-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Are video games slipping away from their status as art?
- Thread starter Dangansona
- Start date
This painting Voice of Fire sold for $1.8 million dollars to the National Gallery of Canada
So yes, video games are art and won't stop being art
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire
So yes, video games are art and won't stop being art
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voice_of_Fire
Edwards_Omatic
Member
1. Yeah if they see their game as art first and foremost, and entertainment second or whatever, then sure those games are art... not sure you'll be able to find many of those games though.
2. Same as above ^^
3. ... what?
4. If you see your post as art, and posted it with the intention of it being art, then sure.
Nintendo games are not art, as they're designed for educational purposes for children. It may be art in the sense that the game contains many colours ( which children need to help develop their brain) but there isn't any greater meaning to Nintendo games apart from making children smile.
As i always say before deciding if games are art we should agree on the definition of art first and then seeing if games can fit it...
...But who decides what is art(in general)? Those who can gain money from art? Sorry but i don't trust those who can gain something depending on what they say.
Personally i think that art has to have something that elevates it from the rest: beauty, sensibility, execution, message or something else, games can be art and imo there are more "artsy" games now than ever.
...But who decides what is art(in general)? Those who can gain money from art? Sorry but i don't trust those who can gain something depending on what they say.
Personally i think that art has to have something that elevates it from the rest: beauty, sensibility, execution, message or something else, games can be art and imo there are more "artsy" games now than ever.
Typically I'd ask of a person to define what art is not, since it's difficult to say what art "is" without being really vague or unhelpful with definitions.
Once you know what art isn't for a person, it's easier to start a dialogue if there's any to be had. If people categorically believe that videogames are NOT art, then there's no real conversation to be had to begin with.
edit: I suppose it's worth noting that I've met people who categorically consider music to not be artistic. Or written works, etc.
Once you know what art isn't for a person, it's easier to start a dialogue if there's any to be had. If people categorically believe that videogames are NOT art, then there's no real conversation to be had to begin with.
edit: I suppose it's worth noting that I've met people who categorically consider music to not be artistic. Or written works, etc.
Auto-Reply
Member
I think so, yes. The end-result can still be seen as art, but it's mostly a shallow form of art that has the smell of calculated business on it. Those two things don't go very well together imo.
Like a painter that panders to an audience despite his own intentions, creates art for the sake of reaching a wide audience and making money and is very open about this to the public and is still succeeding with it.
Good for him and he has talent... not what art should be in my opinion though.
But my view on art is the expression of an individual, when introducing more and more people to the creation process and making everything dependand on financial success of said art compromises that to some degree.
That's why I see multiplayer only games as the lowest form of art regarding videogames.
Like a painter that panders to an audience despite his own intentions, creates art for the sake of reaching a wide audience and making money and is very open about this to the public and is still succeeding with it.
Good for him and he has talent... not what art should be in my opinion though.
But my view on art is the expression of an individual, when introducing more and more people to the creation process and making everything dependand on financial success of said art compromises that to some degree.
That's why I see multiplayer only games as the lowest form of art regarding videogames.
Simbabbad
Member
A domain doesn't "slip away" from its status as art, it's either art or it isn't. Art is just a definition describing some sort of human activity, and it says nothing about quality or monetisation. Pulp novels didn't make literature "slip away" from its status as art, and art has always been monetised, the greatest art pieces in history were requests from rich people, De Vinci or Michelangelo were both doing art for money.
Also, art certainly isn't some romantic or "deep" pose you're supposed to ape to look "arty". If games are art, then Pac-Man is as much art as Shadow of the Colossus, and games are as much art now as they ever were.
If games are art, they're art for their own characteristics and not only when they ape other arts, so if games are art, it's because gameplay is some form of artistic expression, which I certainly think it is.
Also, art certainly isn't some romantic or "deep" pose you're supposed to ape to look "arty". If games are art, then Pac-Man is as much art as Shadow of the Colossus, and games are as much art now as they ever were.
If games are art, they're art for their own characteristics and not only when they ape other arts, so if games are art, it's because gameplay is some form of artistic expression, which I certainly think it is.
As much as cinema stopped being art when Wild Wild West released, or any other Hollywood movie.
I'd argue that there is no such thing as shallow art. Art created from business calculations might even be the highest form of art: a collaboration crated by millions of people indirectly without their knowledge.
GrotesqueBeauty
Banned
Yup. They're as basic and remedial as joke posters, and similarly useful in teaching the juniors. Not good for much else, unless you believe a "smile" has some inherent value (it doesn't).
CoyoteSpitfire
Member
I think I understand your position well enough. You don't think that being a product of creativity alone qualifies something as art. For you, art is something that resonates with you personally. If I'm wrong about either of those points, please do elaborate.
Auto-Reply
Member
I think it's only the most popular form of art, but certainly not the one I respect the most.
nuh uh man god of war has you tearing guy's heads off and boobies. it's not all nintendo anymore. jump into the modern era with a sony console and see that games are for adults now
MMaRsu
Member
Are you EricWK under a different name?
I understand what you're saying. How can something be art if it's background noise, something that is consumed and thrown away, forgotten and unappreciated by masses after its utility is over--or never aesthetically appreciated even when it's utility was at its prime? I would argue that functional art and commercial art still hold a status of art even if they remain outside of the collective conscious because they are a representation of culture and have aesthetic values that can hold a historical insight into the culture at the time. Commercial art is suppose to be functional, but it is also designed to attract those to it, even if the design isn't utilitarian.
Art serves not only to show insight at the present moment, but also insight into the past. It makes the past relevant.
ZoltanXerxes
Member
Art is a relative word. It means different things to different people. In my opinion, when you get down to the very basics of Art, it's how something makes me feel. I think video games can be Art. It all depends on how you "receive" the game, whether you view the game as Art or not.
Some striking examples for me are Silent Hill 2 and SoTC. Both of these have incredible artistic value at least for me. A more recent game that I think has great artistic value is Bioshock Infinite. What all these games have is a atmosphere created by the sum of their parts which in my opinion could be called Art. The perception of the thing or idea is Art, not the thing or idea itself.
Some striking examples for me are Silent Hill 2 and SoTC. Both of these have incredible artistic value at least for me. A more recent game that I think has great artistic value is Bioshock Infinite. What all these games have is a atmosphere created by the sum of their parts which in my opinion could be called Art. The perception of the thing or idea is Art, not the thing or idea itself.
Absurd. Super Mario Bros. on NES is art. That's to say nothing of stuff like The Last of Us and Shadow of the Colossus, too.
Anything that is created is art, legitimate and valid, regardless of what a person's individual opinion or interpretation of it is. Just as the ocean is blue, gray, black, etc depending on the conditions of the sky at the time. Water is colorless, creations are art. End of discussion. *shrug*
I agree. There's no question that games fall within the expansive definition of art. If I can walk into the Art Gallery of Ontario and see half of a sink attached to a canvas on the wall as an exhibit piece with a description of its artistic value, it seems silly that video games could ever not be art
Tal Shiar Agent
Banned
Neither were movies, television, or books then.
ViolentP
Member
Pretty much. Keeping in mind that I find what art is to be very personal to the individual. Which means, if something that doesn't lie within my scope of art is revered by someone else, I don't assume that it isn't art to them. The responsibility of the use of the term lies on the one using it.
There is more to gain by hearing why someone believes something is art than to explain why it doesn't land within my scope. If you look at this thread alone, a lot of what is being argued isn't because games are or aren't art, it's because we aren't coming into this discussion knowing that what art is differs.
Simbabbad
Member
No, it's not. It's a category of human expression that fits a definition, and games do. Your examples are perfect examples of games that take artistic poses, but artistic poses has nothing to do whatsoever with art.
Even if this were true (it's not) it's still a really awful argument.
StoppedInTracks
Member
Games were never an art form. They are digital equivalent of toys. Is Barbie doll an art piece? Is Furby toy artsy? No.
Now with the big and constant push towards "Games as a Service" they are even farther from art that they have ever been. And that's the big problem.
Now with the big and constant push towards "Games as a Service" they are even farther from art that they have ever been. And that's the big problem.
Pretty much exactly how I feel whenever I see the "art" discussion pop up.
Also this.
Theanine3D
Member
This is what makes discussions like these so funny to me
All those people being hired as "Character Artists," "3D Artists", "Concept Artists" by game companies must be taking part in some grand industry-wide lie. Apparently, according to some people, games aren't art and those people are just pretending and "seeking validation."
Games are art. The fact that people charge for that art doesn't change that. Artists need to put food on the table somehow.
Silvawuff
Member
I think games = art is largely subjective and can vary by who you're asking. What I will say is that art will always be found within games on an amazing level, even if the game as a whole isn't considered a work of art.
Check out Ori and the Blind Forest...it's like a living painting. Or any Vanillaware title. Or any other art-asset heavy game ever.
Check out Ori and the Blind Forest...it's like a living painting. Or any Vanillaware title. Or any other art-asset heavy game ever.
I mean, they are preserving a Barbie in the National Museum of American History: http://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/search/object/nmah_1155897
That's an interesting point. If any single component unique to video games could be considered a form art or at the very least craft, it would the design, execution and fine tuning of game mechanics to define what we would refer to as "gameplay". I suppose if I had to draw a crude and reductive analogy, I would compare it to the art of cinematography.
Hipster Cthulhu
Banned
Neither of these things are true.
Medium is never an art. Art is a work of creation that uses the medium to connect with the receiving end.
Kadayi
Banned
^ This.
You can label a music concert as a service, the band being service providers
You can label a signature restaurant a service, being the chef the artist
Art can be many things, including a service, a ongoing performance, a ever evolving online interaction...
I don't know man, I feel like we are having diverse-interesting artistic expressions in videogames more now than ever
CoyoteSpitfire
Member
I think this is especially true given how heated these semantics arguments can become. There are always conspicuous amount of bitterness when gaming's status as an art is discussed. I suppose there is a bit of an insecurity that exists in some people who value games as art. Likely due to games being marginalized, or outright dismissed, by the mainstream. It's a shame that these feelings tend to overtake tangential discussions. OP wasn't trying to debate the artistic status of video games, but that's what they're getting.
Dragon Puncher
Member
Trying to define art with some form of catch all definition is idiotic and bound to fail.. All games, like all movies and all paintings contain some form of artistic expression. Having artistic expression means there's a possibility for something to be art. That will never go away, but like with movies and paintings, what actually constituts as art for the individual will be deeply colored by their own experience with the piece, so it's ultimately impossible to agree on.
The question shouldn't be "Are games art?" but "Can games be art?" and the answer will always be yes, micro transactions and shitty business practices can't change that. And besides the indie scene (where the quest to make more artful games are probably the strongest) have never been as prolific as it is now, so what you seem to be searchimg for OP, is still out there.
The question shouldn't be "Are games art?" but "Can games be art?" and the answer will always be yes, micro transactions and shitty business practices can't change that. And besides the indie scene (where the quest to make more artful games are probably the strongest) have never been as prolific as it is now, so what you seem to be searchimg for OP, is still out there.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
Games can be separated by their aesthetics period. I can say that Chrono Trigger is a beautifully well made video game and the art is amazing. There isn't another game that looks and feels the same way. I call that artistic. I call that an artistic design.
BioShock has art that isn't necessarily seen anywhere else in the medium, so I say it's a beautifully well made video game. I think it's artistic. The designers had a lot of art in the game to make it look and feel the way it did.
The programming and so forth is part of its framework, it's how it's made, but what we get is a finished product that has everything in it. It singles itself out from the pack and it defines it's own medium.
Some people only see the technical standpoint. A program that can turn 0's and 1's into movable objects or objects that can explode. I find that to be a technical marvel. I feel that the artist making concept art produce the art, but we take the idea of video games and we define what that is.
I feel that some people only see the video game as a toy or something to use. Some people only see it as being a game. They don't look at the world or what's in the environment. You can have the mindset of anything really, but you can call them art if they define what you can't get anywhere else IMO. Chrono Trigger and BioShock are very artistic, but so is Mario. Mario is well known and it is defined in a similar way. I think it goes both ways. If the video game was just a concept piece then it would probably be considered art, but they move. They move and they're intelligent, but IMO if you can have a living entity become an artistic piece then an Artificial one can be just the same. An Intellectual Property in itself is possibly more of a technical marvel than it is simply art. It shows artistic expression and design.
Thinking something is pretty and calling that art is a pretty simplistic way to think of art, though. The reason it's difficult to pinpoint what makes games art is because you need to be talking about the game part. The visuals aren't unique to the medium.
yog-sothot
Member
Well... If Jeff Koons', Damien Hirst's or Yves Klein's BS is art, then even the worst F2P with crappy gameplay is top-notch artistic masterpiece for me.
ViolentP
Member
I think a lot of it has to do with the nature of online forums. I am willing to bet that most misunderstandings could be resolved with the benefit of reading the tone in which some of these opinions are expressed. As it stands, we are all part of the community so the responsibility of patience lies on us. It will be what determines the level of productivity in a discussion.
Crash Station
Member
I don't think a platform shift to digital or some less than ideal business practices disqualify something from being art.
Summer blockbusters are also art.
Summer blockbusters are also art.
Elitist1945
Member
Video aren't art now? Wow lol.
Northeastmonk
Gold Member
What came before the design? The Mona Lisa can be considered pretty by people of that era. It's a creation and what you see is that we have X amount of games and all those games look different, but we focus on how they play.
So the very premise of a video game is controlling an object on a dark screen with nothing else. That's it. The art is 2nd to everything else.
That was then and this is now. Now you have these entire universes that are defined by their looks. If Chrono Trigger was Ultima or Centipede then maybe it would not be art, but nothing else has created that same world or that same feeling. Games have a certain feeling to them and we are drawn in or mesmerized by their aesthetics. The game has art that has not been outdone. You can take any well known video game franchise and use its art to make people feel the magic about video games. Even if they might not have played the game.
I do see your point, but I feel that we would have called paintings something different years before they started painting.
A video game isn't like a movie, it's running in the background, it's a world built to run off objects and I think you can look at it as a 2D or 3D object, but it's still definitive.
*Centipede and Ultima are still definitive and I am not implying anything else.
Edit: Games were definitive in the 70's and 80's by how they looked. There's just been a huge jump in technology, but they still are defined by their looks.