Wait, so video games aren't art?

[Ray De Ation]

Your most salient argument would be to prove her wrong. Pick a really great game- one you feel strongely about- and write on it. My personal suggestion would be something like Bioshock.

 

[AngelOfBlueRoses]

I'd like for you all to take the time to listen to The GameOverthinker: http://gameoverthinker.blogspot.com/2010/05/episode-35-response-to-roger-ebert.html

I agree with MovieBob. All games are art. It's just that most games are bad art. Art is not about quality, and is instead a neutral definition. Well, at least for me.

For example: The Mona Lisa. Yes. It's art. Pretty much everyone in the world can tell you that the Mona Lisa is a work of art. Is it a good work of art, though? In my opinion, I don't think so. Does that make my opinion invalid? No. Art is neutral, but the thought process going into it is subjective. We are emotional creatures, after all.

 

[Mattismen]

I would say she is someone i would like to give a lecture about art.

 

[Verlander]

Best article Ive read on the subject

http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/08/on-authorship-i.html

If it doesn't convince her, it will completely go over her head, confusing her and makjing her look like a fool.

I was very sad to read that article, as I have great respect for Roger Ebert.

OP If you believe videogames are art, work out why you believe that. Do some research, and find legitimate sources that clarify and confirm your opinions, and put it to her in an intellectual way. Then you'll be taken seriously

 

[Sylveria]

We're so concerned about calling games art for a few reason but BY FAR the most important is Art is protected. The government can't censor the crap out of games if they officially and legally recognized as an art form.

Games wouldn't need to be censored if parents weren't such idiots and payed attention to age restrictions. Films are censored and age restricted just as much as games are. Saying "games shouldn't be censored" is not an argument for saying they are an art form.

Where did I say this? He asked why we are concerned that games are given this status, I gave a reason why. I didn't give a reason as to why they should be. Also, films are globally considered an art form. But a film is still a film. The studio (the people making it) may choose to censor it, but that's their choice. It is not the government getting in there and saying "cut this, this, and this or it doesn't get released." As it is, games are the same way. The creator chooses what to cut and what to leave, they just typically cut out enough to get the rating they want from the ESRB. It isn't the government intervening, yet.

If you want me to get into the extremely long debate of why games are and should be regarded as art beyond "If they're art they can't be censored" which I never said is the reason they are or should be art, I'm not going to. There's plenty of people who have already done so. I suggest reading one of those innumerable pieces of work. I also suggest reading the posts you reply to and understand their point before commenting.

 

[Doive]

To be art something has to have some kind of artistic merit or meaning, which is why most films are not considered art and why a school child drawing their pet cat in crayon isn't art either.
Of course some games could be considered art, but on the whole they are overshadowed by games meant solely to be be played by mindless child drones, not appreciated as art.

That is a totally unfair statement. You may not consider that crayon drawing art but to that kid it is. Who's to say that kid didn't draw that stick figure cat with as much love and concern as a "real" piece of art? What sets that scribble apart from some of the masterpieces that are just a few abstract lines? Or that neo-expressionist sculpting that is just a bunch of junk (literally) welded together?

Just because it's done poorly or not done in the fashion you dislike doesn't rob it of it's status. I don't find that hidden cryptic beauty that the Mona Lisa is said to hold but if I went to the curator and said it wasn't art he'd probably smack me in the face. Yeah for every Metal Gear there's a dozen Call of Duties that some hack studio whipped out in 3 months and dunked in coffee, but that doesn't mean they should be held to a lesser standard or drag the rest of the medium down. I can smear crap on a canvas and I'd still be totally justified in calling it art.

I disagree. I said I child because I meant it to mean that a child has no concept of what art is and that their drawing was to entertain themself and not to create something with any meaning. They didn't finish and and think, "look, I just made art". I struggle to view things like dogs cut in half and piles of wood as art but at least they have a meaning to the artist.
You cite metal gear solid as an example but do you really believe that the designers of that game saw themselves as making art?

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Sadly, I think this person would consider Andy Warhol's work as art and wouldn't have the foresight to see the irony...

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

To be art something has to have some kind of artistic merit or meaning, which is why most films are not considered art and why a school child drawing their pet cat in crayon isn't art either.
Of course some games could be considered art, but on the whole they are overshadowed by games meant solely to be be played by mindless child drones, not appreciated as art.

That is a totally unfair statement. You may not consider that crayon drawing art but to that kid it is. Who's to say that kid didn't draw that stick figure cat with as much love and concern as a "real" piece of art? What sets that scribble apart from some of the masterpieces that are just a few abstract lines? Or that neo-expressionist sculpting that is just a bunch of junk (literally) welded together?

Just because it's done poorly or not done in the fashion you dislike doesn't rob it of it's status. I don't find that hidden cryptic beauty that the Mona Lisa is said to hold but if I went to the curator and said it wasn't art he'd probably smack me in the face. Yeah for every Metal Gear there's a dozen Call of Duties that some hack studio whipped out in 3 months and dunked in coffee, but that doesn't mean they should be held to a lesser standard or drag the rest of the medium down. I can smear crap on a canvas and I'd still be totally justified in calling it art.

I disagree. I said I child because I meant it to mean that a child has no concept of what art is and that their drawing was to entertain themself and not to create something with any meaning. They didn't finish and and think, "look, I just made art". I struggle to view things like dogs cut in half and piles of wood as art but at least they have a meaning to the artist.
You cite metal gear solid as an example but do you really believe that the designers of that game saw themselves as making art?

Um, I'm pretty sure that a group of artists and designers considered a years long project as an expression and art...

Also, a child does have a concept of art. They might not have a definition but they know that what they are doing is an expression of an idea, which is really all art is. That picture has depth and meaning to them. Soooo your own argument disproves your thesis.

Whether or not it is "high" art, a purely vogue and subjective term, is debatable.

 

[Woem]

Just today in middle school English, we got a writing prompt about means of communication (art, music, literature) affecting peoples lives. After my teacher started to take questions I asked if video games were a form of art, and what do I get? She almost burst out laughing then said "Of course video games aren't art, thats solely a worthless technology!" I later asked if movies were considered art and she said they were. Now how aren't they art, compared to movies of course. They both have actors, plot twists, romances in some of them. That seems pretty art like to me. Is my English teacher as insane as I think she is?

Do the writing on games anyway, and convince her that (some) games are art. There plenty of resources on this site to help you with the arguments.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

She is kinda right, most of our media is pure entertainment purposes and thus loses the emotionality (according to spell check thats a word now) of other art forms. Notice i say most, yes there are some meaningful gems in our collection but considering we only get maybe 2-3 really artistically valid games a year its fair to rule us out for now.

How is film any different? I could probably count on my hands how many films I've watched that genuinely bring an emotion out of me.

99% of the films that get released are also for pure entertainment value. They aren't all explorations of the human condition. Some just like shit going boom.

films different because while the fluff does exist. It's recognised as fluff, and not the best the industry has to offer. I'd argue any film nominated for the real oscars (not makeup and stuff) is probably artisticly valid whereas the game industry awards game for sheer entertainment value above all else. I'm not saying games are incapable of being art, or that games haven't been art in the past, but its a shockingly small minority.

And aside from that your 99% figures a little iffy. Hell more than 1% of films are documentries and they sure as hell aren't going for entertainment value.

I'd argue the percentage of fluff to art is about even between film and game.

And films don't get nominated for Oscars because they're good. They get nominated based on how much arse licking the producers gave the academy.

For every 1 'Black Swan' there's 100 'Season of the witchs'. For every 1 'The void' there's a hundred 'call of duties'.

I'd say the genuine art to pulp entertainment ratio is probably about even for both. And the medium is still evolving. So whilst you're right, there is an inordinate amount of crap in the gaming world I don't think you can discount the genuine entries because of that. Just like you can't with film.

yeah but the artistic films (generally) are far more worthwhile than the artistic games.



The Dark Knight (2008) // City of God (2002) // Memento (2000) // The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) // Amelie (2001) // Spirited Away (2001) // The Lives of Others (2006) WALL·E (2008) // The Pianist (2002)//The Departed (2006)//Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004) //Requiem for a Dream (2000)//The Prestige (2006)//Pan's Labyrinth (2006) Inglourious Basterds (2009)//Up (2009) // Gran Torino (2008)///Oldboy (2003) // Gladiator (2000) // Sin City (2005) // Hotel Rwanda (2004) // Batman Begins (2005) // Slumdog Millionaire (2008) // No Country for Old Men (2007) // Snatch. (2000) //Mary and Max (2009) District 9 (2009) // Donnie Darko (2001) // Kill Bill: Vol. 1 (2003)
There Will Be Blood (2007) // Million Dollar Baby (2004) // The illusionist (2006) // The Hurt Locker (2009) // Moon (2009) // Billy Elliot (2000) // 28 days later (2002)

thats just what i grabbed off of imdb ffrom 2000-2009 years deleting the less worthy ones (both batman films have merit) Just by sheer number of films available the number of artistic films arre higher and even the ones which are relegated to genre films still hold merit (ala batman) the same cannot be said of games.

Says who, exactly? Have you honestly played every game and can you honestly speak for everybody when you say those movies have merit?

I loved the Batman movies as much as anybody but the LotR movies bored the shit out of me. 28 Days Later was alright but it made me wince with its poor grasp of science. Etc etc... I wouldn't exactly put it on the same tier as the Batman movies and hell, some of the "great" movies, I can't stand to watch.

Soooooo, you're comparing apples and assholes. The trick is that they are all art. Good, bad, or simply mediocre is the actual question, rather than If they are art.

 

[Doive]

To be art something has to have some kind of artistic merit or meaning, which is why most films are not considered art and why a school child drawing their pet cat in crayon isn't art either.
Of course some games could be considered art, but on the whole they are overshadowed by games meant solely to be be played by mindless child drones, not appreciated as art.

That is a totally unfair statement. You may not consider that crayon drawing art but to that kid it is. Who's to say that kid didn't draw that stick figure cat with as much love and concern as a "real" piece of art? What sets that scribble apart from some of the masterpieces that are just a few abstract lines? Or that neo-expressionist sculpting that is just a bunch of junk (literally) welded together?

Just because it's done poorly or not done in the fashion you dislike doesn't rob it of it's status. I don't find that hidden cryptic beauty that the Mona Lisa is said to hold but if I went to the curator and said it wasn't art he'd probably smack me in the face. Yeah for every Metal Gear there's a dozen Call of Duties that some hack studio whipped out in 3 months and dunked in coffee, but that doesn't mean they should be held to a lesser standard or drag the rest of the medium down. I can smear crap on a canvas and I'd still be totally justified in calling it art.

I disagree. I said I child because I meant it to mean that a child has no concept of what art is and that their drawing was to entertain themself and not to create something with any meaning. They didn't finish and and think, "look, I just made art". I struggle to view things like dogs cut in half and piles of wood as art but at least they have a meaning to the artist.
You cite metal gear solid as an example but do you really believe that the designers of that game saw themselves as making art?

Um, I'm pretty sure that a group of artists and designers considered a years long project as an expression and art...

Also, a child does have a concept of art. They might not have a definition but they know that what they are doing is an expression of an idea, which is really all art is. That picture has depth and meaning to them. Soooo your own argument disproves your thesis.

Whether or not it is "high" art, a purely vogue and subjective term, is debatable.

Art in general, not just high art is of course subjective which is partly my point. To be art, something must be viewed by someone, somewhere as art. A child can draw a picture but it won't have any meaning to them beyond colours on a page that looks vaguely like their pet. Within an hour they will have forgotten all about it and moved on to some other entertainment. I don't think that a game designer, who will work on certain aspects of a game, not the whole thing, will view that game as their artistic expression.

 

[Phoxinator]

This is ridiculous, I believe that everything in life is a form of art.
Video games in particular are made from concept art so therefore must be art.
Get a new teacher!

 

[Midnight Crossroads]

Not currently, no. Games right now are like an immature middle schooler. They claim to be mature, ape things they think makes it mature, yet at the same time it still wets the bed, still has a strange fixation on breasts when it comes to women, and still writes Twilight fanfiction.

For games to become art, they have to grow up. They have to become a medium where interaction truly adds to the experience rather than just becoming a task you win at with some meaning thrown in. The artistic value of your work is diminished when as you're becoming enlightened, you slay an orc in the most bloody way possible.

 

[DeathWyrmNexus]

Art in general, not just high art is of course subjective which is partly my point. To be art, something must be viewed by someone, somewhere as art. A child can draw a picture but it won't have any meaning to them beyond colours on a page that looks vaguely like their pet. Within an hour they will have forgotten all about it and moved on to some other entertainment. I don't think that a game designer, who will work on certain aspects of a game, not the whole thing, will view that game as their artistic expression.

Art is forgotten and the child counts as "somebody." They put color and effort to paper and made an image of a creature they find dear to them. The expression and interpretation is there and they count as somebody, thus art.

And why are you trying to speak for game designers, exactly? A game designer is no different than a Pixar artist by your example as in they are all smaller parts of a greater whole. That whole... is still art. To-may-to, To-Mah-to. Same difference. And now I must go work, hopefully we can continue this later.

 

[JediMB]

Art is subjective.

Video games are primarily entertainment... but that's true for most (if not all) other forms of art as well.

 

[re dir]

show her some extra credits.

 

[Flames66]

Your teacher needs updating to TeachMe 2011. I know the 1980 version is what you're used to and the interface is a bit different, but the older version is just not compatible with new data formats.

 

[Thyunda]

They are not art. They are made to make money only - how they look has nothing to do with it.

Do I need to raise the cheap-ass indie games? Hell, isn't that the whole point of films and pictures anyway? You think a big film is made purely to convey a message? No. It's to make money. So that argument falls straight down.

I won't deny that the majority of games are made to appeal to the general audience through cheap gimmicks, but then, for every Call of Duty I'm sure there's a RocknRolla. Or a Monster Ark. So yeah, some games are art, and some films simply aren't.
Take BioShock...that story is better than half the films I've seen. And the lines were spectacular...especially the big ol' spoiler.

 

[kypsilon]

Just today in middle school English, we got a writing prompt about means of communication (art, music, literature) affecting peoples lives. After my teacher started to take questions I asked if video games were a form of art, and what do I get? She almost burst out laughing then said "Of course video games aren't art, thats solely a worthless technology!" I later asked if movies were considered art and she said they were. Now how aren't they art, compared to movies of course. They both have actors, plot twists, romances in some of them. That seems pretty art like to me. Is my English teacher as insane as I think she is?

Your teacher is mistaken. Video games are art, it's not a "worthless technology" and you can tell her from me, an artist, that anything she has to say to refute that is an opinion born of fear and ignorance. Fear of becoming irrelevant, and ignorance because that "worthless technology" has innumerable practical applications that she is obviously completely unaware of. Perhaps she should spend a little time researching the subject material before she voices ludicrous opinions like that.

 

[nuba km]

in my English class we had to do a presentation about something and I chose why games are art (oh god the call of duty guys in my school keep trying to convince me call of duty is an artistic game and any game that I mentioned was artistic is a piece of crap including silent hill 2 and shadow of the colossus) and everyone found it very eye opening maybe if you try and give your teacher a well written argument to explain your point you may get your point across.