worst arguments why games aren't art.
- Thread starter nuba km
- Start date
Recommended Videos
so you are saying silent hill 2 and bioshock are mindless. Also games are not mindless entertainment the most fun games dent to be the ones that challenge our mind and reflexes. Also games ORIGINALLY were just made for entertainment same with books and paintings but this has changed now and f people are stuck in the past we can't take a step towards the future.BudZer said:
Does this mean that films are not art because of the B-movies? That graphic novels are not art because of the Penny Dreadfuls? Dismissing a whole medium on the basis of a small sample is an error to be avoided, my friend.PeePantz said:
Also, on the note of "winning" a game: I believe it has been mentioned that many games have a conclusion, but not all have a victory condition, but I would reference "The Path" here. I don't suppose many of you have played it (heck, neither have I, only having heard of it through my brother) but from what I understand it is based on the story of Little Red Riding Hood, where you gain nothing by following the given path and reaching your grandmother. The only progress can be acheived by dismissing the game's only instruction and leaving the path, thus playing on the player's already pre-conceived idea of a game where, if you follow the instructions, you will win. This level of complexity is quite interesting to me.
The ONLY reason people want games to be art is because they want to justify what society (perhaps justly) percieves as a waste of time.
"I'm not just sitting alone in a dark room stairing at a screen for hours! I'm supporting ART!"
The easiest way to summarize the arguement is that once you start censoring art (art at its core being about expression, the antithesis of censorship), it really isn't art anymore.
+ Video Games are HEAVILY censored from start to finish. First, you need to sell your idea to a cabal of soulless money-grubbing corporate directors - who likely won't go for any idea that deviates too much from an established norm.
+ Next, you need to dumb-down any radical elements for the simpering PC sheeple. (Point in case - Resident Evil 5; which resulted in a plethora of Mary-Sue black characters and whiter-than-white villains who were just cartoonishly evil.)
+ Finally, you need to further attenuate your game to get an M rating because Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and other corporate superpowers refuse to sell AO.
Bottom line - they could be art in theory, but at present they're a far cry. Most people who argue for their status as art are in denial.
"I'm not just sitting alone in a dark room stairing at a screen for hours! I'm supporting ART!"
The easiest way to summarize the arguement is that once you start censoring art (art at its core being about expression, the antithesis of censorship), it really isn't art anymore.
+ Video Games are HEAVILY censored from start to finish. First, you need to sell your idea to a cabal of soulless money-grubbing corporate directors - who likely won't go for any idea that deviates too much from an established norm.
+ Next, you need to dumb-down any radical elements for the simpering PC sheeple. (Point in case - Resident Evil 5; which resulted in a plethora of Mary-Sue black characters and whiter-than-white villains who were just cartoonishly evil.)
+ Finally, you need to further attenuate your game to get an M rating because Wal-Mart, Gamestop, and other corporate superpowers refuse to sell AO.
Bottom line - they could be art in theory, but at present they're a far cry. Most people who argue for their status as art are in denial.
I don't care whether games are art or not. In fact, I deny the existence of "art" entirely. There are paintings, there is music, there are video games... But that's it. I'm not going to bother thinking about what *is* art. From now on, nothing is.
His argument has no basis. His thesis is "Games are not art" which he supports by asserting that "Games portray fictional events". When it was pointed out that much of what is generally also considered art also portrays a fictional event he says that they are art because they are not games.
The logic he is using is games are not art because they are not fictional but art can be fictional so long as it isn't a game. The self reference makes it a meaningless statement.
He is free to think that games are not art but convince others he would have to choose a different argument. For example, something is classified as art generally on the basis of a subjective notion as to what art is (conceptually). If the basis he gave was truly an accurate representation of his opinion on the subject (and not the best thing he could come up with on the spur of the moment) then he is obviously free to not consider games art.
The logic he is using is games are not art because they are not fictional but art can be fictional so long as it isn't a game. The self reference makes it a meaningless statement.
He is free to think that games are not art but convince others he would have to choose a different argument. For example, something is classified as art generally on the basis of a subjective notion as to what art is (conceptually). If the basis he gave was truly an accurate representation of his opinion on the subject (and not the best thing he could come up with on the spur of the moment) then he is obviously free to not consider games art.
You misunderstood me. I was saying that video games contain art in each individual game. However, the video game itself is not art. It's a game.Possum TheGreat said:
I believe you are wrong about winning or beating a game. In order to reach a conclusion to a game, one must overcome a series of challenges. When one overcomes all the obstacles, they have won and reached an end. All games (although sometimes it doesn't feel like it in the case of Risk or Monopoly) have a conclusion, including Little Red Riding Hood.
Art is finite like a book, song, picture, or painting. Games are not. No one has ever played a game exactly the same. People use strategy and puzzle solving, as well as hand eye coordination to overcome tasks. People may use similar tasks but it will not be exact. A song will always remain the same. A picture does not morph. A book will always tell the same story. Games challenge someone while art can just be presented.nuba km said:
1. Contradictory idiot who goes down in my book of hilariously stupid comments.
2. I had someone tell me that videogames would never be considered art because "art is only portrayed in black & white, never in color." Which begs the question WTF? Out of curiosity of what he would say I showed him footage of Mad World and he said, "it's almost art, but there's still too much red."
2. I had someone tell me that videogames would never be considered art because "art is only portrayed in black & white, never in color." Which begs the question WTF? Out of curiosity of what he would say I showed him footage of Mad World and he said, "it's almost art, but there's still too much red."
The reason someone gets a game is not to rent it, its to experience it. Just like cinema is an art form, it has an end. The Mona Lisa ends as soon as you stop looking at it, and it starts again when you go back to it. The reason games can be art is because of the depth they can have, they can be visually stunning, and can really make you question some aspects. (I am not trying to say you are wrong or anything, just giving you a bit more food for thought on how you view video games.) And this is not to say all games are great pieces of art, most aren't but the same can be said for many paintings and films.Daveman said:
You sir, must learn to use more punctuation.nuba km said:
ntw3001 said:
I'll respond to all you guys because you all said more or less the same thing which is that in many games you don't "win" you just finish/beat it/get to the end. The trouble is that games almost always require technical skill to complete and not everyone will posess this skill so in a way games are excluding some material to people who did not reach the end. No other medium does this and it's because of this that I say games are always about winning in some respect.zama174 said:
ntw3001, you said that the words "games" and "art" lack concrete definitions and all arguments comparing the two are pointless semantics (I think that was the gist). While I agree they lack concrete definitions I also think the arguments help to find definitions which we can agree upon and thus determine whether we can fit "games" into a sub-section of "art".
How is the protagonist winning in a game any different from the protagonist from a movie or book winning?Daveman said:
I don't agree at all. T. S. Elliot's 'The Wasteland' is a modernist poem full to the brim with various references that someone not educated in, for example, the classics simply will not get. Now, I know this is not literally the same thing. But if you do not understand the allusions made by a text, whether it be a film, a poem, or a novel, then you can not fully understand its pre-stated message or meaning, and thus not appreciate it as art. This functions as a barrier in much the same was that interactive gameplay does with video games when considering them art. Not that I believe that a pre-set meaning means much in when considering art from a post-structuralist point of view.Daveman said:
It is for this reason that I would happily agree that interaction, especially literal challenge, acts as a barrier for video games as an artistic medium. But much in the same way as the background and intertextual information associated with pieces of literature, or paintings, it does not single-handedly answer the argument.
Quite simply, this argument is based upon the idea that you need skill to complete a game, but not a movie. This is an absolutely absurd argument in my eyes, as you do not simply sit and watch a movie, or read a novel and digest it at face value. It requires a high level of interaction, of interpretation, of understanding, to become involved with. We do not simply digest media, or art (if the two can really be separated) without interaction. The Hypodermic Needle Model of audience reactions to texts would suggest you do, but that model of thought is largely acknowledged as obsolete.renzozuken2002 said:
We all bring different readings to texts, thanks to the complex relationship between writer, text and reader due to semiotics. Hardly any narrative, or even supposedly non-narrative based art is ever seen the same, due to subjective viewpoints.
So for you art has to be a constant never changing and always the same but music has been rewritten and paintings redrawn and the conclusion(a end)drawn changes from person to person an easy test is watch eraser head and write down a short analyses and then read other analyses on the internet and even though the key things are the same (like they would be in a game you always fight the same boss and same numbers of enemies as well as same types of enemies) the details will be very different as they will in a game. This is why I have seen art always as more of a variable were the author tries to teach you about human nature by teaching you about your nature compared to others and with games like mass effect you can see how they change but lets take shadow of the colossus you will always fight the same people in the same order and what happens is always the same the only difference is the details but the message overall is always the same 'you are slaying innocent and lonely creatures for a person who you haven't even talked to why?' how people analyse the game is not affected by how they play it as long as the developers have done their job right. Even silent hill 2 were the characters and ending are slightly different every time you play the analyses of the game is always the same just changing in the details according to who is analysing it.PeePantz said:
Also morph would imply a large change like caterpillar to butter fly but he way a game changes is more like getting a different hair cut.
Nice contribution to the topic there, bro.Talal Provides said:
I guess if you see this as a bad thing, which I will assume as I can't help but read your post as derogatory, this will make you a Marxist.
So what does this make your stance on art, and video games?
Firstly, I have posted several times in this thread already, and the fact you now show up now will not deter me from continuing to do so.Talal Provides said:
Secondly, if your posts weren't so painfully off topic I may not need to 'call' you up on them in future.
And finally, please, enlighten me on your deffinition of 'bourgeois'. Please, explain exactly what you meant in bringing up social class? Do you not realise I was mainly pointing fun at your lack of a point. Some explanation, instead of one line posts that do not further discussion wouldn't go a miss my friend.
But if you must, please do continue not to engage with the topic at hand, and instead attempt to show me up.
You might want to leave the modding to the mods there, champ, and it's not my fault that someone who is clearly so knowledgeable about art doesn't know that "bourgeois" is an insult that those within the art world have traditionally used against those who are clueless about art.PleasantKenobi said:
You are right about the modding being left to the moderators. Just to note, I have not once stated that I am part of any exclusive 'art world'. I do an English Degree, and have taken modules on social theory before. It isn't unusual that someone would not understand a re-apropriated usage of a word already familiar to them, such as in this case, your usage of the word 'bourgeois'. In its common usage, the word is not synonymous with 'ignorant'.Talal Provides said:
Now that we have broken through your cryptic use of language, I still hold my ground that you really haven't backed up your initial suggestion that this 'kid' is clueless about art. If you yourself are from some kind of knowledgeable fine arts background as your use of colloquial terms from such a 'world' would sugest, then maybe you could help to progress this discussion further.
Ultimately, if we compare traditional artforms such as sculpture or painting to video games, the interactive elements of a video game problematising the inherent artistic value doesn't seem like such a stupid discussion.