Why is it so imporant for video games to be considered art?

[Orange12345]

Well most things have been said so far, but the biggest reason that I want games to be accepted as art because, hopefully then some percentage of the non-gaming public will understand that there are more games then COD and halo.

I don't really have anything against either game, it's just really annoying and sometimes awkward when someone asks what you like to do in your spare time and you say "I like to play games" and they say "oh my (insert person they know) plays COD/halo to". And then you have to decide whether to try and explain what you really meant to them and sound like a complete nerd, or let it go and seem like someone with the mentality of a 12 year old

 

[Vanilla_Druid]

Mainly because people keep viewed it as a childish waste of time and we all want to be more like Yahtzee.

They want to be an Asexual Misanthrope Supreme that play bad mainstream games for the rest of his career?

That is a rather accurate description of Yahtzee. His constant negativity and bile starts to take a toll on a person. I suppose that is why I no longer watch reviews anymore; there is too much negativity and not enough talk about the positives.

 

[DEAD34345]

It's important in that gaming as a medium should have all the same rights as other mediums of art. So long as we have those, it doesn't really matter whether people consider it to be art or not, at least as far as I'm concerned.

 

[dyre]

One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Psh. Most peoples' perception of art is decades, if not centuries behind the contemporary state of the art world. For one, people seem think that art is particularly definable.

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I want to see games as art because it is a new medium with a mind-blowing level of artistic potential. I can feel my heart swell for the seemingly endless possibilities.
If video games became acknowledged as a form of art, more people would be willing to view games on a different level, willing to challenge what is there and push the limits of what can be done to communicate emotion, make commentary, and generate discussion which leads to new revelations about the medium and ourselves as human beings. Just as art should.

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

 

[Aeonknight]

I would say it "needs" to be consider art due to the loose definition art has with other mediums.

Music is an art form, visuals are an art form, etc. Games combine all of the above, and if done well, perfectly blends them together to create masterpieces that people will still play and enjoy to this day and age and beyond.

For something that has many elements of art to not be considered art in one way or another is kind of a contradiction. Also it's an ass backwards way of thinking... Hell nowadays I prefer video game music to anything I hear on the radio.

 

[Vigormortis]

It's not important for games as a whole to be considered "art". Just like we don't consider all films, music, books, or even paintings/sculptures art.

However, it IS important that we recognize the few games out there that should be considered art. Ones that are unique, extremely well-crafted, present finely tuned ideas, and either tell a compelling story or present compelling characters. (or both)

Not all games fall into the category of what one would consider art. High art or not. But there are some that are exquisite works of skill and design. These should be called art. Just like any film fitting that criteria.

 

[Erana]

One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Psh. Most peoples' perception of art is decades, if not centuries behind the contemporary state of the art world. For one, people seem think that art is particularly definable.

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I want to see games as art because it is a new medium with a mind-blowing level of artistic potential. I can feel my heart swell for the seemingly endless possibilities.
If video games became acknowledged as a form of art, more people would be willing to view games on a different level, willing to challenge what is there and push the limits of what can be done to communicate emotion, make commentary, and generate discussion which leads to new revelations about the medium and ourselves as human beings. Just as art should.

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

 

[dyre]

One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Psh. Most peoples' perception of art is decades, if not centuries behind the contemporary state of the art world. For one, people seem think that art is particularly definable.

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I want to see games as art because it is a new medium with a mind-blowing level of artistic potential. I can feel my heart swell for the seemingly endless possibilities.
If video games became acknowledged as a form of art, more people would be willing to view games on a different level, willing to challenge what is there and push the limits of what can be done to communicate emotion, make commentary, and generate discussion which leads to new revelations about the medium and ourselves as human beings. Just as art should.

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

 

[Monkeyman O'Brien]

Why its important legally - Because it grants them all sorts of protection against censorship.
Why its important to gamers personally - Because they actually have very little faith in gaming itself so try to make it sound as important as they can. Thats why whenever asked about fave games these "games are art" fuckwits usually pick 2 games which are so unlike any other games that they may as well not count. Those two are obviously Portal and SotC.

 

[krazykidd]

It's not important for games as a whole to be considered "art". Just like we don't consider all films, music, books, or even paintings/sculptures art.

However, it IS important that we recognize the few games out there that should be considered art. Ones that are unique, extremely well-crafted, present finely tuned ideas, and either tell a compelling story or present compelling characters. (or both)

Not all games fall into the category of what one would consider art. High art or not. But there are some that are exquisite works of skill and design. These should be called art. Just like any film fitting that criteria.

I get what you are saying and i agree . Just that my question is "why?". Why is ot important that those few games , as you said, should be considered art . What difference does it make ?

I'm not agruing that some games should or should not be art . I want to know why does it matter .

( note i am not directing this at you personally, just trying to make people think about the motivation behin wanting to considere games art, thats what i'm curious about )

 

[Aeonknight]

Why its important legally - Because it grants them all sorts of protection against censorship.
Why its important to gamers personally - Because they actually have very little faith in gaming itself so try to make it sound as important as they can. Thats why whenever asked about fave games these "games are art" fuckwits usually pick 2 games which are so unlike any other games that they may as well not count. Those two are obviously Portal and SotC.

Since when did acknowledging greatness also constitute a lack of faith? What you call a lack of faith, I call giving credit where it's due. Games have been art, and it doesn't need societies' approval for it to be so.

Also, I pity the individual who thinks that only SoTC and Portal are the only games worthy of being dubbed "art". 'Cause that means they've missed out on some real gems over the years.

 

[GrizzlerBorno]

Video games need to be considered an artistic medium so that other people realize what they've been missing out on when they summed up all games as "blood and tits". After that they will, hopefully, join in and have their minds blown by good games.... or they'll just feel bad. I prefer the former, but the latter isn't so bad either.

 

[Something Amyss]

The question is in the title .

Kidd, you've been around long enough so you know how the search bar works. I'm also surprised you haven't seen this spring up a million times before.

It's not a novel question.

Now, on to business. Are you familiar with Brown v EMA? Also known with Schwarzenegger's name in it? California wanted to make illegal sales of M rated titles to minors. They were told no, that violates the Constitution because "free speech." So California then goes and says "Well, games aren't art, so free speech shouldn't apply."

I can't speak for you, but I find this a very compelling reason to car whether video games are art.

 

[dragonswarrior]

What people are looking for isn't for games to be art, its for people to not have to bear the social stigma of "nerd" for a pass time they claim should be equivalent for cinema and the likes.

That just pisses me off, its so fucking selfish.

I think you're being a bit unfair in why you think people want it.

I am not even slightly artistic, I don't give a crap about it and I generally consider it a waste of time (as a gamer calling anything a 'waste of time' is a bad joke, I know how it looks to other people who are not gamers while I am 'wasting' my own time)..I think the idea of feeling untold joy and getting mooney eyed for the possibilities something like a classification change can bring is delusional at best and pathetic at worst.

I do however support the games as art, and I don't think both personally respecting and pushing towards other people being respected for the product they create is selfish or something to be ashamed of. The legal side to it is the most significant part, the social ideas won't change anywhere near as quickly.

People will still make games how they want to, some will fall under the new classification and some won't. A classification won't somehow change all the established rules for what boundaries are and aren't being pushed..and somebody with great ideas isn't going to stop because his media isn't strictly speaking art.

That may or may not end up affecting how much I respect myself or how much respect I feel other people should give me(either individually or as that general squishy pale mass you were directing that at)..which is part of your point Erana, but I don't feel like that's really part of it. People will still be considered nerds the same way people who are really into any other form of art arn't generally considered to be social animals on the basis of their obsession with the artistic.

Yeah, I was kind of making unfair umbrella statements there... Part of it is that I'm just so sick of hearing of all these arguments made by people who don't really give a damn about art or refuse to acknowledge the international artistic context in which games as art would entail.
Now, I shouldn't just turn around and make sweeping generalizations about the art world, but I could pretty easily sort through most games today and say which would probably be considered not art, a genuine work of art, or something throuroughly a work of art but very kitschy.
Then people would respond along the lines of "hey, I don't give a fuck about what you say; everyone's entitled to their own opinion" and nothing's accomplished.

In order for something to be accepted as the lauded, protected "high arts," I hate to say that the general public's opinion doesn't matter. This is both because the institution of the fine art world is so self-centric, but also because most people aren't willing to give a damn about what fine art enthusiasts are talking about, while for some reason at the same time accepting that whatever gets put in a gallery is somehow, definitively art.
And until this gap is bridged, it will remain this way, and people preaching to the masses aren't doing anything.

Yeah, its terribly fucked up, but that's how things are, and I am just so put out with people who refuse to make the effort to get to know what they're talking about when that's the only way they could actually change things argue incessantly, and then completely ignore what I'm saying, despite me being one of the few people here who have literally spent weeks of their lives studying, discussing and contemplating the nature of art and trying desperately to figure out where I could fit into this whole convoluted mess.

And now cue the people calling me a self-righteous *****. Because a lifelong love of video games, combined with years of art education are worthless and I clearly don't know what I'm talking about. Yeah.

I thought the points you made were pretty awesome... So I dunno. Appreciation and education do get you somewhere. Huh. Fancy that.

 

[Stalk3rchief]

I really don't know, to me a game is a game. But, I'll admit, many games have made me feel something so maybe that has something to do with it. /shrug

 

[C2Ultima]

Games have never not been an art form. We just don't want to be dismissed as people obsessing over meaningless toys.

At least I don't, anyway.

 

[VladG]

I get what you are saying and i agree . Just that my question is "why?". Why is ot important that those few games , as you said, should be considered art . What difference does it make ?

I'm not agruing that some games should or should not be art . I want to know why does it matter .

( note i am not directing this at you personally, just trying to make people think about the motivation behin wanting to considere games art, thats what i'm curious about )

Well, for one, there's a legal reason, since so many game developers are based in the U.S., or otherwise tied to the U.S. , having the medium considered art would save them a lot of trouble with censorship and idiots like Arnie or that lawyer dude (yeah, I know, I make a hell of an argument, I just can't remember his name) who want to ban games.

There's also social validation, it's nice to be able to say you're involved into something important, it just makes some people feel better about themselves, and why not?

There's also the fact that we should call things what they are. Gaming is, without a doubt, art. Hell, it basically incorporates film and photography (or at least some aspects of those as an art form) so saying it's not art simply because you have absolutely no understanding of the medium is stupid (I'm looking at you Ebert)

Personally I'm not fussed about it, I've been a gamer my entire life, I recognize gaming for what it is, and simply not calling it art won't stop the artists from their craft. So I'm good either way, but gaming as a whole could probably benefit from being considered and art form.

I'm also certain that in due time it will be.

 

[Vigormortis]

It's not important for games as a whole to be considered "art". Just like we don't consider all films, music, books, or even paintings/sculptures art.

However, it IS important that we recognize the few games out there that should be considered art. Ones that are unique, extremely well-crafted, present finely tuned ideas, and either tell a compelling story or present compelling characters. (or both)

Not all games fall into the category of what one would consider art. High art or not. But there are some that are exquisite works of skill and design. These should be called art. Just like any film fitting that criteria.

I get what you are saying and i agree . Just that my question is "why?". Why is ot important that those few games , as you said, should be considered art . What difference does it make ?

I'm not agruing that some games should or should not be art . I want to know why does it matter .

( note i am not directing this at you personally, just trying to make people think about the motivation behin wanting to considere games art, thats what i'm curious about )

For the same reasons we often make a point of recognizing certain songs, drawings, or films as art.

Firstly, as a statement of recognition in quality. Like giving an award to someone who wins a race, labeling someones work as 'art' is generally viewed as saying their work is worthy of recognition. Worthy of praise. (even if it may not be to ones liking, but that's for another discussion on objectivity and subjectivity)

Secondly, it's a way of showing to others, now and in the future, something profound or an example of the best the creative minds of the day had to offer. Labeling something art, in this sense, is like saying, "This is a shining example of someone truly talented, truly gifted, crafting something most people can't. Crafting something that's meaningful, expressive, and thought-provoking.

That's why, at least to me, it's important that video-game design be considered as valid an art form as film, music, or literature. But again, just like those other 'art' forms, not all examples within the medium can be considered 'art'.

[edit] Also, let's not forget that just about every other art-form we recognize in society is used in game design. Animation, music and sound design, drawing, sculpting, architecture. You name it. So it confounds me why we'll consider all of those things, separately, art. But combined they can no longer have that distinction. Perplexing.

 

[Aprilgold]

So that shit like "The Xbox causes Murders in young people" doesn't happen. Its also allows gaming to fit under certain things like 'freedom of speech' and what not.

 

[JoesshittyOs]

I never really cared to be honest.

Art can and usually does suck. The word really doesn't mean much to me.