worst arguments why games aren't art.

[Talal Provides]

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.

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'.

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.

You're a huge fucking dork, FYI. I don't care if I get put on probation or banned or whatever, but you've typed a LOT OF WORDS to whine about me, and it's hilarious, mostly because of how superior your tone is, especially because you are defending your ignorance by saying I'm being obtuse, which I'm not, the use of "bourgeois" in that context is a pretty well known one. Oh well, people like you are why we had dada, so it's all good in the hood.

 

[nuba km]

snip

You're a huge fucking dork, FYI. I don't care if I get put on probation or banned or whatever, but you've typed a LOT OF WORDS to whine about me, and it's hilarious, mostly because of how superior your tone is, especially because you are defending your ignorance by saying I'm being obtuse, which I'm not, the use of "bourgeois" in that context is a pretty well known one. Oh well, people like you are why we had dada, so it's all good in the hood.

yes he has a superior tone not you who started by using a word in a context that neither he or I have seen it used before to sound smart and then defended it by saying it's used in art circles and that makes you sound like a snob. After that you resulted in saying he is stupid you are right (because that is the best argument) and then basically saying is is stupid again and that he is snobby while you say 'well, people like you are why we had dada, so it's all good in the hood' I like a good debate but you sir are a bad looser and the worst kind of bad looser who can't even see he has lost. Also he wasn't acting superior he was just being level headed.

If you say something along the lines of 'well at least I can use punctuation' I will just point out I'm dyslexic and I find full stops and commas very difficult and if you say don't use dyslexia as an excuse IT'S A DISABILITY THAT AFFECTS READING SPELLING AND GRAMMAR so it's a REASON not an excuse.

 

[-Samurai-]

Can someone explain to me why games have to be art? Why do they have to be included into that category?

One man said they can't be art, and suddenly the entire community is up in arms about how they are art.

Let the artists have their art. We have games.

 

[nuba km]

Can someone explain to me why games have to be art? Why do they have to be included into that category?

One man said they can't be art, and suddenly the entire community is up in arms about how they are art.

Let the artists have their art. We have games.

well the same reason why movies had to be art because they had qualities that meant they should be classified as art and this topic is actually about some of the stupid reason why people say games are art so far the only valid (and this is a very valid) argument I have heard is that the audience changes them ruining meaning they lose the authorial control that the other medians had in the same ways movies had to be argument they still had authorial control even though a large group of people made it.

 

[Capcom4ever]

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

There are several games where "you" don't win. The protagonist may accomplish his objective, but that's more like "finishing" than "winning". You can't win a book or a movie by reading the last page. You just finish the narrative. If the protagonist saves the princess in a book, do you win?

 

[PleasantKenobi]

Can someone explain to me why games have to be art?

In all honesty, I must admit I can't. I kind of sit somewhat on the fence when it comes to this debate, and play a bit of devil's advocate for the sake of interesting discussion. Despite this, I would argue that a 'need' to be art is not important. I wouldn't say the novel 'needs' to be considered an artistic form, but I do consider it one myself, and discuss it as such.

I guess alot of people, especially long time members of this forum are bored of this discussion. That is probably because of the same issues being repeated over and over again. It is a shame really, that people haven't responded much to many of my points, and have opted more to be annoyed at the discussion itself than engaging with it. Though I do not mean this as a dig at you in particular. More a dissapointment in the turn of this discussion.

 

[PleasantKenobi]

You're a huge fucking dork, FYI. I don't care if I get put on probation or banned or whatever, but you've typed a LOT OF WORDS to whine about me, and it's hilarious, mostly because of how superior your tone is, especially because you are defending your ignorance by saying I'm being obtuse, which I'm not, the use of "bourgeois" in that context is a pretty well known one. Oh well, people like you are why we had dada, so it's all good in the hood.

This a forum. Also known as a discussion board. Are you incapable of discussion? Other than first insulting the OP, and then insulting me, do you actually have anything to contribute to the original topic? You make statements, such as Dadaism being influenced by people like myself, yet to not back them up. Why do you feel the need to flame other people, does the discussion at hand really get you so upset?

well the same reason why movies had to be art because they had qualities that meant they should be classified as art and this topic is actually about some of the stupid reason why people say games are art so far the only valid (and this is a very valid) argument I have heard is that the audience changes them ruining meaning they lose the authorial control that the other medians had in the same ways movies had to be argument they still had authorial control even though a large group of people made it.

Authorial intent or control is not essential to art. In a modern, or post-modern world meaning is not concrete. A writer does not write something which is then read exactly how he implied it. We all bring our own experience and readings to a text. Fight Club for example: some people see Tyler Durden as an inspirational counter-culture figure. I see him as a hypocritical delusion of a fractured personality. Both of those readigns have evidence to support them. Two ways in which two different people can read the same text.

Original intent, arguably, means nothing in and of itself to the reader or audience of a text. Whether that be art, or media or any other way in which you label said texts.

 

[nuba km]

well the same reason why movies had to be art because they had qualities that meant they should be classified as art and this topic is actually about some of the stupid reason why people say games are art so far the only valid (and this is a very valid) argument I have heard is that the audience changes them ruining meaning they lose the authorial control that the other medians had in the same ways movies had to be argument they still had authorial control even though a large group of people made it.

Authorial intent or control is not essential to art. In a modern, or post-modern world meaning is not concrete. A writer does not write something which is then read exactly how he implied it. We all bring our own experience and readings to a text. Fight Club for example: some people see Tyler Durden as an inspirational counter-culture figure. I see him as a hypocritical delusion of a fractured personality. Both of those readigns have evidence to support them. Two ways in which two different people can read the same text.

Original intent, arguably, means nothing in and of itself to the reader or audience of a text. Whether that be art, or media or any other way in which you label said texts.

The reason I brought up authorial control is because this is the only valid argument I have seen people mention but in a discussion with peepantz I brought up that even though the experience is changed by the player that how people analyse a movie or book changes from person to person so but most people come to an agreement of the overall meaning behind the movie, book or game so authorial control has limited control and still has the same amount of control in games so lack of authorial control isn't as good of an as they might think.

 

[PeePantz]

snip

You're swaying between individual and group. I'm not saying that different categories of art can't change. Music is constantly evolving. However, "Yellow Submarine" by the Beatles will always be the same. Period. If it's redone or sampled, it maybe similar, but it's a different piece yet still finite.

There's not necessarily a certain amount of bosses or beasties to kill. Each game is different, some regenerate beasties, others won't. Also, you might not have to fight every bad guy or solve every puzzle in the game. It all depends on the player and each one will get a different game presented to them.

Also, I'm not at all suggesting people can't get different impressions from art. Obviously, they do. Different things inspire certain emotions in people and that is what art is for. What makes this beautiful and really truly art, is that it's always the same. Something that never changes yet can be viewed so differently be so many people.

 

[nuba km]

snip

You're swaying between individual and group. I'm not saying that different categories of art can't change. Music is constantly evolving. However, "Yellow Submarine" by the Beatles will always be the same. Period. If it's redone or sampled, it maybe similar, but it's a different piece yet still finite.

There's not necessarily a certain amount of bosses or beasties to kill. Each game is different, some regenerate beasties, others won't. Also, you might not have to fight every bad guy or solve every puzzle in the game. It all depends on the player and each one will get a different game presented to them.

every time you listen to someone singing a song it's different because if you watch a recording of a game or recording of a cd of course it's the same because it's a recording the slight changes in each performance is the same to the slight changes every time you play but you are still presented with the same game you just took different things from it like watching a movie some people might see a character as heroic and charming others may see him as emotionless and boring (twilight) but they are still presented with the same character.

 

[Talal Provides]

FINE! I'LL ADD TO THE DISCUSSION JEEZ!

Here's the thing about defining art, it's a really hard thing to do. The more criteria you add to what is and isn't, the more wrong you usually wind up being. People have been debating the "what is art" question for thousands of years, and the closest thing to an agreed-upon definition is it must A: be a piece of creative expression and B: have no purpose other than itself. The problem you run into when asking "is a game art" is a game isn't just one thing, it's two. There's the game part, the rules, the objectives, how you win, how you lose, the actions you perform, the physics, all of that, and there's the creative part, what you see and hear and the narrative. The point where things get tricky is, each part relies on each other equally, the game facilitates the art and the art facilitates the game, which makes things more akin to a piece of industrial design or architecture. The question you're asking when looking at games isn't "are games art?", it's a much, much bigger question than that. You're asking "is design art?", which is a really difficult question to answer.

 

[Daveman]

snip

Well it's more that a game essentially tests you as you progress. No book will suddenly stop you and give you a test to see how well you understand it, there's no point where you just have to stop because you literally can't proceed because it wont allow you. By winning I don't mean that there is user interaction, that's fine. It's that it restricts the content you can view. Admittedly with certain books, as you mentioned there may be material that I will not understand but I can still read on and find other bits to appreciate. Maybe I wont fully understand the thinkings behind Picassos work but I can still look at it and find it pleasing.

snip

Take the example of Braid it's a beautiful, complex game with a stunning ending. However I would never had reached that ending without the use of a walkthrough. As I explained above it's more about restricting content to only those with a certain proficiency in the game. I can't think of great works that restrict people like that. I know I can sit down and watch The Usual Suspects and admire it in its entirity and I can read through the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy but the case isn't the same with most if not all games. Maybe there are exceptions but I don't think it's nearly as ingrained as it is with games. I hope I've been clear. And sorry for the snipping but otherwise the comments just become silly walls of text.