The games are art defense

[Fishyash]

Games are as much art as the sky is blue. I don't really care if anyone else disagrees with that. Even if you don't think a game like CoD is art, well it's art to someone, even if it isn't art to you.

But of course it's not above criticizm. You are completely right, it's not really a good way to defend a work by saying it's art. That would also put Music, visual art and movies above criticism too.

 

[SciMal]

I'm a little hesitant to keep defending that games are able to be art, if games being art is the basis for defending every bad decision in regard to video games.

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


I keep saying again and again that just because games can be art does not mean all games are.
Yep all the clones of modern warfare, that's art is it? The developers set out to bare their collective soul, to leave you thinking and to connect with you on a emotional and psychological level through shared human experience. What they came up with is endless cover bases shooting at people through the sights huh?

Introducing a new idea into your argument which solves everything:

Art can be utter crap.

There isn't anything stating something called 'art' has to be good. So ingrained is the notion that 'art = good' is the exception and not the rule that most people don't even recognize its existence. You have to say things like, "If all art is good, why is going to art college considered bad?"

So, yeah, BioWare can call their ending art. It is. It just doesn't prevent it from being really shitty art.

 

[Maze1125]

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

You're misrepresenting that argument.

No-one said you couldn't criticise it because it's art, as has been pointed out, all art has critics.
What people said was that if Bioware/EA caved and changed the ending, that would undermine the very idea of treating video-games as art.
Which is a completely different argument.

 

[Berenzen]

Games are not art. Games are a product. They are built to attract, and by doing so make the money flow. It doesn't matter how much fucking soul is put into the game, it can NOT be art as long as it keeps making promises to keep fans interested. It's not art if you have to promise the costumer things to get him even slightly interested.

If games can't be considered art, then neither can books, paintings, movies, plays, sculptures or anything else that is considered art. Simply put, every single one of these items is a product- the creator isn't putting it out there from the good of their heart, he/she is trying to make a profit off of doing something that they love, whether it be acting, sculpting, writing, or making videogames.

That play you went and saw and paid for? They're paying the actors, who are trying to make a living trying to act- trying to keep the money flowing and keepng their audience (consumer) interested in seeing them the next time. That book you're reading? A publisher is mass producing them in order to pay the author and their other employees.

Hell, you think Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel just for kicks? No, he was hired to do it.

Simply because it is product does not disqualify it from being art. However that doesn't disqualify it from being criticized, however, what many people in the ME3 debacle were doing were crying "change the ending" which is not criticism (which Bioware stated that they would listen to), the people that Bioware listened to were the people that said, "This ending was pretty poor- and here's why." They didn't demand the ending be changed, they criticized instead.

Games are expensive simply because it takes quite a lot of them to sell, and Digital downloads- while they should be cheaper, their retail competition would be pissed if they weren't allowed to go as low as their competitors.

 

[DasDestroyer]

Games are art, but not all games are good art, just as paintings can be art, but something I doodle in the middle of class isn't good art.

 

[BreakfastMan]

...and I say just because something is art, does not mean it cannot be crappy art. Music is an art, and there is crappy music. Movies are an art, and there are crappy movies. Literature is an art, and there are crappy books. The "It's art, therefor you cannot criticize it" is both a terrible argument, and one that has never been used (by people who actually know what they are talking about, anyway).

Seriously, if you want the people you are arguing against to stop with the strawmen, don't create one yourself.

 

[letfireraindown]

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

I just want to focus on these two points, because there seems to be a pedestal associated with art that doesn't belong there.

Art is, at it's essence, expression. Now that makes the whatever is the product of that art, by all accounts subjective.

Price can be determined by the seller, as is their right. As this isn't a necessity, theory of free market will see that the product will go unsold, or meekly sold until it is offered at a reasonable price as the buyers actions dictate. (though looking at the revenue break down, publishers seem to take a bit too much of the lions share, in my opinion)

Can't criticize art? Since when? Bioshock was practically a line by line critic of Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged. I can understand that the moaning around Mass Effect 3 went on a little long, and there is significant reason to say "take back ME3, from it's creators" was in a wrong mind set, but that's far from criticizing a work. I mean not Six months prior Deus Ex: HR was given a sound thrashing for the Boss fights not being in tone with the rest of the work. Hell, there was even a story on this site apologizing for those battles.

Art is an expression, it's reception is subjective, as can be the evaluation of worth and the views one holds for or against it.

 

[devilofthemist]

MAIN POINT
MAIN POINT
YOU SEE IT?!

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

 

[lacktheknack]

By my definition of art, games are generally art.

There is BAD art, though, make no mistake.

However, my definition of art doesn't allow for defense from criticism (hence "bad" art), so I don't have your problem.

 

[Azuaron]

I'm a little hesitant to keep defending that games are able to be art, if games being art is the basis for defending every bad decision in regard to video games.

Queue: Arguments talking across the "games are art" debate instead of speaking to the "games are art" debate.

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

That's a really weird justification. I can buy paintings for $5 at Walmart. Games are expensive because they're expensive to make and you'll pay it (mainly because most people will pay it).

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

Hahaha. There are professionals called art critics (and the sub-professions of "movie critics", "book critics", and "videogame critics") whose entire job is to criticize art. If anyone actually says that to you I want you to laugh in their face.

That being said, I've never heard anyone say you can't criticize ME3's ending. I have heard people say you shouldn't be trying to force Bioware to change the ending, which I totally agree with. Criticizing is not the same as advocating the destruction of artistic integrity.

"Art" doesn't mean something is good anymore than "food" means something is delicious.

This is utter tripe

I keep saying again and again that just because games can be art does not mean all games are.
Yep all the clones of modern warfare, that's art is it? The developers set out to bare their collective soul, to leave you thinking and to connect with you on a emotional and psychological level through shared human experience. What they came up with is endless cover bases shooting at people through the sights huh?

Nearly all games are art. All games with a story are art simply because they have a story (drama, by default, is art), and nearly all games have a story. This is what I meant by talking across the debate: the first half of your post brings up arguments that your opponents have (maybe? I've never heard anyone actually say those things, just people complaining about "a person" saying those things), but they have nothing to do with whether or not games are art, then you use them to justify your "not all games are art" position.

 

[crimsonshrouds]

I'm a little hesitant to keep defending that games are able to be art, if games being art is the basis for defending every bad decision in regard to video games.

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


I keep saying again and again that just because games can be art does not mean all games are.
Yep all the clones of modern warfare, that's art is it? The developers set out to bare their collective soul, to leave you thinking and to connect with you on a emotional and psychological level through shared human experience. What they came up with is endless cover bases shooting at people through the sights huh?

Are movies art? If not im pretty certain a lot of people wish to talk to you about this. You're whining about art when you obviously do not know what art is.
Your example is cod which is like bringing up crap action movies and saying that it proves movies are not art.

Your entire arguement is flawed and shows you know absolutely nothing about what you speak of.

The me3 thing you said makes no sense whatsoever and the only people saying that crap are ther "retake me3" dipshits who don't understand consumer rights. That entire thing shows just how immature you people are. "waaahhhh i didnt get a good enough ending waaaaahhhhh it doesn't makeee any sense wahhhhhh change it change it wahhh!"

Fun fact art is subjective. Video games are an art but not every game is the mona lisa of gaming and not everyone of them should be.

 

[Bad Jim]

There is a major difference between games and art.

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

I'd say you made up that distinction. It has no basis in reality. Google "interactive art" and you will get lots of hits, such as this one:

http://www.cntraveler.com/daily-traveler/2011/11/Six-Awesome-Interactive-Art-Exhibits#slide=1

 

[Squidbulb]

I still don't get why people still care about this. It doesn't matter, claiming that it's art won't change a god damn thing. I don't classify games as art, yet I would view them in exactly the same way if they were. Why? Because the word "art" is a stupid, meaningless word unless you're talking about paintings or sculptures or art lessons. There are probably a ton of movie fans who have no idea that films are art. The Avengers wouldn't be any worse if it wasn't art. You can criticise art because that word doesn't mean anything!

 

[sageoftruth]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Games are not art. Games are a product. They are built to attract, and by doing so make the money flow. It doesn't matter how much fucking soul is put into the game, it can NOT be art as long as it keeps making promises to keep fans interested. It's not art if you have to promise the costumer things to get him even slightly interested.

Wait, what? Promising WHAT things? Do all games promise these things?

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

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

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

But there's lots of interactive art elsewhere. That definition simply doesn't make sense in any way. Although I guess I just can't get that into my thick skull, because obviously your opinion is an end-all.

 

[ElPatron]

Art is expression.

You can express yourself in games, every person making it can in their own way.

Games are a compilation of arts.

Games are art.

It's not really something you can refute.

But does being "art" make it morally wrong to change? I could call child porn an artistic expression, I doubt the judge would believe it.

Are movies art? If not im pretty certain a lot of people wish to talk to you about this. You're whining about art when you obviously do not know what art is.
Your example is cod which is like bringing up crap action movies and saying that it proves movies are not art.

Way to miss the point. He said that just because games can be art it doesn't make ALL games art.

I.E. Citizen Kane has nothing to do with Crappy B-Movie 7.

 

[EternalFacepalm]

Not all games. Not at all.
But I think of things like Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon or Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey.. Did they strut around spreading word of "WOW! We're making this totally awesome product which you should definitely buy/pay to see because of reasons X and Y!"?
It doesn't sit right in my head. Only some games, only some books, only some movies, only some of anything is art. I guess some video games can be art (though I'm more than disgusted at some of the hipster indie developers that show up lately), but most of them really aren't. The way I see it, at least. I can't believe that something artistic is made to please the fans. I believe that art is about expression of the artist, as if he wrote the record/book/etc completely to himself. Am I making sense?

Yes, and I completely agree. What I reacted to was the statement that games, period, were not art.

 

[Something Amyss]

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

This is utter tripe

For a different reason than you think.

Art is criticised all the time.

 

[Twilight_guy]

Games are art. Every 'good' definition I've seen states as such. Art can be criticized. Every movie critic in the world knows that. Being art does not necessarily mean it is expensive. Ask the painter struggle on the street to sell anything how much he sales his painting, i.e. art, for. Don't let people's bad excuses dissuade you from thinking games are art.

 

[Mr. Omega]

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

Except nobody says that. It's just a strawman argument the Retake Mass Effect crowd came up with so that they could continue their giant circle-jerk of how "important" they were.

Nobody says the ending shouldn't be criticized. It's just that some are against demanding it be changed just to please the fanboys.

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

And nobody says this at all.

In conclusions: you're making things up so that you can backlash against the whole "games are art" argument.