Wait, so video games aren't art?

[Soxafloppin]

Well Shadow of the Collosus seems alot more like art than, i dunno..The Green Hornet movie.

 

[lacktheknack]

Does it matter? Art is subjective. I thought that "My Bed" was a disgusting, worthless waste of space, but that didn't stop it from winning a Turner award.

 

[0986875533423]

Yes they are, but it really means very little.

Any form of expression of any medium or function is art, of a sort.

But that means pornography, religion and psuedoscience can also be viewed as art (Provided you look at their expression objectively rather than engage them) That's not going to make a good argument.

And frankly, the "art is corrupting our kiddies ARGWARGWARGWARGWARG" argument will always be around with any young medium, and the supporters of that argument will be unwilling to call the medium "art". I predict that at some point we'll invent some way to stream the experiences of the lives of historical and fictional figures into our lives in order to gain experiences from them and have fun. And then all the stupid protesters will be up saying "Durr Hurr this is all too direct it's not art" and "NOOOO John Lennon got shot and did drugs and I don't want my kids experiencing his life cause it's so WRONG"

tl;dr: History repeats itself, People never learn, and the only thing humans consistently improve on is our ability to irritate other people intensely.

PS. I have a more open-minded English teacher than you. Yah boo sucks. Now enjoy your life.

 

[CosmicSpiral]

The art community (the ones who decide what is to be considered "art") is biased, to say the least. They have certain innate ideas that exclude videogames from falling under their general umbrella, things like:

- The work of art itself is static
- The value of art is independent of viewer participation
- Art is not made for entertainment or monetary reasons
- etc. etc.

 

[Thyunda]

But why isn't the game itself art? So what if a group of students get together, write and film an absolutely amazing, in-depth look at humanity...why do the film critics declare it a work of art, but if a game did the same thing, 'it's a game and therefore not art'?
What about great artists that sat alone in a basement painting their pictures. Why is that art, and a game not? You've yet to define what makes something art and what doesn't.

Guess if it is mass produced and sold to millions then its not art. I dont see films as art either. But i guess if you got a one of a kind picture drawn by a certain game designer (like a drawing of bioshock character) then i guess that people can see that as art. I guess we all have our own thoughts on what we do or dont like. Maybe its one of those questions that depends on the eyes of the person that views it. I guess you can label games and films as an art form. But i guess i am writing my thoughts of art as comparing them to oil paintings, drawings etc. But i have no doubt these will change over time.

Well, you gotta remember that we're only dealing with copies of the original. It's comparable to selling prints of the Mona Lisa. It doesn't devalue it as art...well, it devalues it in terms of rarity, and significance. Would your opinion be different if you found a game that there was only one of?