Videogames Should be the next great art!!!!!!! damn it

Hello people this topic has been in my mind for a long time now but I researched wikipedia a little and so surprised I saw some people besides me think that videogames should be the 8th art(because photography and comics are not taken really serious).

Well I think videogames deserve to be the next art by lots because the experience a videogame gives the author and the player a total different experience from the other arts(It combines them in a way that relating to them is almost unnatural).For example photography could be called an extension of painting really and comic combine cinematography and painting(even a little of literature).

But videogames people are a work of real genius like miyamoto,hideo kojima,etc. Those guys had stories and characters that could only be experienced by making them video games( although a metal gear movie maybe a good idea I don't think it can compare to playing it). Proof of this is the video game to movie crossover or viceversa. They are so different than the crossover most of the time translates to a stupid movie or really boring game(spiderman games,street fighter movie,etc). This is because video games and movies are so different that they only share some of its parts.

Also video games are attacked continuously because of the mature themes, making people "lose" time and a bunch of other nonsense. But if you play a video game without taking away your life is just pure and sane for people just like any other art. I am 20 years old now and all my life I've played games and I can tell you that I live a happy and normal life just like many of other people. And I am very proud of it because my hobby is so beautiful that I know I will let my children play video games knowing that they are not a bad thing( That is why games have a rating like movies that can be more mature than games or tv).

So I say to you people we should be proud of our hobby to play games because they are a beautifull form of expression and sharing emotions like any other art!!!!!!!!!(except for harvest moon that is crap :P). Thanks for your attention!!!!!WALL OF TEXT

Converted to Easy-Read format :P

Art is that which is made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind and/or spirit. There is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.Wikipedia

It's probably true that games could be considered art. But I don't see art colleges and critics agreeing with this anytime soon.

Games are not art! They have the potential to become art, and some games get close, but as of yet no game has come along that could be truly called art. A damn fine story or book maybe, but not art!

Give it a couple of years and it might cross that threshold but for now gaming is simply another entertainment medium.

Games are not art! They have the potential to become art, and some games get close, but as of yet no game has come along that could be truly called art. A damn fine story or book maybe, but not art!

Give it a couple of years and it might cross that threshold but for now gaming is simply another entertainment medium.

the_mad_madman

 What other medium can achieve the sense of isolation (and the beauty thereof) that interactive multimedia can? What other medium can make you regret choices or simply present you with a house that feels as warm as a home? I have never experienced these things in any other medium, and that is why I believe games to be a worth artistic outlet.

Paragraphs are an art.

Video games are repetitive actions that carry a storyline or offer some form of 'reward' (score, items, etc).   What those repetitive actions and the storyline/rewards result in are definitely art.  

The problem is that it doesn't carry the arc of the story as fast as other mediums - so it's handicapped.   Basically....if you had to keep pressing buttons to read each page of a book, it's going to go alot slower...and inherently, not as deep.  Take out too much of the repetitieve action pieces and you have a movie (which many 'artsy' games become). 

Also....video games cost a alot to make as they are - few can have deeply developed stories.  Good writers rarely want to use their tales for this medium.  

It's basically the prole-literature of our age, the pulp novel.....not that there is anything wrong with that.

Video games need to be entertainment not art... sry bro 8)L8erSquare

The two are not mutually exclusive... sry bro :idea:

Games are not art! They have the potential to become art, and some games get close, but as of yet no game has come along that could be truly called art. A damn fine story or book maybe, but not art!

the_mad_madman

Could you explain what criteria you used to exclude video games from the greater world of art?

Give it a couple of years and it might cross that threshold but for now gaming is simply another entertainment medium.

the_mad_madman

Besides the unstated need for a majority to consider it to be art, what would be necessary for it to cross that threshold in your opinion?

Perhaps if a full blown game could be done by a single person it could be called art.
Take movies for example, the director is god (Not revering to the hollywood kind obviously.)
During the development of games there are just too many outside factors that all in invluence the final product,hot114

The director is no more "god" of a movie than a lead director is for a game.  In both cases, many other influences come in, and they are influences that those directors can't ignore.

That something is defined as "art" does not require that one individual have full charge anyway.

The same way that cinema is an art, even if there was not any masterpiece, video games are art, independently of whether a masterpiece exists or not.

It is the same thing, video games include cinema, they have cut-scenes and interactive parts.

PD: This has been previosly discussed, some may want to see the previous oppinions.

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25356782

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=24992088

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25062370

http://www.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25569136

Dude, art has become such a general and broad term along the lines of the word sport.  Basically, all it takes for a few people to believe it for it to be true, nothing less or more.

However, the day they take a book like The Great Gatsby out of the cirriculum and replace it with something like Final Fantasy 7 is the day I would pull my kids out of public school.

The definition of the word art is a tricky thing, since it seems every second drawing or scribbling these days wants to be called art and there can also be multiple meaning for the word. But the general definition of the art this topic is reffering to goes something along the lines of this: Something that transcends the limits of its chosen medium and provokes emotions beyond what you thought that medium was capable of. Something which is essence is a mastery of it's medium.

Now there are some damn fine games out there m0zart, but nothing I would think fits that description. Sure Planescape: Torment has an interesting and thought provoking story while psychonauts has some amazing visual styles, Ico as well. But I can't think of any games which would fit all three of the above. Having a good story or some trippy visuals alone don't make art.

I'm not putting down videogames. If I didn't love videogames I wouldn't be posting on these forums. But they're not art. Not yet anyway! Maybe someday we'll get a game that transcends the game genre and becomes accepted as art, but that hasn't happened yet. Atleast not in my oh-so humble oppinion!

However, the day they take a book like The Great Gatsby out of the cirriculum and replace it with something like Final Fantasy 7 is the day I would pull my kids out of public school.AtomicTangerine

Then you are not talking about art but culture, which is another tricky subject. In any case I haven't read that book and I'm fine, I don't know why are books considered as something so important, they are just a media to transfer information (aka communicate) as can be audio tapes (read books), films or even video games.

To put some examples a good way to learn queueing theory is Theme hospital, and you can understand how important sustainable development is playing Black and White.

The definition of the word art is a tricky thing, since it seems every second drawing or scribbling these days wants to be called art and there can also be multiple meaning for the word. But the general definition of the art this topic is reffering to goes something along the lines of this: Something that transcends the limits of its chosen medium and provokes emotions beyond what you thought that medium was capable of. Something which is essence is a mastery of it's medium.

Now there are some damn fine games out there m0zart, but nothing I would think fits that description. Sure Planescape: Torment has an interesting and thought provoking story while psychonauts has some amazing visual styles, Ico as well. But I can't think of any games which would fit all three of the above. Having a good story or some trippy visuals alone don't make art.

I'm not putting down videogames. If I didn't love videogames I wouldn't be posting on these forums. But they're not art. Not yet anyway! Maybe someday we'll get a game that transcends the game genre and becomes accepted as art, but that hasn't happened yet. Atleast not in my oh-so humble oppinion!

the_mad_madman

There are games that are masterpieces, I think we can agree with that, there are plenty of games that provoke emotions, I've seen many of them, and Fable 2 aims directly at that, so what about trancending the limits of the medium? is that the 4D of the PS3?, how does a film, a picture or a painting do that?

A painting is only a painting, a picture drawn onto a canvas by whatever means the painter chooses, usually some kind of paint, go figure. But a good painting, one that might fall under art, can also tell a story which can evoke emotions. All that with one masterfully done image. That's an example of transcending a medium.

And how could you have not read The Great Gatsby? I remember it being mandatory in my high school. Not to mention it's a great book.

None of us can say it's art or not, but we can at least cite our authorities.  All I know on the anti-art side is Roger Ebert, but do I have to list his filmography again?  He was a screenwriter, and all his titles include the words "booby" "chesty" "dames" and "with guns".  True.  As for the pro-art side, there's the American legal system and Time Magazine.  Hmmm.  And Time was talking about the game with mud on its face, GTA.  http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1101021104-384808,00.html

Don't be ashamed of video games.   

The definition of the word art is a tricky thing, since it seems every second drawing or scribbling these days wants to be called art and there can also be multiple meaning for the word. But the general definition of the art this topic is reffering to goes something along the lines of this: Something that transcends the limits of its chosen medium and provokes emotions beyond what you thought that medium was capable of. Something which is essence is a mastery of it's medium.

Now there are some damn fine games out there m0zart, but nothing I would think fits that description. Sure Planescape: Torment has an interesting and thought provoking story while psychonauts has some amazing visual styles, Ico as well. But I can't think of any games which would fit all three of the above. Having a good story or some trippy visuals alone don't make art.

I'm not putting down videogames. If I didn't love videogames I wouldn't be posting on these forums. But they're not art. Not yet anyway! Maybe someday we'll get a game that transcends the game genre and becomes accepted as art, but that hasn't happened yet. Atleast not in my oh-so humble oppinion!

the_mad_madman

However, concerning the part of the quote I underlined, I'd say Shadow of the Colossus is the game that fits the bill best.  As I said in my review for the game, "there is a fine line between what is game and what is art.  Shadow of the Colossus blurs it."

A painting is only a painting, a picture drawn onto a canvas by whatever means the painter chooses, usually some kind of paint, go figure. But a good painting, one that might fall under art, can also tell a story which can evoke emotions. All that with one masterfully done image. That's an example of transcending a medium.

And how could you have not read The Great Gatsby? I remember it being mandatory in my high school. Not to mention it's a great book.

the_mad_madman

That's a rather tricky definition too, I think. For example: this painting has a masterfully done image, but there aren't emotions involved.

This one has as it's main goal to evoke emotions, and when you are close to it for sure that you will feel them, its dimensions are 776 x 351 cm, but the image is not as masterfully in the meaning of being extremely hard to pain, specially when compared with other art pieces as the first one or the Sistine Chapel among many others.

Both are art, but they are very different, and beside of that you may not know them and there isn't any problem with that, you could very well live a very long and happy life without ever knowing about them. Books and paintings have nothing special just for the fact of being books or paintings, and I suppose The Great Gatsby is only mandatory in the US.

Nevertheless setting aside the subject of what is culture and focusing on art just to get things more complicated and without leaving the paintings you can consider the case of van Gogh, who if I remember well only sold one painting during his life and one of his brothers is who bought it. So I wonder what happens in this case because I think it is very hard to become an artist when you are dead, in fact it is very hard to do anything.

What I think is that van Gogh was an artist and his paintings were art, they were considered as bad and now as good, people may change their preferences, inanimate things themselves don't become or cease to be anything. And my opinion is that video games are art, even though some are actually bad, and even though them all are not considered as art by many people.

Something that transcends the limits of its chosen medium and provokes emotions beyond what you thought that medium was capable of. Something which is essence is a mastery of it's medium.

the_mad_madman

I actually disagree with that defintion, but even if I thought it were a proper definition, I wouldn't be able to EXCLUDE video games based upon it.

Now there are some damn fine games out there m0zart, but nothing I would think fits that description. Sure Planescape: Torment has an interesting and thought provoking story while psychonauts has some amazing visual styles, Ico as well. But I can't think of any games which would fit all three of the above. Having a good story or some trippy visuals alone don't make art.

the_mad_madman

I obviously disagree with that.  I think Ico DOES do all three.  I think Shadow of the Colossus does all three.  Again, I think your definition is incorrect, because you are trying to frame "art" as a degree of quality.  Art is a kind of thing, not a degree or measurement; it is qualitative, not quantitative.  Something is art when it is clearly a communication of metaphysical values on a given medium.  Video games fit that definition -- period.

Now someone might want to argue if a given work of art is good art or bad art, but that kind of determination is pretty subjective.  Calling something "art" is not subjective, even if determinations of quality are.

I'm not putting down videogames. If I didn't love videogames I wouldn't be posting on these forums. But they're not art. Not yet anyway! Maybe someday we'll get a game that transcends the game genre and becomes accepted as art, but that hasn't happened yet. Atleast not in my oh-so humble oppinion!

the_mad_madman

This is my point of course.  You are judging the medium of video games as excluded from "art" by saying no work exists which fits your criteria.  Once again, I think your definition is not correct, and besides that, I think video games already fit that definition; however, even if that definition were acceptable and it were not met yet by a single entry in the world of video game development, you could not exclude video games from "art" using that definition unless you could demonstrate that such a thing were not achievable with video games.  Can you do that?

I just have to agree with this, you know?  I love video games, everyone who knows me knows that, and when I say they're not art, I don't mean it to be derrogatory.  It's kind of like how I don't consider fishing to be a sport (someone made the art/sport analogy earlier, and it was right on).ShenlongBo

Well it's not just that you might be derogatory towards video games.  You are being derogatory towards art.

I think a lot of gamers try really hard not to pollute the term "art" by not including video games, but what they don't realize is that they are actually polluting the term "art" BY excluding video games.  I don't want to keep rewriting the same arguments over and over again, so I'll just quote from a comment I already made to someone in the recent past:

As I've said, this is about more than video games. This is about protecting the integrity of what "art" is as a term and what the community of art should comprise. That community is literally one of the most politicized out there, and it deserves to be brought down to its roots after years of being evaporated to the ether.

Art is NOTHING more than one or more creative people expressing a set of metaphysical values in a given medium. Art is NOT inapproachable, ungraspable, or worse, undefineable. When someone tries to wrongly exclude video games from that category, they are literally devaluating "art" as a term. The result is that it cheapens the term "art", making it seem like some kind of ethereal mystical term, rather than actually devaluing video games as a form of entertainment.

And as a fan of art and video games, I don't want to see that happen.

However, concerning the part of the quote I underlined, I'd say Shadow of the Colossus is the game that fits the bill best.  As I said in my review for the game, "there is a fine line between what is game and what is art.  Shadow of the Colossus blurs it."ShenlongBo

I'll go even further.  As someone who rejects the art/entertainment dichotomy, I think there isn't a line at all.  It's "fine" and "blurry" because it's not really there.  Now that's not the same as saying that all entertainment or even all video games are art (though I do personally believe that), but one thing is for sure: they are NOT mutually exclusive.

Videogames hold so much more power as a medium than books, film or comics. Those are all great mediums in of themselves, and all deservedly will always have a place, but none of them have the power to shake a person to their very core the way a videogame can. There's always been a line between reader and read, between motion picture and observer, between comic and comic-book connossieur. Art has always been separate from us. Videogames break that line, and close the world of art all around us.

At least in theory. The missteps that developers have made in trying to tell a story that takes advantage of the medium's power is astronomical in quantity. They assume player freedom in the answer to immersion issues. Or that cut-scenes are necessary to tell the parts of the story that just plain playing can't cover. That there needs to be a game at the heart of it. That the player must have total power over the story, or none at all.

They don't see what videogames are: life. They are a life to be led, and must be designed as such. Within life, there are things that can be done, things that cannot. There is active participation in matters we cannot effect, and passivity in places where we can make a difference. We have a role to play. And we can learn, because the realities around us are the truths we carry with us. What greater place to make an artistic vision of reality giving birth to truth, than in the life of a videogame?

So for all the failings, the power of the medium speaks for itself. And some, artists who truly understand the craft of expression, will perceive it and take advantage of it. It's my ambition, and it is the ambition of many other people, whether they are past, present or future, because their perception into the reality of the medium is born out of their perception of the reality which we share. 

What I haven't heard yet is a convincing, logical argument for why games are not art. Any takers? Because, frankly, they are. The best I can do is repeat what m0zart said. What I have trouble expressing in words, he states as plain as day.MrCHUP0N

I can present an argument on why they're currently not art yet... if you'd be interested in hearing such a case. 

What I haven't heard yet is a convincing, logical argument for why games are not art. Any takers? Because, frankly, they are. The best I can do is repeat what m0zart said. What I have trouble expressing in words, he states as plain as day.MrCHUP0N

Yeah, except you haven't heard any arguments based on logic and facts in this whole thread.  The truth is that nobody here is right or wrong. 

This is a lot like talking about the existance of God or something.  Believers will point out how you didn't really prove he didn't exist, while those who don't will point out how there isn't any real rational reason to believe.

[QUOTE="MrCHUP0N"]What I haven't heard yet is a convincing, logical argument for why games are not art. Any takers? Because, frankly, they are. The best I can do is repeat what m0zart said. What I have trouble expressing in words, he states as plain as day.AtomicTangerine

Yeah, except you haven't heard any arguments based on logic and facts in this whole thread. The truth is that nobody here is right or wrong.

I think m0zart'd disagree.

EDIT: I just realized I should clarify: I've never seen a logical, convincing argument for why games are not art whereas I've heard logical ones as for why they are. The aforementioned m0zart was one of the fellows I chatted with on this subject with more words than he provided here.

Do tell, but I'm pretty sure I won't be convinced unless that "yet" factors heavily into the argument.MrCHUP0N

Well, even if "yet" factored heavily, I wouldn't be able to agree.  I think he already expressed that video games are an artistic medium in his first statement.  That's really all it takes.  I think he's crossing the line into making a judgement on quality for art, which is common on this thread, but in such situations I'd just say: "They are art, even if you describe cases of art that you don't think meet the full potential of the medium".  The truth is that all artistic mediums have unmet potential.  That's why artists are continually able to push their chosen medium over time to new depths.  But the early art is just as much art as the latter art -- even if the latter is deeper in terms of signficance than the former, or the artist is able to do more things with the medium that weren't even conceived of in the times when the artistic medium was originated.

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

Yeah, except you haven't heard any arguments based on logic and facts in this whole thread. The truth is that nobody here is right or wrong.

MrCHUP0N

I think m0zart'd disagree. 

Indeed.  I always think its interesting when someone who doesn't agree or just doesn't want to think about a given issue like this just decides to declare the whole thing meaningless -- for instance, by saying that there is no way to logically argue the case, or even that nobody is right or wrong because right or wrong in this instance is impossible.  There are subjective cases where this would apply, but that isn't the case here.  Art either means something significant, or it is a meaningless term.  And if it is a meaningless term, we should quit using it altogether for ANYTHING.

Okay dude, I think I got a better way of summing up my opinion:

Is NASCAR a sport?  Many seem to think so, and many think not.  The word sport has become so broad and vague that neither party can say they are right anymore, so it's a moot point.  Same thing with saying games are art.

Okay dude, I think I got a better way of summing up my opinion:

Is NASCAR a sport?  Many seem to think so, and many think not.  The word sport has become so broad and vague that neither party can say they are right anymore, so it's a moot point.  Same thing with saying games are art.

AtomicTangerine

Are you trying to say that "sport" as a term is meaningless?  Truthfully, the way you frame this example, almost ANY term can be declared as meaningless or as open to infinite interpretations.  If you really think that "sport" doesn't describe things properly, you should probably quit using that as well.

That's the wrong approach to language and epistemological concepts in general.  Instead, you should try to determine what is essential to something as a "sport".  If a given activity meets all of those essentials, then a "sport" it is.  If not, then it isn't.  Otherwise, there is no language or conceptual hierarchy you could form that you could rely on for personal understanding, let alone communication with others.

Do tell, but I'm pretty sure I won't be convinced unless that "yet" factors heavily into the argument.MrCHUP0N

The word "yet" does factor heavily into my argument, because like I mentioned, I fully believe that videogames are, as a medium, far more potent than other storytelling media.

Anyways, before any argument can begin on whether something is art or not, you have to get the semantics straight. I use a defintion for art that goes something like this: A work that a particular person finds emotionally and/or intellectually significant.

But that's been in games before. Most people have connected with a videogame emotionally or intellectually. So why aren't videogames art yet?

Because the artistry is in the games, not of the games. Videogames are not art yet because artistry in videogames has little to do with what actually defines the medium. It's like taking a photograph of a painting masterpiece; the photograph is commendable for sharing the artistry of the work, and maybe that might be the only way for many people to experience the art of the work, but the art is the painting, not the photograph. In the same way, there have been many videogames that contain artistry, but they tend to be movies or books contained within videogame form.

This isn't to say that videogames haven't had some truly mind-blowing interactively told storytelling moments. My favorite part from the otherwise overrated Final Fantasy VII was when Cloud's spirit was running around helplessly as his body ran over to give Sephiroth the black materia (forgive me if I forget the instance). ICO used interactivity masterfully to give the story much greater emotional depth than it might have had otherwise. The Last Express was very good at making you feel like the story was progressing as an extension of your actions, while not sacrificing the main story. So aren't these clear indications of videogames as art?

They are, but these are specific parts to what essentially amount to hybrids. Final Fantasy VII was still mostly long-winded cut-scenes. ICO used cut-scenes as well, for all the parts to its extremely simple tale that couldn't be told within the scope of the mechanics. The Last Express had you direct your character to cut-scenes... so you got to choose how you lost control of the story, but you always lost control regardless. These are examples of experiments, incomplete and intriguing. But artistry is not about experimentation, it is about wholeness. For there to be a true art videogame, I need to see something that is wholly art and wholly videogame at once, not a book or a film in disguise. It's not that these hybrids with other mediums are useless; they simply don't reflect what the medium is capable of.

Most videogames boil down to their simplest namesake--games. They are just entertainment products meant to have specific rules and objectives... nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be incorrectly called art. The word may be stretched too thin these days, but the true meaning of the word persists. Products of personal significance. Videogames are capable of it, but there hasn't been one design yet that pulls it all together.

Okay dude, I think I got a better way of summing up my opinion:

Is NASCAR a sport? Many seem to think so, and many think not. The word sport has become so broad and vague that neither party can say they are right anymore, so it's a moot point. Same thing with saying games are art.

AtomicTangerine

And just what made the word "sport" so broad and vague? Perhaps the accepted and popularized misuse of said word? Similar to, dare I say it, the term "role-playing game?" I can appreciate subjectiveness, vagaries, and definitely opinions. However, they don't necessarily apply to everything and certainly aren't "correct" with everything people talk about. Some things, yes; other things, not. And before anyone says, "The world is not black and white," using that defense to try to win every argument is defying that very idea itself. Some stuff goes beyond black and white. Some stuff does not.

Okay dude, I think I got a better way of summing up my opinion:

Is NASCAR a sport? Many seem to think so, and many think not. The word sport has become so broad and vague that neither party can say they are right anymore, so it's a moot point. Same thing with saying games are art.

AtomicTangerine

Words change all the time. But I think the word "art" is stretched across too many definitions rather than truly ambiguous. Most people to define art seem to use a definition similar to the one I defined just above. But there are a lot of minor variations. Some people stress the emotional content, some the intellectual, some suggest that it needs to have both. Others use totally different variations of the word, such as its use to describe the apex of something (cleaning isn't an art, but there can be an "art of cleaning", according to some variations of use). Or to describe visual work. But most people seem to understand and acknowledge the meaning I use, although they have the other connotations bouncing around their head.

It's a useful, important word. But honestly, if I had a decent synonym, I'd use that instead to avoid all the crazy variations of the word "art".

Some stuff goes beyond black and white. Some stuff does not.

MrCHUP0N

That's a very "the world is not black and white" statement you've got there. :P 

[QUOTE="MrCHUP0N"]Do tell, but I'm pretty sure I won't be convinced unless that "yet" factors heavily into the argument.Oilers99

The word "yet" does factor heavily into my argument, because like I mentioned, I fully believe that videogames are, as a medium, far more potent than other storytelling media.

Anyways, before any argument can begin on whether something is art or not, you have to get the semantics straight. I use a defintion for art that goes something like this: A work that a particular person finds emotionally and/or intellectually significant.

But that's been in games before. Most people have connected with a videogame emotionally or intellectually. So why aren't videogames art yet?

Because the artistry is in the games, not of the games. Videogames are not art yet because artistry in videogames has little to do with what actually defines the medium. It's like taking a photograph of a painting masterpiece; the photograph is commendable for sharing the artistry of the work, and maybe that might be the only way for many people to experience the art of the work, but the art is the painting, not the photograph. In the same way, there have been many videogames that contain artistry, but they tend to be movies or books contained within videogame form.

Most videogames boil down to their simplest namesake--games. They are just entertainment products meant to have specific rules and objectives... nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be incorrectly called art. The word may be stretched too thin these days, but the true meaning of the word persists. Products of personal significance. Videogames are capable of it, but there hasn't been one design yet that pulls it all together.

I'd like to respond, though first I'd like to say I appreciate the thought that went into this. However, I'm still not convinced. I'll focus on your photograph analogy. A photograph of a painting, depending on how it's framed, set up, and thematically taken to present an idea, could be considered art; - but I don't even have to go there. Let's talk about what I think you're getting at, which is that the photo is in this case simply documenting the painting. Now let's try to - unsuccessfully - apply this to games. The game, in the end, is the final aesthetic object that culminates from the very pieces you're talking about. The story. The visuals. The sound. The design and engineering. The game is not merely a container, a documentation of these disparate elements. The game is the culmination of these elements, and conversely, these elements are the game itself. The elements are pivotal and the very core of what makes the game what it is. The intent is to use these separate pieces in tandem, in concert with each other, to build off each other and finally create an object of aesthetic, intellectual or emotional value.

You do say what the idea of "art" means to you. Given your "intellectual value" criteria, one might say that a textbook is art. I'm not bringing this up to argue whether or not it is, but rather to address AtomicTangerine's point (now you have me hungry for an orange, Atomic... gee thanks) in that he said terms can become too broad and vague. So, I'll do the cop-out route - but a cop-out that is still valuable nonetheless to spur further thinking and discussion:

"...the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects"

Now, "aesthetic" circles right back to "art" so the only meaningful definition we can use here is:

"pleasing in appearance"

Thoughts?

"[Games] are just entertainment products meant to have specific rules and objectives... nothing more."

So here you run the risk of excluding entertainment and art, a mistake that many have made. You also want to speak the minds of the developers of said games yourself, which is another mistake.

Finally, why is a work that is put together as "patchwork" excluded from being art if it satisfies your definition of intellectual/emotional value? Paintings have the cartoon, the paint, the frame and canvas, and the idea behind the painting. A great work of architecture - a building - is practically the poster child for "patchwork." What of a symphony? An opera or musical? A film? 

[QUOTE="MrCHUP0N"]

Some stuff goes beyond black and white. Some stuff does not.

Oilers99

That's a very "the world is not black and white" statement you've got there. :P

Precisely. And yet the very nature of that statement means that some things must be absolute. My purpose in saying that was that people often use that to say "nothing can be right or wrong," and, well... the world is not black and white. :P

They are, but these are specific parts to what essentially amount to hybrids. Final Fantasy VII was still mostly long-winded cut-scenes. ICO used cut-scenes as well, for all the parts to its extremely simple tale that couldn't be told within the scope of the mechanics. The Last Express had you direct your character to cut-scenes... so you got to choose how you lost control of the story, but you always lost control regardless. These are examples of experiments, incomplete and intriguing. But artistry is not about experimentation, it is about wholeness. For there to be a true art videogame, I need to see something that is wholly art and wholly videogame at once, not a book or a film in disguise. It's not that these hybrids with other mediums are useless; they simply don't reflect what the medium is capable of.

Oilers99

Are you saying that a combination of various elements that take specific artistic direction from more than one creator can exclude the work from the category of art?  I guess I really have to disagree with that one.  Heck, I have to disagree with that even by your definition.  Perhaps your point is more subtle than you were able to explain it, but I don't think you've made a convincing case that Ico and Shadow of the Colossus are patchworks, let alone that because they are patchworks they cannot be considered art.  If I were to accept that kind of subtlety to exclude art, I'd have to exclude a LOT of what has traditionally been called art for hundreds of years, as well as what has gained acceptance as art in our modern experience, including most operas, many paintings, and almost every movie ever made, including great works like Amadeus.

I am also not sure how you can claim to know that all video game development and every project is of the nature you describe -- that all given video games haven't met this more subtle criteria you've laid out.  Even hardened industry professionals don't have all of these details.  It is hard for an outsider to know how one particular artist, whether that be a development director, or an overall producer coordinates the development of a particular game.

Most videogames boil down to their simplest namesake--games. They are just entertainment products meant to have specific rules and objectives... nothing more. Nothing wrong with that, but it should not be incorrectly called art. The word may be stretched too thin these days, but the true meaning of the word persists. Products of personal significance. Videogames are capable of it, but there hasn't been one design yet that pulls it all together.

Oilers99

I haven't heard such a definition in circles of art admirers (hence, I don't think most people, as you said, actually agree with your definition).  I also haven't read such a definition in any work that describes the nature of art from either a philosophical or technical perspective.  I hate to disagree so strongly here, especially since you've admitted (at least) that the video game medium is more than suitable for works of art, but I think not to refer to video games as art given the separating criteria you've listed is to do damage to the overall concept, and thus everything that has been described that way thus far.

Video games are a composite medium -- i.e. like film, opera, and musical theater, it requires the collaboration of more than one artist with skills in the given mediums that make up the composite.  But that is not reasonably an excluding factor for either art as a medium or any given work that has required this kind of "patchwork".  Nor is the "entertainment" factor an excluding one, given that almost all art started as entertainment of some kind, and retained their value as entertainment despite being considered art, good art, or even great art.

"...the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects"

Now, "aesthetic" circles right back to "art" so the only meaningful definition we can use here is:

"pleasing in appearance"

MrCHUP0N

Aesthetic objects speak to "beauty" in the sense that the aesthetics category of philosophy deals in the nature of beauty and the nature of human romantic thoughts and feelings, and by inverse, it has to deal with the ugly and the varying combinations or degrees in between.  The definition here isn't perfect, but it points out quite well that art happens when an individual(s) expresses personal values (in the field of philosophy, "value" refers to something meaningful to the individual) with "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination".

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to patch the title of Art on something which doesn't entirely fit the idea of art. Art, as i see it, is purely communication of an idea through a medium which stimulates our thoughts and emotions. You could say that video games do this, BUT they are also functional through entertainment. THIS is what sets games apart from ART.

And to those who said architecture is art...you are wrong. Architecture is similar to games where the building serves a PURPOSE for human dwelling. The aesthetic qualities of a building ,if it is truly designed properly, also contributes to this functionality.

Art is purely aesthetic and does not serve a functional purpose. It is there to be enjoyed and to communicate an idea to other people.

What we should be grouping games with is the CREATIVE industries, such as music, film, tv, photography, journalism, design etc.

Games serve a purpose...to entertain. This is what separates gaming from art and this is why it cannot be called art. 

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to patch the title of Art on something which doesn't entirely fit the idea of art. Art, as i see it, is purely communication of an idea through a medium which stimulates our thoughts and emotions. You could say that video games do this, BUT they are also functional through entertainment. THIS is what sets games apart from ART.selbie

I don't accept the art/entertainment dichotomy for a number of reasons I've explained all over the place, but one of the primary reasons is...

And to those who said architecture is art...you are wrong. Architecture is similar to games where the building serves a PURPOSE for human dwelling. The aesthetic qualities of a building ,if it is truly designed properly, also contributes to this functionality.selbie

... that being "art" doesn't mean something cannot also be functional or entertaining.  Whether an item also has one or more technical functions doesn't disqualify it from art, and neither does the presence of entertainment value.  Historically, most of the works which we consider art today were considered to be crude entertainment when the artists originally created them.

Art is purely aesthetic and does not serve a functional purpose. It is there to be enjoyed and to communicate an idea to other people.selbie

But that's irrelevant unless you can demonstrate that somehow the aesthetic cannot be merged with the technical or utilitarian.  In art it happens often, far more often than not.

It's one thing to say that art is not the same thing as utility, but it's quite another to try to say they cannot coexist -- that they are mutually exclusive.

Maybe we shouldn't be trying to patch the title of Art on something which doesn't entirely fit the idea of art. Art, as i see it, is purely communication of an idea through a medium which stimulates our thoughts and emotions. You could say that video games do this, BUT they are also functional through entertainment. THIS is what sets games apart from ART.

And to those who said architecture is art...you are wrong. Architecture is similar to games where the building serves a PURPOSE for human dwelling. The aesthetic qualities of a building ,if it is truly designed properly, also contributes to this functionality.

Art is purely aesthetic and does not serve a functional purpose. It is there to be enjoyed and to communicate an idea to other people.

What we should be grouping games with is the CREATIVE industries, such as music, film, tv, photography, journalism, design etc.

Games serve a purpose...to entertain. This is what separates gaming from art and this is why it cannot be called art.

selbie

You couldn't be more wrong yourself, my friend. Unless, of course, you don't consider film or opera or - hell - Beethoven - art. In some circles, artwork existed to entertain as well. Think of the commission piece that the buyer paid an artist to paint or sculpt or whatever just so the buyer could hang the painting or stick the bust in his house and admire it. To be entertained by it. To bask in its aesthetic beauty because, hey, the thing looked awesome. That's a purpose. That's a function. Unless, of course, you want to start debating the meaning of purpose and function...

[QUOTE="selbie"]Maybe we shouldn't be trying to patch the title of Art on something which doesn't entirely fit the idea of art. Art, as i see it, is purely communication of an idea through a medium which stimulates our thoughts and emotions. You could say that video games do this, BUT they are also functional through entertainment. THIS is what sets games apart from ART.m0zart

I don't accept the art/entertainment dichotomy for a number of reasons I've explained all over the place, but one of the primary reasons is...

And to those who said architecture is art...you are wrong. Architecture is similar to games where the building serves a PURPOSE for human dwelling. The aesthetic qualities of a building ,if it is truly designed properly, also contributes to this functionality.selbie

... that being "art" doesn't mean something cannot also be functional. Whether an item also has one or more technical functions doesn't disqualify it from art.

Art is purely aesthetic and does not serve a functional purpose. It is there to be enjoyed and to communicate an idea to other people.selbie

But that's irrelevant unless you can point out that somehow the aesthetic cannot be merged with the technical or utilitarian. In art it happens OFTEN, far more often than not.

It's one thing to say that art is not the same thing as utility, but it's quite another to try to say they cannot coexist -- that they are mutually exclusive.

I think I'm not explaining myself properly :P I certainly don't think there are two absolute values of ART and ENTERTAINMENT where neither can coexist. That is why I was trying to emphasise the "creative industry" idea, in that it combines artistic elements with function.

Sure artistic qualities (the qualities of line, tone, colour, texture, form, shape & space) can be found in many things, (even an abandoned factory possesses aesthetic qualities (called "terrain vague")) but this comparison of art and games seems like squeezing a square plug into a round hole. Games are more utilitarian than aesthetic and so there is usually very little to qualify it as "art".

Games use artistic qualities in the visual style of the game but does this make it art? Or is the term "art" being misused? This also brings up things like "fine art" and whether people are confusing "game art" with the traditional view of fine art - a painting or sculpture in a gallery.

I think I'm not explaining myself properly :P I certainly don't think there are two absolute values of ART and ENTERTAINMENT where neither can coexist. That is why I was trying to emphasise the "creative industry" idea, in that it combines artistic elements with function.

selbie

Well all art is like that.  What art doesn't require talent and technical know-how?

Sure artistic qualities (the qualities of line, tone, colour, texture, form, shape & space) can be found in many things, (even an abandoned factory possesses aesthetic qualities (called "terrain vague")) but this comparison of art and games seems like squeezing a square plug into a round hole. Games are more utilitarian than aesthetic and so there is usually very little to qualify it as "art".

selbie

I am not trying to compare video games to art.  I am saying that the essentials needed for art are met by video game development as a medium.  In other words, I am saying that video game development is an artistic medium.  It's also a technical medium, of course, and even an entertainment medium.  Like any artistic medium, the technical is inescapable, and entertainment value is always present to some degree.

Games use artistic qualities in the visual style of the game but does this make it art? Or is the term "art" being misused? This also brings up things like "fine art" and whether people are confusing "game art" with the traditional view of fine art - a painting or sculpture in a gallery.

selbie

The traditional view of art includes much more than just painting and sculptures.  It includes literature, theater, and music as well.  All of those, even those less commonly associated with entertainment, require technical talent.  Film has been included more recently, along with photography.

But it's not just the traditional view of art that we are trying to understand here, because that seems to assume that we add things to the category over time based on popular opinion.  Concepts like art have to have a common meaning, i.e. they have to be made up of a set of essentials that qualify or disqualify.  Video game development is a medium that contains all of the essentials, and thus video game development applies as an artistic medium, and works within the video game development must therefore apply as art.

If someone wants to use the term "art" exclusively for painting or sculpture, I'd like to know the justification for that seemingly arbitrary choice of essentials.  I definitely think "art" is being confused, but not with the mediums in which works are created, but rather, it's being confused with a value judgement.  Art is not a value judgement.  Art is a kind of thing, not a measurement of someone else's obtained value from observance or participation.  It is a communication of metaphysical values over a given medium.  That's all.  Deciding whether something is art is not the same thing as saying that you get value from it.  All of us decide whether a work of art has value for us, and we implicitly decide what value that is.

[QUOTE="selbie"]

I think I'm not explaining myself properly :P I certainly don't think there are two absolute values of ART and ENTERTAINMENT where neither can coexist. That is why I was trying to emphasise the "creative industry" idea, in that it combines artistic elements with function.

m0zart

Well all art is like that. What art doesn't require talent and technical know-how?

Sure artistic qualities (the qualities of line, tone, colour, texture, form, shape & space) can be found in many things, (even an abandoned factory possesses aesthetic qualities (called "terrain vague")) but this comparison of art and games seems like squeezing a square plug into a round hole. Games are more utilitarian than aesthetic and so there is usually very little to qualify it as "art".

selbie

I am not trying to compare video games to art. I am saying that the essentials needed for art are met by video game development as a medium. In other words, I am saying that video game development is an artistic medium. It's also a technical medium, of course, and even an entertainment medium. Like any artistic medium, the technical is inescapable, and entertainment value is always present to some degree.

Games use artistic qualities in the visual style of the game but does this make it art? Or is the term "art" being misused? This also brings up things like "fine art" and whether people are confusing "game art" with the traditional view of fine art - a painting or sculpture in a gallery.

selbie

The traditional view of art includes much more than just painting and sculptures. It includes literature, theater, and music as well. All of those, even those less commonly associated with entertainment, require technical talent. Film has been included more recently, along with photography.

But it's not just the traditional view of art that we are trying to understand here, because that seems to assume that we add things to the category over time based on popular opinion. Concepts like art have to have a common meaning, i.e. they have to be made up of a set of essentials that qualify or disqualify. Video game development is a medium that contains all of the essentials, and thus video game development applies as an artistic medium, and works within the video game development must therefore apply as art.

If someone wants to use the term "art" exclusively for painting or sculpture, I'd like to know the justification for that seemingly arbitrary choice of essentials. I definitely think "art" is being confused, but not with the mediums in which works are created, but rather, it's being confused with a value judgement. Art is not a value judgement. Art is a kind of thing, not a measurement of someone else's obtained value from observance or participation. It is a communication of metaphysical values over a given medium. That's all. Deciding whether something is art is not the same thing as saying that you get value from it. All of us decide whether a work of art has value for us, and we implicitly decide what value that is.

After reading this, I think I'm more of an elitist that I previously imagined :P