Wait, so video games aren't art?

[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.

 

[subject_87]

Games are indeed art, but we seem to shot ourselves in the foot a fair bit with by-the-numbers plots, cardboard cut-out characters, and bad writing in game after game, all of these things hindering a widespread view of games as art. There are admittedly many games that surpass all these things, but sadly they're the exception rather than the rule.

And besides, it's a time-honored tradition for the older generation to dismiss, fear and loathe the media that their children have created; before you know it we'll be up in arms about what are kids are doing. But by all means, take a step in the right direction and support games that would be worthy of having in a museum.

 

[WanderingBiscuits]

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?

Answer to last line: Yes

 

[LawlessSquirrel]

It's a new form of art, I'd say. It's not a passive experience like movies, but rather an active form of immersion, which is different but equal, in my opinion. You really should get her to define her version of 'art', because it seems to be a major factor in these things.

If you go by the whole fractal Science - Art - Philosophy method, of course it's art. Everything is part art, part science, and part philosophy, so games can't be signalled out for exclusion.

If it's the whole 'art evokes emotion' use, then of course video games count. How often do you play a game and feel nothing at all, and just consider yourself moving pixels on a screen?

Art conveying a message would be the same as the above.

It seems like her dismissing it all in one swoop without considering it first. It's not a wise way to treat anything, at all, but she's a teacher and they're trained to parrot what they're told to teach (no offence to teachers of course, not all actually follow that in practice). Chalk it up to arrogance, or try and intelligently debate it with her. If she doesn't listen or shuts you down, it's arrogance. If not, then it's ignorance.

If all else fails, do what I did: humour the teacher and try manipulating her as a personal game. Heh...now I sound evil...

EDIT: Oh, and on the 'worthless technology' stuff...try telling that to the war veterans and psychologically scarred people that use them to overcome intense issues that are otherwise nearly incurable. Seriously, tell her to research psychology of play and the studies of how virtual reality technology is being used. I'm not saying video games are great for your health, but in some circumstances they can be.

 

[Doive]

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.

Ok, have funsies at work, view this post as your finishing work present!
I think that to be art something has to have a meaning and I mean more than just simple description. While meaning is obviously down to a given individual I don't think a child is capable of seeing past "this is my cat" and nobody else is going to see artistic meaning it.
I've never said that no games are art, I said that most aren't. My point is that at some point in the creative process a game designer making an artistic game should be thinking "I am making art right now".
For the massive games pumped out by the big studios they must have hordes of designers working on aspects of the game comparitively small compared to the finished product. While the individual drawings of landscapes etc could be considered art, the finished product was never intended to be.

 

[Jamous]

She's woefully uninformed about video games. Seriously, stereotypes much? Silly teacher.
Many video games, for example Okami or Shadow of the Colossus are far easier to view as art compared with many forms of modern art, for example the works of Tracey Emin or Damien Hurst are considered by some to be pretty shit, and worth nothing artistically. Personally I like Damien Hurst, but most people I know can't stand him. I hate Tracey Emin's works, yet many people adore them. Both artists have been payed millions for some of their works, and have them displayed at galleries. I could go into various philosophies of art (I'm doing an entire course on it in my Philosophy A Level), but I don't think I need to here. Video Games can quite easily be art, as I'm sure most of you fellow Escapists will agree; especially if Movies are to be considered art. Also (And we can all be a bit hypocritical when it comes to this point ) you really should withhold judgement on things until you've experienced them first hand, or have experienced an equivalent first hand. Basically I don't think we should judge if we don't understand (Yeah, massively hypocritical now. Oh well.). I wonder if anyone will bother trawling through this pseudo-philosophical ramble on art and judgement.....

 

[Trivun]

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?

She says that video games are "worthless technology"? Point her in the direction of Kinect. And then point at her and laugh at her for her ignorance and idiocy. That's all you have to do.