Support NeoGAF

[ViolentP]

i'm not testy, i just find your perspective narrow and limiting. understanding what "is" and "isn't" art to me isn't really that difficult, but it has nothing to do with my own personal, subjective, feelings about the thing.

and yes, you're right, a man screaming obscenities out of a car window CAN be viewed as art. the possibility exists.

As my experiences have taught me, it can and does exist. Which is why I said when everything is art, nothing is.

My perceptions of art are just that, my own. They don't make me narrow-minded, they make me selective. If based on my opinions I shat on opposing opinions, you'd have an argument. But frankly, one man won't change my perspective and more importantly, he'd have no reason to.

 

[BLunted]

Never was art.

Was about to say, can't lose your status if you never had it.

 

[Wensih]

Not all games are art I think, but no doubt some of them are, for me at least. The medium itself as an artform is very young and not taken seriously yet, but I think there's a lot of potential.

All games are art, including annualized franchises and freemium games; a coke bottle is art.

 

[Edwards_Omatic]

Never was art.

Yeah I kind of agree with this.
I reckon the best definition of art is... if something was created with the intent of being art, it's art.

So while games are certainly artistic, they're not exactly art.

 

[15strong]

Exit through the gift shop is a documentary that explores the commercialization of the art industry. It focuses on how graffiti has become high art and shows ways in which the monetary value influences artistic value, and not the other way around.

I don't know if anyone here can elaborate on that concept but it does seem to parallel what the op is talking about. I don't think it's exclusive to games, I think it effects all art.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

To all the people saying that games are not art: Do you believe that the work that goes into games from the more traditional art forms are not art because they are made for a game? For example, concept art, music, animation, or cutscenes. On their own, all of these aspects of a game would traditionally be labeled art. Why are they no longer art once they are part of a game?

 

[Dangansona]

I think you have three really big discussion coalescing into this very large question of whether electronic interactive systems are a good medium for expression. The three points that I see in your original topic are:

1. The Purpose and Meaning of Commercial Art
2. Finality of Art
3. Physicality of Art

All good topics and extremely interesting, but I think it's hard to have a discussions of all three at once.

Which would you like to talk about first?

Haha that's the problem, if this was an essay I didn't have the time to tie my points to a thesis. I was mostly wondering how the change in those three points (and others I couldn't think of at the moment) are influencing people who already believed games were art. I really didn't mean for the other posts about are games art, but I guess that's inevitable.

Unfortunately I'm about to lose wifi for awhile, but let's say the first point and how the commercial aspect of video games might be dampening the artistic expression that lies within them.

 

[ViolentP]

To all the people saying that games are not art: Do you believe that the work that goes into games from the more traditional art forms are not art because they are made for a game? For example, concept art, music, animation, or cutscenes. On their own, all of these aspects of a game would traditionally be labeled art. Why are they no longer art once they are part of a game?

Being in a game doesn't take away it's status. Just as being in a game doesn't grant it either.

 

[Wensih]

Exit through the gift shop is a documentary that explores the commercialization of the art industry. It focuses on how graffiti has become high art and shows ways in which the monetary value influences artistic value, and not the other way around.

I don't know if anyone here can elaborate on that concept but it does seem to parallel what the op is talking about. I don't think it's exclusive to games, I think it effects all art.

Of course it's not exclusive to games, here's a really good example:

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Being in a game doesn't take away it's status. Just as being in a game doesn't grant it either.

Alright, but why would a medium like video games, that have a combination of all of these various other art forms, not be considered art? If the game is utilizing all of these art forms together in a new and unique way in order to tell a message or convey a certain theme or emotion, why is a combination of all of these art forms towards a similar goal suddenly not art?

 

[Scipio]

Ugh, semantic discussions.

I have read shallow books, saw shallow movies and played shallow games.
I have read intriguing books, saw intriguing movies and played intriguing games.

'Art' is an empty word. As if books aren't read for enjoyment or people don't enjoy visiting a museum.

 

[Ivory Samoan]

Look to indies. Transistor, Ori and the Blind Forest, Journey. The art is still there, it's just separate from the summer blockbusters.

I consider The Witcher 3 to be a fine piece of art, also a blockbuster: the two can co-exist in my opinion.

I personally feel the latest games offer more freedom of expression through more advanced tech, therefore making it easier for me to see artistic expression in my gaming.

 

[dickroach]

wait till GTA6 comes out. it'll be art again

 

[ZOONAMI]

I don't think they've ever truly been established as art. They haven't reached even the status of film as art for example. I don't think this is right, but I don't think the mainstream has ever really embraced games as art.

 

[ViolentP]

Alright, but why would a medium like video games, that have a combination of all of these various other art forms, not be considered art? If the game is utilizing all of these art forms together in a new and unique way in order to tell a message or convey a certain theme or emotion, why is a combination of all of these art forms towards a similar goal suddenly not art?

I'm not saying it's not art, but a product is not always better because you mashed great things together. I'm fairly certain that macaroni pizza isn't that good.

But to answer your question, I think it's relative to what a person considers art. What is moving to one is garbage to another. That is what makes art great in my opinion.

 

[modernmalady]

Nah, it's never gonna lose it regardless of how bad things get. Mostly cause I believe it always had it and there is no person or group that can take it away.

At the same time calling something Art isn't high praise at all imo, which is why I've always disliked the "are video games Art" debate.

but these are just my opinions.

 

[RM8]

Video games are focus tested commercial software, really. You can love games and accept this. Series and even entire genres cease existing as soon as they're not massively profitable.

 

[15strong]

Was about to say, can't lose your status if you never had it.

As if thousands, maybe tens of thousands, of years ago when people first started drawing, writing, masking music, it was already art. It became art over time. That's a stupid argument.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I'm not saying it's not art, but a product is not always better because you mashed great things together. I'm fairly certain that macaroni pizza isn't that good.

But to answer your question, I think it's relative to what a person considers art. What is moving to one is garbage to another. That is what makes art great in my opinion.

You did directly say that games were not art, that's literally what we are discussing. Also saying something is art is not a statement of its quality necessarily, as that is completely subjective. Whether or not you think something is garbage is independent of whether or not it is art.

 

[Scipio]

Yeah I kind of agree with this.
I reckon the best definition of art is... if something was created with the intent of being art, it's art.

So while games are certainly artistic, they're not exactly art.

Don't agree, neither your definition nor your conclusion makes sense:
1. There are tons of video games developers that call their creations art.
2. Some types of music (e.g. a lot of baroque music) is considered a high form art nowadays, but was considered background noise by their composers themselves.
3. What with pieces of art where you can't find the intention of the artist, because he's dead or he doesn't want to say it?
4. If I say that this post is an art form, does that make it art?

'Art' is simply a word, unfit to bear every single meaning we use it for to describe human work.

 

[Wensih]

Video games are focus tested commercial software, really. You can love games and accept this. Series and even entire genres cease existing as soon as they're not massively profitable.

My argument would be that focus tested commercial software is still art.

I will expand on this point in the future. I want to collect some examples and form a cohesive thought on the value, meaning, and praise of commercial art.

I think Dangansona's three topics that I highlighted a few posts ago are worth diving into and something I've thought quite a while about whenever the discussion of artistic mediums comes up.

 

[Zornack]

This is like pointing at White Chicks (which for the record I believe is art) and saying that film as art is dead.

 

[ViolentP]

You did directly say that games were not art, that's literally what we are discussing. Also saying something is art is not a statement of its quality necessarily, as that is completely subjective. Whether or not you think something is garbage is independent of whether or not it is art.

Games are not art. That implies that videogames by definition are art. I also said that there are examples of artistic games. Calling games art means that both Journey and Duke Nukem Forever are pieces of art. I don't agree with that for my own personal reasons. I find Journey to be very artistic where a modicum of artistic integrity cannot be found in Duke Nukem.

Get what I mean?

 

[Freeman]

Ugh, semantic discussions.

I have read shallow books, saw shallow movies and played shallow games.
I have read intriguing books, saw intriguing movies and played intriguing games.

'Art' is an empty word. As if books aren't read for enjoyment or people don't enjoy visiting a museum.

This.

 

[15strong]

Games are not art. That implies that videogames by definition are art. I also said that there are examples of artistic games. Calling games art means that both Journey and Duke Nukem Forever are pieces of art. I don't agree with that for my own personal reasons. I find Journey to be very artistic where a modicum of artistic integrity cannot be found in Duke Nukem.

Get what I mean?

It seems to me like you aren't defining art, but what you consider high art. I think most people who want discount games as an art form, are talking about its status of being high art.

 

[Bankastuba]

Games are still a suitable venue for artistic expression, but there are fewer and fewer artists in this industry, because there are fewer and fewer consumers of art in this industry.

Publishers measure success by sales figures and long term profitability.
Developers want their paychecks and to keep their jobs.

People buy COD.

 

[CoyoteSpitfire]

Games are not art. That implies that videogames by definition are art. I also said that there are examples of artistic games. Calling games art means that both Journey and Duke Nukem Forever are pieces of art. I don't agree with that for my own personal reasons. I find Journey to be very artistic where a modicum of artistic integrity cannot be found in Duke Nukem.

Get what I mean?

So, movies also don't count as art because Transformers 2 exists?

Does music not count because Justin Bieber makes it?

Are drawings disqualified because I tried it once and was really bad at it?

 

[ViolentP]

It seems to me like you aren't defining art, but what you consider high art. I think most people who want discount games as an art form, are talking about its status of being high art.

You're absolutely right in me not defining art. A man should feel art regardless of what medium it comes in. Sometimes you see or hear or taste something that makes you think damn, we as a species are capable. That's what art means to me.

I also know that this is my definition of art and I'm ok with it. I'm certainly not trying to sell it to anyone. I just know how I feel.

So, movies also don't count as art because Transformers 2 exists?

Does music not count because Justin Bieber makes it?

Are drawings disqualified because I tried it once and was really bad at it?

You're not reading my posts. You are assuming that I believe art is black and white. Either a medium is art or it isn't. I am in fact breaking things down further before I use the term. So I cannot answer your three examples.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

No.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

Games are not art. That implies that videogames by definition are art. I also said that there are examples of artistic games. Calling games art means that both Journey and Duke Nukem Forever are pieces of art. I don't agree with that for my own personal reasons. I find Journey to be very artistic where a modicum of artistic integrity cannot be found in Duke Nukem.

Get what I mean?

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. Duke Nukem Forever is art. It is a failure, it's poor, it's unfinished and a complete mess. It's a poor attempt at art, but it is still art. Just because something is bad does not prevent it from being art. When a child draws a picture, and their drawing skills are poor, they are still engaged in the process of art. What they create is art, even if it is not high quality.

 

[ViolentP]

I understand what you are saying, but I disagree. Duke Nukem Forever is art. It is a failure, it's poor, it's unfinished and a complete mess. It's a poor attempt at art, but it is still art. Just because something is bad does not prevent it from being art. When a child draws a picture, and their drawing skills are poor, they are still engaged in the process of art. What they create is art, even if it is not high quality.

And I respect your decision. I see things very differently but if there is something that humanity can benefit from is the existence of differing perspectives. If you and I were looking at a painting that I was absolutely moved by, I would have nothing to learn by you telling me how much it has moved you as well. You tell me a hundred reasons why you hate it and suddenly I'm learning something.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

Please, Ueda, save us from this madness!

 

[Calvero]

Hasn't it been the opposite? More and more people are starting to see video games as a viable art medium.

 

[hal9001]

Art is anything that provokes a emotional response.

 

[Wensih]

Art is anything that provokes a emotional response.

Tolstoy would disagree.

EDIT: He would agree that art is based in "infecting" others with an emotional response, but not all forms of provoking an emotional response is art. He would argue that "If a man infects another or others directly, immediately, by his appearance or by the sounds he gives vent to at the very time he experiences the feeling; if he causes another man to yawn when he himself cannot help yawning, or to laugh or cry when he himself is obliged to laugh or cry, or to suffer when he himself is suffering — that does not amount to art."

 

[Outrun]

Like music, you have manufactured videogames for mass consumption, and them you have more profound pieces...

Videogames can be art, but not all videogames are art....

 

[conman]

There are a lot more different kinds of games than ever before. From big-budget crowd-pleasers to high-concept art pieces and everything in-between.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

And I respect your decision. I see things very differently but if there is something that humanity can benefit from is the existence of differing perspectives. If you and I were looking at a painting that I was absolutely moved by, I would have nothing to learn by you telling me how much it has moved you as well. You tell me a hundred reasons why you hate it and suddenly I'm learning something.

I totally agree with the spirit of what you just said, and that's why I believe all games should be considered art. When something is considered art it means that there is value in looking deeper at it and examining it, regardless of whether or not the end result is positive or negative. I believe we can learn from games, both the good ones and the bad ones. I also feel that if games are not considered art, they will continued to be ignored. So I believe games are art because I believe they deserve to be evaluated. Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I do see where you are coming from.

 

[FoxSpirit]

Of course games are art. Respectively, one of the most abstract artforms we know. While not as cryptic as some of the picture and video avantgarde, to understand a game it has to be played. To judge it's merit you have to get your hands in. Or feet.

Heck, even soccer can be art. Looking at good plays, it touches something inside of you. Gives you a sense of wonder and fascination. If you understand soccer. So it's very avantgarde.

The art of gameplay.

Also see: Homo Ludens

 

[CoyoteSpitfire]

You're not reading my posts. You are assuming that I believe art is black and white. Either a medium is art or it isn't. I am in fact breaking things down further before I use the term. So I cannot answer your three examples.

When you make statements like "Games are not art", it implies a black-and-white stance on the issue.

 

[JordanN]

Video games are focus tested commercial software, really. You can love games and accept this. Series and even entire genres cease existing as soon as they're not massively profitable.

This applies to anything.

An artist can't keep painting pictures if he can't afford to feed him/herself. There's literally even a term called "the starving artist". Someone who makes art even if it kills them.

 

[MrDoctor]

Why can't they both?

Why does it have to be a never-changing product to be art?

There's performance art. Concerts. Plays. Musicals. Opera. The monks that shape colored rice grains into complex patterns before intentionally destroying it.

I think the obsession with finished products you can "collect" is unhealthy. Gaming is an experience. It's something you participate it. That's how it differs from other mediums. It's not something you hang on a wall and stare at for 500 years.

Because both the industry and general public at large view games as products to be disposed of once consumed. Last year's big shootbang will be traded in and forgotten with the release of this year's big shootbang with a larger number on the box. Are old televisions art? Are people going to preserve their leftover Domino's? Movies, however, will still play 2001 in theaters. You can find Shakespeare at any bookstore.

 

[Zoggy]

they stopped being art when doax volleyball 3 was announced for japan only

 

[ViolentP]

I totally agree with the spirit of what you just said, and that's why I believe all games should be considered art. When something is considered art it means that there is value in looking deeper at it and examining it, regardless of whether or not the end result is positive or negative. I believe we can learn from games, both the good ones and the bad ones. I also feel that if games are not considered art, they will continued to be ignored. So I believe games are art because I believe they deserve to be evaluated. Again, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, and I do see where you are coming from.

I respect your opinion of games as art, and I hope it evolves into what you hope it will. What I've really learned here today however, is how you see art. So thanks for that.

When you make statements like "Games are not art", it implies a black-and-white stance on the issue.

A little bit of reading would have enlightened you into how I really see the situation. Holding onto an out of context statement, I'm not surprised you disagree with me.

 

[Little Mons†er]

Art is designed to be beautiful

Games are designed to be fun

 

[Wensih]

Because both the industry and general public at large view games as products to be disposed of once consumed. Last year's big shootbang will be traded in and forgotten with the release of this year's big shootbang with a larger number on the box. Are old televisions art? Are people going to preserve their leftover Domino's? Movies, however, will still play 2001 in theaters. You can find Shakespeare at any bookstore.

There's a dedicated section to old televisions in the MOMA, and I would argue yes.

 

[Lord of Ostia]

I respect your opinion of games as art, and I hope it evolves into what you hope it will. What I've really learned here today however, is how you see art. So thanks for that.



A little bit of reading would have enlightened you into how I really see the situation. Holding onto an out of context statement, I'm not surprised you disagree with me.

Thank you. Honestly I hope games develop to the point where you can see them as art as well. I really want games to be appreciated as more than just disposable products, as to me they are so much more. I appreciate the discussion.

 

[-Horizon-]

they stopped being art when doax volleyball 3 was announced for japan only

DOAX3 is the pinnacle of gaming AND art.

Michelangelo and the Journey team wishes they could have made something even close to the majesty of what Team Ninja has put out.

Its a shame the rest of the world can't experience it.

 

[ViolentP]

Thank you. Honestly I hope games develop to the point where you can see them as art as well. I really want games to be appreciated as more than just disposable products, as to me they are so much more. I appreciate the discussion.

Likewise.

 

[MrDoctor]

There's a dedicated section to old televisions in the MOMA, and I would argue yes.

Maybe not the best example, but you probably understand what I meant.