No. That makes them commercial art, which all art is unless done in a complete vacuum. Let's face it, (and this is coming from a painfully self-aware artist) all art is made out of a want for something, be it attention, money, approval or some more specific thing that the artist desires, that doesn't take its expressive merit away. At all. Ever.Generic Gamer said:
Which games do you consider Art?
- Thread starter Versago
- Start date
Recommended Videos
My theory is it's either they really need the approval of the elite or they need to feed their indie hipster egos and don't want to go out and buy more ironic retro t-shirts and beanie caps.Generic Gamer said:
We don't have the same eyes, your green isn't necessrily mine. Hell my red could be your C sharp.Cassita said:Person one [pointing to a red apple]: I think the apple is green.manythings said:Well to say my view is "wrong" is to say that there is a "right" view of art and I'm pretty sure that's up there with proving/disproving the existence of god. I never presented my view as right I only presented my view.Cassita said:I'm not.manythings said:
I'm pointing out for your future reference that you were wrong.
Enjoy the art
Person two: You're wrong.
That's how it works.
You're wrong
you are a worthy adversary indeed.Generic Gamer said:
this essentially brings us to the divide between triple a game developers and big publishers vs. independant games and developers.
why is Modern Warfare 2 so pretty? because if it weren't, it wouldn't sell as well.
why is The Path so pretty? because the art direction drives the entire narritive.
which one of these games is more artful? well i'd say The Path, but does that mean that something that is artful for the sake of selling games ceases to be art just because of the intention? i don't think so. i'll convey my point in another way that may make more sense.
true story: i work as a graphic designer for a large advertising firm where i live, clients approach the firm with projects and the firm hands it off to me, i am given the parameters with which to work in and i design ads, web pages, flyers, etc based on those perameters. once i've finished, i send it to the firm, who sends it to the client and we repeat until the client is happy with the final product. by your logic, what i produce for these companies isn't art because it is made with the intention of selling a product, i design with certain colors, fonts and themes which provoke certain emotions and responses favorable to whatever the design is going to sell.
am i an artist? ask yourself that.
- Ang
Metal Gear Solid:
Because it takes storytelling to a whole new level. Sure, not everyone likes the way it does it, but that doesn't exclude it from being art (most people don't give a crap about Mona Lisa either, but that still doesn't mean the painting isn't art).
Baldur's Gate series:
For beautiful 2D graphics that has aged nicely and still look amazing by 2010 standards, for an amazing world with so much atmosphere and lovely/involving characters.
Because it takes storytelling to a whole new level. Sure, not everyone likes the way it does it, but that doesn't exclude it from being art (most people don't give a crap about Mona Lisa either, but that still doesn't mean the painting isn't art).
Baldur's Gate series:
For beautiful 2D graphics that has aged nicely and still look amazing by 2010 standards, for an amazing world with so much atmosphere and lovely/involving characters.
As an actual game artist its still hard to define some games as art, more a means to convey a message to the audience. I still however stand by Flower as a strong candidate for a gaming artistic masterpiece.
Art well really there is no way to approach this topic from a purely empirical stance. Art is subjective, what one believes is art another will not feel the same way. In a philosophical sense everything and nothing is art. To add there is no standard for art, it is completely based in the realm of the individual person and not in a group.
Each time this topic comes back i see the same mistake being made. See the question is whenever games -can- be art, not if they -are-.
To be perfectly honest i don't suppose any of the AAA/popular games could be called art for now. They are stories, visualised and interactive, but just stories, too often pulled out of context and drawn far far from any point of reference. Even if they may have some touching scenes or deep moments, they are still too detached to have actual impact. In terms of literature they are closer to the form of journals, a simple description of events that took place, but not really art.
I suppose, amidst all the production you could find some indie titles, that do that step forward and add expression and context to the whole experience, with visuals that try to show something more than just the world as imagined by the developer.
The closer the games come to realism however, the further away they are from art. It's like taking your camera and just randomly recording what's outside your window. It wouldn't be called art. It would just be an observation.
To be perfectly honest i don't suppose any of the AAA/popular games could be called art for now. They are stories, visualised and interactive, but just stories, too often pulled out of context and drawn far far from any point of reference. Even if they may have some touching scenes or deep moments, they are still too detached to have actual impact. In terms of literature they are closer to the form of journals, a simple description of events that took place, but not really art.
I suppose, amidst all the production you could find some indie titles, that do that step forward and add expression and context to the whole experience, with visuals that try to show something more than just the world as imagined by the developer.
The closer the games come to realism however, the further away they are from art. It's like taking your camera and just randomly recording what's outside your window. It wouldn't be called art. It would just be an observation.
I consider ANY game art ANY even Halo Madden Mario Pong etc. in my opinion art is a expression of the artist just like the game overthinker said "you have good art and you have bad art"
i would say vvvvvv, it's simple but a joy to play
also maybe amnesia, the dark descent. i haven't played it, but the trailer made me piss my pants
also maybe amnesia, the dark descent. i haven't played it, but the trailer made me piss my pants
So far this is the answer I've gotten from all of the "Are games art?" threads (all 6,458) in the olast two weeks:
Some games are art, some aren't.
If they are prententious titles that don't sell well, then they are art.
If they are a popular title, then they are not art.
Some games are art, some aren't.
If they are prententious titles that don't sell well, then they are art.
If they are a popular title, then they are not art.
I thought Rez was amazing. I have not seen one good argument as to why games should not be art. Also just because something is mass produced and sold does not mean it is not art. Look at Pop art for example. Also you cannot try and define ALL games as art at once. Sports games like Madden and NHL are purely for entertainment. Personally I do not see any artistic value in them (aside from John Maddens voice). Then again art is purely subjective and people may have other opinions. But I definitely think that some games are art and some are not. Saying all games is art is like trying to say all movies are art. Some are purely for entertainment.
For fucks sake! What people think is art is their opinion. Of course not everyone is going to share the same view.
Oh you want feelings. If pictures, paintings, models, story's and movies can convey feelings, then so can games because games is a mix of everything thrown into one with the extra element interactivity, which adds a deeper experience if done right. You can convey more feelings in a fucking game than any other type of media when your experiencing everything first hand.
I'll pick a less popular choice for my art game, the original Super Mario Brothers. The designer has to make the bad things you need to avoid obvious, so they do it in their own way with their own pictures, sounds and animations a long with sometimes it's own creepy music to give you an extra hint, and vice versa. That alone is already conveying the message to be careful around that shit or that shit can help. The game was also 100% original and it changed the fucking world.
Oh you want feelings. If pictures, paintings, models, story's and movies can convey feelings, then so can games because games is a mix of everything thrown into one with the extra element interactivity, which adds a deeper experience if done right. You can convey more feelings in a fucking game than any other type of media when your experiencing everything first hand.
I'll pick a less popular choice for my art game, the original Super Mario Brothers. The designer has to make the bad things you need to avoid obvious, so they do it in their own way with their own pictures, sounds and animations a long with sometimes it's own creepy music to give you an extra hint, and vice versa. That alone is already conveying the message to be careful around that shit or that shit can help. The game was also 100% original and it changed the fucking world.
Because it's demeaning otherwise; people consider playing games to be something ridiculous, while seeing movies or paintings is a better hobby. There is really no good reason to say that an entire populace that plays games is actually doing something stupid and irrelevant and shitty in their spare time.RowdyRodimus said:
I believe that art cannot have a strict definition. It evolved during the course of history and it will continue to evolve after we're long dead. When people first painted the walls of the Lascaux cave, they did it for a purpose (which we can or cannot perceive); today, those paintings are considered to be an art which we value dearly. First plays were also probably just an entertaining method and if we skip a certain time frame and go to Shakespeare; he did all his plays because it was his job, not because he considered it to be an art. Eventually, that medium turned into something we now consider a true art form. It was probably the same with music and movies. In the beginning, music was a mean to invoke spirits or contact the gods, then it became entertainment for the masses and now we think of it as art. Games have existed for, what, 40-30 years? Of course people are having trouble thinking of them as art. But I see no good reason to think so.
1. They have s concept, a storyline, a motif (whatever it might be); like books, like movies, like plays
2. They have characters that carry the story and interact with each other and other objects; like books, like movies, like plays
3. They have visuals (we watch the process of advancing the storyline and interacting between characters and objects); like movies, like plays, even like paintings
4. They have dialogues and narration, blocks of text that describe certain things; like books, like movies, BUT they can also be silent, at least partially and then they can be compared to paintings.
5. They enrich our lives, in any way (we get entertainment, knowledge, interests, moral questions, simply we can consider it being pretty or calming, relaxing or good to express our frustrations or anger or happiness, etc.); just like books, music, movies, plays, paintings and pretty much EVERY art form in existence
6. The only thing "NEW" to art that we get from games is that we PARTICIPATE in it, actively. We don't just stare at them, we don't just spend two hours watching them or two days reading them; we take part in large amounts of time, we get into it and we PLAY it. So the "artist" that makes it can sit back and wait for the reception, while we, the audience, actually get all the fun. Is it because of that? It can't be art because the audience participates actively? But isn't it that recently, more and more artists are trying to make their audience participate in their art? Don't musicians love when we go to their concerts and participate in the experience? Aren't movie makers trying to get the audience to enhance the experience of a movie by making us go to the cinema? Don't we participate in a play when we go to the theatre and we clap, we gasp, we cry, we laugh? Is it because we mostly play the game alone? Can't one appreciate art when he watches the movie alone or stares at the painting alone?
I think games are not art (yet) because they are a new medium. People don't know how to look at them because they are confused, but aren't they pretty much like all art?
But the definition that it has to elicit an emotional response is definitely not one that is accepted by the high art world. You can make or appreciate anything you want and then call it art but there is a good chance that it will not engage in the process of defining and contributing to evolving art unless it engages with that world. Mainly by working out the rules and language of that world and speaking to it directly. If making emotive products is something that is popular then it is popular culture and could be very good at that, and maybe have more of an impact on society, but don't kid yourself into thinking that it is enough to make it art or that what has been added by making it emotive is some magic called "art."SteveoftheHills said:
I think it's pretty safe to assume that the co-worker of yours haven't studied much art. I haven't, and even I know that symbolism is a seperate artistic movement, so that saying that art is "arranging symbolic elements" etc. is like saying that the only music is metal or that it ain't a game if it ain't an RPG.Versago said:
His other deffinition is so vague that it doesn't really define anything. What constitutes an object? Even more when is an object aesthetic? Is a urinal aesthetic? Most would say no, but in doing so one says that Duchamps "Fountain" isn't a work of art, which is basically disagreeing with all the art historians out there who've studied art for half their lives, if not more, as well as disagreeing with quite a large portion of the art world in general. But, if your co-worker claims to be such a god-like judge of art, then let him.
For the matter at hand - games as art.
A game I frequently mention in this context is Victi: Blood Bitterness by Freegamer. It have a stark visual style which is not only interesting in its own right, it also helps underline the overall feel of the game. The story isn't as well-written as it's thought provoking, with far more suggested than told, but I don't think an enganging, exciting story is required for a game to be art. The overall feel of the game is grossing and thought-provoking, leading to the point where the player realizes "God, I am controlling a monster, but I have to continue" and the bodyless antagonist known simply as "Evil" becomes a more ambigous size - when the main character is a badguy, does that mean that this so-called Evil is really the hero or does it mean that he is merely worse than yourself? An interesting comment on the view of those on "the other side" (Embodied very well in our world by the conflict with North Korea - we are very quick to point fingers at "the bad guys" while our own system is decadent and cold - but let that rest). That is a very artistic game, I think.
Another game I like to call art is Sanitarium by DreamForge Entertainment. Not so much because of it's visual style, but rather how it goes about telling the story and the themes it debates. In it, various surrealistic landscapes inside the main character's mind is used to portray a human feeling through a playable scene, which is an enganging and effective way to approach artistically creating a rendtion of the human mind, I think.
Also, I've recently picked up the first Oddworld game. I'm not sure if I would call it art yet, but it does have a strong message and a stark visual aesthetic, even though it is rather low-brow. I'll know sometime.
You have a good point, focusing on "Can" rather than "Are", i think games CAN be.Keava said:
A game, by its very concept, that an interactive experiance is recieved differently by every single player, has full potential to be art.
Games that make you make choices are art when done well - as your generating yourself, you are learning through the experiance what kind of choices you'll make, you learn more about who you are - or maybe even develop/ change your opinion on what you feel.
When done well - rather than games where your given the blatent choice of "Do this if your playing good, or this if your playing evil".
Again - like Extra Credits mentioned, Mass Effect 2