The games are art defense

[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).

 

[I.Muir]

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).

Not much is required for anybody else either for that matter, sometimes nothing at all. That is assuming they think games can be art at all.

 

[ResonanceSD]

I don't actually care about whether or not you think games are art, as far as I'm concerned as soon as it became legally recognized it became no longer up for debate.

Edit** Stop telling people/me to stop making posts with anything to do with games and art. We don't care.

I'm pretty sure the entire "games are art" discussion came from the censorship of games. The idea behind "games are art" is that art can't be censored. In theory.

 

[I.Muir]

I don't actually care about whether or not you think games are art, as far as I'm concerned as soon as it became legally recognized it became no longer up for debate.

Edit** Stop telling people/me to stop making posts with anything to do with games and art. We don't care.

I'm pretty sure the entire "games are art" discussion came from the censorship of games. The idea behind "games are art" is that art can't be censored. In theory.

Fun Fact?

 

[Awexsome]

It's always been shades of grey to stuff like this. Quite frankly if the most important people, the people who actually make the games, say they're creating art and legitimately believe that then they are.

People can hate but would any one of you go up to the writers and planners behind the stories and campaigns from independent games to CoD who put thought and effort into making that story and bringing it to life in the game and say to their face that they didn't create art? Because you'd be wrong.

 

[sageoftruth]

Wow, I really made a mess of that last post. Anyway, could you explain that last bit? If nothing was required, then wouldn't everything be art, or was that the whole point, that some people use the word too cheaply?

 

[I.Muir]

Wow, I really made a mess of that last post. Anyway, could you explain that last bit? If nothing was required, then wouldn't everything be art, or was that the whole point, that some people use the word too cheaply?

It was indeed the point as many regard a great many things as art regardless of merit. The reasoning behind why it is art, is because it is art apparently.

 

[I.Muir]

It's always been shades of grey to stuff like this. Quite frankly if the most important people, the people who actually make the games, say they're creating art and legitimately believe that then they are.

People can hate but would any one of you go up to the writers and planners behind the stories and campaigns from independent games to CoD who put thought and effort into making that story and bringing it to life in the game and say to their face that they didn't create art? Because you'd be wrong.

Many could also say that the cod storyline is a copy paste from an action film of you're choice and could have been recreated in crayon. Overall a harsh viewpoint but that is nevertheless what they say. I imagine they went forth with the idea to make a sweet action game and in that they were fairly successful. I would support them in this notion as you should stick to what you're good at (not saying they lack the capacity), however I doubt that making a work of art was what they really had in mind when it went into development.