• Do you believe video games are art?
    64 replies, posted
If there's a game with a message and a story, a feeling, sort of like a book turned into interactive media, then yes? I mean, it depends on how you think. Some don't think games are art, others do. Non-gamers are very bias with that question. But take RPGs though, those games are art. What do people think of Final Fantasy X? I think that game is art. Then here's another question, if all games are not art, what is? Metal Gear Solid defines art. So does Ocarina of Time. Some Call of duty junkies be like, "Art, what is that?" Yeah, art... And, so like I said before, depends who you are and how you define art yourself.
[QUOTE=FoneJack;43412757]How does art have any less of a practical usage than video games do? [/quote] When was the last time a painting did anything at all besides just hang on the wall? [quote]Does the creation of art not qualify as entertainment?[/quote] I don't create art so it's immaterial. [quote] What about movies and music?[/quote] Depends on the type of movie, but I've never seen a movie I liked that was considered an art piece. Every movie I've ever watched that was said to be 'artistic' was absolute garbage scarcely worth the data it was transmitted to my TV on. [quote]How does art not educate[/quote] Sculptures have never taught anything. They're just there to look pretty, take up space, make a statement about the size of the owner's willy(in the case of governmental sculptures, anyway), things like that. They're not tools of education. Paintings don't teach anything, either. Their job is to decorate a wall somewhere, and in rare cases, make someone stupid amounts of money. This doesn't educate anyone on anything. [quote]is literature no longer considered an art form?[/quote] Can be. Doesn't mean every book is art. The Haynes manual for my pickup is literature, sure. Its sole reason to exist is to educate and instruct someone in the process of repairing and maintaining an 80s Ford pickup. It's educational literature. But it isn't art. Shakespeare's plays are literature and are also art. They don't serve to educate and instruct anyone on anything. They're art. I also don't care for the latter, but the former has saved me thousands. One's practical, one isn't. [quote] Does no one profit off of art?[/quote] Stupid people will spend thousands buying a can of air reportedly breathed out by Elvis Presley if you phrase your eBay listing correctly. Being able to profit from something doesn't make it art when you have people that are that terrible with their money. Another example of the silliness of this point: I could take a high res .jpg of the Mona Lisa, go down to a copyshop, enlarge it to the exact dimensions of the real thing, print it on photographic paper, put it in an inch-perfect replica of the frame the real one's in, and hang it on my wall. You wouldn't know I got the image off imgur until you literally stuck your nose up to it. Yet my copy would be worth at most just $20, and of that, $17.50 is the frame. Yet the original is worth ten figures or more. Maybe eleven figures. My copy confers all the 'benefits' of having the Mona Lisa in your sitting room yet it's worth absolutely fucking nothing compared to the real thing. [quote]Also, plenty of art has a practical day to day usage other than just looking cool.[/quote] Haven't seen an example yet. [quote] Architecture[/quote] It's designed first and foremost to not fall over, so I don't consider it art. [quote] graphic design[/quote] Depends on how its used. Graphic design applied to a program, a car, a video game, etc? Not art. They serve a practical purpose. Graphic design applied to nothing more than making a picture digitally? Art now. No practical purpose. [quote] sculpture[/quote] These serve no practical purpose, so art. [QUOTE=Venezuelan;43416281]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.[/QUOTE] So basically what you're saying is "I disagree with you, but I cannot think of a reason why I disagree with you, so instead I'm just going to declare your opinion null and void without any points to back it up." Doesn't even deserve a response at all, to be honest. Go away. I don't care what you have to say if that's the best you can do.
Man I don't want to shit up this thread but I've never seen someone type so much about something they understand so little. What kind of intelligent response do you expect when you make arguments such as "architecture is not art" I mean really now. I will retort with my argument that video games are art because my definition of art is "video games" and making up definitions to words is apparently a valid argument now. Basically if you have such an elitist, condescending and misinformed view towards the mere concept of art you don't belong in any serious discussion about what constitutes it. To clear up some of the misconceptions in this thread: yes, there is some debate over what constitutes art, however that does not make the word so malleable to the point where you can make up a definition like "it only serves an aesthetic function" and pretend you're being an intellectual for it instead of brash and pompous.
How does a painting compare itself to a beautiful scenery of a video game? Isn't the sole purpose of art to create some kind of emotion out of a virtual environment?
[QUOTE=redBadger;43363445]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.[/QUOTE] This is not meant to be taken seriously. Classical Orchestra having some novel fun. There's also a painting or something where it's blank and it sold for A LOT of money. To compare video games to that is insulting video games..
[quote] When was the last time a painting did anything at all besides just hang on the wall? [/quote] When was the last time a video game did anything at all besides just sit on someones hard drive? [quote] I don't create art so it's immaterial. [/quote] Just because something doesn't entertain you, doesn't mean it can't qualify as entertainment. [quote] Depends on the type of movie, but I've never seen a movie I liked that was considered an art piece. Every movie I've ever watched that was said to be 'artistic' was absolute garbage scarcely worth the data it was transmitted to my TV on. [/quote] Just because you don't like something personally doesn't make it any less art. [quote] Sculptures have never taught anything. They're just there to look pretty, take up space, make a statement about the size of the owner's willy(in the case of governmental sculptures, anyway), things like that. They're not tools of education. Paintings don't teach anything, either. Their job is to decorate a wall somewhere, and in rare cases, make someone stupid amounts of money. This doesn't educate anyone on anything. [/quote] I don't understand why you broke this off of my point about literature, it's obvious that is what I was referring to when I said art can educate. Also, paintings/engravings from the past [I]have[/I] taught us a lot about history, for example, ancient Egypt. [quote] Can be. Doesn't mean every book is art. The Haynes manual for my pickup is literature, sure. Its sole reason to exist is to educate and instruct someone in the process of repairing and maintaining an 80s Ford pickup. It's educational literature. But it isn't art. Shakespeare's plays are literature and are also art. They don't serve to educate and instruct anyone on anything. They're art. I also don't care for the latter, but the former has saved me thousands. One's practical, one isn't. [/quote] I don't understand this at all. Are you saying that because something has a practical usage, it cannot qualify as art? How come all art has to be impractical? [quote] Stupid people will spend thousands buying a can of air reportedly breathed out by Elvis Presley if you phrase your eBay listing correctly. Being able to profit from something doesn't make it art when you have people that are that terrible with their money. Another example of the silliness of this point: I could take a high res .jpg of the Mona Lisa, go down to a copyshop, enlarge it to the exact dimensions of the real thing, print it on photographic paper, put it in an inch-perfect replica of the frame the real one's in, and hang it on my wall. You wouldn't know I got the image off imgur until you literally stuck your nose up to it. Yet my copy would be worth at most just $20, and of that, $17.50 is the frame. Yet the original is worth ten figures or more. Maybe eleven figures. My copy confers all the 'benefits' of having the Mona Lisa in your sitting room yet it's worth absolutely fucking nothing compared to the real thing. [/quote] That wasn't the point I was making. You said video games could make money as an argument as to why they are not art, and I pointed out that art can return profit just as well. [quote] Haven't seen an example yet. It's designed first and foremost to not fall over, so I don't consider it art. Depends on how its used. Graphic design applied to a program, a car, a video game, etc? Not art. They serve a practical purpose. Graphic design applied to nothing more than making a picture digitally? Art now. No practical purpose. These serve no practical purpose, so art. [/quote] Again, I don't understand this mentality of "it's practical, therefore it isn't art." Why does your definition of art have to imply uselessness? And how is sculpture completely impractical, have you never seen Greek columns before?
I'd say yes, video games can be considered art. The thing is, though, like people above have said, video games have other forms of art within them, such as story, art style, original content, and the quality of each of those determines whether a video game can or can't be considered as art IMO.
Like any other form of art: some video games can be art. Some aren't.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43433630]When was the last time a painting did anything at all besides just hang on the wall? I don't create art so it's immaterial. Depends on the type of movie, but I've never seen a movie I liked that was considered an art piece. Every movie I've ever watched that was said to be 'artistic' was absoluteb garbage scarcely worth the data it was transmitted to my TV on. Sculptures have never taught anything. They're just there to look pretty, take up space, make a statement about the size of the owner's willy(in the case of governmental sculptures, anyway), things like that. They're not tools of education. Paintings don't teach anything, either. Their job is to decorate a wall somewhere, and in rare cases, make someone stupid amounts of money. This doesn't educate anyone on anything. Can be. Doesn't mean every book is art. The Haynes manual for my pickup is literature, sure. Its sole reason to exist is to educate and instruct someone in the process of repairing and maintaining an 80s Ford pickup. It's educational literature. But it isn't art. Shakespeare's plays are literature and are also art. They don't serve to educate and instruct anyone on anything. They're art. I also don't care for the latter, but the former has saved me thousands. One's practical, one isn't. Stupid people will spend thousands buying a can of air reportedly breathed out by Elvis Presley if you phrase your eBay listing correctly. Being able to profit from something doesn't make it art when you have people that are that terrible with their money. Another example of the silliness of this point: I could take a high res .jpg of the Mona Lisa, go down to a copyshop, enlarge it to the exact dimensions of the real thing, print it on photographic paper, put it in an inch-perfect replica of the frame the real one's in, and hang it on my wall. You wouldn't know I got the image off imgur until you literally stuck your nose up to it. Yet my copy would be worth at most just $20, and of that, $17.50 is the frame. Yet the original is worth ten figures or more. Maybe eleven figures. My copy confers all the 'benefits' of having the Mona Lisa in your sitting room yet it's worth absolutely fucking nothing compared to the real thing. Haven't seen an example yet. It's designed first and foremost to not fall over, so I don't consider it art. Depends on how its used. Graphic design applied to a program, a car, a video game, etc? Not art. They serve a practical purpose. Graphic design applied to nothing more than making a picture digitally? Art now. No practical purpose. These serve no practical purpose, so art. So basically what you're saying is "I disagree with you, but I cannot think of a reason why I disagree with you, so instead I'm just going to declare your opinion null and void without any points to back it up." Doesn't even deserve a response at all, to be honest. Go away. I don't care what you have to say if that's the best you can do.[/QUOTE] This is one of the stupidest posts I've read. A video game serves no more practical use than painting. It is entertainment all the same. Just because you don't enjoy a medium or a set of pieces in a medium, does not devalue the product. Paintings inspire discussion as do sculptures, movies, books, and videogames. Sure paintings and sculptures are meant to look nice and fill space but that is generally not their sole intention. Just because you can't find discussion or entertainment in art doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
There was a time when movies were not considered art and now ofcourse movies are well accepted as art for several decades now. Same way Video games are fairly new to the whole media and in time I think they will be considered art. I myself think classic games like Super Mario Bros.3 are pixelated masterpieces where you are the one in control of the art not just viewing, or reading :)
Video games are considered art in my point of view. Few people can actually take the time to render the story/plot/scenes and anything else that makes any video game unique. Video games, like any well written book or well drawn piece of art, have a specific meaning and purpose.
Most games are entertainment first and the same goes for movies in my eyes. They are made to make the player feel good through graphics, sound, style and gameplay. While a game may have pieces that can be called art, I generally don't feel okay calling games that.
I believe it is down to the developers ambitions. For example a film such as Black Swan would be regarded as art due to its ambitons and what the director envisioned for the plot and the film (think Clock Work Orange) where as the director for a film such as Far Cry the movie would have envisioned something other than a work of art, more of a cash cow. Such as free games with micro transactions (Final Fantasy The Bravest or something?, I doubt the developers would admit it to being a work of art).
To be honest in a way I do believe that they are, but I just don't care. Whether they are or not, I'll, without a doubt, be playing them as for the most of the guys in here. At least that is what I believe.
Depends. If it's Call of duty, nope. If it's Journey, definitely. If it's Street Fighter, i don't think so. If it's a racing game, it's not.
[QUOTE=TestECull;43433630]When was the last time a painting did anything at all besides just hang on the wall? I don't create art so it's immaterial. Depends on the type of movie, but I've never seen a movie I liked that was considered an art piece. Every movie I've ever watched that was said to be 'artistic' was absolute garbage scarcely worth the data it was transmitted to my TV on. Sculptures have never taught anything. They're just there to look pretty, take up space, make a statement about the size of the owner's willy(in the case of governmental sculptures, anyway), things like that. They're not tools of education. Paintings don't teach anything, either. Their job is to decorate a wall somewhere, and in rare cases, make someone stupid amounts of money. This doesn't educate anyone on anything. Can be. Doesn't mean every book is art. The Haynes manual for my pickup is literature, sure. Its sole reason to exist is to educate and instruct someone in the process of repairing and maintaining an 80s Ford pickup. It's educational literature. But it isn't art. Shakespeare's plays are literature and are also art. They don't serve to educate and instruct anyone on anything. They're art. I also don't care for the latter, but the former has saved me thousands. One's practical, one isn't. Stupid people will spend thousands buying a can of air reportedly breathed out by Elvis Presley if you phrase your eBay listing correctly. Being able to profit from something doesn't make it art when you have people that are that terrible with their money. Another example of the silliness of this point: I could take a high res .jpg of the Mona Lisa, go down to a copyshop, enlarge it to the exact dimensions of the real thing, print it on photographic paper, put it in an inch-perfect replica of the frame the real one's in, and hang it on my wall. You wouldn't know I got the image off imgur until you literally stuck your nose up to it. Yet my copy would be worth at most just $20, and of that, $17.50 is the frame. Yet the original is worth ten figures or more. Maybe eleven figures. My copy confers all the 'benefits' of having the Mona Lisa in your sitting room yet it's worth absolutely fucking nothing compared to the real thing. Haven't seen an example yet. It's designed first and foremost to not fall over, so I don't consider it art. Depends on how its used. Graphic design applied to a program, a car, a video game, etc? Not art. They serve a practical purpose. Graphic design applied to nothing more than making a picture digitally? Art now. No practical purpose. These serve no practical purpose, so art. So basically what you're saying is "I disagree with you, but I cannot think of a reason why I disagree with you, so instead I'm just going to declare your opinion null and void without any points to back it up." Doesn't even deserve a response at all, to be honest. Go away. I don't care what you have to say if that's the best you can do.[/QUOTE] So, in other words; you define art not by message, nor skill, nor beauty, but by its usefulness (or lack thereof?) Something can only truly be art if it has no purpose for existing?
I consider games to be more "art compilations" whereas the story and concept elements are more a particular style of literature. The individual assets are artwork, but as for a whole piece I wouldn't call a whole game a single piece of art, simply for the matter that it's hard to give credit to any one person who made it, everybody had their own inspiration and styles when making assets. But yeah, 2d/3d design and animation are tried and true forms of artwork, and the programming aspect is sort of a form of electronic design. Story/writing is obviously literature
[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] sounds like you have to quantify the value of everything by its pure practicality what's it like being a robot? [QUOTE=TestECull;43433630] So basically what you're saying is "I disagree with you, but I cannot think of a reason why I disagree with you, so instead I'm just going to declare your opinion null and void without any points to back it up." Doesn't even deserve a response at all, to be honest. Go away. I don't care what you have to say if that's the best you can do.[/QUOTE] no! he's saying you're objectively wrong - his support and reasoning is the very definition of art itself [editline]a [/editline] I certainly believe that games, even when you only consider the gameplay of it, can be art - I've certainly had times where I recognized and appreciated a unique or innovative gameplay mechanic (i.e. the entirety of journey, portal, etc) even the dull gameplay of call of duty and other popular series is art - obviously it gets rather hard to appreciate because it's the same art you've played over and over again, but it's art nonetheless
Yes. Not all of them, though. Dear Estler is art. Call Of Duty is not. --Edit-- Somebody already said that. But still.
From the eye of the beholder, it depends on how the developer depicts the Video Game itself. And it depends on what game it is. It also depends on [B]who[/B] is playing X game to understand if that (games that is) is art itself. Example: Final Fantasy X is a game that is centred on art. The game itself is an arts craft. I also believe that Metal Gear Solid is art. It's story telling combined with the visuals also defines what 'art' is. I believe that the COD series is art to some extent, though it depends on how you look at it by changing perspectives (like rotating the glass at different angles. It reveals something... Different)
By definition, yes, definitely, games are art. Primarily, they are collaborative art. It takes (usually) a group of people to make them. You have developers that write the code. You have designers that create the art assets. You have writers that develop a plotline and setting. And most importantly with collaborative art, you have an audience. Intent has its variable in the equation too. Yes, Stanley Parable and Dear Esther intend to invoke emotion unlike Call of Duty. But imagine what Call of Duty has done to our society. As ridiculous as it sounds, there is a firm-footed reason for Doritos and Dew to have partnerships with Xbox, and that's because of the culture so-called "broshooters" have created. Due to the connotation the word "art" carries, it may not seem like Call of Duty in and of itself is an art piece compared to Stanley Parable, partly in thanks to the definitive low level of intelligence it takes to "get" Call of Duty. Yet this low level of intelligence is exactly what makes Call of Duty so interesting, both as a game and by its effects on the people that play it. Perhaps "art" is the wrong word, but there is simply no denying that games have definitive artlike qualities to them.
This is more what defines art than if video games are art. I think any form of self expression is art regardless of how 'good' that art is.
I'm pissed off on how society is still questionning about considering video games art. Their goal is to tell stories, send messages and entertain their consumers, such as books, movies or music. There is no reason to exclude them.
art 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. imagination: check, creativity: check, admired for beauty or emotional power: check. the reason it's hard to associate it with art is that historically, art is created by one person. one painter, one composer, etc. But a video game is dependent on: someone with visual artistic talent, someone with a creative vision, someone with a strong mathematical aptitude, and teams of people that sometimes go over 50. Also, most other forms of art serve no useful or practical purpose, but video games have applications to teach, to train, and to exercise. This is my guess on why it is less associated with art. And, like the other big two artistic media, music and movies, it was once really good before publishers and producers figured the whole system out. and even now there's still gold out there, but it's covered in marketing ploys and unfinished games.
I'm also of the opinion that video games are art. Hell, even board games are art, but that's getting off-topic, and so that's all I'll say on that. I don't understand those that act like games aren't art, because they fill pretty much all criterion associated with art. To be honest, I consider them a form of performance art. A team of creators and actors (in both a figurative and literal sense sometimes) work together to make something to entertain others and something that they wanted to create. I'm pretty sure that just being something they wanted to create makes them art.
[QUOTE=willtheoct;43595137]art 1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. imagination: check, creativity: check, admired for beauty or emotional power: check. the reason it's hard to associate it with art is that historically, art is created by one person. one painter, one composer, etc. But a video game is dependent on: someone with visual artistic talent, someone with a creative vision, someone with a strong mathematical aptitude, and teams of people that sometimes go over 50. Also, most other forms of art serve no useful or practical purpose, but video games have applications to teach, to train, and to exercise. This is my guess on why it is less associated with art. And, like the other big two artistic media, music and movies, it was once really good before publishers and producers figured the whole system out. and even now there's still gold out there, but it's covered in marketing ploys and unfinished games.[/QUOTE] True so moootherfuckiing true in conclusion videogames are more than art
If you looked at the work and effort that goes into a decent video game, you would be surprised. People who develop video games for a living are indeed artists in their own respect. Much like the generally stereotyped dude who wears a funny hat and paints paintings on a street corner, game developers are dedicated to their work, love what they do, and share the outcome of their labor with the world. So yes, I do believe that video games are art.
-snip-
[B][U]Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.[/U][/B] Now, we aren't discussing the graphics, music, or story. We are simply discussing the [I]gameplay itself[/I]. In a way, I think it can. Music often changes in pace and volume to invoke different emotions, a game possesses similar qualities. For example, one can make a frustrating game to make players feel frustrated. Or a game where you jump all the way to the top, only managing to just fall the way back down at the end every time, signifying the futility of human advancement. Of course, this would require graphics of some sort, but all videogames do. You know what though. Art is entirely subjective. Something that invokes emotion in someone might not invoke any in anyone else. Someone might take time to watch sunsets, someone else might go their life never even paying them any mind. The question is not "is ___ art", but "can ____ potentially be art". [quote]Depends. If it's Call of duty, nope. If it's Journey, definitely. [/quote] My, how insightful...
Video games are art. Art is insightful, makes you feel emotions, has a profound impact on you that is really amazing. Look at VVVVVV. It was simple, easy to follow, made me enjoy it. Hard as hell, though. also, [QUOTE=redBadger;43363445]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.[/QUOTE] did you catch that comic sans font? [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/Jxrb28O.png[/IMG]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.