Poll: Should Games become art?

[Tristan6928]

Art is a subject that has no right answer if we could define it then we wouldn't be talking about it, we'd write it down in a book and when someone asked what it was then we'd point him to the book. It's fun to think about and try to understand but really does come down to what you think it is. I support you trying to figure out what your definition is though.

As for games, I don't really make the distinction between types of games here. Video games just happen to be art. There not art because there games, they just happen to be games, and art. It sounds bass ackwards but art isn't defined by criteria, its anything and everything that people arbitrary decide is art or treat as art. Like I said, its a sort of axiom. What is art? Hell if I or anyone else knows but I can point out what people treat as art. Therefore even if I can't define art I can still examine it. In geometry a point is an axiomatic object. Nobody can define a point nobody can say what it is or if it exists, yet we can still have geometry because even if we can't say what the point is, people have an agreed upon notion of what it is that we understand. Trying to make the point "this is art because X" will never work because that's trying to put rule that ties art down and beats it into a form that its not. That's why people's definitions of art are so nebulous because every time you make a definition someone points to something that doesn't fit and suddenly the definition needs to be changed and suddenly it either becomes a big blob of indistinct nothing or people have to start declaring that things used as counter-examples don't count in order to maintain some level of distinctiveness.

As for why games would fail as a non-art form. Sports are fun. Sports are a part of culture that fit some need or are a natural occurrence (thus why they are in every society ever). Art is a part of culture and thus why it appears in all societies (every society produces something and usually has some notion of which is good and which isn't which implies the kind of subjective judgment that entails art). Games are to some extent an intersection. They kind of act the same way sports and other games do and they kind of don't. I honestly think that if they weren't art we wouldn't care nearly as much. People get excited about watching their favorite players and monitoring a game for interesting events. They like to win and fight and be challenged. They like the possibility of winning. The set of rules that defines the game and the mechanics aren't as interesting as watching or participating. The mechanics of games, and sports as a subset, are perpetuated because people enjoy the things associated with the sport, the rules and the official doctrine aren't important, in fact the official rules of sports change all the time and sports themselves have come and gone and evolved and degenerated. The key element is that special drive that people have that goes beyond the simple game. I think people admire video games because they get that same special drive that goes beyond a sea of code and a set of rules. I think that if video games weren't art we simply wouldn't care and we would never establish that sense of the action or the fun of the game. I think that its the art that gives it that flavor that special something. Without some notion of artistry then it becomes kind of a bland sea of code and rules and loses that excitement. It's like taking a sonnet and examining it from a grammatically and spelling viewpoint only while completely ignore things like similes and imagery.

Maybe I'm just talking out of my ass and I have no idea what makes things work but then again maybe I have achieved enlightenment and become one with the artz. There isn't a right answer and it's up to you to decide for yourself. As for me, I like my axiomatic definition even if it says games are art because games are art. Hell if I know what makes art is but I can still point it out regardless.

I still think your definition art is a bit to broad and too personal in my opinion. But, since I'm not you, its hard to judge whether i got the whole story from this tiny bit of text. If you've become enlightened, write us a book. It's not cool to keep such knowledge to yourself.

Also, i doubt anyone who discusses this subject doesn't speak out of his ass.

 

[hiks89]

black ops is not art...max payne is

 

[Burst6]

Give me a definition of art that not only says that video games aren't art, but includes every other type of what people accept as art, and I'll say Video games aren't art.

And if you take the definition from Wikipedia and put "except video games" at the end, I'm ignoring you to death.

 

[Tristan6928]

Give me a definition of art that not only says that video games aren't art, but includes every other type of what people accept as art, and I'll say Video games aren't art.

And if you take the definition from Wikipedia and put "except video games" at the end, I'm ignoring you to death.

"There really is no such thing as art, there are only artists."
[Gombrich]

Games can't be art since art doesn't exist.

But seriously this is only one definition out of millions. Don't go with it blindly.

 

[immortalfrieza]

I put "can become art, but don't gain from that title". This is because Art is far too much of a relative term to be applicable to anything. However, even if video games could be unanimously considered Art, it wouldn't matter in the end because what's ultimately important about a video game is how enjoyable it is to play, and how appealing as an Art it is only a very small part of that.

I think that the art is a very large part of a game.

The visual and musical art is part of what immerses the player within the game as does the art of the voice actors and the writers.

But on a different level the art is the enjoyability of the game play too. Artists have engineered the entertaining experience that you will have while playing the game and the player becomes an actor within the artwork.

The truth is nobody, regardless of who, actually knows what Art is, and because of it's relativity no one ever will. The problem is due to how relative Art is, you can call anything Art, from the most visually appealing to the most vile, disgusting things ever, even actions can be considered Art. However, Art is a term that is so relative that it has no firm defintion with anyone, thus anything and everything can be called Art, but nothing truly does fit the defintion of Art as it doesn't actually have one.

I hope I'm making sense, I'm starting to feel like I'm writing in circles.

 

[shadow_Fox81]

Video games will simply never have anywhere NEAR the impact and depth of some of these pieces of music (if you disagree, then you probably have never listened to these pieces). The most enduring pieces of art have been created by some of the most brilliant minds to ever walk the earth: it's just not something video games have a hope to compete with.

i have to disagree on the whole "IMPACT" deal here because alot of art never has impact on release.
Not down with the whole 18t-19th century music scene i can't really relate to that, but i recall certain writers of the era disdainfully refered to by their contemporrary critics as a "Cockney school of writing". My favorite of this school was critiqued to have no hope of "ever writing verse fit to live", John Keats is now one of the pillars of poetic literature.
To the same effect John Donne a poet of two centuries earlier rarely published in his lifetime, but now rubs elbows with Shakespeare and Milton on library shelves.
Nick Drakes Pink moon similarly went unoticed in his life time and Picaso's Demoiselle de avingione similarly collected dust in his studio for decades before they resurfaced decades on as favorites of mainstream artists(robbert smith is an avid Drake fan, Warhol clearly took lessons from the picasso school of thought).

i guess what i'm saying is not everything that is art is measure in impact or depth(and i'm a punk which is about as unconcerned with anecdotal details art can get), some art makes it only to the eyes of a few and speaks only in epigrams.

I think we'll get there.

 

[getoffmycloud]

I think games can be an art form but should all games go for the art approach, absolutely not. Other mediums such as film don't have all arty films some stuff is just fun to watch and video games should go the same way have some arty stuff but have some games that are just awesomely fun to play but don't really explore the human condition or anything like that

 

[Tristan6928]

I put "can become art, but don't gain from that title". This is because Art is far too much of a relative term to be applicable to anything. However, even if video games could be unanimously considered Art, it wouldn't matter in the end because what's ultimately important about a video game is how enjoyable it is to play, and how appealing as an Art it is only a very small part of that.

I think that the art is a very large part of a game.

The visual and musical art is part of what immerses the player within the game as does the art of the voice actors and the writers.

But on a different level the art is the enjoyability of the game play too. Artists have engineered the entertaining experience that you will have while playing the game and the player becomes an actor within the artwork.

The truth is nobody, regardless of who, actually knows what Art is, and because of it's relativity no one ever will. The problem is due to how relative Art is, you can call anything Art, from the most visually appealing to the most vile, disgusting things ever, even actions can be considered Art. However, Art is a term that is so relative that it has no firm definition with anyone, thus anything and everything can be called Art, but nothing truly does fit the definition of Art as it doesn't actually have one.

I hope I'm making sense, I'm starting to feel like I'm writing in circles.

I wouldn't say that there is no definition of art. Many extremely influential people have created definitions (Tolstoy, Danto, etc...). But the main problem is that we aren't sure which one best represent what art is. And since these definitions were created by human beings, some of them contradict each other. The definition of art is as elusive as the definition of games or experience. But, that does not mean that it doesn't exist.

 

[SL33TBL1ND]

It doesn't matter.

Stop making this thread. I see a new one literally every day.

 

[Tristan6928]

I

I think games can be an art form but should all games go for the art approach, absolutely not. Other mediums such as film don't have all arty films some stuff is just fun to watch and video games should go the same way have some arty stuff but have some games that are just awesomely fun to play but don't really explore the human condition or anything like that

I agree that if games can become art, not all of them will be art. This is the same for books. An instruction manual is not art unless it was created as an art piece, but then its not an instruction manual anymore.

Anyway, the main question is whether any games can be called art at all.

 

[vivster]

art is art is art
the definition is so broad that literally almost everything can be with intent described as art
it's not about to desperately want to become art but to stop the discrimination and seclusion against games as an art
also think of the broad definition of games
i dare to say that painting a painting is a game for one player as is creating music or writing books

there just is no level of sophistication something has to reach to become art
so there is no "games might become art in the future"
games are art
it doesn't make them better but it just categorizes them where they belong

 

[Cain_Zeros]

This is a rare time when the comparison to movies actually works. There are "art" films, and then there's Michael Bay. In the same way, there are games like Shadow of the Colossus, and then there's Call of Duty.

 

[Mr.Snippets93]

yeah, i think games are art. art is the way of human beings to express themselfs and/or their feelings through a medium, visuall or otherwise. so, seeing it this way, i agree with many of the people above me by saying they CAN be art, but don't have to be. it would be a big mistake to take them all as art, but either would it be to consider no game art at all. it depends highly on the game!

 

[Ramare]

I voted "dunno" because my opinion can't be expressed properly by what other options there are. I think that games don't have to, or even need to be art. But I think it's a great thing that they now can be art. Can some games be enhanced by officially being art? Sure. Do all games need to be called art? Nope. Do all games need to be art? Nope. But it's a great thing that games can officially be called art. This also means that some games that are actually meant to be art could get a grant to be made without the author having to pay out of their pocket. This doesn't mean that you could, should, can, or even would call games like Call of Duty: Black Ops, or Battlefield: Bad Company 2, or Final Fantasy 3 art. But the fact that you can now actually consider games like Bioshock, the S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series, Half-life 2, and perhaps later Final Fantasy games (Wouldn't know about the Final[small](est)[/small] Fantasy games, don't play them; not my thing.) to be art is a great step towards this medium being as respected as every other currently is.

 

[Sjakie]

Games only need to be fun, but they can become pieces of art. I rather they didn't though!
Since 'art' is usually an expensive luxury item, i will rather have just 'fun', games are expensive enough as it is.
Making 'Fun' an artform is secondary to that.
Defining what 'fun' is, is also much, much easier then defining what 'art' is.

 

[Yopaz]

Art is a useless title people want to have in order to be regarded highly by society. For every title there is a cost, though, and I worry about what might be traded away in order to get society to confer it. I see immense effort lavished on gaming's most superficial elements whilst the core component, gameplay, languishes with relatively little thought or attention.

Art is not a useless title. Art gets funding. Entertainment doesn't.

I don't care if games are art or not, honestly. Games are fun, most of what I consider art isn't.

 

[Hal10k]

It depends on how you define art really.

Personally, I think the whole games are art crap stems from pseudo-intellectual 14-24 year olds who feel insecure about playing games for some reason, so they decided to start calling games "art" instead to help justify it to society and more importantly themselves. To some people, say "games are art" is a way they can justify their hobby.

There's a chance games will become art, but I really doubt it. I mean, when I think of art, I think of Beethoven's 9th or Bach's Johannes Passion. Video games will simply never have anywhere NEAR the impact and depth of some of these pieces of music (if you disagree, then you probably have never listened to these pieces). The most enduring pieces of art have been created by some of the most brilliant minds to ever walk the earth: it's just not something video games have a hope to compete with.

The thing is, the emotional impact of something is always inherently subjective. I mean, I've listened to the 9th, but I've also listened to Stairway to Heaven. And while I don't have anything against the 9th, I have to say that Stairway affected me more. Does the fact that the 9th was written by Beethoven while Stairway was written by a bunch of guys who named themselves after a balloon change that? Of course not. Art is not measurable, and art does not have a minimum threshold of quality. You cannot say something is in possession of more artishness because more effort was put into it or the creator was smarter.

I just really don't understand your argument here. You don't really give a definition of art that somehow excludes video games, you just say "Games aren't art because I like Beethoven and Beethoven is smart."

Anyway, I'm of the opinion that games are art, and it's not because I'm insecure about my hobby. It's just that my definition of art is "A creative work intended to provoke an emotional response in the audience." Video games can provoke an emotional response-I direct anybody curious about that to the forums- and they're an example of creative intentions being put to work, so I classify them as art. Simple as that.

Unless, of course, you were referring to the secondary connotation of "art" that limits it to works that hold up under heavy analysis, in which case the entire point is moot because how well something stands up to analysis will always be subjective.

 

[Dfskelleton]

I wish you had asked "Do games have to be art?" instead of "Should games be considered art?".
Games should have the option of whether they want to be art or not. If the game is about a shillouette of a young boy traveling through a perilous dimension of black and white to learn the fate of his sister, then "Art" is probably what it's going for. Now, if the game wants to be about a machismo fueled anti-hero in black sunglasses who has to save the women of earth from aliens with horribly defined motives, then it's probably not trying to be art. However, both of these are awesome.
Besides, "art" doesn't nessecarily translate to "good". Is the ugliest painting in the world art? Yes, but it's still a freaking ugly painting.
Another thing about art is that it's only art if you think it is. I don't care if anyone else thinks/doesn't think that it's art, I'll decide.

 

[Tristan6928]

Snip

I probably stand out for saying this- but I don't think every video game is an art. Spite being an artist myself, who has attended classes for art for like 4-6 years... some video games lack the art quality. Here, let me give you examples:

<spoiler=Example A>

Portal: Staying Alive: is a game that has such an artistic outlook that it just staggering to gaze upon. The whole purpose of this game is to make you feel sucked in, and make solving puzzles that more entertaining (if it wasn't for the unique power of portals anyhow). You can tell they've put a lot of work into the setting, the environment, and overall layout of the rooms along with the characters set out.

<spoiler=Example B>

I don't even have to say what this game is about. Yeah, I found one that doesn't show anything but least gives you the exact idea what it's about. This game offers no morals, no value in art itself... it's only a sex sale. I call it that because spite the graphic looking alright- it's not based on setting your mind to admire the scenery, the complexity of characterization. Nope, just chicks and the game's purpose to please the male audience (well, doesn't have to be just guys but yeah.)

So with that said, not all games are art. I would say over 80% of games have some element of an articular point or least something to make you admire it belonging it in the art category (Note: Art doesn't have to deal with imagery. It can be music, the storyline, even the details of a person's hobby like swords play or dancing can be classified as an art. These are just my two cents though.)

You're not standing out, a lot of people in this thread have had the same opinion as you (that not all games are art). Hell, i even believe that games have the potential to become art, but not all of them.

 

[Discon]

I really don't understand the need to brand everything. Does a game change its qualities if some organ of the state decides it's art? Can't things be judged on their own merits?