• Do you believe video games are art?
    64 replies, posted
The subject arises again. I was talking to a friend about this and we couldn't come to a concrete solution. I don't mean art as in graphics, soundtrack or story. In itself, those subjects can all be considered art. Video games would just be a collection of those three subjects combined. I mean the game itself, the gameplay if you will. Could that be considered art?
Yeah, in a sense, you could definitely say that. Some games have so much effort put into them that they become a work of art, absolutely. Some games require an artful mastery if the controls in order to finish the game, but I think that's stretching the term. Video games are works of art precisely for the terms that you aren't talking about, though, so not sure why we're only talking about gameplay.
Yes I think it is art, because games, just like music, books and films involve the mind of the person taking part in the art to convey information that is not useful in any practical sense and also not necessarily (but often) entertaining. [editline]23rd December 2013[/editline] that sounded really weird, gonna have to rethink how I should put it
They are a different form of (interactive) entertainment like films, which are a combination of artistic feats such as directing or writing, makeup, building, digital stuff etc. Art like "simple" paintings aren't really comparable as such. And while video games are not exactly like films either, and are not perhaps purely art, they do involve/require artistic skills in the making of them.
Yes, I don't see how video games couldn't be art when they are a compilation of almost all the art forms in one package.
I don't think gameplay in itself is usually intrinsically "art" per say but not every element of an artform has to be art in itself. Very artistic things can be done with gameplay in relation to narrative though, like Bioshock's commentary on linear gameplay and the concept of free will or the Stanley Parable's deconstruction of the illusion of choice and the player's instinct to break from linearity despite needing it.
I actually wrote my argumentative essay on this very subject for my comp class. In short, yes, I believe games are art. In the subject of my essay I brought up examples of [I]The Stanley Parable[/I] and [I]Papers, Please[/I] as examples of games that defy the typical notions of what a game is. I thought it was pretty decent. I could upload it; but I don't think it was THAT great.
[QUOTE=Inspector Jones;43290682]I actually wrote my argumentative essay on this very subject for my comp class. In short, yes, I believe games are art. In the subject of my essay I brought up examples of [I]The Stanley Parable[/I] and [I]Papers, Please[/I] as examples of games that defy the typical notions of what a game is. I thought it was pretty decent. I could upload it; but I don't think it was THAT great.[/QUOTE] I hate how a game has to 'defy the typical notions of what a game is' to be art in a lot of people's minds. Much like there are endless CoDs and it's clones there are endless terrible summer blockbuster thrillers, do these make film any less art?
Well I did argue that every game has artistic merit; but independent games, like independent films, tend to be where you find the best stuff. There are exceptions to every rule. There are plenty of terrible indie games and films, and big blockbusters that stride for something more.
Imho, video games are like cars. If they work, they work. If you enjoy using them, they're good. They may have some artistic value but that's not really important.
[QUOTE=Nikita;43299180]Imho, video games are like cars. If they work, they work. If you enjoy using them, they're good. They may have some artistic value but that's not really important.[/QUOTE] Terrible analogy
being completely honest, I dont see how they couldnt be. Im not saying every single one, only individual cases, but I cant understand the mentality that someone might say something is art, then they learn its a game, and then suddenly its not art.
I believe they are art because of a few reasons: - OP mentioned they are a conglomerate of individual art forums (music, graphics, storytelling), and that makes them as much artwork as a visual novel which combines graphics with storytelling, or light-and-sound artwork you sometimes see posted up in city squares. Video games simply utilize different forms of art to create a functional, interactive craft for other's to enjoy. - Artwork is a lot about inspiration, for as long as artwork has been the heart and soul of countless human beings who share with us the emotions of love, anger, passion, despair, to name a few, we have been inspired into thoughts and feelings. For example, a good cry movie can make half the cinema bawl for fifteen minutes when it shows a scene of a character we've only known for an hour or so prior die or go through a traumatic emotional experience. This is because socially, humans are designed to empathize and experience emotions from experiences we witness or participate in. Art takes advantage of that fact. 'To The Moon' made me cry, and that was the first time I'd ever cried in a game. 'Final Fantasy X' nearly brought me to tear also, and so did 'HL2:Ep2' when [spoiler]Eli died.[/spoiler] - Tastes. This one can be debated I suppose, but I feel that because we have different tastes in video games, could also suggest they are forms of artwork. For example, in painting, one might prefer abstract and modern art, while another may enjoy impressionism, while another prefers Baroche sculpture. For example, I could never play a game like Sins of a Solar Empire simply because it does not hold my interest long enough, or that I find Team Fortress 2 amusing but fiscal, I couldn't play that game for more than an hour let alone hundreds of hours like others do. However I've got +650 hours on Steam in Garry's Mod and probably another 300-400 on my other Steam account. I played the shit out of that game for years on end and one day simply stopped, and I haven't seriously got back into it for almost two years. - The human experience. I'm definitely not the only one in this generation who grew up playing video games. When I was little I used to play Crash Bandicoot with my older sister and had enormous fun playing it. It is surprising to me that I remember so little of my childhood, but what little I do remember involved playing Crash. Through the years I've played hundreds of games, all unique, entertaining, and emotionally-interactive experiences. I remember playing the first Metroid games with my dad, that amazing feeling of after weeks of playing, finally defeating the evil metroid brain thing. Or playing Lylat Wars again and again with him trying to unlock every path, option and ending in the game. Video games have been such a huge part in my life, but never more than a way to unwind and stimulate myself without having to leave home, like watching a movie or reading a book, which are both art forms. That's just my two cents. Feel free to disagree.
Most responses seem to be missing the point entirely. OP is asking if [I]gameplay [/I]can be considered an artform on its own.
By taking out all of the elements that are essential to a game, you take a lot of the art out of it. If you mean the the gameplay, the act of moving your hands around, that's not really art. But the same could be said about paintings, taking out the colors, the subject matter, and textures, is just the act of moving your hands around and it happens to create a painting, no that's not art either. Taking out the story, music, or graphics removes the art. There are many games that can be considered art.
[QUOTE=Dah-thla;43322142]By taking out all of the elements that are essential to a game, you take a lot of the art out of it. If you mean the the gameplay, the act of moving your hands around, that's not really art. But the same could be said about paintings, taking out the colors, the subject matter, and textures, is just the act of moving your hands around and it happens to create a painting, no that's not art either. Taking out the story, music, or graphics removes the art. There are many games that can be considered art.[/QUOTE] Gameplay means how you interact with the game world. I don't know how you got "move your hands" from that.
I don't think the gameplay itself can be artistic or not artistic, it can just be good or bad, depending on the player and the game too.
I think gameplay in a videogame is infact very artistic. Would Amnesia give you the same emotions as it does if it had been in a movie form? How would you feel nostalgic at something as simple as the Super Mario Brothers theme if you hadn't been hearing for hours on end through your childhood while beating the game? Would anyone really consider Master Chief a remarkable character if he wasn't played by millions day in and day out over the years? Gameplay is a medium for art, thus an artform. Much like dance, it requires skill, and years of mastering if you want to be in the elite.
Videogames are just interactive stories. Now, are novels art?
[QUOTE=gk99;43346220]Videogames are just interactive stories.[/QUOTE] not really
I recently played the game Brothers - A Tale of Two Sons, and I am now forced to believe that gameplay (the actual mechanics, the way the game operates,) can be considered art. When you play the game the two characters, the older and younger brothers, are controlled with the left stick and the right stick on your gamepad respectively. You also interact with the left and the right bumpers, again with each corresponding to the specific brother. The game has no dialogue. The game has no tutorial. the story is told with gestures and visuals- and also with the controls, as crazy as it sounds. Do not click this under any circumstances unless you have played this game. Do not even think about ruining this for yourself. It will also not make much sense because I will not be providing context. Unfortunately I need to spoil the game to convey exactly what I mean. [sp]After the older brother is killed, you need to reach a point where you need to swim across a body of water. For the entire game, the younger brother was deeply afraid of the water, and would latch on to the older brother's back in order to advance through the game. To swim across this body of water- even though your older brother is dead- you need to press the older brother's action button. This allows you to progress.[/sp] That moment is expressed entirely through the control scheme, the physical way you play the game. And yet that moment is the single most powerful moment I have ever experienced in a video game in my entire life. Volumes of story, indescribable emotion, all told within a single button press in a way that I don't think that any other type of art can come close to matching. (That's not to say that video games are superior; merely different. A book can do things that a video game can't match. Same with a movie or a song.)
Video games are art IMO. Video games are pretty much a collection of art put into an interactive visual stimulation. Therefore, if videogames are made of art, art, art and more art (Story, music, characters(in the drawing sense)) then they're definately art.
art is the most subjective shit ever i can literally take a shit on a plate and argue its art by saying it represents what we eat everyday, and some people will agree with me saying its art same thing for videogames, i see it as interactive stories there is no authority on whats art and whats not art
If John Cage's 4:33 could be considered art, why can't video games? Almost anything can be considered art, and not classifying video games as such is silly. [video=youtube;zY7UK-6aaNA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zY7UK-6aaNA[/video] Just watch this bullshit. [editline]30th December 2013[/editline] Stuff like that is taken seriously. If this can be considered art, so should video games.
Of course they are! It's a combination of all kinds of art forms. Writing, sculpting, painting, hell you could even consider some aspects of filmwork to be evident in video games. I don't see why not, it's just a more interactive way of telling a story,
I don't, and for one good reason: It actually does something. When someone says 'art' to me the first thing that comes to mind is something you own for no reason other than you think it looks pretty but serves absolutely no function otherwise. A painting, for example. Video games, however, do so much more than just 'look pretty'. They entertain, educate, even make some people money. They actually [i]do something[/i] besides sit on a shelf or hang on a wall. But then again I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the Louvre burnt to the ground and took all of its contents with it, so there's that. I'm just not into art, and calling something art makes me think negatively of it by default. Implies it's of no practical use.
Many things today can be considered art really. Video games could be considered art, depending on the type of game and what it could mean to someone. It's all about perspective and how someone may view a sort of game.
Perfectly balanced gameplay is not art regardless of it coming across as being beautiful. Chess is not art to me, sports are not art to me, so neither is game play. Gameplay is meant to be functional. Broken game play is not art. Having no game play is the only example I can think of as art, then you're no longer playing a game. Games like Dear Esther are not anything without the artistic world it takes place in. The game is art, but not a single thread of gameplay helps it become that. Half-Life 2, stripped of all assets, and replaced with aim texture. No story, no font, arrows directing the player where to go next to fight placeholder models consisting of primitive shapes. The game plays out exactly like HL2, it's game play balanced appropriately. Wouldn't consider it art. Though I contradict myself when I consider Portal, because if imagined lacking art assets I'd still find the thought put into each level as beautiful. It'd be moving still to figure out the level, and appreciate whoever had designed it and made everything fall together perfectly. It's difficult to judge something that is almost impossible to separate from it's other parts. Art is built around solid game play. Solid game play can be appreciated on it's own. The mechanical inner-workings of a car could be considered beautiful, the engineering required to achieve what automotive engineers do. Yet the aerodynamic body of a car rarely avoids compromise in favor of art. I'd say F1 cars are beautiful, although they're purpose built to perform as best as possible within the given boundaries and the creators of them couldn't give less shits if it'll shave fraction of seconds off of their track time.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43402072]I don't, and for one good reason: It actually does something. When someone says 'art' to me the first thing that comes to mind is something you own for no reason other than you think it looks pretty but serves absolutely no function otherwise. A painting, for example. Video games, however, do so much more than just 'look pretty'. They entertain, educate, even make some people money. They actually [i]do something[/i] besides sit on a shelf or hang on a wall. But then again I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the Louvre burnt to the ground and took all of its contents with it, so there's that. I'm just not into art, and calling something art makes me think negatively of it by default. Implies it's of no practical use.[/QUOTE] How does art have any less of a practical usage than video games do? Does the creation of art not qualify as entertainment? What about movies and music? How does art not educate, is literature no longer considered an art form? Does no one profit off of art? Also, plenty of art has a practical day to day usage other than just looking cool. Architecture, graphic design, sculpture, etc. Those are all very useful. Much more so than video games.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43402072]I don't, and for one good reason: It actually does something. When someone says 'art' to me the first thing that comes to mind is something you own for no reason other than you think it looks pretty but serves absolutely no function otherwise. A painting, for example. Video games, however, do so much more than just 'look pretty'. They entertain, educate, even make some people money. They actually [i]do something[/i] besides sit on a shelf or hang on a wall. But then again I wouldn't bat an eyelid if the Louvre burnt to the ground and took all of its contents with it, so there's that. I'm just not into art, and calling something art makes me think negatively of it by default. Implies it's of no practical use.[/QUOTE] absurd. it doesn't matter what art is "to you" that isn't how language works it matters what it actually [I]is[/I]. the definition of art has nothing to do with the ridiculous notion that it serves no practical function so your entire argument is null and void.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.