The games are art defense

[kingthrall]

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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

 

[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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

I'm sorry, I what? That sentence came across as gibberish on my end... must be a bad signal.

But seriously, I can't believe anyone would consciously post that and think to themselves any semblance of meaning was transmitted. Hint: What you think isn't always what ends up on screen when you drag your knuckles across a keyboard. I know your trying really hard, so kudos for that.

You are the one who said Art is like a meat pie and games are like quiche. While that's a weak analogy at best, you proceed to make no sense whatsoever by implying Meat Pies represent everything under the sun that is Art. I then ASK you how would you distinguish between various artistic mediums under this analogy, and you then tell me that I'm just saying different things and calling them pastry!?

I then interject an assumption that Art isn't a thing, but a concept... something that requires a medium to have meaning. Art isn't just there (which you implied earlier by saying Life isn't art... and calling me a moron), therefore it needs something to exist. That something is Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Dancing, Writing, Composing, Filming etc. Pick whatever one you want, all of them are MEDIUMS through which ART can be made.

I now ask you, why can't the MEDIUM of interactive computer programs (like GAMES) be used in the making of Art?

 

[I.Muir]

So how does a game being art make it unable to be criticized?

How's this for ya?

A creator of a film, book, movie, game, drawing, etcetera reserves the right to accept, address, and dismiss criticism at his/her own discretion.

If Infinity Ward thinks that the Modern Warfare games are fine they way they are, your only valid response is to not buy them if you don't like that.

If BioWare thinks their ending to ME3 is fine, your only valid response is to not buy it.

If Bethesda thinks the "Open World Exploration" format for all their games is how they would like to make games, my only valid response is to not buy them if you don't like that.

If Valve wants to keep using the Source Engine for all their games and design 4-hour puzzle games, my only valid response is to not buy them if you don't like that.

If a game developer is unhappy with their finished game, they're doing it wrong. Give up this bullshit about "Comsumer rights violations" or "broken promises" as those only exist in your head.

Good thing I didn't buy the first two then but that didn't stop me from playing them. Why does everybody assume that just because I have an opinion I must be thinking that I can force people to do what I want? I already know I can't force anybody to do anything at all but if nobody says anything, how are they supposed to listen? I would have thought there was less of a point in continuously telling everybody that they shouldn't bother even attempting to complain unless they were afraid that they might succeed.

Just because they can decide to close their eyes and ears to the world and act like children doesn't mean they should. Whilst they are exerting their rights to do whatever the hell they want with their intellectual property ill be watching them burn from afar.

Is there a problem with not having a extreme for or against opinion? As long as the criticisms leveled at however are constructive why does anybody care? Are people so afraid to be seen as being another one of those take back me3 gits that they automatically assume anybody complaining at all must be one as well? If your only response is to not buy the game how will they know what you don't like about it, or do you assume that your opinion has no value for them at all?

 

[I.Muir]

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
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)

You and the guy below you!
Did you read the topic? Did you read the few posts that are on-topic?
I did not ask you or anybody else whether games are art or not. My opinion was set in stone when they became art under law. I asked you whether by attaching the concept of art to a video game it's granted additional protection against criticism. I stated that I think this is bullshit.

You may think otherwise and post as such
You may agree with me
You may think this is a grey area and sit on the fence
You may even continue to post about whether games are art or not as there appears to be no stopping them
OR you can do yourself a favor and leave, ignore all posts that have games and art in the topic and most importantly STFU. I'm not interested in being told that it's not up for discussion by you or any other git on the internet. You won't really benefit anybody from trying to censor the internet and so long as these topics contain reasonable debate I doubt much bad can come from it.

Also by nobody in particular, you meant me.

 

[kingthrall]

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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

I'm sorry, I what? That sentence came across as gibberish on my end... must be a bad signal.

But seriously, I can't believe anyone would consciously post that and think to themselves any semblance of meaning was transmitted. Hint: What you think isn't always what ends up on screen when you drag your knuckles across a keyboard. I know your trying really hard, so kudos for that.

You are the one who said Art is like a meat pie and games are like quiche. While that's a weak analogy at best, you proceed to make no sense whatsoever by implying Meat Pies represent everything under the sun that is Art. I then ASK you how would you distinguish between various artistic mediums under this analogy, and you then tell me that I'm just saying different things and calling them pastry!?

I then interject an assumption that Art isn't a thing, but a concept... something that requires a medium to have meaning. Art isn't just there (which you implied earlier by saying Life isn't art... and calling me a moron), therefore it needs something to exist. That something is Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Dancing, Writing, Composing, Filming etc. Pick whatever one you want, all of them are MEDIUMS through which ART can be made.

I now ask you, why can't the MEDIUM of interactive computer programs (like GAMES) be used in the making of Art?

 

[RedFeather1975]

I can criticize a video game all I want when the reason it exists is a form of soliciting.
Calling it art doesn't protect it and grant the right to freely express itself without consequence, when it was made to ask for money up front in order to view it.

 

[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)

You and the guy below you!
Did you read the topic? Did you read the few posts that are on-topic?
I did not ask you or anybody else whether games are art or not. My opinion was set in stone when they became art under law. I asked you whether by attaching the concept of art to a video game it's granted additional protection against criticism. I stated that I think this is bullshit.

You may think otherwise and post as such
You may agree with me
You may think this is a grey area and sit on the fence
You may even continue to post about whether games are art or not as there appears to be no stopping them
OR you can do yourself a favor and leave, ignore all posts that have games and art in the topic and most importantly STFU. I'm not interested in being told that it's not up for discussion by you or any other git on the internet. You won't really benefit anybody from trying to censor the internet and so long as these topics contain reasonable debate I doubt much bad can come from it.

Also by nobody in particular, you meant me.

Did you read MY post? Stop being vain and thinking my post was somehow in direct response to anything you said. It wasn't. It was to the fact that this is about the 12th thread I've run into in the last month about games and art. By nobody in particular I meant nobody in particular. If what I said offended you I'm sorry.

The problem is that there's literally never been a good consensus on what the term art actually means. Never. It's just a silly word we slap on some stuff to make it seem more important.
If I had it my way the word art would be taken out of the english language today.

The only answer I can possibly give to your question, which presupposes that [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)"]art[/a] is somehow a meaningful term, is that I think games should be priced whatever the invisible hand of the market says they should be priced, and that no game (or anything else) should ever be above criticism from anyone for any reason.
You can call games art, you can call them fruitsalad, you can call them geropyjomes.

As far as I'm concerned a thread debating whether it's good to call games geropyjomes is as sensical as one about art.

 

[I.Muir]

(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻
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)

You and the guy below you!
Did you read the topic? Did you read the few posts that are on-topic?
I did not ask you or anybody else whether games are art or not. My opinion was set in stone when they became art under law. I asked you whether by attaching the concept of art to a video game it's granted additional protection against criticism. I stated that I think this is bullshit.

You may think otherwise and post as such
You may agree with me
You may think this is a grey area and sit on the fence
You may even continue to post about whether games are art or not as there appears to be no stopping them
OR you can do yourself a favor and leave, ignore all posts that have games and art in the topic and most importantly STFU. I'm not interested in being told that it's not up for discussion by you or any other git on the internet. You won't really benefit anybody from trying to censor the internet and so long as these topics contain reasonable debate I doubt much bad can come from it.

Also by nobody in particular, you meant me.

Did you read MY post? Stop being vain and thinking my post was somehow in direct response to anything you said. It wasn't. It was to the fact that this is about the 12th thread I've run into in the last month about games and art. By nobody in particular I meant nobody in particular. If what I said offended you I'm sorry.

The problem is that there's literally never been a good consensus on what the term art actually means. Never. It's just a silly word we slap on some stuff to make it seem more important.
If I had it my way the word art would be taken out of the english language today.

The only answer I can possibly give to your question, which presupposes that [a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp)"]art[/a] is somehow a meaningful term, is that I think games should be priced whatever the invisible hand of the market says they should be priced, and that no game (or anything else) should ever be above criticism from anyone for any reason.
You can call games art, you can call them fruitsalad, you can call them geropyjomes.

As far as I'm concerned a thread debating whether it's good to call games geropyjomes is as sensical as one about art.

I guess I was a bit heavy handed and jumped to conclusions for which I also apologize. However if these threads bother you that much why participate at all. If it's obvious that a consensus will never be reached as there will always be two people with unshakable, strong opposite opinions wouldn't it also be obvious that they will keep arguing about it until the end of time. The threads will keep coming up and all you can really do is ignore them and move on.

I have considered what you have said and will now refer to games as potato.
Actually since people earlier in the topic have a thing for calling games pastry instead it should be shepherds pie.

 

[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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

I'm sorry, I what? That sentence came across as gibberish on my end... must be a bad signal.

But seriously, I can't believe anyone would consciously post that and think to themselves any semblance of meaning was transmitted. Hint: What you think isn't always what ends up on screen when you drag your knuckles across a keyboard. I know your trying really hard, so kudos for that.

You are the one who said Art is like a meat pie and games are like quiche. While that's a weak analogy at best, you proceed to make no sense whatsoever by implying Meat Pies represent everything under the sun that is Art. I then ASK you how would you distinguish between various artistic mediums under this analogy, and you then tell me that I'm just saying different things and calling them pastry!?

I then interject an assumption that Art isn't a thing, but a concept... something that requires a medium to have meaning. Art isn't just there (which you implied earlier by saying Life isn't art... and calling me a moron), therefore it needs something to exist. That something is Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Dancing, Writing, Composing, Filming etc. Pick whatever one you want, all of them are MEDIUMS through which ART can be made.

I now ask you, why can't the MEDIUM of interactive computer programs (like GAMES) be used in the making of Art?

Fair enough. That clears everything up then. Good chat.

I guess the pastry analogy was too stupid to dig yourself out of.

 

[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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

I'm sorry, I what? That sentence came across as gibberish on my end... must be a bad signal.

But seriously, I can't believe anyone would consciously post that and think to themselves any semblance of meaning was transmitted. Hint: What you think isn't always what ends up on screen when you drag your knuckles across a keyboard. I know your trying really hard, so kudos for that.

You are the one who said Art is like a meat pie and games are like quiche. While that's a weak analogy at best, you proceed to make no sense whatsoever by implying Meat Pies represent everything under the sun that is Art. I then ASK you how would you distinguish between various artistic mediums under this analogy, and you then tell me that I'm just saying different things and calling them pastry!?

I then interject an assumption that Art isn't a thing, but a concept... something that requires a medium to have meaning. Art isn't just there (which you implied earlier by saying Life isn't art... and calling me a moron), therefore it needs something to exist. That something is Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Dancing, Writing, Composing, Filming etc. Pick whatever one you want, all of them are MEDIUMS through which ART can be made.

I now ask you, why can't the MEDIUM of interactive computer programs (like GAMES) be used in the making of Art?

Fair enough. That clears everything up then. Good chat.

I guess the pastry analogy was too stupid to dig yourself out of.

You just going to spam image-macros when you fail to make an argument?

 

[WanderingFool]

Personally, I view games as commercial art. Games are art thats meant to be baught, not simply art done for the artists sake. Games done for the artists sake or what we have Indie games and such for. AAA games, like COD and ME, are intended to make money. Sure, there are other motovations, but the biggy is making money.

Yes, they are art, but no that doesnt mean we cant criticize it. Now, as this is obviously going to deal with ME3, let me just say that I think the ending sucked, I would love a new ending, but I dont expect it because its already out. Instead of yelling at Bioware to remake the ending, we should be yelling at Bioware to not do that shit again.

Whats done is done, what we need to do is make sure Bioware that we dont like what we got, and expect something better from them the next time.

Note: Ive said Bioware in this post, but really, we should do this with any company.

Also, Captcha: save face

Seems approprite.

 

[kingthrall]

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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

I'm sorry, I what? That sentence came across as gibberish on my end... must be a bad signal.

But seriously, I can't believe anyone would consciously post that and think to themselves any semblance of meaning was transmitted. Hint: What you think isn't always what ends up on screen when you drag your knuckles across a keyboard. I know your trying really hard, so kudos for that.

You are the one who said Art is like a meat pie and games are like quiche. While that's a weak analogy at best, you proceed to make no sense whatsoever by implying Meat Pies represent everything under the sun that is Art. I then ASK you how would you distinguish between various artistic mediums under this analogy, and you then tell me that I'm just saying different things and calling them pastry!?

I then interject an assumption that Art isn't a thing, but a concept... something that requires a medium to have meaning. Art isn't just there (which you implied earlier by saying Life isn't art... and calling me a moron), therefore it needs something to exist. That something is Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Dancing, Writing, Composing, Filming etc. Pick whatever one you want, all of them are MEDIUMS through which ART can be made.

I now ask you, why can't the MEDIUM of interactive computer programs (like GAMES) be used in the making of Art?

Fair enough. That clears everything up then. Good chat.

I guess the pastry analogy was too stupid to dig yourself out of.

You just going to spam image-macros when you fail to make an argument?

You are a real douche did you know that? There isn't a point to argue with you because your so fucking one set minded so why bother. LOL @ fail argument. There isn't an argument because my point is the only legit one as far as I am concerned.

P.S the image is an argument in itself, because we are talking about art here and I just really dont give a fuck what you think any-more.

 

[Sutter Cane]

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

This is utter tripe

The problem with your post is that No one actually makes these arguments. Those that stuck up for games being art in the ME3 scenerio were not saying that it makes the ending immune from criticism, but rather that the fanbase is in no position to demand changes to the game because its their art and not yours (Whether or not you actually agree with this argument is another thing, but it's at least the actual argument being made)

 

[DigitalAtlas]

Video games aren't synonymous with art currently, no matter how much the industry would like to claim it. They just aren't respectable enough right now.

 

[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

This is utter tripe

The problem with your post is that No one actually makes these arguments. Those that stuck up for games being art in the ME3 scenerio were not saying that it makes the ending immune from criticism, but rather that the fanbase is in no position to demand changes to the game because its their art and not yours (Whether or not you actually agree with this argument is another thing, but it's at least the actual argument being made)

Yet i have seen people make this argument with pretty much the same wording. I have no evidence because I don't copy all the shit people say into word documents with dates and times and you have no evidence that there aren't in fact people like this. It would be more logical to assume that these people were referring to the developers rights over the direction of their project but then why mention art at all. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of the arguments presented by the people who posted them wouldn't it also be safe to assume that there would be hangers on who actually believe the arguments I find so stupid at the very least.

It is pointless to argue about the existence or non existence of these people since neither of us can produce evidence. However I think it is much more likely that there is evidence of another person being stupid than evidence that nobody is that stupid. Should a person come forth and deny the stupidity of these arguments then you will have your evidence.

 

[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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

I'm sorry, I what? That sentence came across as gibberish on my end... must be a bad signal.

But seriously, I can't believe anyone would consciously post that and think to themselves any semblance of meaning was transmitted. Hint: What you think isn't always what ends up on screen when you drag your knuckles across a keyboard. I know your trying really hard, so kudos for that.

You are the one who said Art is like a meat pie and games are like quiche. While that's a weak analogy at best, you proceed to make no sense whatsoever by implying Meat Pies represent everything under the sun that is Art. I then ASK you how would you distinguish between various artistic mediums under this analogy, and you then tell me that I'm just saying different things and calling them pastry!?

I then interject an assumption that Art isn't a thing, but a concept... something that requires a medium to have meaning. Art isn't just there (which you implied earlier by saying Life isn't art... and calling me a moron), therefore it needs something to exist. That something is Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Dancing, Writing, Composing, Filming etc. Pick whatever one you want, all of them are MEDIUMS through which ART can be made.

I now ask you, why can't the MEDIUM of interactive computer programs (like GAMES) be used in the making of Art?

Fair enough. That clears everything up then. Good chat.

I guess the pastry analogy was too stupid to dig yourself out of.

You just going to spam image-macros when you fail to make an argument?

You are a real douche did you know that? There isn't a point to argue with you because your so fucking one set minded so why bother. LOL @ fail argument. There isn't an argument because my point is the only legit one as far as I am concerned.

P.S the image is an argument in itself, because we are talking about art here and I just really dont give a fuck what you think any-more.

Exactly how is your point legit? It's nothing but contradictive, narrow minded, abusive and filled with misinformed preconceptions. All I got from your point is that you have no idea what art is and you are very poor at forming coherent sentences. You also aren't willing to defend your point... instead turning on me (from the very begining) trying to demean me rather then support your argument or at the very least attack mine.

Grow a god damn backbone. If you don't give a fuck why the hell did you keep responding. What's more, rather then just coming out and saying that analogy was stupid (which it was) you instead throw up a couple of image macros in a bid to feel better and annoy me. It didn't achieve either I guess.

Also, what arseways logic is that? Those Image Macros are about as much art as shit on a stick... your standards are completely fucked up. Which again makes me question whether you understand what art is.

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

This is utter tripe

The problem with your post is that No one actually makes these arguments. Those that stuck up for games being art in the ME3 scenerio were not saying that it makes the ending immune from criticism, but rather that the fanbase is in no position to demand changes to the game because its their art and not yours (Whether or not you actually agree with this argument is another thing, but it's at least the actual argument being made)

Yet i have seen people make this argument with pretty much the same wording. I have no evidence because I don't copy all the shit people say into word documents with dates and times and you have no evidence that there aren't in fact people like this. It would be more logical to assume that these people were referring to the developers rights over the direction of their project but then why mention art at all. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of the arguments presented by the people who posted them wouldn't it also be safe to assume that there would be hangers on who actually believe the arguments I find so stupid at the very least.

It is pointless to argue about the existence or non existence of these people since neither of us can produce evidence. However I think it is much more likely that there is evidence of another person being stupid than evidence that nobody is that stupid. Should a person come forth and deny the stupidity of these arguments then you will have your evidence.

Hang on, so what you're saying is you realise the people who are saying that stuff are stupid? Believe it or not, people who are pro-art in games think those arguments are moronic. Those folk spouting that nonsense have little to no concept of what art is. I don't say this because I know exactly what art is (because I don't) but because it's completely contradictive to how art actually works today.

Just to re-cap on some things that have already been said on this topic alone:
On the ME3 ending: Art is not immune to criticism, everything that constitutes as art get's scrutinised by other artists (and if present, speculators). Some art gets a pass due to the pedigree behind it but that pass is limited... people CAN tell when something is crap.

On the issue of pricing: I actually can't recall a single person ever defending the price of games because its art, but as you say I can't say it hasn't happened either (stupidity knows no boundries). That notion is automatically dismissed when you look at film and literature, 2 commonly accepted art forms, both of which tend to have some degree of wiggle room in their pricing systems.

Just to add something of my own to this topic (I think others have said it too). Art and industry doesn't have to mutually exclusive. Again, looking at film and literature, not every piece of film is a Citzen Kane and not every Novel is trying to be the next Ulysses. For every one of them we have hundreds of twillights and crime novellas, or Mission Impssible and SAW.

As I said to the fella above, Art isn't a medium in and of itself, it is something that needs effort applied to a medium (like film, or painting) in order to be considered as art. Why can't games have that same opportunity? Surely its digital nature doesn't diminish it's value as a medium/

 

[I.Muir]

Yet i have seen people make this argument with pretty much the same wording. I have no evidence because I don't copy all the shit people say into word documents with dates and times and you have no evidence that there aren't in fact people like this. It would be more logical to assume that these people were referring to the developers rights over the direction of their project but then why mention art at all. If I am mistaken in my interpretation of the arguments presented by the people who posted them wouldn't it also be safe to assume that there would be hangers on who actually believe the arguments I find so stupid at the very least.

It is pointless to argue about the existence or non existence of these people since neither of us can produce evidence. However I think it is much more likely that there is evidence of another person being stupid than evidence that nobody is that stupid. Should a person come forth and deny the stupidity of these arguments then you will have your evidence.

Hang on, so what you're saying is you realise the people who are saying that stuff are stupid? Believe it or not, people who are pro-art in games think those arguments are moronic. Those folk spouting that nonsense have little to no concept of what art is. I don't say this because I know exactly what art is (because I don't) but because it's completely contradictive to how art actually works today.

Just to re-cap on some things that have already been said on this topic alone:
On the ME3 ending: Art is not immune to criticism, everything that constitutes as art get's scrutinised by other artists (and if present, speculators). Some art gets a pass due to the pedigree behind it but that pass is limited... people CAN tell when something is crap.

On the issue of pricing: I actually can't recall a single person ever defending the price of games because its art, but as you say I can't say it hasn't happened either (stupidity knows no boundries). That notion is automatically dismissed when you look at film and literature, 2 commonly accepted art forms, both of which tend to have some degree of wiggle room in their pricing systems.

Just to add something of my own to this topic (I think others have said it too). Art and industry doesn't have to mutually exclusive. Again, looking at film and literature, not every piece of film is a Citzen Kane and not every Novel is trying to be the next Ulysses. For every one of them we have hundreds of twillights and crime novellas, or Mission Impssible and SAW.

As I said to the fella above, Art isn't a medium in and of itself, it is something that needs effort applied to a medium (like film, or painting) in order to be considered as art. Why can't games have that same opportunity? Surely its digital nature doesn't diminish it's value as a medium/

I agree with pretty much everything you have said in the last part of this post. Seems the whole art thing is a bottomless pit when it comes to arguments. It's just too grounded in the interpretation of the individual to get multiple people to agree. People get more grouchy than I do about it so might leave it alone in future.

Messed up cutting down the post size

 

[I.Muir]

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.

There is no helping you, even with delicious pastries you are doomed.

You just argued pretty much an assortment of different categories all named different thing, and just called them all pastry yet again.

I'm sorry, I what? That sentence came across as gibberish on my end... must be a bad signal.

But seriously, I can't believe anyone would consciously post that and think to themselves any semblance of meaning was transmitted. Hint: What you think isn't always what ends up on screen when you drag your knuckles across a keyboard. I know your trying really hard, so kudos for that.

You are the one who said Art is like a meat pie and games are like quiche. While that's a weak analogy at best, you proceed to make no sense whatsoever by implying Meat Pies represent everything under the sun that is Art. I then ASK you how would you distinguish between various artistic mediums under this analogy, and you then tell me that I'm just saying different things and calling them pastry!?

I then interject an assumption that Art isn't a thing, but a concept... something that requires a medium to have meaning. Art isn't just there (which you implied earlier by saying Life isn't art... and calling me a moron), therefore it needs something to exist. That something is Painting, Drawing, Sculpting, Dancing, Writing, Composing, Filming etc. Pick whatever one you want, all of them are MEDIUMS through which ART can be made.

I now ask you, why can't the MEDIUM of interactive computer programs (like GAMES) be used in the making of Art?

Fair enough. That clears everything up then. Good chat.

I guess the pastry analogy was too stupid to dig yourself out of.

You just going to spam image-macros when you fail to make an argument?

You are a real douche did you know that? There isn't a point to argue with you because your so fucking one set minded so why bother. LOL @ fail argument. There isn't an argument because my point is the only legit one as far as I am concerned.

P.S the image is an argument in itself, because we are talking about art here and I just really dont give a fuck what you think any-more.

Keep it classy bro

 

[Ragsnstitches]

snip

I agree with pretty much everything you have said here but people get more grouchy about the art thing than I do so I might leave it alone in future.

Unfortunately thats too true and it helps no one. The people with sense on both sides can't have a discussion whithout having to filter undue anger, nonsense and ignorance.

I can, believe it or not, understand your frustation and sometimes I feel that it's just not worth it. But I also don't want to just drop the topic (which is what some of the antagonists want), since the recognition of games as an artistic medium will actually be a big deal even if the impact is minimal at first.

Think about the generations of Music lovers who pushed rock and roll into the public eye and declared it as having the same integrity as the classics. They met with some hefty resistance and not of all of it was reasonable. Games are going through a similar phase, with some games demanding recognition as something more then a plaything, while others are just as content with being another toy to play with. For somereason the fans of both ideas can't get along.

I don't want one idea or the other to dominate the medium. I would like to see games in a position where games can be both a product and art, depending on the intent of its creators.

 

[sageoftruth]

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.

Well said. Okay. That works for me. In the end, it seems everyone just has different criteria for what makes art (in my case, not much is necessary).

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!

(Sorry if this is a repost) Well said. I can accept that. I guess in the end we all just have different criteria for what makes art. (Not much is required in my case).