Poll: Games - Art or not?

[EternalFacepalm]

Games can express themselves, like any other medium - and maybe doing more than others, due to the interactivity of it, too.
Of course, what's regarded as art is subjective; my definition, at least, is that pretty much anything you do to express yourself, is art. Some games are made to be regarded as art, while others not; some games may express the thought of the developer, while others the thought of the player. And that can be done without a karma-system.
So yes, games are art; or, at the very least, some are.

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

That poll is broken. My answer obviously depends on what game we're talking specifically.

 

[Bobic]

Games are absolutely art. The annoying thing to me is the "only a few games are art" idea. Guys, the medium of video games is a form of artistic expression. To say, "only the really good and artistic games are art" is essentially saying that there is no such thing as bad art. Video games require creativity and skill to complete, and thus they are all art, even if not all of them are good art.

But would you count games with no artistic merit as art? Is space invaders a piece of art? If so, why doesn't screwball scramble count as art?

Perhaps not. Maybe the early examples of a medium, before it even realizes it can create art, do not count as art. But video games are hardly alone in that. You've likely heard of the film The Great Train Robbery. Know why it's remembered like it is? Because it was the first movie with a story. Before it, people would just lay down a dollar or two to watch a horse run for a few minutes. Film was a spectacle, a tech demo, an artless diversion. For that matter, I highly doubt the first thing done with written language was writing an epic poem. All art forms, in the history of existence, were used for non-artistic purposes before the artistic merit was realized. That makes it a little difficult to classify those early examples as art, perhaps, but it does not mean the medium is not an art form.

For that matter, unless you are going to count things like instructional math videos that just show a hand writing on a whiteboard as art, or a Terms of Service document, every art form has non-artistic uses. It still does not change the fact that the medium is capable of artistic merit, and will be considered an "art form" even if it can also be used for other purposes.

I'm not saying that no games are art, I'm just saying that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to say "only a few games are art". The medium can be used for art but a significant amount of the time it is used to create a challenge for people to overcome like the aforementioned screwball scramble, or a way for people to compete with eachother, which puts them in the same category as sports.

That is true; video games are a far more diverse medium in that sense. I personally study them as a narrative art, but they are capable of so many more things than that. Which is why I think a distinction will be coming soon, between game games and artistic games. One would still be able to make the argument that they're all art (they still require a team of artists to make), but I think a distinction between games made to create competition and games made to for artistic reasons (which, by the way, include entertainment through the art form) would be helpful. But I still hold that it is important to consider video games an art form, because they are capable of it and recognition of that fact is what will allow us to study them as such. Film would never have developed as an art form the way it has if it was only recognized and appreciated by a few random guys that made artistic films; it had to be culturally accepted as a medium of creative expression. Just because not all video games are meant to be art does not mean that acceptance shouldn't happen, especially since the same discrepancy appears, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in every other artistic medium out there.

You seem to be arguing the point you want to argue rather than the counter to the point which I was making. In fact, your point kind of agrees with what I was saying. To put it simply

Some games are art, and some are toys.

Agreed?

 

[Dark Harbinger]

That poll is broken. My answer obviously depends on what game we're talking specifically.

It was a rather broad and general question and poll, interpret it however you want, heck if you think Duke Nukem games are art then say so!

 

[Pifflestick]

Games are the canvas, not the art. The gameplay lets you experience the wonderful artestry on display and improves your enjoyment of it.

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

It's simple:

If literature can still be considered art despite pumping out shlock like Mills and Boon or Twilight

If film can still be considered art despite every summer blockbuster consisting of generically handsome white American men shooting anyone with aridiculous accent or more melanin than them

If music can still be considered art despite Lady Gaga's continued existence

If any of the above can hold true, then videogaming must also be art. Because as Tycho Brahe put it so well 'if a hundred artists create art for five years, how can the end result not be called art?'

I was going to say somthing like this, but you hit it on the head.

They are art, or at least I think so. However, I don't see why so many people are up in arms about to be honest.

 

[0p3rati0n]

The development of games is an art itself. The game itself is only determined a piece of art by the gaming community.

 

[Ren3004]

*sigh*
If they create a world where you feel you can get lost in, if they try to tell a good story, if they come up with new, interesting ways to deliver the story to the player, they're art.

Games where you just make things blow up and mow down puny enemies with weapons, that try to do nothing of the above? Not art. They're entertainment, they may be very fun, and more entertaining to play than an artsy game, but they're not art.

You know, much like movies, music and books. You can't really generalize an entire medium as art or not.

 

[Thaius]

Games are absolutely art. The annoying thing to me is the "only a few games are art" idea. Guys, the medium of video games is a form of artistic expression. To say, "only the really good and artistic games are art" is essentially saying that there is no such thing as bad art. Video games require creativity and skill to complete, and thus they are all art, even if not all of them are good art.

But would you count games with no artistic merit as art? Is space invaders a piece of art? If so, why doesn't screwball scramble count as art?

Perhaps not. Maybe the early examples of a medium, before it even realizes it can create art, do not count as art. But video games are hardly alone in that. You've likely heard of the film The Great Train Robbery. Know why it's remembered like it is? Because it was the first movie with a story. Before it, people would just lay down a dollar or two to watch a horse run for a few minutes. Film was a spectacle, a tech demo, an artless diversion. For that matter, I highly doubt the first thing done with written language was writing an epic poem. All art forms, in the history of existence, were used for non-artistic purposes before the artistic merit was realized. That makes it a little difficult to classify those early examples as art, perhaps, but it does not mean the medium is not an art form.

For that matter, unless you are going to count things like instructional math videos that just show a hand writing on a whiteboard as art, or a Terms of Service document, every art form has non-artistic uses. It still does not change the fact that the medium is capable of artistic merit, and will be considered an "art form" even if it can also be used for other purposes.

I'm not saying that no games are art, I'm just saying that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to say "only a few games are art". The medium can be used for art but a significant amount of the time it is used to create a challenge for people to overcome like the aforementioned screwball scramble, or a way for people to compete with eachother, which puts them in the same category as sports.

That is true; video games are a far more diverse medium in that sense. I personally study them as a narrative art, but they are capable of so many more things than that. Which is why I think a distinction will be coming soon, between game games and artistic games. One would still be able to make the argument that they're all art (they still require a team of artists to make), but I think a distinction between games made to create competition and games made to for artistic reasons (which, by the way, include entertainment through the art form) would be helpful. But I still hold that it is important to consider video games an art form, because they are capable of it and recognition of that fact is what will allow us to study them as such. Film would never have developed as an art form the way it has if it was only recognized and appreciated by a few random guys that made artistic films; it had to be culturally accepted as a medium of creative expression. Just because not all video games are meant to be art does not mean that acceptance shouldn't happen, especially since the same discrepancy appears, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in every other artistic medium out there.

You seem to be arguing the point you want to argue rather than the counter to the point which I was making. In fact, your point kind of agrees with what I was saying. To put it simply

Some games are art, and some are toys.

Agreed?

I think I would. My problem is that viewpoint tends to make a "only some games are art" mentality that discourages the study of video games as art. And that is simply not acceptable. It feeds the idea that only games that are good, or somehow "more arty," are artworks, which leads to all sorts of immense problems. That's what I'm arguing against, I suppose; not so much the idea that some games aren't made to be artworks, but that games shouldn't be studied as a general, all-encompassing art form because they're also used for non-artistic principles.

 

[Altanese]

I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't see an option for "Some games are art, others not." Video games as a whole are not art, and if you're going to count an entire medium for expression as "Art" or "Not art" then please tell me how books can all be art when both "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens and "Twilight" by Stephanie Mayer are books. For that matter how does one classify music as art when you can listen to Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" and Beiber's "Baby"?

Of course, even if that were an option, I would have pointed out that 'art' is all a matter of perspective. From my perspective, it's very difficult to claim most games are artistic when story progression and character development and interaction is often interrupted by "Kill baddies". A truly artistic game can balance the opposition to the antagonistic forces with the development between characters and the story with the technology available at the time (as in, I wouldn't hold the original Legend of Zelda to the same standards as Dragon Age).

In any case the best game ever was also the first video game, and it's artistic by virtue of a whole subculture it's spawned. Yes, Tetris.

 

[Gigano]

Well, games a pieces of multimedia containing many recognized elements already recognized as art forms - visual texture designs, cut scene cinematography, music, script - so for that reason alone I'd any game qualify as a work of art (be it a successful or poor one).

Whether the interactive element - the distinguished "game" part - can qualify in and of itself, then I'd say yes insofar as it rise above and beyond the level of a cost/benefit analysis working towards a fixed end mean. See something like "The Path" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Path_%28video_game%29].

 

[Rastrelly]

Heh, quite a hard question - but me personally has developed such an answer:

"The game is NOT an art except it meets (personal) requirements for an object to become an art". So, as for me, game by default is not art. But it's elements ARE art - models, textures, additional graphics and/or storyline. And in some cases the game in total can turn itself into art by combination of its components. See, for example, Beyond Good & Evil or Psychonauts.

Logical addendum for the answer:
"(personal) Requirements can be set to zero. In this case all games do become art"

IMHOical addendum to the answer:
"(personal) means YOU have to decide for yourself if THIS thing actually is a piece of art. This principle can be used not only for games, but for every object in the Universe."

 

[370999]

Yes. all games. Even the bad ones. As art is subjective. I could write poem and it would be art, just not very good. I still don't beleive there is anything wrong with a beer and pizza game though and I do detest the snobbery that does come to the fore with this.

 

[wrightry]

I feel that video games are the only medium where the observer can be totally immersed in the world of the art. I feel like video games ought to be considered an art form all their own because no other art form can absorb the audience like videogames can. Obviously people can get enraptured in paintings and theatre etc. but the way it happens in videogames I think makes them worthy of being called art. A game doesn't even have to look great to be immersive: see the original Half Life. I just think making a world come to life ought to be considered an art form like theatre/movies are. Its a similar dynamic only you're in control so it gets even more immersive.

 

[Bobic]

Games are absolutely art. The annoying thing to me is the "only a few games are art" idea. Guys, the medium of video games is a form of artistic expression. To say, "only the really good and artistic games are art" is essentially saying that there is no such thing as bad art. Video games require creativity and skill to complete, and thus they are all art, even if not all of them are good art.

But would you count games with no artistic merit as art? Is space invaders a piece of art? If so, why doesn't screwball scramble count as art?

Perhaps not. Maybe the early examples of a medium, before it even realizes it can create art, do not count as art. But video games are hardly alone in that. You've likely heard of the film The Great Train Robbery. Know why it's remembered like it is? Because it was the first movie with a story. Before it, people would just lay down a dollar or two to watch a horse run for a few minutes. Film was a spectacle, a tech demo, an artless diversion. For that matter, I highly doubt the first thing done with written language was writing an epic poem. All art forms, in the history of existence, were used for non-artistic purposes before the artistic merit was realized. That makes it a little difficult to classify those early examples as art, perhaps, but it does not mean the medium is not an art form.

For that matter, unless you are going to count things like instructional math videos that just show a hand writing on a whiteboard as art, or a Terms of Service document, every art form has non-artistic uses. It still does not change the fact that the medium is capable of artistic merit, and will be considered an "art form" even if it can also be used for other purposes.

I'm not saying that no games are art, I'm just saying that there is a perfectly legitimate reason to say "only a few games are art". The medium can be used for art but a significant amount of the time it is used to create a challenge for people to overcome like the aforementioned screwball scramble, or a way for people to compete with eachother, which puts them in the same category as sports.

That is true; video games are a far more diverse medium in that sense. I personally study them as a narrative art, but they are capable of so many more things than that. Which is why I think a distinction will be coming soon, between game games and artistic games. One would still be able to make the argument that they're all art (they still require a team of artists to make), but I think a distinction between games made to create competition and games made to for artistic reasons (which, by the way, include entertainment through the art form) would be helpful. But I still hold that it is important to consider video games an art form, because they are capable of it and recognition of that fact is what will allow us to study them as such. Film would never have developed as an art form the way it has if it was only recognized and appreciated by a few random guys that made artistic films; it had to be culturally accepted as a medium of creative expression. Just because not all video games are meant to be art does not mean that acceptance shouldn't happen, especially since the same discrepancy appears, though perhaps to a lesser extent, in every other artistic medium out there.

You seem to be arguing the point you want to argue rather than the counter to the point which I was making. In fact, your point kind of agrees with what I was saying. To put it simply

Some games are art, and some are toys.

Agreed?

I think I would. My problem is that viewpoint tends to make a "only some games are art" mentality that discourages the study of video games as art. And that is simply not acceptable. It feeds the idea that only games that are good, or somehow "more arty," are artworks, which leads to all sorts of immense problems. That's what I'm arguing against, I suppose; not so much the idea that some games aren't made to be artworks, but that games shouldn't be studied as a general, all-encompassing art form because they're also used for non-artistic principles.

In that case we agree completely. Keep on preaching brother.

 

[Dark Harbinger]

I feel that video games are the only medium where the observer can be totally immersed in the world of the art. I feel like video games ought to be considered an art form all their own because no other art form can absorb the audience like videogames can. Obviously people can get enraptured in paintings and theatre etc. but the way it happens in videogames I think makes them worthy of being called art. A game doesn't even have to look great to be immersive: see the original Half Life. I just think making a world come to life ought to be considered an art form like theatre/movies are. Its a similar dynamic only you're in control so it gets even more immersive.

An excellent way of putting it, I completely agree with you, I myself can be completely absorbed in games. Red Dead Redemption being an absolute time absorber for me. ^^

 

[Psycho Cat Industries]

Since art is anything people do then yeah,its art.
Now here's my question.Apart from possible protection,why does it matter?
Also,I thought poll would be yes or no.

 

[Kahunaburger]

I didn't vote in the poll because I didn't see an option for "Some games are art, others not." Video games as a whole are not art, and if you're going to count an entire medium for expression as "Art" or "Not art" then please tell me how books can all be art when both "Great Expectations" by Charles Dickens and "Twilight" by Stephanie Mayer are books. For that matter how does one classify music as art when you can listen to Tchaikovsky's "1812 Overture" and Beiber's "Baby"?

All creative works are art, but not all art is good.

 

[bootz]

Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"

yup they are all art

 

[Dark Harbinger]

Yes and no, the Transformers series sure as fuck isn't art, but it is recognized as such, the same is true of games, the Call of Duty franchise is action filled jingoism, mindless arcade fodder, Heavy Rain is a piece of art.

We just have to reach the threshold where the majority finally concedes the point, in this case the critic community seems to be one of the major obstacles.

There will always be critics for art though. ^^