

Paintings are not ART, but ART can take form of a painting. Music is not ART, but ART can take form of music. Sculptures are not ART but ART can take for of a sculpture. Theater performance is not ART but ART can take form of a theater performance.

They are all artistic mediums, form in which ART can take form. And games are the same.

Then let them play Journey. Let them play it alone, at their own pace. And never ask them of it again. Confrontation if counterproductive. You will only entrench them in their beliefs by hitting them over their heads by your own ideas. Subtlety is the key.

 

[Reygoch]

Well,

I usually argue like this. You have art and you have bad art, and after that you have shit imported from china with purpose of selling it to tourists and fools in general.

A decent game has story, 3D/2D graphics, programming, math and many more factors.

Story has to be written and it needs to be relatively good to make a good game (some games can get away with game mechanics but they still need some kind of story).

3D modeling is literally like sculpting but on a different media. You need to have talent, idea and skills to realize it. Same goes for 2D painting and design.

So, those two are without a doubt art. It doesn't necessarily mean it's van Gogh or Picasso (which I personally don't appreciate very much) but it's art non the less.

Programming and math/physics that ties all that together is debatable, but there is some artistic expression in those two. The only thing is that people can't really see it and thus don't consider it art because they think art is something explicitly visual.

So yes, that's how I'd go about arguing "Games aren't art" statement. And I'd also ask for explanation of that statement first.