worst arguments why games aren't art.

[Odegauger]

Games are art as a matter of semantics. Sure, you can bring up Bioshock or Okami or whatever, but it's clear that the standards for artistic complexity and quality in video games are, at least in this part of the world, way lower than they are for film and books.

And with good reason.

(So one thread wasnt enough? Im seeing two..

Listen, I have never felt that art needed to be defended in terms of its title. Some people see layers of paint on a canvas, others see carefully crafted masterpieces, and some even see both. The point is
if you think its art, why the hell do you feel it needs to be defended?
if you think its not art, why the hell do you need to attack it?

Seriously people, what prize is there to be had in proving somethings status when it is subjective anyway? What great award is to be had when people (even on the flippin internet, no doubt) feel the need to argue it. I have never seen "official art" or "unofficial art" just "art" or "not"

this kind of behavior leads me to wonder IF PEOPLE EVEN UNDERSTAND *WHY* SOMETHING IS ART AND NOT JUST WEATHER OR NOT IT QUALIFIES......

the fact that people have to argue it just makes me want to put a *NOT ART* stamp on it just to prove a point. I am not a professional, neither are most people on this forum.(((( AND NO! AN ART DEGREE DOESNT MAKE YOU A ******* EXPERT ON IT, IT MEANS YOU CAN SIT THERE AND WRITE A BULL**** ANALYSIS ON A PAINTING. ughhh.... egotistical, self righteous little pricks)))) Point is, why the hell do you need a professional to give you a thumbs up or thumbs down on this, isnt your own opinion enough? So what if people think some video games are offensive, that isnt what is stopping people from calling porn "Art" (actually only a government grant is in that case lol)

So 1) you feel the need to have "Official people call it art for you to feel good about it.
and 2) if they dont give it the "Thumbs up" then you whine and cry on a forum and feel the need to defend YOUR OPINION from the BIG NASTY EVIL MEANIES!

COME ON PEOPLE! it is YOUR OPINION, and for that, it shouldnt need to be defended..

unless......

You are part of what more and more people consider the B**** generation who have no self security and are continuously seeking it from other in order to feel good about it.

To quote Yahtzee "Why dont you roll over and let them stomp on the other side of your face while they are at it?" The fact that it is even a debate for them proves how insecure some people are.

Your welcome..

Jesus Christ, what crawled up your ass?

 

[PleasantKenobi]

Interaction as a barrier to art is an interesting discussion, and not a completely invalid point.

When discussing linear narratives within the confines of a sand-box gameplay system, or a 'corridor' set of gameplay mechanics it is easily argued that this narrative is tailor made by an 'artist', 'auteur' or 'author'. This backs up the argument that game narratives can be art due to authorial intent; a meaning or meanings inherently interwoven into a text by the original 'artist'.

The question of interaction as an obstacle to art is when we discuss on one hand branching story-lines, which will ultimately still be decided by a writer, or a completely open gaming environment free of pre-defined narrative, such as The Sims, or skirmishes in your favourite RTS such as Command and Conquer. The interaction and unpredictability of outcome would hinder any kind of imposed meaning, and thus complicate any artistic sentiment imposed upon the text by a 'author' like character. This obviously presents itself as an interesting are of discussion for interaction and their effects on certain games.

I would further complicate this discussion in two ways. Firstly, by introducing post-structuralist theory such as 'Death of the Author' by Roland Barthes, and thus removing the focus placed upon authorial intent when discussing art. Secondly, by drawing attention to my own focus upon narrative, pre-defined or otherwise. The term narrative in itself adds entire layers of discussion to this.

I find it hard to say that someone does not 'write their own narrative' when they play through a game of the Sims. A friend of mine literally refers to her playtime with the game as writing the next chapter in her Sims legacy. My issue is that I do not find ?art? in my competitive games of Starcraft or Halo, despite the fact that stories told afterwards to my friends may be construed as 'artistic' in form and content.

I guess what I am ultimately coming to the conclusion of, is that art may in fact require a creator, and a reader, for meaning (something which I out right assume to be a large part of what defines 'art') to be created. But I guess I am coming from a framework where I have studied semiotics, and differing structuralist theories which would frame the development of meaning within the signs and symbols created to communicate ideas between two people.

Looking back over this, what was once a well-structured contribution to the thread became a bit of a rambling mess, I do appologise.

 

[AnAngryMoose]

Reading that guys extremely flawed argument just lowered my IQ

 

[PleasantKenobi]

((((( AND NO! AN ART DEGREE DOESNT MAKE YOU A ******* EXPERT ON IT, IT MEANS YOU CAN SIT THERE AND WRITE A BULL**** ANALYSIS ON A PAINTING. ughhh.... egotistical, self righteous little pricks))))

Oh and please, be a bit more restrained when it comes to crazy-capital-letter-opinion-shouting. Having a degree doesn?t necessarily mean you are full of bullshit. It means that some very important theoretical ground work for discussions such as these is learned. I am doing an English degree, which I wholeheartedly see as an arts degree, but I am not full of bullshit.

Also, opinion is important. We all get that. Enough people go around spouting a lot of shit about subjectivity, even in places where it is not needed, so it would be nice if people would discuss aspects of particular arguments without resorting to the argument that personal opinion is the definitive answer to all questions. Because it isn't. Believe it or not, one persons opinion does not constitute the entirety of human culture and advancement. Unless you have some interesting existential belief system in which you believe the only reality to be the totally subjective one which you are experiencing. In which case, this kind of interaction cannot be any fun for you.

And quoting Yahtzee. I mean really? I hate to point out the obvious, but this discussion of games as art is not everyone attempting to change the opinions of the illuminati or some big business. Sometimes it is interesting and full-filling to discuss art and human culture for the sake of pure discussion.

 

[Rouse]

rofl. I lol'd so bad.
This is the kind of stupidity I have yet to meat.

if games weren't art there wouldn't be university courses such as "Games ART".
the whole process of making a game includes sitting for ages on your ass and first drawing a lot of shit, called concept art, then you model a lot of this shit in a 3d program, then you rig it, animate it, make environments... and OMG, GUESS WHAT? - All that shit is art. :O

Saying games aren't art is like saying spending your whole life drawing and making 3d doesn't make you an artists.

 

[nuba km]

snip

Looking back over this, what was once a well-structured contribution to the thread became a bit of a rambling mess, I do appologise.

No need to apologise I found it a very interesting read also the guy doesn't have an art GCSE he is just doing on and in the UK GCSE art isn't studying the meaning and purpose of art but just the technique of drawing and making pictures. also seeing the fact you have an English degree I hope you don't mind my bad grammar it's just I'm dyslexic and full stops and commas are extremely difficult for me not helped by the fact I inhale and exhale continuously while talking meaning my sentences don't really have a stop meaning I can't use that method to check were full stops should go.

 

[PleasantKenobi]

I am familiar with GCSEs. I did them about five years ago myself. : )

As for the dyslexia, I have a few friends with it myself. I am not a grammar or spelling Nazi like some rude and un-helpful people on this forum.

Ultimately my degree deals with Literature as an art form, not with the language, grammar, syntax etc. My spelling is actually atrocious if I am completely honest. I spell-check my posts before submitting them. At one point, my college lecturer thought I may be minor-dyslexic myself due to some odd habits in my hand written work.

Still on topic somewhat: I have even discussed video games in some of my University level degrees. A friend of mine who also frequents these forums is basing his final year dissertation on Video Games and culture. It is interesting stuff, as interesting as discussions involving film, the novel or short story, and art.

 

[moretimethansense]

1. I won't Dignify such stupidity with a response

2. there are two stupid arguments I hear one quite often and one I've only heard once but it was monumentally stupid

A) "They are interactive."
Counterpoint: as are quite a few pieces of art nowadays not a good argument.

B)"They are large Collaborative efforts."
I shit you not this person claimed that because many people worked on it it can't be considered an art form,
The worst part? It was a fucking film critic that said this!
The hypocrisy knows no bounds!

I also hear people claim that "games have art in them but do not qualify as art in and of themselves." which is a bit more thought out is still a stupid argument when you consider films are considered art and the only key difference is game are interactive.

 

[DaMan1500]

I've never actually heard an arguement that games aren't art before, as to the best of my kinowledge the only people who care whether or not games are considered art are hardcore videogame nerds. Honestly, outside of the added 1st Ammendment rights, I don't see why it matters.

 

[PeePantz]

I don't think games are art because you shouldn't be able to "win" art. That guy however, is an idiot.

Hahaha. You sir, are dead on.

I've always thought games (especially the video variety) are not art. They include art, but this does not make it art. Chess is not art, but I've seen some beautiful boards and pieces that I consider art. However, it is a game that happens to be played with and on art.

I feel that most here need to feel that their hobby is more profound than what it is, somewhat justifying it. Sure video games are fun and all but entertainment does not automatically make it art.

 

[likalaruku]

He's probably the type that believes art is only something that can be drawn or painted, & even then it's only truely art if it looks good to him personally.

 

[PleasantKenobi]

Chess is not art, but I've seen some beautiful boards and pieces that I consider art. However, it is a game that happens to be played with and on art.

I feel that most here need to feel that their hobby is more profound than what it is, somewhat justifying it. Sure video games are fun and all but entertainment does not automatically make it art.

I agree that some people feel the need to justify their hobby, and thus argue this as a defensive argument more so than a real debate with two sides.

But I would have to pose the question that is a narrative within a game not much the same as a narrative within a movie? I mean, both need completion to be fully appreciated. The argument that a win condition would distract from art would only apply for games that are played competitively and not in line with a narrative, no?

 

[nuba km]

I don't think games are art because you shouldn't be able to "win" art. That guy however, is an idiot.

Hahaha. You sir, are dead on.

I've always thought games (especially the video variety) are not art. They include art, but this does not make it art. Chess is not art, but I've seen some beautiful boards and pieces that I consider art. However, it is a game that happens to be played with and on art.

I feel that most here need to feel that their hobby is more profound than what it is, somewhat justifying it. Sure video games are fun and all but entertainment does not automatically make it art.

so you are saying that silent hill 2 is not art a game that explores the human mind more then most movies or novels just because you can beat (not win) most games because win means when you are best out of a group and multiplayer isn't really art also you beat most games by over coming a challenge the difference between that and a movie climax is that you have to over come the challenge so your emotional attachment to the character if he is well written is much stronger because you have gone through their hardships. I know most games are bad art with nearly non or no depth behind them but so are a lot of movies and books (but these have a better good to bad ratio) that doesn't stop them from being art I know my favourite game borderlands is bad art but bioshock, silent hill 2 and shadow of the colossus are good art and the fact is you don't win at these games nor to you win at most games you just finish them like you finish a movie or book for the ending is normally left to make you think about things or wrap things up not to say 'YuO aRe ThE WiNnEr' those were in the old day of games were they had highscores I am not saying this to try and go 'I'm not wasting my life' because I don't think I'm wasting my life nor to I need a person to say so and I am trying to help improve the game industry by only buying stuff which I want more of.

 

[PeePantz]

Chess is not art, but I've seen some beautiful boards and pieces that I consider art. However, it is a game that happens to be played with and on art.

I feel that most here need to feel that their hobby is more profound than what it is, somewhat justifying it. Sure video games are fun and all but entertainment does not automatically make it art.

I agree that some people feel the need to justify their hobby, and thus argue this as a defensive argument more so than a real debate with two sides.

But I would have to pose the question that is a narrative within a game not much the same as a narrative within a movie? I mean, both need completion to be fully appreciated. The argument that a win condition would distract from art would only apply for games that are played competitively and not in line with a narrative, no?

A game doesn't haven't be appreciated for it's narrative (a lot of them don't even have one). However, (obviously) it's essential for a movie.
To finish a game, you must beat it. The competition is between you and the computer. The computer is placing obstacles to hinder your goal and is the main purpose of the game. There is no goal achievement in movies.
I always find that the video game and movie is terrible and only used due to the visual aspect and modern games being more narrative driven. You can always skip the cut scenes in games if you're not interested and just play the game. Cut scenes are just an example of art in games, not games being art.

 

[PeePantz]

I don't think games are art because you shouldn't be able to "win" art. That guy however, is an idiot.

Hahaha. You sir, are dead on.

I've always thought games (especially the video variety) are not art. They include art, but this does not make it art. Chess is not art, but I've seen some beautiful boards and pieces that I consider art. However, it is a game that happens to be played with and on art.

I feel that most here need to feel that their hobby is more profound than what it is, somewhat justifying it. Sure video games are fun and all but entertainment does not automatically make it art.

so you are saying that silent hill 2 is not art a game that explores the human mind more then most movies or novels just because you can beat (not win) most games because win means when you are best out of a group and multiplayer isn't really art also you beat most games by over coming a challenge the difference between that and a movie climax is that you have to over come the challenge so your emotional attachment to the character if he is well written is much stronger because you have gone through their hardships. I know most games are bad art with nearly non or no depth behind them but so are a lot of movies and books (but these have a better good to bad ratio) that doesn't stop them from being art I know my favourite game borderlands is bad art but bioshock, silent hill 2 and shadow of the colossus are good art and the fact is you don't win at these games nor to you win at most games you just finish them like you finish a movie or book for the ending is normally left to make you think about things or wrap things up not to say 'YuO aRe ThE WiNnEr' those were in the old day of games were they had highscores I am not saying this to try and go 'I'm not wasting my life' because I don't think I'm wasting my life nor to I need a person to say so and I am trying to help improve the game industry by only buying stuff which I want more of.

I'm terribly sorry, but that is a wall of slop that desperately needs periods (and other grammatical corrections). Just going on some buzz words that didn't burn my retinas, I'm going with "no". Refer to my post directly above. It might not answers all (or any) of your questions, but you have fried my brain.

 

[nuba km]

A game doesn't haven't be appreciated for it's narrative (a lot of them don't even have one). However, (obviously) it's essential for a movie.
To finish a game, you must beat it. The competition is between you and the computer. The computer is placing obstacles to hinder your goal and is the main purpose of the game. There is no goal achievement in movies.
I always find that the video game and movie is terrible and only used due to the visual aspect and modern games being more narrative driven. You can always skip the cut scenes in games if you're not interested and just play the game. Cut scenes are just an example of art in games, not games being art.

the only difference is instead for a person you are watching solving the obstacle he is faced with which you want him to overcome you are the one over coming the obstacle you are just placed into the shoes of the main character making it easier for you to relate to him also a good game will use gameplay to expand the character. just look at God of war you play a rage filled Spartan and you savagely tare down monsters (I will just repeat you are being savage to monsters) and you are filled with the rage of the main character so when he realises what he has done you realise that you have done it with the thought as the main character making the emotion of that moment stronger then a movie would have done with the same effort. for another example play the bioshock 2 dlc with sigma in it. so gameplay if done properly is not just problem solving but also there to help you explore the character more as you connect with him more though for every game that those this there are 1000 that don't. also as there is no goal achievement in movie argument the goal drives the main character in the movie and you are interested by the character achieving or trying to achieve the goal it's just that the audience doesn't have the same goal so the people making the film have to try and make the audience want his goal achieved but this is easier in games as the main characters goal is your goal if the main character is believable enough. although that is something else games into improve in.

 

[nuba km]

snip

I'm terribly sorry, but that is a wall of slop that desperately needs periods (and other grammatical corrections). Just going on some buzz words that didn't burn my retinas, I'm going with "no". Refer to my post directly above. It might not answers all (or any) of your questions, but you have fried my brain.

if you have read some of my previous posts you will have seen that I have mention I am dyslexic and have great trouble with full stops and commas and just dismissing an argument because you can't be bothered to read it is not a valid response.

 

[ntw3001]

I don't think games are art because you shouldn't be able to "win" art. That guy however, is an idiot.

In competitive games, I guess that could be a fair argument, the same as how when people describe sports as 'art' they're likely to get sideways glances. But you don't really 'win' a single player game; you just get to the end. It's like finishing a book or film, except with the word 'win' grandfathered in from the days when games were typically intended to present a challenge rather than a narrative or other creative form (choosing words is hard).

Anyways, regarding 'games as art': Neither of those words actually have a concrete meaning, so debates invariably end up as 'well I define games as this and art as this and they are not the same' versus 'well I define them like this and they are'. It's a completely vacuous debate.

The worst argument I've ever heard: 'well I define games as this and art as this and they are not the same', as stated by every single person who has ever commented on the topic.

 

[SEPECAT]

"Because they're mindless."

 

[PeePantz]

snip

I personally did not get that from God of War. It was fun, but I had no emotional attachment to Kratos and did not relate to him or the story past GOW1. While I agree some games are more immersive than movies, I don't think this qualifies it as art. Like I said earlier, while games most certainly contain different types of art, they are not. The art just helps make the game more enjoyable.

PS - I'm sorry you're dyslexic and had I known this, words like "slop" would have been toned down. I sincerely had a lot of difficulty reading it and because of this, I felt it only got a small amount of what you were trying to say, across. I tried though and didn't just not read it.