• Are video games art?
    58 replies, posted
simple question.
Yes but some of it is really bad art.
[QUOTE=squids_eye;40958361]Yes but some of it is really bad art.[/QUOTE] you can say the same for any artform.
I like to think of it as interactive art
It depends on what you mean. Yes, I think most games [B]are[/B] art. They tell stories in a way that books and movies cannot present. Like the Final Fantasy series. Or Metal Gear Solid. Though it depends on which game really. Tons of games that have stories, and can be desribed as what you would consider, 'art.'
I know Another World is a good example of videogames considered "art"
I once showed and explained my father about Metal Gear and he played all the games later on, he rambled multiple times what a master piece it is in terms of storyline and execution. Yeah MGS certainly has a bit of 'art' in its games
Mgs is my favorite game series of all time. All art, in my opinion.
it can be
Visually or from a writing standpoint they can be. [img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Big_Rigs_-_Over_the_Road_Racing_Coverart.png[/img] Truth be told however this isn't winning any art awards any time soon.
It depends on what your version of 'art' is. Mine may be different than yours, mind you. Whethet you think that is art or not is entirely up to you.
-snip this then
[QUOTE=Bat-shit;40958769]No I don't believe every piece of art is necessarily art. Although we have arts in many forms and styles, video-games being one of them. [editline]9th June 2013[/editline] I guess the quality is one factor also.[/QUOTE] what
Why wouldn't it be art? I like to think of videogames as interactive paintings telling a story. They're made from scratch too.
They are a combination of many arts. Film work, graphic design, Sculpture, etc. So I'd say so.
To me, art is something created by a person purely so that they can convey their emotions through a medium. There are artful games, don't get me wrong, but with the state of the industry, for the most part games are created by large groups of people ultimately to provide entertaining or challenging gameplay experiences and to sell, and these are uncharacteristic of proper art. I'm not saying all games are like this though, but in general games are rarely artful at this point in the medium's lifetime.
Well, after seeing Dear Esther. Yeah I think it can be art.
They can be. Games like The Walking Dead, Braid etc. are. Games like Call of Duty or New Super Mario Bros 2 are not It's the same with any medium. You wouldn't call the Transformers series art, but you would for something like Pulp Fiction.
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;40959848]They can be. Games like The Walking Dead, Braid etc. are. Games like Call of Duty or New Super Mario Bros 2 are not It's the same with any medium. You wouldn't call the Transformers series art, but you would for something like Pulp Fiction.[/QUOTE] i think you're confusing something being defined as art with something being considered good art. call of duty is still art, even if it's widely considered to be bad art. art is defined as human expression of creativity, which is a very broad thing.
They are art, IMO. I saw someone a while back saying because they have interactivity and aren't going to be the same experience for every viewer, that disqualifies them from being art. But that's applicable to lots of kinds of art. Sculpture, for instance, is different depending on where you stand, and most art has different effects on the viewer depending on how long they look at it, how much they know about the subjects it's referencing, and what sort of person they are. So most art is an interactive experience in some fashion, video games just take it one step further. Also, a lot of the assets used in video games could be considered artwork in their own right, too. Even the mainstream games we wouldn't typically think of as art draw upon the techniques used by the old masters for anatomy, colour theory etc. It's all part of the same legacy.
It was art in 90s. Now it's mostly business.
Honestly, I don't see how they can't be considered art. They are an amalgamation of all the art forms in one package.
A videogame presents you a lot of creative stuff. - A story or plot - A way to react (Gameplay) - Story, Characters with personality. - Artistic Style. (You can see this in every game, from 8bits, Cartoonish Style or Realistic worlds) In many ways, every game can be art. Remember that the Art doesn't need to be "Pretty" or "Ugly", it's an expression.
[QUOTE=MasterFen006;40958741]Visually or from a writing standpoint they can be. Truth be told however this isn't winning any art awards any time soon.[/QUOTE] Film is art and there is plenty of shitty films with almost no character development or narrative. This should be the same with games. I know you're not doing this but pointing at a terrible game and declaring something about the whole medium is nonsensical. Games are already considered art by the US government and a few Euro countries if that means anything [url]http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109835-Games-Now-Legally-Considered-an-Art-Form-in-the-USA[/url]
[QUOTE=Flyingman356;40959848]They can be. Games like The Walking Dead, Braid etc. are. Games like Call of Duty or New Super Mario Bros 2 are not It's the same with any medium. You wouldn't call the Transformers series art, but you would for something like Pulp Fiction.[/QUOTE] All of it is art, or none of it is.
[QUOTE=Cureless;40961502]Honestly, I don't see how they can't be considered art. They are an amalgamation of all the art forms in one package.[/QUOTE] Art makes you feel something or allows you to express yourself. In the most basic definition...I could enter philosophical mode, give historical examples, develop and so on, but....nah. If they are an amalgamation of all the art forms, then its art! Otherwise, we couldn't consider cinema as art, as it's also the same (literature + theatre + music) but without the direct interaction of the viewer which is the main difference between cinema and games, when the last ones want to tell a story, of course. But, for a game to be considered a masterpiece: It has to transcend time and cultures....it must be able to be enjoyed by everyone. The kid from the 50's would enjoy The Little Prince, so would the one from 60's, the one from the 70s and so on until today. Gone with the wind would be enjoyed by people from it's era, by people from the 60's, from the 70's, and so on. In this case, it might be too hard to enjoy a game as there is a lot of technical aspects involved that can alter you enjoyment/experience a lot, something that doesn't happen with cinema (It happens in a lower scale). If you play Far Cry 3 and then go on to compare its AI to the one found in Half Life, you may find Half Life AI kinda irritating/dumb. But everything else not related to those aspects (The Story, how the plot develops, themes, music inside game) can transcend the development of those technical aspects, and therefore, be considered art. I highly doubt anyone can say Deus Ex/MGS 1 story, characters, themes, atmosphere, level design, weren't very interesting nor well thought through. Tl,DR: Games [B]ARE[/B]art. [B]Its hard to find out which ones are masterpieces.[/B]
[QUOTE=Cutthecrap;40961934]But, for a game to be considered a masterpiece: It has to transcend time and cultures....it must be able to be enjoyed by everyone. The kid from the 50's would enjoy The Little Prince, so would the one from 60's, the one from the 70s and so on until today. [/QUOTE] By this definition no masterpieces exist. Absolutely none. A masterpiece is simply[I] "A work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship." [/I]which can vary from person to person.
[QUOTE=Y'all.;40960010]i think you're confusing something being defined as art with something being considered good art. call of duty is still art, even if it's widely considered to be bad art. art is defined as human expression of creativity, which is a very broad thing.[/QUOTE] Right, anything can be considered art by anyone. Now whether that art is considered by the majority good or bad is an entirely different thing.
[QUOTE] By this definition no masterpieces exist. Absolutely none. A masterpiece is simply "A work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship." which can vary from person to person.[/QUOTE] If I write something only about my actual enviroment, somebody from the future will not understand it/feel anything as he is not in that enviroment nor will never be able to live on it (Unless time machine...but, well...). But if I write about love, happiness, sadness, desolation, etc etc anybody will be able to understand it/feel something as it happens to everyone.
[video=youtube;ddAkaNw-pEs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddAkaNw-pEs[/video] Best kind of art.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.