Proof that video games can be art

[Rude as HECK]

Ok, let's bring the argument back from "Are games high art"- which people seem to want to argue- to the facts of the matter:
Music is regarded as an art.
Storytelling is regarded as an art.
Character design is regarded as an art.
Oh, fuck, you say that something that combines these three elements- and more- isn't an art? Well, that rules out movies too.

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

(my definition) Art: Something made semi-objectively with the primary purpouse of being enjoyd by non physical means. I've thought that back and through for hours, I'll think that back and through for hours more and probably find something illogical in it and change it, but right now that's the only rational definition I can think of for art. So at least for the moment, to me games are art.

The sad part is, whether or not something is art is an entirely pointless question.

And fuck, I just thought of something wrong with that. And I don't know how to fix it.

You know what, fuck it I give up. I just don't care anymore.

Edit: playd the game. The ***** (it's a woman because of glados, just so you know) Lied to me in the beginning for no reason so I proceeded to do everything against her will.

In the end she asked me would I go or be close to her, and I chose close because she seemed pretty omnipotent and it would be sweet living with someone like that. So she basically told me to go fuck myself with my varied choices and start over. Well FUCK YOU. I'm not playing through this again, your controls where shit and your puzzles were mediocre.

 

[TheGreatAndPowerfulZOG]

Alright, here's my issue with "art games": Most of them, this one included, seem to have been designed completely around a single metaphor. While it's neat to play this, or Jason Rohrer's Gravitation, it honestly feels a little gimmicky. It's just such a simple mechanic, I don't think it justifies the minimalist style. If you think about minimalist Film or Paintings or Music, is the meaning immediately clear? Is it even clear that there is a "meaning"? Metaphors should be weaved into a work of art, not be the entire inspiration behind the work.

Personally, I feel that art is entertainment, and entertainment is art. The only difference is the level of sophistication and thematic harmony. I think of Mario Galaxy as a work of art, because I think it's brilliantly designed and evokes emotion, even if that emotion is just what you might call "fun".

 

[Use_Imagination_here]

(my definition) Art: Something made semi-objectively with the primary purpouse of being enjoyd by non physical means.

That is the almost polar opposite of art. That would mean that art is solely the process of your rational mind. Which it definitely isn't.

Discussing wether or not VGs are art is actually a bit important, since art has been one of the ultimate expressions of free will throughout history.

Did you not read the other part of that post where I said that I realised that was illogical?

And how is it an important question? Art is important, that's for sure, but how Is our DEFINITION of art important? Am I going to enjoy a book less if it isn't considered art? NO.

What you decide to label something is completely meaningless compared to how you exprerienced it. It's a pointless question.

Edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ON0tUATUeP8&feature=related watch that.

 

[EvilPicnic]

The game was not as good as the Stanley Parable as far as that message goes...

And in relation to your main point, surely your assertion that this is 'evidence' of art is meaningless, as art is almost entirely subjective. Art is only what we all agree art is.

Games will be considered to be art when we consider them to be art- nothing more and nothing less. And just because I personally consider something to be art doesn't mean you will, or should.

The only area I can see this as having any 'meaning' is in the area of government funding for the arts. On a personal level it is just that: personal.

 

[Savagezion]

You know, I couldn't even get through one playthrough because the controls pissed me off too much. I wasn't seeing anything particularly clever about it and I found it wasn't an enjoyable game because my control over my actions was horrid. Execution is just as important to art as the idea behind it. It isn't just about what the artist is trying to convey, but how well they execute the design. This game fails very hard on technical merit.

 

[EvilPicnic]

Why is defining ANYTHING important? Think about that.

And in relation to your main point, surely your assertion that this is 'evidence' of art is meaningless, as art is almost entirely subjective. Art is only what we all agree art is.

So is your mum (and science, biology, scissors, chinese food, a grape, an omelette, a grape omelette).

But unlike scissors or grapes, art (and the scientific method) are intangible. They are social constructions which only exist because we agree they do.

Without getting too philosophical, a grape exists as something whether we categorise it as a 'grape' or not, whereas I think that without society the abstract concept of 'art' would not exist at all.

My only real point was that, as I believe there is no definitive agreement of how to categorise something as art, it is impossible to produce 'evidence' to help the case. It's not a 6legs=insect situation.

 

[Luke5515]

Maybe I'm the minority here but I see no artistic merit in this game whatsoever.
In fact, I see few redeeming qualities about it as a game. Nothing about that felt meaningful, deep, or even entertaining.
I truly believe that games can be art, but what the hell was that?

 

[Savagezion]

Why is defining ANYTHING important? Think about that.

Definitions are important because that is what communication is built on. Ironically, art is a type of communication.

And in relation to your main point, surely your assertion that this is 'evidence' of art is meaningless, as art is almost entirely subjective. Art is only what we all agree art is.

I whole heartedly agree. Not a single person has the right to say something is not art. (Pretentious people try to) However, everyone has the right to claim something is art. I don't think that it is important to have a "high bar" for the term art. That high bar was only set by the laws of supply and demand anyway. One man's tastes is no better than another man's. The only difference is that one man's taste can fall more in line with society's but that doesn't inherently make it better. It just means that more people will be competing for the art he likes and wants to be surrounded with. That doesn't mean that the TV show Renegade that Bob Jones sees as art isn't art. It just means not many share his view.

Art is not subjected to what society deems as "acceptable to be art". Society is inherently resistant to accepting things as art because it is pretentious. It holds art to some standard that isn't there.

 

[CrystalShadow]

Has anyone here played the Void?

That's... Perhaps the most complex thing I've come across that might be thought of as art.

I don't know though. What is and is not art remains a very nebulous concept.

 

[IKSA]

You can find plenty of reasons from extra credits

 

[Desaari]

I played through twice doing the opposite the second time and got the same ending. I guess I'll have to play it through a third god damned time.

My first reaction to the voice was of dislike and distrust, later leading to disgust and even abhorrence. I absolutely loathe being ordered around.

In the game I did whatever I felt like, most of the orders being things I'd have done anyway, but I ignored them a few times too. I did what I felt was logical. I also tried to answer the questions with logical responses.

Though I think this:

I dunno what the voice represented, it could be ourselves looking for acceptance within our own actions and by our own actions, it could be society rewarding us with a lack of freedom setting the standars and calling us ugly or dissapointing if we dont act our part out.

is fairly insightful, I just viewed the voice as the game's creator in the sense of a DM in D&D.

The themes expressed and the emotions/reactions the game evokes could have been expressed in other forms of media. It could probably be closely replicated by a "choose your own adventure" type book in fact.

 

[Freaky Lou]

I loved the concept of the game, but holy CRIKEY are the controls obnoxious. I wanted to see what the consequence of my decision would be because I was really getting into it, but I just got too frustrated of running into spikes by the end. A version of this with Mario-tight controls would be amazing.

I managed through one playthrough, during which I was doing as the voice said. Then I came to a part where it said not to touch the statue, and I refused, because I kept dying over and over and I was NOT going to skip a checkpoint. So it gave me the "why do you hate me" ending. I didn't quite understand so I wanted to play through a second time, fully obeying everything, and then a third time disobeying everything. But my patience was worn too thin and I just gave up.

 

[Dann661]

I'm not sure how this reflects on me, but I didn't trust it, it seemed like a rapist.

 

[Drummie666]

Well, that was a shit game. The controls were slippery as hell, but on to the philosophical shit.

The most important question to ask is "Who does the voice represent to you?"
My answer? Nobody. It was some arrogant jackass I don't know, meaning that I had no reason to listen to him (In my mind, I repeated the text in a my own voice, so, as what was being said went against what I was thinking, it was no one's voice) and he was giving me no reason to listen to him and, considering he was being an ass, I didn't. I did listen a few times, when he was telling me to do things that were beneficial to me, so I didn't rebel for no reason, nor did I obey for no reason, I did what would benefit me.

Also, some things that interested me:
I didn't give any bit of a damn when I said I am male and he called me a girl, yet I did when the opposite happened on my second run. yay, more evidence that I'm transgender. goody.
When he said we would meet soon and asked what my reaction to that was, I said I was excited. Mostly because I wanted to see the guy I wanted to punch. I was kind of disappointed when the ending was just me walking away.
I'm a rather submissive person. lulz.

Now then, is this art? Well, that depends on what your definition of "art" is. Mine is fairly simple. "Explain or discuss some element of the human condition." So yeah, I'd consider this art. For further example, here's some games that I think go beyond entertainment and are art:
Deus Ex: Human Revolution. (I've never thought about transhumanism and after playing this thing, suddenly I have an actual opinion on it)
Medal of Honor (Singleplayer only. It is painfully obvious that the devs really went out of their way to try and figure out the mind of a soldier)
Assassin's Creed Series (Mostly about ends justifying the means. PS, Brotherhood less-so then the other two, I think that Revelations is going to pick up the philosophy stuff again)

 

[Freaky Lou]

I wanted to try The Stanley Parable.

I went to the link. I ignored the Desura recommendation and just downloaded.

I couldn't play it. It said none of the programs I had could run it. So I went and made a Desura account and downloaded Desura.

Done. Clicked the Desura link on Stanley Parable's download page. Now it tells me that The Stanley Parable is a Half-Life 2 mod and since I don't have Half-Life 2, I can't run it.

What. Help?

 

[Savagezion]

Ironically, art is a type of communication.

And in relation to your main point, surely your assertion that this is 'evidence' of art is meaningless, as art is almost entirely subjective. Art is only what we all agree art is.

I whole heartedly agree. Not a single person has the right to say something is not art. (Pretentious people try to) However, everyone has the right to claim something is art.

Both is not true. Art is not a type of communication (what the hell would that even mean?).

Yes, I can actually say something is not art. My monitor is not art. Helium atoms are not art. Menstruating is not art.

Please, take a philosophy class. This discussion is on par with trying to prove creationism by claiming 'evolution is just a theory herpderp'.

Art is a type of communication. To deny that is to almost admit you are trolling. All art has meaning, thus a purpose and that purpose was in the form of expression by the person who created it. Thus, they were communicating. Any response to that without explaining why you think art is not communication, I will dismiss as you simply trolling.

Haha, you told me to take a philosophy class. That's funny. Are you saying I don't know about philosophy -or- that my time would be better spent there than in this thread? You don't have the right to tell someone what they can or can't consider art - as much as I am sure you wish you did. You can say you don't see those things as art, but not other people. We ain't trying to define justice here. We are trying to define aesthetic appeal, something that alters drastically, psychologically, and at the same time justifiably in every human being.

As such, you yourself questioned the importance of a definition of art yet you are claiming that others are not allowed to see certain things as art. So which is it? Is art an abstract concept that is difficult to pinpoint or is it something you have clearly figured out and have yet to release an in-depth explanation of your knowledgeable grace about it upon the world? Oh wait, I get it, you just plan on telling society when we are wrong until we get it right?

What I see is here is the same thing as 2 kids playing and after a few minutes one of the kids picks up a ball and the other kid gets upset. He doesn't want the ball, he just doesn't want the other kid to have it. Why do you care if people see things as art that you don't agree with? What does it matter what people consider art? How does it directly impact you in any way?

THAT is why claiming that something isn't art is pretentious and claiming something is art isn't. One person cares more about what others think, the other doesn't.

 

[eclipsed_chemistry]

I don't get it. Did I do something wrong? I never heard a voice, and I played the game like 5 times with different combinations of choices every time and I never heard anything.

 

[Ninjat_126]

I don't get it. Did I do something wrong? I never heard a voice, and I played the game like 5 times with different combinations of choices every time and I never heard anything.

The voice was the text. Sorry, I referred to it as a voice.

The reason I consider the game as "art" is because it caused me to reconsider the way I viewed myself, and made me wonder how I would react in a similar situation. Not in a "zombie survival plan" way like most games, but in a way that actually had an impact on the way I lived my life. (not a huge one, but whatever)

Human Revolution did that for me as well, I started considering my stances on transhumanism and similar issues.

Bioshock didn't. Okami didn't. Metal Gear Solid didn't. The Darkness didn't. Mass Effect didn't. I loved those games, but they didn't affect my entire life or the way I viewed myself.


If you assume "art" means "pretentious crap", then you'll be disappointed by the fact that many people wish video games to become recognised as artistic. You've probably been given the wrong impression of art by all the pretentious crap.

 

[SillyBear]

I thought the voice was me.