worst arguments why games aren't art.

[nuba km]

snip

and the spider gets the fly. I will just point out the only difference between Shakespeare's plays and movies is that a camera isn't involved so by your logic Shakespeare can not be art and before you reply with with it isn't part of an industry it is theatre is as much as an industry as movies. To you think I realised the complexity of bioshock the first time i played it? no someone had to point it out to me and the people who mate bioshock didn't try to cash in by using their fame no they worked on something else and the company that owned the rights made a different team make bioshock 2 giving a key reason to why bioshock 2 is less deep and compelling. you make the assumption that just because money is involved they will cheapen the experience it doesn't it just makes them work harder. the main reason why Shakespeare had to be so hidden with his ideas in the play is because if the king didn't enjoy the play Shakespeare would be dead before you can say 'sorry' it just made Shakespeare work harder on making a complex and compelling story but by your logic that would mean he would have made plays that would be sure to entertain the king and not fully try to be good art.

 

[BaronVonBob]

Snip

And the bird gets the spider. As I have said several times now, the plot of Bioshock is artistic, the use of art deco makes the whole thing much more than grey blocks you run past as you shoot people, but those are individual parts of the game that are artistic in themselves. The game, while some might describe it as 'a work of art', is not a work of art, it's a game, made by a company, to bring in a profit, so they may make more games, more profit, and so on. You've just proved me right with the mention of Bioshock 2, the company took the successful game, and made a sequel. The team that made the individual parts of the game artistic in the first game weren't there for the second, so the whole thing suffered.
People, if they are interested in money, will work to the bare minimum. They will do what they are needed to, and no more, unless, like you mentioned with Shakespeare, they have a reason to do more. You don't seem to realise that what you've said about him backs me up, he could have just written to entertain the King, but he chose to do more. That is what makes his work good art, because he wanted to do something more than just bring in the bucks.

 

[sageoftruth]

Well, I think that kid's explanation was crap, but I also think you pretty much explained why MW2 was (bad) art when you mentioned the bad writing and the bad voice acting. By my standards, if any creativity at all went into it, it counts as art, even if the creativity went into deciding which cliches to string together.

 

[sageoftruth]

Of course, the downside will be games becoming an attraction for people who actually believe pouring paint over a canvas is art, and apply the same principle to gaming.

Is this really a downside? I would absolutely love to see some games like this!

I was only using the "splashed canvas" as a metaphor.
Obviously, a game with an artstyle and according gameplay based on spilled paint could get really awesome.

The thing I was referring to, though, was the amount of work put into it. Imagine Call Of Duty, with all the environment untextured, all the characters just boxes, and a proud "developer" advertising it as a revolutionary statement on the futility of war.

Eh, my statement still stands. I think it's good to have ideas from both sides of the artistic coin no matter what the media. It may not be loved by everyone but it's nice to have it exist so you can experience it.

Don't know if this is relevant, but I've always thought games handled abstract art better than mere paintings. Psychonauts made pretty good use of it. When I stare at a piece of abstract art, I see meaningless shapes. Games however, give those shapes context.

 

[nuba km]

Snip

And the bird gets the spider. As I have said several times now, the plot of Bioshock is artistic, the use of art deco makes the whole thing much more than grey blocks you run past as you shoot people, but those are individual parts of the game that are artistic in themselves. The game, while some might describe it as 'a work of art', is not a work of art, it's a game, made by a company, to bring in a profit, so they may make more games, more profit, and so on. You've just proved me right with the mention of Bioshock 2, the company took the successful game, and made a sequel. The team that made the individual parts of the game artistic in the first game weren't there for the second, so the whole thing suffered.
People, if they are interested in money, will work to the bare minimum. They will do what they are needed to, and no more, unless, like you mentioned with Shakespeare, they have a reason to do more. You don't seem to realise that what you've said about him backs me up, he could have just written to entertain the King, but he chose to do more. That is what makes his work good art, because he wanted to do something more than just bring in the bucks.

and the bird failed to see that the spider was poisonous and died due to it's rashness.

so you are saying because he is Shakespeare the money made him work harder and risk his life but because something isn't Shakespeare the money makes them lazy. this argument defeats itself you made an exceptions with no reason other then you see Shakespeare as 'real art'. in a perfect world art would be made for arts sake but the people that make artistic games have as much passion behind their work as Shakespeare but you say they are lazy just because they get paid but even though Shakespeare got paid he wasn't lazy because you said so.

Shakespeare made his plays because he loved to make plays but he got paid to make plays so he decided to spend his life making them. I think anyone that tries to make good art for any media will spend all their time making it if they make a living making it it doesn't mean they stop having a passion to make good art of that media the company that owns the copyright make make more but it's not really part of that artists creation and therefore should not affect weather their work is seen as good art. would van gogh draw doodles if he got paid for his painting no he would have not committed suicide and made dozens more paintings that would be good art and just because some people make random drawing just to get money doesn't mean that paintings aren't an artistic media.

 

[Jumplion]

Snip of epic proportions

I think I'll save us both some time and sort of just make this come to a close, and at this point we'd be going around in circles like this thread is going. I think we're both on a bit of a different wavelength of what we're trying to say to each other, and we've pretty much gone off the beaten path for the thread. If you want to continue this conversation via PM, I'd love to do so, just the standard stuff of "stay civil" and whatnot.

But overall, I think we're in for some interesting games in the future. It'll be interesting to see what people come up with, that's for sure.

 

[BaronVonBob]

snippity snip snop

At least the bird used punctuation in his life time.
(And the spider dies too. It just got eaten.)

Did you honestly read what I wrote before? I was saying that Shakespeare wrote plays for something more than the money. Again, something more than the money. It doesn't defeat itself, because you haven't understood what I've written. As for Van Gogh, he committed suicide because he was mentally ill, and the fact that he wasn't appreciated in his time but still kept painting just proves that artistic expression isn't about earning, it's about artistic expression. He constantly painted even when his health deteriorated, and I doubt that many game designers would drag themselves in to work if they had anything more than a bad cold, unless they'd run out of sick days or needed the money. And even if they did, it would only be making their part of the game artistic, not the whole thing.

 

[nuba km]

snippity snip snop

At least the bird used punctuation in his life time.
(And the spider dies too. It just got eaten.)

Did you honestly read what I wrote before? I was saying that Shakespeare wrote plays for something more than the money. Again, something more than the money. It doesn't defeat itself, because you haven't understood what I've written. As for Van Gogh, he committed suicide because he was mentally ill, and the fact that he wasn't appreciated in his time but still kept painting just proves that artistic expression isn't about earning, it's about artistic expression. He constantly painted even when his health deteriorated, and I doubt that many game designers would drag themselves in to work if they had anything more than a bad cold, unless they'd run out of sick days or needed the money. And even if they did, it would only be making their part of the game artistic, not the whole thing.

As I have mentioned in several debates on this topic I am dyslexic and have real big problems with full stops and commas are close to impossible for me.

You must have not read what I wrote or just ignored it because you haven't tackled the problem that you are making presumptions about money making people lazy but it's different when with Shakespeare (and others like Beethoven) also you haven't tackled the fact that the only difference between movies and theaters is that a camera isn't involved meaning by your logic Shakespeare isn't 'real' art. Also van gogh mental illness was properly bi-polar meaning that he became very depressed at time and because he was poor most people ignored him meaning he was also very poor and also he may become very happy at times which properly helped fuel his drawings. Also the difference between being ill and mentally ill is that you can get medicine if you are just ill and get better so that you can put all your energy into making a great experience.

 

[BaronVonBob]

shniiiiiiiiip

Sorry, I haven't been reading every post you've put in this thread so I didn't know.

I wasn't saying that money makes people lazy, I'm saying that people need an incentive other than money to be creative. I know I never said that films are art, but I also never said they aren't either. It simply depends if the film is made for financial reasons or as a real way of artistic expression, and it's usually the first. Not that that's a bad thing, it just means it doesn't really count as art.
When I said Van Gogh carried on despite his illness, I didn't mean his mental illness, I meant poor health, lots of artists have suffered through physical illness but still kept creating the whole time. Anyway, his mental condition probably did affected his paintings, for the better, but it was also the reason he killed himself, and it's likely he would have done it whether or not he was recognised as a brilliant artist.

 

[CheckD3]

1. I think that he's a fan boy, or just lost in his own stupidity and loss. It's also possible that he's never really played it and only experiences it from outside the realm of understanding and logic.

2. Better than that? Haven't heard much that states it isn't art. But I will say that people who bash video games for being interactive are ignoring the best part and strongest portion of what makes gaming an art. Since if a movie gives you a 3rd person view of an event, such as a war, it can make you empathize with them. What video games can do is put you IN those shoes and make you experience it from their view.

I guess that everyone who tries to bash down on games because of it's interactivity ignores what helps make it so artistic, and therefor I guess that counts as an argument against it as art

 

[nuba km]

shniiiiiiiiip

Sorry, I haven't been reading every post you've put in this thread so I didn't know.

That's ok easy mistake to make especially with the crime against grammar and spelling that is the internet.

I wasn't saying that money makes people lazy, I'm saying that people need an incentive other than money to be creative. I know I never said that films are art, but I also never said they aren't either. It simply depends if the film is made for financial reasons or as a real way of artistic expression, and it's usually the first. Not that that's a bad thing, it just means it doesn't really count as art.

That would be a very good point, if I'd ever said movies were art. I think the only movies truly recognised as art are the sort of independent ones that put message before money anyway, and even they aren't proper art.

You said even the movies that are made for artistic expression aren't proper art, so by that logic even though Shakespeare put art in-front of money it still isn't proper/good art.

When I said Van Gogh carried on despite his illness, I didn't mean his mental illness, I meant poor health, lots of artists have suffered through physical illness but still kept creating the whole time. Anyway, his mental condition probably did affected his paintings, for the better, but it was also the reason he killed himself, and it's likely he would have done it whether or not he was recognised as a brilliant artist.

Yes, but if he wasn't poor people wouldn't have ignored him he may then have people close to him that could help him through is problems and depression so he wouldn't have committed suicide. As for the physical illness i agree most people today won't work if they were sick and van gogh had nothing else in his life so painting was the only thing he could to.

 

[nuba km]

For some reason I can't see my post so I think it may not have posted so I'm posting this just encase (that's why I always ctrl+c my writing before I post it) so this is an advance sorry if this is a double post.

Edit: so yea this is a double post sorry again.

 

[BaronVonBob]

You said even the movies that are made for artistic expression aren't proper art, so by that logic even though Shakespeare put art in-front of money it still isn't proper/good art.


Yes, but if he wasn't poor people wouldn't have ignored him he may then have people close to him that could help him through is problems and depression so he wouldn't have committed suicide. As for the physical illness i agree most people today won't work if they were sick and van gogh had nothing else in his life so painting was the only thing he could to.

Well I do think there's a large difference in between film and theatre, in that one is mainly the work of a couple of people the whole way down the line, while the other involves writers, directors, editors and blah blah blah. Chances are not all of those will have purely artistic expression in mind, and even if they do it'll be completely different. But I'll admit that I should try to remember what I've written before I write more that contradicts it.

That's very true, but back in that time they probably wouldn't have understood the illness properly (I may be wrong on that), so chances are at some point or another it would have got too much for him. People today still take their own lives, and many of them live fairly comfortable lives in comparison.
But the point is that he could have not painted, and the fact that he chose to anyway shows that he had something inside him that needed to, something that made his art brilliant.

 

[nuba km]

Well I do think there's a large difference in between film and theatre, in that one is mainly the work of a couple of people the whole way down the line, while the other involves writers, directors, editors and blah blah blah. Chances are not all of those will have purely artistic expression in mind, and even if they do it'll be completely different. But I'll admit that I should try to remember what I've written before I write more that contradicts it.

theater has directors and writers the only people added to movies are editors but they normally communicate with the director to make sure that nothing important is lost. Well i forgot the camera men but they take orders from the director and by using different angles (which plays can't do) they can add another layer of depth and meaning to the movie. Now tell me if you think I have left anyone out and why movies and thearter are different.

That's very true, but back in that time they probably wouldn't have understood the illness properly (I may be wrong on that), so chances are at some point or another it would have got too much for him. People today still take their own lives, and many of them live fairly comfortable lives in comparison.
But the point is that he could have not painted, and the fact that he chose to anyway shows that he had something inside him that needed to, something that made his art brilliant.

OK they didn't understand illness but I am quite sure they would still try to cheer up a sad person who they care for and I am sure at some point it could be pressure that would get to him and he commit suicide but I think he could still have painted more paintings. anyway my point is money can help art flourish by letting the person/people who make concentrate on it rather then having to worry about making money to stay alive and the thing inside him that made his art brilliant wouldn't be affected by money.

 

[BaronVonBob]

I'mgettingveryboredofsaying snip

After watching an episode of Extra Credits I feel the need to expand on what I first said. Games aren't art right now, but with work they could be, once they've 'grown up a bit'. As for the film/theatre thing, I will admit you're right on that, and I should have thought about it fully before dismissing film as an art form. It may be because every time I try to think of an artistic film all I can picture is the pisstake they did in The Mighty Boosh.

I see what you were getting at now, with the Van Gogh thing. If he was kept alive longer he would have done more paintings, but maybe committing suicide at an early age is part of his fame. John Kennedy Toole is probably only famous now because he killed himself, it seems to just be the way life works.
As for the money thing, I wasn't saying that money corrupts artists, it is a necessity, but it's not just the pursuit of money that drives them. That was what I was getting at when I first brought it up.

 

[nuba km]

I'mgettingveryboredofsaying snip

After watching an episode of Extra Credits I feel the need to expand on what I first said. Games aren't art right now, but with work they could be, once they've 'grown up a bit'. As for the film/theatre thing, I will admit you're right on that, and I should have thought about it fully before dismissing film as an art form. It may be because every time I try to think of an artistic film all I can picture is the pisstake they did in The Mighty Boosh.

I see what you were getting at now, with the Van Gogh thing. If he was kept alive longer he would have done more paintings, but maybe committing suicide at an early age is part of his fame. John Kennedy Toole is probably only famous now because he killed himself, it seems to just be the way life works.
As for the money thing, I wasn't saying that money corrupts artists, it is a necessity, but it's not just the pursuit of money that drives them. That was what I was getting at when I first brought it up.

I'm glad we finally got to conclusion to this debate and I agree that games need to develop more as an art from but their are already some games that show how much games can be used to create good art. I also agree that money shouldn't drive art but you should give something a chance to impress you before you dismiss it as having money involved and that therefore it would be the driving force because with that kind of thinking nothing now a day would be considered art.

 

[moretimethansense]

snippity snip snop

At least the bird used punctuation in his life time.
(And the spider dies too. It just got eaten.)

Did you honestly read what I wrote before? I was saying that Shakespeare wrote plays for something more than the money. Again, something more than the money. It doesn't defeat itself, because you haven't understood what I've written. As for Van Gogh, he committed suicide because he was mentally ill, and the fact that he wasn't appreciated in his time but still kept painting just proves that artistic expression isn't about earning, it's about artistic expression. He constantly painted even when his health deteriorated, and I doubt that many game designers would drag themselves in to work if they had anything more than a bad cold, unless they'd run out of sick days or needed the money. And even if they did, it would only be making their part of the game artistic, not the whole thing.

Sorry but all works of art are collaborative efforts unless they are conceptualized, written, funded, directed, stagehanded and acted in by a single person, hell even a portrait is a collaborative effort between the artist and subject.

Don't downplay the efforts of all those involved, it's insulting.

Also did you (not in this post) claim that those that work for money aren't as creative as those motivated by art?
Please stop being so patronizing, just because someone's motivation is money doesn't change how much effort or creative soul is poured in to something, if say an artist is working on a sculpture purley for the sake of art but has to hold a 9 to 5 job for the entire week how exactly is their constuct going to be any better than one that spends the entire week pouring heart and soul into it for money,
Particularly when if they don't make somthing truly special they may not get to eat that week?

As for you saying about Van Gogh (spelling?) working on it all the time even when sick, back in those days if you wern't actually dying you wouldn't get a day off any job.

EDIT: Aww debates over? but I just typed this down

 

[nuba km]

EDIT: Aww debates over? but I just typed this down

Well it did end quite quickly and you made a valid point so you shouldn't be too disappointed.

 

[JaffaFrost]

I think extra-credits went over this... games aren't yet an art because they don't come to terms with sexuality, more games are focused on sex, which in effect, make the media (and a lot of the non-gaming public) think of this entertainment form as 'childish'. This is amongst other ideas of why the game industry isn't an art. But there are games which do this, and they are the ones which are thought of as arts.