Why aren't video games an art?

The definition of art has taken different forms over the history of mankind

The game developer is merely the artist and video games are the medium he chooses to express himself within. Gaming is a new type of art, an art in which you can manipulate and make it what you want it to be.

Art is just something underachievers like to call things they spent their preoccupied time on, and want to feel special by comparing themselves to Di Vinci, and pretty much any man from the renaissance era.

It's a form of commercial art. It's not fine art.

They're low-art like billboard ads or comic books.

Art is just something underachievers like to call things they spent their preoccupied time on, and want to feel special by comparing themselves to Di Vinci, and pretty much any man from the renaissance era.

Fightingfan

Art is just something underachievers like to call things they spent their preoccupied time on, and want to feel special by comparing themselves to Di Vinci, and pretty much any man from the renaissance era.

Fightingfan

The definition of art has taken different forms over the history of mankindSaintWalrus

True, but that doesn't mean that art is whatever you want it to be.

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]The definition of art has taken different forms over the history of mankindDraugenCP

True, but that doesn't mean that art is whatever you want it to be.

Art is just something underachievers like to call things they spent their preoccupied time on, and want to feel special by comparing themselves to Di Vinci, and pretty much any man from the renaissance era.

Fightingfan

They're not art but they're something that rhymes with art. That smells bad.

Some does call games art.

The problem I have with games being called art is that some use it as a reason they do not need to change bad parts of games.

that's actually a very good question and I typed up an approximately 6 and a third page report on the importance of gaming as a narrative and artistic medium for school. I tried posting on here as a blog, but I exceeded the character limit by over 400, so here are two links to two different gaming sites to check if you want to know my thoughts on the matter.(ign post has pictures, gametrailers post does not) Please do comment on the posts if you have something to say about it.

http://www.ign.com/blogs/highwaysonyfan87

http://www.gametrailers.com/users/FmeDry69/gamepad/?action=viewblog&id=582351

Video games can be art... and I don't mean just pretty graphics. I mean having a deeper meaning or being affecting to the soul in some way.

Most choose not to be. Not that that's a bad thing...

Art is just something underachievers like to call things they spent their preoccupied time on, and want to feel special by comparing themselves to Di Vinci, and pretty much any man from the renaissance era.

Fightingfan

This topic again? Really? Ugh...

This topic again? Really? Ugh...

c_rake

What's your opinion on it?SaintWalrus

That everyone should stop questioning it if they believe games to be art. Seriously -- the medium ain't getting any closer to being universally appreciated in that way at this rate. Best find other, more productive ways to propagate their artistic merit.

[QUOTE="SaintWalrus"]What's your opinion on it?c_rake

That everyone should stop questioning it if they believe games to be art. Seriously -- the medium ain't getting any closer to being universally appreciated in that way at this rate. Best find other, more productive ways to propagate their artistic merit.

While what you said is true I think it's a shame... I think video games have more potential than movies and books to be art.

Before being art games should be entertainment.

*Facepalm* So much wrong with this, don't know where to start. So I'll say nothing.SaintWalrus

Don't try to patronise me. The discussion on what the concept of art embodies is a very difficult one, but the general trend among gamers seems to be that the controversy surrounding the term allows them to define it as they see fit, which is what I was getting at.

Because some annoying snobs who think they know everything say it isn't?

A lot of gamers will not give games any credit as being art but the fact of the matter is some games truly are Art. They are a culmination of many things known as art all put together in the same pot.

The music made for these games is art, the textures, character models, etc, all of that is 100 percent art. The writing, the characters, the story, all of that is art as well. Put it all together & then craft a journey from beginning to end & you have.... Art. Playable, moving art but Art none the less.

Its many pieces of art coming together to create an artistic crafted, very human, experience.

It's a form of commercial art. It's not fine art.Pirate700

And when Movies came out, there were are a lot of Nay sayers as well(towards it being art, that is), i think Games are at the same stage, it took a while for Movies to be called art too.

I'm confused; how exactly will the gaming industry benefit from it being called an art? More importantly, how do you expect it be treated as such when its consumer base is largely made of up of people who don't even view it in that sense?

Everything is art. I'm not even kidding: look at your table, your monitor, your mouse, the printer, that pen-holder -- they're all designed by someone. They may be bland, or a common design for that object, but at some point someone thought: how can I conceive this object?

What I think people argue is the relative lack of.. kind of hard to put it this way, but I will regardless, 'quality' art in the video game media. Whenever someone questions video games as an art-form, I show them the likes of Okami. If they're still not convinced, just present them the broad definition of art:

'Artis a term that describes a diverse range of human activities and the products of those activities, but is most often understood to refer topainting,film,photography,sculpture, and other visual media.Music,theatre,dance,literature, andinteractive mediaare included in a broader definition of art orthe arts.'

Interactive media. If video games aren't interactive media, I don't know what they are.

Penny Arcade summarized it nicely a few years ago.

Video games are made by hundreds of artists who get together and create art for a few years. Why would the result not be art?

There's no reason to let other people define what is and is not art to you. They don't posses any special qualifications to judge - just a large and fragile ego.

I'm confused; how exactly will the gaming industry benefit from it being called an art? More importantly, how do you expect it be treated as such when its consumer base is largely made of up of people who don't even view it in that sense?MadVybz

It's just a perception thing. Having them accepted as an art form would, in theory, help them be further accepted as a whole, so everyone keeps making a big stink about this.

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]I'm confused; how exactly will the gaming industry benefit from it being called an art? More importantly, how do you expect it be treated as such when its consumer base is largely made of up of people who don't even view it in that sense?c_rake

It's just a perception thing. Having them accepted as an art form would, in theory, help them be further accepted as a whole, so everyone keeps making a big stink about this.

The gaming industry generates more annual revenue than the movie and TV industries combined. I think it's safe to say it's accepted. :| Besides, I just don't think it makes much sense for it be called art when games are primarily toys.

So are Legos but if you build a recreation of the Statue of Liberty, I'm pretty sure you can consider it art.

So are Legos but if you build a recreation of the Statue of Liberty, I'm pretty sure you can consider it art.

Yusuke420

Which leads me back to my original question; how does a toy benefit from being considered a potential art form? It's not as if a plethora of people are gonna start demanding Legos (or in our case, games) just because it's considered art. Nor is it even going to change how the consumer base acts. If anything, it'll only give gamers an ego boost and feed even more childish outlooks both within gaming and outside of the medium.

Which leads me back to my original question; how does a toy benefit from being considered a potential art form? It's not as if a plethora of people are gonna start demanding Legos (or in our case, games) just because it's considered art. Nor is it even going to change how the consumer base acts. If anything, it'll only give gamers an ego boost and feed even more childish outlooks both within gaming and outside of the medium.MadVybz

Games are toys as much as television and books are. They're as much a legitimate form of entertainment as they are. The "art" label would only reinforce that, hence the movement to get the medium recognized as such. Brushing them off as mere toys only devalues the progress they've made.

Art is just something underachievers like to call things they spent their preoccupied time on, and want to feel special by comparing themselves to Di Vinci, and pretty much any man from the renaissance era.

Fightingfan

Epic fail.

Has potential to turn into a clusterf*uck, so I'll refrain.

Btw, the dude is called da Vinci.

Because some annoying snobs who think they know everything say it isn't?

Bigboi500

Roger Ebert had it right a few years ago. Somewhat predictably, the gaming community got their panties all in a bunch

and started huffing and puffing. Was fun to watch these fools desperately trying to come up with examples of games that are

art. They failed. Miserably.

More importantly, who cares whether games are art or not? Games are supposed to be fun, entertaining. A diversion.

That's the core principle of a game.

Problem is, you got pencilneck academics like Bogost, Abbott, and others fall in line with this "games can be art" nonsense.

Now, I understand the dilemma these academics are in: their students can't read, won't write, etc. Shove a game in front of them and

argue that it merits a "serious academic discussion" and maybe they'll wake up long enough to actually take a few notes.

Seriously, a game is a game. Play it. Have fun.

Huizinga in 1938 already said it all. See his Homo ludens".

OMG!!!!

This.isn't.even.an.arguement!!!

They ARE art!!!

The programmers make the graphics,ART.

The composers make the music,ART.

>_>

The definition of art has taken different forms over the history of mankind

The game developer is merely the artist and video games are the medium he chooses to express himself within. Gaming is a new type of art, an art in which you can manipulate and make it what you want it to be.

SaintWalrus

Because its mass-produced like most movies are just entertainment, its the same with tv-shows and some books.

Art is more then what videogames are but its getting closer and if more games like Heavy Rain and La Noire comes out we might some day get the officel art stamp.

They are. They win awards for the visual art as well as the music.

[QUOTE="MadVybz"]Which leads me back to my original question; how does a toy benefit from being considered a potential art form? It's not as if a plethora of people are gonna start demanding Legos (or in our case, games) just because it's considered art. Nor is it even going to change how the consumer base acts. If anything, it'll only give gamers an ego boost and feed even more childish outlooks both within gaming and outside of the medium.c_rake

Games are toys as much as television and books are. They're as much a legitimate form of entertainment as they are. The "art" label would only reinforce that, hence the movement to get the medium recognized as such. Brushing them off as mere toys only devalues the progress they've made.

While I'm not disputing the artistic capability of games (since there are plenty of examples) I think the main issue is the demographic that games cater to, and the most popular titles. Gamers are demanding respect from the media and to call gaming and 'art form' but all we see are CoDs, Gears and Halos from the violent spectrum and Mario from the kiddie spectrum. To be completely honest if I weren't a gamer and didn't have a clue about the industry I wouldn't call games art either, since they appear to cater mostly to juveniles. So I think the main problem here is how the gaming industry presents itself rather than whether or not games actually are art.

Call of Duty, Gears of War and Halo are all rated "M". Explain how that caters to juveniles when they shouldn't be allowed to play to begin with? Also All three of the games feature breath-taking environments that could very well be painted as glorious landscapes. Can we PLEASE not bring anti-shooter bias into this discussion because it makes you just as snobbish as anyone that debases the entire medium as "for kids".

Call of Duty, Gears of War and Halo are all rated "M". Explain how that caters to juveniles when they shouldn't be allowed to play to begin with? Also All three of the games feature breath-taking environments that could very well be painted as glorious landscapes. Can we PLEASE not bring anti-shooter bias into this discussion because it makes you just as snobbish as anyone that debases the entire medium as "for kids".

Yusuke420

You're misinterpreting my entire post, so I suggest you slow your roll before this turns into an exhange of insults.

Firstly, explain to me how violence, especially exaggerated violence in video games, isn't seen as juvenile. Kids and teenagers are fascinated by Halo, Call of Duty and Gears of War. I wasn't debating that gaming is for kids, I was stating that it appears to be for kids. I was also presenting a view-point that a non-gamer would come to, since they are the games that spring up the most controversy (being that kids should not be exposed these things and they're ruining their psyche), and to contrast, Mario is the poster-boy for kid-friendly games. It also has aboslutely nothing to do with an anti-shooter bias. How the hell did you even come to that conclusion?

While I'm not disputing the artistic capability of games (since there are plenty of examples) I think the main issue is the demographic that games cater to, and the most popular titles. Gamers are demanding respect from the media and to call gaming and 'art form' but all we see are CoDs, Gears and Halos from the violent spectrum and Mario from the kiddie spectrum. To be completely honest if I weren't a gamer and didn't have a clue about the industry I wouldn't call games art either, since they appear to cater mostly to juveniles. So I think the main problem here is how the gaming industry presents itself rather than whether or not games actually are art.MadVybz

Oh, no doubt. I'd refute the claims, too, were I not into games.

The industry's just focused on entertainment first, since that's what sells to the mass market. Business always comes before all else. That's why the indie scene is the only area regularly publishing artsy stuff. It's the same with movies, I'd imagine. People are more inclined to watch a big, action-filled blockbuster than something abstract, so studios produce the former more than the latter. Someone who never watched a movie would likely refute its claims of artistry as well, were they looking solely at the mainstream.

Doesn't help either that most games that do try something different are either too heavy-handed about it (e.g. Flower; that game was practically screaming its aspirations to be an art game) or are too small a game to be noticed. But that's another problem entirely.

Oh, no doubt. I'd refute the claims, too, were I not into games.

The industry's just focused on entertainment first, since that's what sells to the mass market. Business always comes before all else. That's why the indie scene is the only area regularly publishing artsy stuff. It's the same with movies, I'd imagine. People are more inclined to watch a big, action-filled blockbuster than something abstract, so studios produce the former more than the latter. Someone who never watched a movie would likely refute its claims of artistry as well, were they looking solely at the mainstream.

Doesn't help either that most games that do try something different are either too heavy-handed about it (e.g. Flower; that game was practically screaming its aspirations to be an art game) or are too small a game to be noticed. But that's another problem entirely.

c_rake

And then again the simple fact that art and artists are so fickle it'd be difficult to really say how games are art.

For instance I'd say that games like Prince of Persia 2008, Journey, and The Dishwasher (to name a few) have artistic value yet like the previous poster would suggest, landscapes and environments made in shooters and sci-fi games could be art as well.

It's this reason mixed wiith other things that make me prefer gaming and gamers to leave the whole 'gaming is an art form' thing alone because at any rate, our current situation isn't helping it reach that status in the media.

And then again the simple fact that art and artists are so fickle it'd be difficult to really say how games are art.

For instance I'd say that games like Prince of Persia 2008, Journey, and The Dishwasher (to name a few) have artistic value yet like the previous poster would suggest, landscapes and environments made in shooters and sci-fi games could be art as well.

It's this reason mixed wiith other things that make me prefer gaming and gamers to leave the whole 'gaming is an art form' thing alone because at any rate, our current situation isn't helping it reach that status in the media.

MadVybz

Agreed.

It should be left to industry itself to gain that title. If they want it, they'll work for it. Otherwise, well... yeah.