TELL THIS TO YOUR TEACHER SERIOUSLY ... also note that he has to stop thinking that video games are nothing more than a way to fish in youngkids looking for dumb fun, let him know that video game consumer standards have greatly risen since pac-man thanks to games that provoke emotion and moral-driven choices, show him something with a story, something that looks like it was made for more than button-timing to colors on a screenOk, I was thinking about this topic at work all day today. There were a few things said last night that I didn't fully respond to before I had to hit the sack. So here it goes, round two. I'm not talking about art IN video games, I think we all agree that games contain art, in the forms of visual art, musical art and often narrative art (the story). I'm talking about video games AS art, as in the game is a piece of art in and of itself, as more than just the sum of its artistic components.
The argument was presented that video games cannot be considered a medium of art, because not all games are art.
Art is any expressive medium that is used to evoke emotion or thought in its audience. I agree, not all games fit that bill. I don't think sports games are art, anymore than I think watching sports on TV is art. I also wouldn't call most puzzle games art (while they may require you to think on a problem solving level, I don't think of that as thought-provoking in the way that art is.My arguement would be that just because something is a medium for art, doesn't mean that everything that uses that medium is art. That does not disqualify the medium. Books are accepted as art. A math text book is not art. Both are bound pages with writing on them. A print of a famous painting is art, a bar graph showing sales figures is not art. Both are pieces of paper with colors and lines. A movie is art, a news report isn't. Both are recorded images and sounds played back over your television set. The difference is in the intent in which the creator is using the medium. If the author, or painter, or director, or game developer intend for their creation to inspire thought or bring out emotions or express an idea on the human condition or psyche, then it is art.
Another point that was made is that if you take the artistic elements (the graphics, the music, the story) out of a game, it is still a game, but not art, so therefore the game itself is not art. The game developers use a combination of story, gameplay, music, and graphics to give the player a certain experience. Removing some of these may leave you with a game that is playable, but you are not getting the experience that the developer intended. If you take the story out of a FF game, it may still be a game, but it is not the same one. The story is part of the game. The story by itself, with no gameplay would likewise be a very different experience. It is only when the game is played as intended by its creators that you get the full range of thoughts and emotions that they intended for you, and therefore the game itself, as a whole, is a work of art.
I have more to say on the subject, but this is getting lengthy, and I have homework I need to be doing (I'm majoring in game development and programming. Or, as I like to say, I'm an artist in training), so I'll leve it at this for now.
ianuilliam
p0op's forum posts
Log in to comment