The games are art defense

[I.Muir]

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.

Well I have, more than once. I guess this puts us at an impasse.

 

[Danzavare]

Three common problems in the 'games are art debate':
- The idea that 'Art is subjective' is heavily contested.
- There are many objective theories of art but there is no consensus on which is the 'best' one.
- Most theories of art DO NOT suggest that art is infallible or unchangeable. In fact, many of them strongly link art with its context.
(There are more, but I've already made lists in other threads)

In any case, the definition of 'art' is vague at best. I think it's a lost cause to try and arbitrarily make a list of art and not-art games. Personally I think that in trying to make an argument for games can be art, we should just pick a few good ones and deconstruct them the way we would deconstruct a performance/book/film (Other relatively accepted art mediums). Instead of trying to make broad claims we should be trying to articulate the meaning and artistic qualities of the games we consider art. I believe a big part of the problem is that no one is really trying to treat them with the legitimacy or care we would handle other forms of art.

I agree that the two replies in your OP aren't legitimate. Even if there was some clear correlation between artistic quality and price, it'd be silly to assume that every full priced game has exactly the same amount of artistic merit. The second one is also silly, there's nothing to suggest art is above scrutiny or analysis. I don't imagine these two claims are what are holding the "Games can be art" argument back though.

Captcha: silver bells

 

[Olas]

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF THIS "ARE GAMES ART?" FOOLISHNESS.
ART IS JUST A WORD. IT CAN MEAN WHATEVER YOU DEFINE IT AS. CALLING SOMETHING ART DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT IT IS. SO JUST SHUT UP ABOUT IT!

(I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, just to people who perpetuate this entirely made up debate topic)

 

[flames09]

Stop this, I hate seeing these damned threads!

 

[Erttheking]

You make a couple of interesting points, EA does seem to be pulling the "artistic integrity" defense a lot and people are quick to say "it's their artistic vision, they shouldn't have to change it" even though Mass Effect 3 got kinda its artistic integrity screwed over before it even hit the shelves, I seem to recall people never shutting up about day one DLC, marketing, homosexual relationships and Ashley's new look before the game even came out, but now complaining about the ending and how it should be different is being entitled despite massive amounts of content being ripped out of the game KOTOR 2 style and Casey Hudson (if this rumor is true) being an idiot and writing this ending without the approval of the writing team! So what? Are we supposed to say "I don't like what you're doing but keep doing it because if I tell you to change what you're doing that's being entitled?" So are we supposed to just accept EA/Bioware being idiots? Let me tell you people, we need to make a point if you EVER want them to change, and asking nicely isn't gonna cut it. I don't see why we should just bend over and accept everything that EA/Bioware does.

Oh by the way, apparently this is protected by "artistic integrity" too.
http://i.newsarama.com/images/Spider-ManOneMoreDay.jpg

Apparently some people just can't accept that stupid people can mess up good things and that they need to be fixed. So what? Was Broken Steel a result of gamer entitlement? If it was, don't expect me to apologize for it! You know what? I do a little writing on the side, a couple of times when people criticized a part of my work, I went back and changed it, looked at it from a distance, and thought that it was actually better that way. In other words, sometimes the reader knows better than the author.

EDIT:..sorry, this has become a topic that tends to get my blood boiling.

 

[Gamergeek25]

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

.

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.

To you videos games like those aren't art to the devs who make it maybe they see it as art. listen living cost money. To survive you must have money. As much as game designers love making games. I am sure as hell dont think they want to live in a dumpster eating trash. And few ppl go into game design for money and those who do dont survive long. This is due to the long work hours, and very demanding enivorment especially during crunch hours. I am aware certain companies like zynga does it in a product style form. out of curiousity how much do you know of the work enivorment of the Game industry?

Also getting into the industry is a bit of a challenge, not impossible, but for those wanting to make an easy buck thinking game making is as easy as playing games. They dont get in the door sometimes.

 

[kingthrall]

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.

Lets break it down into a simple observation of my argument. Ill use food as an example because primitive people such as yourself can understand it.

You have A meat pie and a quiche . Both different flavours/food types, both called different things.

I ask for a meat pie, and you give me the quiche because you say that they are both contain pastry and are the same.

Hence Games are Games, Art is Art even though one may contain the same elements of art. They are still two completely different things.

 

[JochemHippie]

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

.

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.

To you videos games like those aren't art to the devs who make it maybe they see it as art. listen living cost money. To survive you must have money. As much as game designers love making games. I am sure as hell dont think they want to live in a dumpster eating trash. And few ppl go into game design for money and those who do dont survive long. This is due to the long work hours, and very demanding enivorment especially during crunch hours. I am aware certain companies like zynga does it in a product style form. out of curiousity how much do you know of the work enivorment of the Game industry?

Also getting into the industry is a bit of a challenge, not impossible, but for those wanting to make an easy buck thinking game making is as easy as playing games. They dont get in the door sometimes.

And exactly for that reason, I don't think they're art. You're saying it yourself, they need to make money. To make money with games you need to follow protocols and neglect the artistic expression, I'm sure there's some idealistic programmers and Dev's out there. As long as they follow a purely business protocol it'll not be art. Painting for example is one, it's the artists unbarred expression on the paper. They have to make money, ofcourse, but the artistic expression comes first. That's art, games are media.

 

[Gamergeek25]

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

.

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.

To you videos games like those aren't art to the devs who make it maybe they see it as art. listen living cost money. To survive you must have money. As much as game designers love making games. I am sure as hell dont think they want to live in a dumpster eating trash. And few ppl go into game design for money and those who do dont survive long. This is due to the long work hours, and very demanding enivorment especially during crunch hours. I am aware certain companies like zynga does it in a product style form. out of curiousity how much do you know of the work enivorment of the Game industry?

Also getting into the industry is a bit of a challenge, not impossible, but for those wanting to make an easy buck thinking game making is as easy as playing games. They dont get in the door sometimes.

And exactly for that reason, I don't think they're art. You're saying it yourself, they need to make money. To make money with games you need to follow protocols and neglect the artistic expression, I'm sure there's some idealistic programmers and Dev's out there. As long as they follow a purely business protocol it'll not be art. Painting for example is one, it's the artists unbarred expression on the paper. They have to make money, ofcourse, but the artistic expression comes first. That's art, games are media.

Do you consider books art? Movies art? Animation art? Listen No one can afford to make games free. With art comes business they work hand in hand. Business aspect is to allow game makers to put food on their tables when the studios close for the next 6 hours. Like someone said Michaelanglo didnt do his art for free. do you think what he did was not art, what about sistine chapel? I am sure as hell Michaelanglo did not paint for four years without wanting a paycheck to afford food. Artform is the combination of thoughts illustrated in some form on something someone can recieve that triggers some natural desire emotion or etc. of the persons subconsious mind. Your looking at it from a business model stand point, but I think you neglect to look at it from anything but that. Movies, books, artwork all follow a business protocal.

 

[johnnnny guitar]

Well I really think that alot of people and developers in the industry need to stop automaticly thinking is that just because it was created and has sad music and slow moving images that it is art just because of those things
i.e. extra credits, moviebob or bioware saying "oh well we/you can't touch the Mass effect 3 ending cause it's art" I do not want this to become the standard for defending shitty writing and outright laziness within games.
If this is what we use to defend games as art then it's shit art something that would be considered as art would be something that touches you on a new level not just being so stuck up your own ass that you could see out your throat.

 

[Faux Furry]

There are even members of the Gaming Media who are tired of the "Are Games Art" debate at this point. Here is a link to an article written by one such individual.
http://www.destructoid.com/about-the-art-debate-please-shut-the-f-k-up-226826.phtml

There is no point in linking to the episode of the Jimquisition about how the label of Art doesn't afford video games special protections for their artistic integrity since other forms of popular art are subject to modification as well. You can just click on one of the links around this site that'll lead you right to it like you probably should have by now.

 

[JochemHippie]

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

.

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.

To you videos games like those aren't art to the devs who make it maybe they see it as art. listen living cost money. To survive you must have money. As much as game designers love making games. I am sure as hell dont think they want to live in a dumpster eating trash. And few ppl go into game design for money and those who do dont survive long. This is due to the long work hours, and very demanding enivorment especially during crunch hours. I am aware certain companies like zynga does it in a product style form. out of curiousity how much do you know of the work enivorment of the Game industry?

Also getting into the industry is a bit of a challenge, not impossible, but for those wanting to make an easy buck thinking game making is as easy as playing games. They dont get in the door sometimes.

And exactly for that reason, I don't think they're art. You're saying it yourself, they need to make money. To make money with games you need to follow protocols and neglect the artistic expression, I'm sure there's some idealistic programmers and Dev's out there. As long as they follow a purely business protocol it'll not be art. Painting for example is one, it's the artists unbarred expression on the paper. They have to make money, ofcourse, but the artistic expression comes first. That's art, games are media.

Do you consider books art? Movies art? Animation art? Listen No one can afford to make games free. With art comes business they work hand in hand. Business aspect is to allow game makers to put food on their tables when the studios close for the next 6 hours. Like someone said Michaelanglo didnt do his art for free. do you think what he did was not art, what about sistine chapel? I am sure as hell Michaelanglo did not paint for four years without wanting a paycheck to afford food. Artform is the combination of thoughts illustrated in some form on something someone can recieve that triggers some natural desire emotion or etc. of the persons subconsious mind. Your looking at it from a business model stand point, but I think you neglect to look at it from anything but that. Movies, books, artwork all follow a business protocal.

And all I'm saying is that artistic expression is not relevent to gaming dev's because the people that make it. The programmers, have almost no creative input on it.

I am not going to call everyone who makes something an artist, that's all.

 

[Westaway]

There one argument about why games aren't art that does make sense. They say that art, really, at it's core, is uselss. You can only look at it.
Now, that makes sense. However, that's nit my definition of art. Toys, for example, can be art; imagine a master crafted wooden toy car. That would be art, plus you can use it to roll it around.

 

[Sean Hollyman]

To me, art is something that can inspire, shock, connect, or amaze you. Not all games do this, but the ones that do, and are very good at it, are art

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

There one argument about why games aren't art that does make sense. They say that art, really, at it's core, is uselss. You can only look at it.
Now, that makes sense. However, that's nit my definition of art. Toys, for example, can be art; imagine a master crafted wooden toy car. That would be art, plus you can use it to roll it around.

Pretty sure no one has ever said art is useless.

 

[rob_simple]

You make a couple of interesting points, EA does seem to be pulling the "artistic integrity" defense a lot and people are quick to say "it's their artistic vision, they shouldn't have to change it" even though Mass Effect 3 got kinda its artistic integrity screwed over before it even hit the shelves, I seem to recall people never shutting up about day one DLC, marketing, homosexual relationships and Ashley's new look before the game even came out, but now complaining about the ending and how it should be different is being entitled despite massive amounts of content being ripped out of the game KOTOR 2 style and Casey Hudson (if this rumor is true) being an idiot and writing this ending without the approval of the writing team! So what? Are we supposed to say "I don't like what you're doing but keep doing it because if I tell you to change what you're doing that's being entitled?" So are we supposed to just accept EA/Bioware being idiots? Let me tell you people, we need to make a point if you EVER want them to change, and asking nicely isn't gonna cut it. I don't see why we should just bend over and accept everything that EA/Bioware does.

Apparently some people just can't accept that stupid people can mess up good things and that they need to be fixed. So what? Was Broken Steel a result of gamer entitlement? If it was, don't expect me to apologize for it! You know what? I do a little writing on the side, a couple of times when people criticized a part of my work, I went back and changed it, looked at it from a distance, and thought that it was actually better that way. In other words, sometimes the reader knows better than the author.

EDIT:..sorry, this has become a topic that tends to get my blood boiling.

You actually raised some interesting points and if that's true about the ME3 ending being written like that it actually puts a different perspective on the whole issue for me so I'd just like to thank you for giving this pointless thread a glimmer of justification.

The thing that bothers me about the ME3 debacle is that it sets a precedent for gamers everywhere in terms of the voice they have. This can be good because it will show some of the more flippant developers/publishers that we won't stand for any old bullshit.

It can also be bad, because it means now everyone will think they should have a say in how a game is made and that complaining loudly enough when things don't go their way will bring about a change of some sort.

 

[Westaway]

There one argument about why games aren't art that does make sense. They say that art, really, at it's core, is uselss. You can only look at it.
Now, that makes sense. However, that's nit my definition of art. Toys, for example, can be art; imagine a master crafted wooden toy car. That would be art, plus you can use it to roll it around.

Pretty sure no one has ever said art is useless.

Pretty sure someone has, in the sense that they are only useless in expanding the mind and such. As in, art can only be observed, not used or interacted with directly.

 

[Grey Day for Elcia]

There one argument about why games aren't art that does make sense. They say that art, really, at it's core, is uselss. You can only look at it.
Now, that makes sense. However, that's nit my definition of art. Toys, for example, can be art; imagine a master crafted wooden toy car. That would be art, plus you can use it to roll it around.

Pretty sure no one has ever said art is useless.

Pretty sure someone has, in the sense that they are only useless in expanding the mind and such. As in, art can only be observed, not used or interacted with directly.

Because thought, emotion, philosophy and statement through image are all widely considered useless? Also, you say you cannot interact with art, but both the process of creating and observing art is a direct interaction. Moreover, playing a video game is about as interactive as one can get.

The only person who would suggest art is useless because you can't "use it" would be a fool.

 

[Westaway]

There one argument about why games aren't art that does make sense. They say that art, really, at it's core, is uselss. You can only look at it.
Now, that makes sense. However, that's nit my definition of art. Toys, for example, can be art; imagine a master crafted wooden toy car. That would be art, plus you can use it to roll it around.

Pretty sure no one has ever said art is useless.

Pretty sure someone has, in the sense that they are only useless in expanding the mind and such. As in, art can only be observed, not used or interacted with directly.

Because thought, emotion, philosophy and statement through image are all widely considered useless? Also, you say you cannot interact with art, but both the process of creating and observing art is a direct interaction. Moreover, playing a video game is about as interactive as one can get.

The only person who would suggest art is useless because you can't "use it" would be a fool.

Look man, I'm not saying that, chill the fuck out. I'm saying "useless because I don't have a better word. I mean th-
Wait a minute. I clearly said in my first post I don't even agree with the point of view. I'm sure you can find it on google. Stop trying to argue with me.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

Lets break it down into a simple observation of my argument. Ill use food as an example because primitive people such as yourself can understand it.

You have A meat pie and a quiche . Both different flavours/food types, both called different things.

I ask for a meat pie, and you give me the quiche because you say that they are both contain pastry and are the same.

Hence Games are Games, Art is Art even though one may contain the same elements of art. They are still two completely different things.

So in that same analogy, how would you differentiate film, literature, music, painting, sculpture, Dance etc. from Art? After all, those "mediums" are appreciated globally as art forms (though not all content from them is art). By your logic they are all meat pies, but all those flavours and textures are VASTLY different, been made from different ingredients and combinations... heck even different cultural palettes.

Your analogy doesn't work.

You seem to be defining Art as a medium in and of itself, when it isn't... art is a concept that is applied to mediums. It is not an independent thing. It has to be applied to something in order to be art.

I'm trying to be gentle here, because ignorant people struggle with concepts that might challenge the foundations of their knowledge.