The games are art defense

[OrpheusTelos]

Games being art isn't a defense of the ME3 ending. It's just pointing out that ME3 is an artistic work with a crappy ending. It's not like that hasn't happened before *coughMatrixtrilogycough*

And I've yet to hear 'games are art' used to defend the ridiculous price gouging that is retail video game prices.

 

[Jay Knowles]

the unfortunate thing is, the 'art' community is, and always has been an elitist one. despite many attempts to bring art down of its pedestal it invariably becomes more elitist by doing so. and this is where average joe doesn't really have much of a say whether games are art or not, because as far as the art community, and by that i mean the critics (who basically decide what art is) is concerned what they say goes.

enter video games. games are art. end of that discussion. its average joe that is debating this, not the art community, which to the art community is like two kids arguing about whether their parents should go to mcdonalds or burger king for lunch...

all games are art, some are aweful pieces of art, some are good, few are great, in much the same way as the doodles i used to do in my school books are art, but they're shit examples of it. as to the 'artist integrity' argument goes, they shouldn't be forced to change it, but they'd better take note of what's being said about it, and be willing to adjust it if it isn't hitting the audience in the right way.
say for example someone made a painting with the intention of making someone laugh, but it didn't end up doing that, and made the viewer think something different, it is then up to the artist to either keep their art the way it is (and have it be a crappy piece of art) or fix it to make people laugh.

/rant

 

[I.Muir]

This thread just blew up in my face
Sorry about the unintentional flame war, well not really
I see some people agreed with me, a few called me an idiot making stuff up, a few missed my point entirely, a few don't believe that games are art at all and some even posted things worth reading.

1) To all the aloof people saying they don't care and I'm more or less just re posting stuff because I could not be stuffed to trawl through the old arguments and decided to pull a refresher. If you don't care then why did you post? Life will move on no matter what I or anybody else says here.

2)Again my point was that I did not like people abusing the art title as the means for defense of any or all bad decisions made in regard to the development of a video game. I hear this a lot from hipster elitist types at uni, my fellow gamers online buddies, 4chan (take everything they say with a grain of salt because they sure do love to troll) and even here especially during the me3 debate.

3)If you jumped to the conclusion that I either bought the game or supported the take me3 back, petitions or various other forms of nerd rage except for that of ranting at people here, I did not. I have neither attempted to make demands that video games should drop their price to a reasonable level but have participated in discussions of why they should and wouldn't it be nice if this and the world of made of candy, it would be just dandy. I realize the chances of this happening are as likely as a tiger parting with teeth. Other people don't seem to understand that stating that they won't because they just won't is not the point of those topics (currently getting off topic myself).

4)I agreed that under some of the definitions here that games are theoretically, irrefutably art. However my own acceptance of certain games as art is debatable but this is beside the main point.

5)Well as for the rest I think I have a tendency to exaggerate but I made this post after participating in this one > http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.374357-You-cant-price-art?page=1.

Jesus tap dancing Christ!
Now to sum up, can we agree that people using art as some sort of impenetrable defense (even though there seem to be fewer of them than I had previously expected, EVEN IF YOU DON'T THINK THESE PEOPLE EXIST AT ALL AND THAT I'M SOME KIND OF BASTARD ATTENTION WHORE (I probably am)) is crap. You have a right to your opinion of course just don't ask me to respect it as you probably don't respect mine. I don't give a shit what peoples opinions are in regard whether games are art or not because that has already been legally recognized and people will never agree on it, period.

Now lighten up goddammit.

 

[thePyro_13]

All the individual things that make up a game are art, so it's hard for the finished product to no be art.

That doesn't stop it from being bad art however...

 

[I.Muir]

MAIN POINT
MAIN POINT
YOU SEE IT?!

so dude can you post it again, i think i missed it -_-

Funny but apparently it was not as effective as it should have been.

Also did somebody slip up and say that the retake me3 people were using straw man and not being straw maned.

 

[Gamergeek25]

Why defend the purpose of art? I mean seriously people need to get it into their thick skull
There is a major difference between games and art.

Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.

Games are by physical action and usually a reward is placed in front of you for archiveing a goal. the interpretation is already there

Thats your opinion of art.

Art for me is something created by one or more people in an attempt to convey some message or emotion in their work. Games have stories in which you interact with it and causes you to have emotions or recieve some type of moral. Take Halo reach during one level a carrier containing civilians and wounded people was hit and brought down into the water drowning them. I could not help them. Did that convey an emotion or message? yes I felt sorrow hopelessness, and dismay. I am sorry but your definition of art is not the only definition of art.

 

[Reincarnatedwolfgod]

this thread is just stupid
to the op next time you want to start a topic with the subject involving games being art
reconsider the idea and don't do it

in related news
"Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art"

i have never heard that before but all i know that person must have there head stuck far up their ass

 

[beniki]

1) Shakespeare is widely considered to be art. When you break it down, many of his plays are riddled with humor as highbrow as a dick joke.

Hamlet: Does my lady refer to 'country' matters?

Kind of loses the punch when I type it... just heavily emphasize the first syllable of 'country'. You'll never take a politician seriously again.

Games may be art, but even the most abstract of paintings is subject to critical review. If someone uses games as an art form to excuse high prices, then why isn't there a sliding price scale for generic cash in titles?

 

[kingthrall]

snip

Okay, first off the vocal minority is something you will have to accept on the internet... a lot of people talk out their ass and want you to think it's the word of god. Don't take it all to heart.

Who said art can't be criticised? Art is CONSTANTLY being scrutinised, especially contemporary pieces... Music can be considered art, films can be considered art, BOTH are subject to criticism. As far as I can tell, the people you met are just diehards straining themselves to defend something of an obsession. Also what nonsense is this about pricing? I never heard anyone argue that the price is fixed because "ART"!.

Games can be compilations of artistic work. They are more a gallery for art, then in and of themselves art. That's not to say a game in it's entirety can't be seen as art (since a gallery can be part of the experience, not just the items on display, so too can a game be a piece of art) but due to the nature of gaming, that is being a medium of entertainment, a game can't be so subjective.

The issue cropping up at the moment is too many people trying to interject nonsense to this topic and not actually understanding what they are advocating. Art isn't an excuse for poor design, boredom or what not if a person is paying the full retail price for a game. That game should meet the minimum standards of other retail games. If you are putting it out as a product it needs to be scrutinised as a product by the market, not the subjective opinions of soft spoken men in french berets (stereotype... obviously a joke). Because of this most games sold on retail can never be consider art in their entirety, since they need to appeal to large markets and are subject to objective scrutiny, and not so much subjective opinion.

HOWEVER! Games can still incorporate art but it can't compromise the entertainment value especially if been sold at full retail price. People can and do make games in their own time and offer it for free or for a much lower price. These games offer more freedom to the author and enables them to offer unconventional experiences that can be seen as Artistic. Unfortunately games can never have a speculative business like traditional art, since the game is composed of data that is easily and indistinguishably copied, therefor a fixed pricing system is necessary. But the current pricing system for games is coming under immense flak across the industry.

Games aren't a straightforward platform... it's not just the industry. Games are a medium too and allow people to be expressive. Interaction is it's most distinguishing asset which means games can go places that other art forms can't. Art CAN be fun too. It can also be shit.

Why defend the purpose of art? I mean seriously people need to get it into their thick skull
There is a major difference between games and art.

Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.

Games are by physical action and usually a reward is placed in front of you for archiveing a goal. the interpretation is already there

What's your background in art? Heck, what's your experience? Did you read about it in a book? At the very least I would guess you never heard of interactive art... you know, that art form that makes the interpreter a part of the piece via interaction... sort of like what games do. That sort of completely shits on your theory and blows your reasoning to pieces.

LOL. Interactive art still does not reward you with treasure as my previous point stated as well as the options to choose your outcome with set conditions. you might as well say life is art you imbecile since it is constantly interactive. Yet interactive art is still under the perception and interpretation of the user with no perimeters.

Oh and games may look like art, and have the same characteristics but they are still .different

 

[kingthrall]

Why defend the purpose of art? I mean seriously people need to get it into their thick skull
There is a major difference between games and art.

Art is interpreted by no physical interaction, there is no reward other than expressing your feelings from the interpretation.

Games are by physical action and usually a reward is placed in front of you for archiveing a goal. the interpretation is already there

It sounds like you judging videogames' worth as art based on how museum art is judged. It is the physical interaction that makes the player a part of the art. You accept movies as art right? Does a book, a movie, or even a painting lose its status as art if it lacks subtlety? There are plenty of movies (including Shindler's List and Birth of a Nation) that make no effort to be subtle about the main point, and leave no room for interpretation, and yet we still accept them as art. Gaming is opening a new venue for new a new means of expression.

Of course, it can be a bit iffy if it's the kind of game that was made for the sole purpose of making money, but if those don't count as art, then the same can be said about numerous books, movies and even paintings.

You have answered your own question. Of course they contain elements in film and all the other mediums of interaction that involve art. However MOVIES are labelled Movies in society, Books are Books and Games are Games. Yes every now and then I might go "oh that's a nice art cover on a book" but its still a bloody book!

 

[I.Muir]

this thread is just stupid
to the op next time you want to start a topic with the subject involving games being art
reconsider the idea and don't do it

in related news
"Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art"

i have never heard that before but all i know that person must have there head stuck far up their ass

Was actually starting to think this is pretty stupid
Put the word game next to art and people lose their shit

Also i Agree

 

[JochemHippie]

They aren't art, they're media...
How is this so difficult?

 

[General Twinkletoes]

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

Who the hell says that?

Punch them.

Anyway, there are games that are artistic, but I think most games aren't art. Only a few are, and a lot of those aren't very enjoyable from a gameplay standard,

 

[I.Muir]

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

Who the hell says that?

Punch them.

Anyway, there are games that are artistic, but I think most games aren't art. Only a few are, and a lot of those aren't very enjoyable from a gameplay standard,

I wish I could punch people over the internet, by i can't.

 

[kingthrall]

Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art

Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art

Who the hell says that?

Punch them.

Anyway, there are games that are artistic, but I think most games aren't art. Only a few are, and a lot of those aren't very enjoyable from a gameplay standard,

I wish I could punch people over the internet, by i can't.

Lol under your username it says beat writer, Get it ?

 

[Ragsnstitches]

What's your background in art? Heck, what's your experience? Did you read about it in a book? At the very least I would guess you never heard of interactive art... you know, that art form that makes the interpreter a part of the piece via interaction... sort of like what games do. That sort of completely shits on your theory and blows your reasoning to pieces.

LOL. Interactive art still does not reward you with treasure as my previous point stated as well as the options to choose your outcome with set conditions. you might as well say life is art you imbecile since it is constantly interactive. Yet interactive art is still under the perception and interpretation of the user with no perimeters.

Oh and games may look like art, and have the same characteristics but they are still .different

Okay, I'll bite. This post tells me 2 things, 1: You have limited comprehension of what games can be and 2: You have limited comprehension of what Art can be.

Where do I start? For such a short piece of text you make one mess of a point. I'll just quote each component and point out the fallacies you stuffed into them.

*"Interactive art does not reward you with treasure"...
Okay, so how does Dear Esther fit into this? Or are you going to redefine what Dear Esther is (for your own convenience of course)? Also, despite what you say, there is reward added to interactive art (and art in general)... though it isn't a shiny trinket or some levelled gear, there is in fact a pay off to partaking in interactive art. That pay off is understanding the piece, which is impossible without partaking (or at the least observing someone partake, though that doesn't always work). The concept is the same as reading a book. You don't read just because, you read to discover more of the story. That is the reward.

*"Interactive art is still under the perception and interpretation of the user with no perimeters"
Eh? This begs the question again, have you ever experienced art? Not all art is outrageous and undefined, neither is art specifically subjective. Fine art is usually very literal and is intended to give specific feelings... it can be completely and deliberately defined in a way that limits the level of interpretation on the piece. Look at all the portraits painted by great artists of the past, or even contemporary amateurs, ignoring the particulars of artistic movements. Look at a few of these random google image searches:

Spoiler

Despite your own logic, these images are actually fairly narrow in potential for interpretation... it's not to say there isn't room for some interpretation, but it's a far cry from having "no perimeters". Put another way, you won't be contemplating the meaning of life from the guy singing to a mic, and you'd be hard pressed to see anything beyond the literal in the picture of the baby. (Also, try NOT to look at that guys eyebrows).

*"(Interactive art does not allow you) the options to choose your outcome with set conditions"
Sigh... really? Okay, first off, can we agree that art CAN allow for multiple interpretations (also known as an outcome when appreciating art). Though it isn't spontaneous and concious choice that makes you take a specific meaning from an image, it is still choice... the features of the image your brain focused on first is a subconscious choice. The degree in which you filter the information from the image is also choice, though again, subconscious. As for set conditions? Ever here of themes? Yeah, a theme can be used as a form of "condition" within an image which is used to focus a point. It is fixed and unshakable, if that is what the artist intends.

I will grant you that currently I have not played a game that has allowed for an unguided experience, but rather we get some sort of multiple choice quiz in some form or other (usually hidden under dialogue or quest triggers). But as I have established above, art too can be forward and literal... not obscure and subjective.

Whether or not any game from this generation can be considered art is still debatable, but what's to say games can't BE art? There are plenty of students in art courses trying to make something unique and unseen in the art world, via games... and I don't mean the industry, but rather the medium.

I don't get the hypocrisy people use when denying the plausibility of games as art. Especially yours. You say art is undefined (quote: "with no perimeter"), but then claim that games can't be art because art is defined as such? That's ass backwards logic. I'm aware you BELIEVE art is as you describe, but it's also more then that... if not undefinable.

And finally:

*"you might as well say life is art you imbecile since it is constantly interactive"
Well, I won't say that it's art because it's interactive... I'd say it's art because it's "under the perception and interpretation of the user with no perimeters". Considering science as we know it is still an incomplete source of understanding, I'd say Life is virtually without perimeters and it's definitely open to interpretation.

It's so delicious to use your own logic against you.

 

[Gamergeek25]

They aren't art, they're media...
How is this so difficult?

Um i would like to know what defines media. as from what I hear media includes news related things on a digital format. Like example msn cnn is media. Now I wouldnt call them art. heres a definition i found in the dictionary ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media


and heres art the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. by dictionarys definition.

I am pretty sure Video games do not fall under the first category.

 

[JochemHippie]

They aren't art, they're media...
How is this so difficult?

Um i would like to know what defines media. as from what I hear media includes news related things on a digital format. Like example msn cnn is media. Now I wouldnt call them art. heres a definition i found in the dictionary ( usually used with a plural verb ) the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely: The media


and heres art the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. by dictionarys definition.

I am pretty sure Video games do not fall under the first category.

There's a fine line in there somewhere.
The one that separates greedy developers like EA from whichever small Indie company might have your preference. CoD, Battlefield, TES. Those are media, made for one purpose only, to make money.
Art is the the artistic view of an artist, on whatever medium. Making a multi million selling game, set by strict guidelines for the sake of commercial design however, is not.

Personally I think very few games are art. There are some out there, but overal games are not a freely created form of expression.

 

[Xanadu84]

"Art" is 3 straight connecting lines followed by a straight line connecting to a slightly curved line followed by a large and a small line crossed. Alternatively, it is a short series of sounds in a certain order. It's a word, word are arbitrary, meaningless things that don't mean ANYTHING until we assign them meaning. Generally, you want words to express useful concepts. If you want the word "Art" to be a useful word, then you define it as any discrete creative endeavor made to produce an aesthetic reaction in the audience, which games CLEARLY are. Or you can use a billion other, possibly better, equally inclusive definitions. If you wanna get in pissing matches on the internet with people, you assign some arbitrary, personal value judgement and pretend like it is an objective definition. If you want to say that not all art is good, that's fine. At least then you admit that your making a value judgement, not faking a definition.

I think we need a new term: "High art". Actually, its an old term, but we have a desperate need to use it more. You think something is art, its art. If you think something is shallow, lowbrow, or creatively bankrupt, you insist that it is not, "High Art". And then we can piss and moan about something that at least admits that it is making a value judgement. And if we start from that point, where we admit that we are arguing subjective concepts, then maybe we can glean a few meaningful insights into the trends and workings of every creative field.

A few responses too.


"Games are expensive
Reply: They should be because they are art"

Where is this argument made? Also, there is some truth to this, though ive never heard of it as an art argument. Games are extremely expensive to make, and basic economic rules say that a certain price will be charged. That if far more relevent then any discussion of art.

"Me3 has a crappy end
Reply: You can't criticize it on the basis that it is art"

That really isn't the concern, is it? The concern here is that games will fall to a majority rule, where developers will strictly follow there consumers desires without daring any creative agency of their own. You know what that gets you? Reality TV. Sure, I think that Bioware should probably iterate the ending: like poems, great games are never finished, only abandoned and called finished. The concern was a valid one, it just didn't end up applying in this case. but its good that this idea of letting creators create was explored.

 

[burningdragoon]

I don't claim to be all knowing, but I have never seen someone say "you can't criticize it because it's art" before. Ever.