Is call of duty an art?

[coolkirb]

yes because well with the liberal use of the word art these days pretty much anything can be called art

 

[CrustyOatmeal]

art is based on ones perspective and one's own feeling/ opinions

where one may look at a piece in an exhibit as a masterpiece of art another might just see a stool missing a leg. art is meant to interact with people's mind or their emotions and while it does do that for some it does not do that for others so in my opinion CoD is art in that some people view it as such

then again, by my definition anything and everything is/ can be art

 

[Arctarus'sCookie]

Well if games are art, than yes. If games have to be made in some special way then probably not, but then again what other games wouldn't be considered "art" just because of how it was made. Then again maybe only specific genres of games can be art. Maybe the whole FPS genre isn't art. Maybe it is. Its all in the eyes of the beholder I guess.

 

[loc978]

What NickFury90 said. Every game, even ET for the Atari 2600, is art.

the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced [http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art?show=1&t=1306978827]

Even if you argue that software doesn't count as an object (though that's quite the stretch in this context... what matters is the human effort that went into creating it), the physical game disc or cartridge is art. If a child writes his name in the snow with pee, that too is art.

If you're going to quibble over these things, at least use a word or phrase that isn't so cut-and-dried easy to define. A better question is "Is the Call of Duty franchise worthwhile art? Is it a great piece of work, or a soulless, assembly-line produced cash-in?"

 

[Darknacht]

Like all of you, I try to preach about how games are an art as much as I can and am willing to debate it with the naysayers. But I always get a frequently asked question: what about all of duty or other first person shooters? people understand other games like RPG's because of the story or the innovation but what about FPS's? yes some games are mindless shooting but... those are still fun, and I will defend them. but how can I explain that first person shooter's are an art as well?

What's art isn't an inherent thing,it's just an opinion. You could argue the story part in CoD4 is art while the multiplayer isn't, but the term for art is so broad, the commonly accepted term is something that effects our emotions, but this makes genocide art as well.

Really I wouldn't care, video games being art isn't going to change anything about them and IMO it's an argument that would get you nowhere in anything.

Well really we shouldn't be fighting for Video Games to be Art in my opinion. No, first we tackle the small problem of making it mainstream, so that everyone and their mum is playing games and don't care if it has any risks. Instead of making Video Games even more niche, we should be focusing on making them widely accepted in society. The problem with this is, FPS's don't do this job, sure they're fun for you and me, but for the casual observer, it ain't half off-putting. This is why I'm always hesitant to support CoD clones and the like, because they're just not helping ¬_¬

Why do we want games to be more mainstream? I know more money for the industry and everything but I don't think the money is going to the right places. There were some really great games back before FPSs made games mainstream and I don't think getting everyones moms to play Farmville will make better games just more Farmville games, just like the FPS boom did not make better games just more FPSs.

Back on topic like others have said art does not mean good art.
Paintings are considered art I could randomly drizzle paint on a canvas and it would be a painting and art just not good art.
http://www.jacksonpollock.org/
Not that Pollock did nothing good, but much of his later stuff is not.
Late Pollock work is like CoD people may enjoy it but that does not make it good art.

 

[remnant_phoenix]

Film is art, yet would you call The Expendables art? Same principle.

Exactly.

I don't know what the current snobby academic definition of the word is, but I have my own definitions that work for me.

To me, "art" is any work in any creative medium in which the creator is trying to communicate something to the viewer.

At the same time, "artfulness" is how strong/deep/profound the message(s) within the work are, as well as how effectively/beautifully/creatively the messages are communicated.

Painting is an art form, therefore a 3-year-old's finger painting is art just as the Mona Lisa is art.

However pretty much the entire world would agree that the Mona Lisa is MORE "artful."

Many people don't consider a piece a true "work of art" unless it has a considerable level of "artfulness."

So, back to the OT...

Is Call of Duty "art"? I would most definitely say yes.

Is Call of Duty exceptionally "artful"? I would most definitely say no.

 

[Outright Villainy]

It's art. Whether it's good art or not is debateable, but you can't dismiss it as not art just because you don't like it. Then I would say Francis Bacon's work isn't art, or classical music isn't art, which are absurd statements.

 

[Reyalsfeihc]

Not all video games have to be art you know. It's an artistic medium but it's still an entertainment juggernaut as well.

 

[English Stew]

Is it art? Yes, as the result of a creative endevor inteneded (in theory at least) to elicit an emotional reaction (and for the record, I consider an adreniline rush to be an emotion), it is art.

That does not always make it good art, though. While I don't hate the seiries as much as a lot of people, it does seem to have a few major systemic flaws. Putting aside the unimpressive writing and questionable ethics concering its protrayal of war, it does not tend to take advantage of the artistic tools unique to games, particularly the concept of "do, don't show" or even "show, don't tell." A specific moment that comes to mind is a scene in Blops where, during the boat level, your boats foward gunner is shot and killed. When this happens, the game cuts back to Mason in the chair, where he recounts something like "he didn't let me see no tears, but I swear Woods was crying." Here, the game missed a major oppourtunity to leave a real impact, by actually showing Woods on the verge of tears. Instead, we get a scene of someone just talking to the player, which imo rings falsely melodramatic.

Back on topic, if you want to defend COD, I would focus on immersion and the strength of scripted events that come from that immersion, which I think it does well (except when it goes over the top).

 

[Thatguyky]

Call of Duty is nowhere near "art". It's always just been your everyday testosterone pumped first person shooter. Not that there is anything wrong with that. I like CoD, but I just don't think it's close to art.

 

[Eijarel]

I thinks it really takes some introspective,
I'm seeing many individual opinions , some say no some say yes,
many people have fought dearly in order to pair video games with its other media contemporaries; such as films.

in terms of story, the social commentary does deserve artistic merit, since most of it makes back reference to things that really happen and could happen,
The WWII games have their on criteria in terms of their relationship with real history.

if "Schindler's list" can be considered artistic out of the sheer factor that evokes emotion
I must remind you of that scene in call of duty modern warfare where you get to experience the last remaining minute of a soldier (after the nuclear explosion)

is visceral moment that can only be seen in this medium, but ultimately achieved the ability to reach the player in an emotional level, and that is what i consider art to be really about.

 

[infohippie]

Games can be art. This does not mean all games are art. To my mind, Call of Duty is not art. Most shooters are not art, any more than most action movies are art. Ones that have more layers of meaning to them than simply "Shoot bad guys, don't get killed" can be art, such as the aforementioned Bioshock. Gritty Brown Shooter No. 73 is not art.

 

[Estocavio]

In my opinion, this relates back to a simple issue.

Games Are Art is impossible.

SOME Games Are Art.

Ill put it another way - Is Minesweeper Art?
Name any game you dont like, then consider that it must be considered Art, for Games Are Art to be true.

SOME Games Are Art is at least plausible.



If too many people start believing this, the majority of threads will become:
"THIS GAME IS ART!" "NOT IT NOT THIS GAME IS ART" "NO THIS 1! U 2 SUCK!"


Heh.

 

[Harrowdown]

Yes, of course. It may not be great art, that being a view I don't necessarily hold, but it qualifies nonetheless. I guess it's like the difference between watchmen and the early marvel comics; one's high-minded and intellectual, and the other's more low brow and caters to a less discerning crowd. That said, both qualify as works of art, and the latter has, or has come to have, a great deal of 'high' artistic value incorporated into it. COD caters to the 'low' crowd, but doesn't completely sacrifice itself to it. The design of those games at the very least, is nothing short of artistic.

 

[Alexnader]

If we were to get prickish and hypocritical about it - no.

If we were to judge it as the whole "games as art" argument should be judged - yes.

Call of Duty 4 is. Halo 1 is. Singularity is. These are art, and if we want to say that games are art then we need to include all of them, or we will just make our medium more confusing to people who are just trying to look into it. Do we really want to look even more like anti social nerds?

Also, for anyone that says shooters can't be art:

Spoiler

I won't pretend that I don't have several problems with it as a game, such as bad level design and having to take pictures of enemies to be able to even have a chance at beating them, but as art it's up there.

In order to have some games classed as art we do not need to classify all games as art. You might as well say all movies are artworks. They're not. Some artists may be involved in the production of say... the Expendables, i.e. I'd say directorship or cinematography are "arts" however the sum of the parts is not equal to the whole.

There are many definitions of art, some say art is that which has no purpose other than to exist, some say art must carry a message or be imbued with some kind of artistic/authorial intent, some say art is what gets hung in galleries and some say art is everything that people call art. I judge the artistic merit of a work not by whether or not it ticks one of those boxes but by how many and how strongly those boxes are ticked. Call Of Duty ticks almost none of those boxes in my opinion, same goes for the expendables.

The important thing to remember is that what medium something is created isn't the sole influence in whether or not it's art. Not all paintings are art, not all photographs are art, not all movies are art and I'm sure as hell that not all games are art.

Edit: Here's some examples.
Marcel Duchamp's "Fountain": It's basically a urinal. However it was backed up by a crapload of intent no pun intended. Duchamp wanted to shift the focus of art from physical craft to intellectual interpretation. ART.

Manet's "Luncheon on the Grass": A carefully composed painting rich in symbolism that reflects both upon Manet's personal life and the state of French culture at the time. ART.

Now, I'm sure making Call of Duty was a hell of a lot harder than grabbing a urinal, writing "R.Mutt" on it and then sending it to an art gallery. The designers, whether they be game, graphical or sound or any other form of designer all practise an "art". Maybe some of their individual works could even be seen as artworks, however the net product tells a cliched and mediocre story, takes itself completely seriously and is deemed by most audiences to be essentially a permanent cycle of cash farming lacking any kind of innovation. When I played the single player there was no sense of wonder or awe, no need to re evaluate any dominant cultural zeitgeist (I'm pretty sure CoD glorifies and panders to the gun porn market rather than highlighting it for analysis). The only qualification CoD has is that it exists and even if someone were to stick it in an art gallery it would be the act itself that would gain artistic merit rather than the game itself. After all no one started calling every copy of the urinal Duchamp used "art".

 

[Danceofmasks]

Painting can be art.

Call of Duty is like painting .... a house.
Everyone has it, but it's usually not impressive.
Now and again, however ... you see an amazingly painted house.

 

[instantbenz]

Yep, commercial art with the message of 'die for your country and be ruthless'. Works pretty damn well ... and that is why they pay designers.

 

[Mikeyfell]

Like all of you, I try to preach about how games are an art as much as I can and am willing to debate it with the naysayers. But I always get a frequently asked question: what about all of duty or other first person shooters? people understand other games like RPG's because of the story or the innovation but what about FPS's? yes some games are mindless shooting but... those are still fun, and I will defend them. but how can I explain that first person shooter's are an art as well?

Question. You are saying "An art" and not "Art" which do you mean?

The act of painting is "an art" but the actual paintings are "art". I'm a little confused because you could say that the way you play CoD is an art. The way you hide behind cover and throw back grenades that you do better than everyone else is an art form in it's self.

But games are art. All games, even the crappy ones.
Art makes you feel something
Paintings have to do it on visuals alone
Books do it through narrative alone
Music does it through sound alone
Movies get to use all 3
Games can do it through any combination of visuals, narrative, sound, or play mechanics.

 

[OldGus]

what about call of duty or other first person shooters?

Call of Duty... is art. Horribly made art with a bad premise together with something that is ostensibly just a game for playing with friends. I think for games to qualify as art, they really, really need either some new, impressive, and different presentation (and I'm not just talking the graphics. Shit made with amazing realism is still shit) or an immersive and innovative experience with a gripping narrative presented within the experience. This is where Call of Duty falls short. The first ones in the series were basically a cross of a history book with 24 children playing war. The more recent ones seem like Tom Clancy novels, if someone first replaced Tom Clancy's crack supply with ammonium nitrate. What I mean to say is, Call of Duty is bad art. The only thing keeping it from being children's art is the lack of evidence that children can write a physics engine.

Now... other FPSs? Well, Halo is good art. It presents a new world and time by starting with the simple (you good, they bad) and building to the more complex (grunts are so abominably cute normally, and fragile... did they get co-opted and brainwashed into fighting for the Covenant?) Serious Sam is a fun, well presented satire on FPSs as a whole (especially Duke Nukem, and anything space-marine.) Bioshock is good art. Fallout 3 is good art (even though, I know, technically it isn't or doesn't have to be an FPS.) STALKER is close to being good art, at least closer than Call of Duty.

Look at film, and ask yourself which is good art... Michael Bay anything, or Hitchcock?