Are games art ?

richymcdermott

We have heard this debate being made for years , some developers say yes games are art others say no , my personal opinion i think someday we can call games art but not right now. Yes games like shadow of the colossus and ico and others are great experience i dont think they are art but they are a stepping stone of possibility. Those are my thoughts, what are your opinions

Grumpypants

Retr0gamer

o1s1n

See this? This is Fountain by Duchamp.



Yes, games can be considered art.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

if piss christ is art then everything is art, so yes video games are art

krudler

of course they are, is that even up for debate?

deathrider

Personally, I can't stand the fact that even time people have this coversation they have to mention Ico and Shadow Of The Collosus. Just because there is (and I'll say this at my own risk) and artsy fartsy approach to these games, doesn't make them any more art than the next game. That always feels a little pretentious to me.

Magill

deathrider wrote: »

Personally, I can't stand the fact that even time people have this coversation they have to mention Ico and Shadow Of The Collosus. Just because there is (and I'll say this at my own risk) and artsy fartsy approach to these games, doesn't make them any more art than the next game. That always feels a little pretentious to me.

I guess when people think of art, they think of something that moves them emotionally(I don't get how a urinal does this for anyone but... yeah..). There are a lot of games that pull the ole emotion strings, but Ico and SOTC are 2 of the best imo. They're just the best examples i guess. You could compare it to film... If someone said that movies are an art form and used say The Expendables as the example, would you take him seriously ?

Who cares anyway, most of these art experts are up their own hole. Games are games, i couldn't give a fook what else people want to label them as.

deathrider

Magill wrote: »

I guess when people think of art, they think of something that moves them emotionally(I don't get how a urinal does this for anyone but... yeah..). There are a lot of games that pull the ole emotion strings, but Ico and SOTC are 2 of the best imo. They're just the best examples i guess. You could compare it to film... If someone said that movies are an art form and used say The Expendables as the example, would you take him seriously ?

Who cares anyway, most of these art experts are up their own hole. Games are games, i couldn't give a fook what else people want to label them as.

I see your point, and I'm not dissing (well, I guess I am a little, but I'm trying not to), but seeing these two titles pop up each and every time as if they hold more weight in the debate than any other title does, just really bugs me.

dead one

Games a never ending art.....

humanji

Personally, I'd side with the "no" side of the argument, mainly because I always think of art as something that is made as art, and that's the reason they exist. Games are made as games. There'll always be exceptions of course, but in general terms that's how I'd see it. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. There's good and bad art, and good and bad games.

Mr.Saturn

Aren't the ones that don't actively pursue the title of 'art' generally the ones that come closest to it? Take say, Mother 3, versus say, Grand Theft Auto 4.
The former's story just evolving organically, whilst the latter's intent is signposted immediately and just rings out as forced.

hooradiation

I have to agree with Roger Ebert on this. I will be long in the cold, hard ground before a video game ever comes close to being art.

In fact, it might never happen. And that doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Grumpypants

If film is considered art
If music is considered art
If drawings are considered art
If story telling is considered art

Then a medium made up of all the above surely is art.

Anyway the term art is subjective lots of people consider art anything that makes you stop and debate whether its art or not. For one person a spot on a blank page isn't art to another it is.

To say games are not art is missing the point of art in the first place.

Retr0gamer

humanji wrote: »

Personally, I'd side with the "no" side of the argument, mainly because I always think of art as something that is made as art, and that's the reason they exist. Games are made as games. There'll always be exceptions of course, but in general terms that's how I'd see it. It doesn't mean one is better than the other. There's good and bad art, and good and bad games.

Can't a game be made as a game and art? You've got stuff out there like the Mother/Earthbound series. They work excellently as JRPGs. However the creator shigesato itoi set out to illicit a very specific emotional response in the player by the end of the game and this was his goal which he succeeded in. And then you have stuff like LSD on the PS1 and Yume Nikki which don't even try to be games. People are think about games as art by their experiences with mainstream games. I wouldn't look at literature and look at the best sellers list or film and look at what's the biggest films in the box office to find something with artistic merit. And I certainly wouldn't look at the music charts for it either! It's the same with games.

hooradiation

Grumpypants wrote: »

If film is considered art
If music is considered art
If drawings are considered art
If story telling is considered art

Then a medium made up of all the above surely is art.

To turn that on it's head:

If a game of chess art?
Is a football match art?
Is Magic: The gathering art?
Is Solitaire art?

Elements of the above also make up the medium of games, in the same way as music, story telling and drawings do.
So how is it that games inherit their definition of being art only from the elements you listed? Does the fact that games, by their very definition, borrow heavily from things that are not art not factor into this at all?

(Disclaimer: i'm not that pushed about the whole games are art thang - i just find the insistence that games simply must be art by many self identifying gamers to be fascinating)

folan

I wouldnt say games are art. However, the potential to be considered art is there.

similarly to film, not all films are art.

then again, its rare enough that 2 people agree on art.

or what it is to be artistic.

Retr0gamer

Is waking up in the morning and not bothering to tidy up your room art?... oh wait it is:

http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/artpages/tracey_emin_my_bed.htm

Magill

hooradiation wrote: »

To turn that on it's head:

If a game of chess art?
Is a football match art?
Is Magic: The gathering art?
Is Solitaire art?

Elements of the above also make up the medium of games, in the same way as music, story telling and drawings do.
So how is it that games inherit their definition of being art only from the elements you listed? Does the fact that games, by their very definition, borrow heavily from things that are not art not factor into this at all?

(Disclaimer: i'm not that pushed about the whole games are art thang - i just find the insistence that games simply must be art by many self identifying gamers to be fascinating)

What ??? What exactly does a game like SOTC borrow from any of those ?

Those are specific to a very small number of games... you could say the same about piece of "real" art... or you could just look at this and realise that if this is what "ART" is then im glad games aren't an art form !




Yes.... this is a $140,000,000 piece of art....

sarumite

The discussion I think shoudl be broader to include books and movies to be honest, as all three are forms of entertainment. I think the sweeping statements of "are games art" is similar to saying 'is music always artful'. I personally think the answer to both questions is a no. However there are games that are art (or have artistic merit) as with books, films etc. Ultimately the argument is very subjective. Personally I have taken some snapshots of games and in many cases are imo as artistic as many paintings I have seen in art gallerys (and more so in many cases).

Jazzy

it can be

o1s1n

Magill wrote: »

if this is what "ART" is then im glad games aren't an art form !

Hey now, Pollocks paintings are cool! Not exactly worth $140million, but cool nonetheless. He gets too much flack from people. You should be linking things like this instead. Yes, it is exactly what it says on the tin.

ghostchant

Magill wrote: »

What ??? What exactly does a game like SOTC borrow from any of those ?

A predefined win/loss criterion.

I'm more on the 'no' side of the fence in this debate, but then again stuff like 'Train' by Brenda Brathwaite might be considered art (along with the other games in her 'The Mechanic is the Message' series):

http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2010/03/09/brenda-brathwaites-train-when-knowing-the-game-changes-the-game/

http://mechanicmessage.wordpress.com/

johnny_ultimate

Posted this up in another thread last night, but this guy makes great 'art' games: http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/jason-rohrer/

I'm firmly on the yes, because I think it all just boils down to nitpicking semantics. Art shouldn't be restricted to mere 'art' games, like there are many writers who are artists even within the confines of mainstream, populist literature. It isn't an argument that helps gaming IMO. I find it hard to imagine anyone who has felt a profound sense of lonliness in Shadow of the Colossus could still write games off as mere entertainment!

Grumpypants

You need artist to draw the characters and background ffs. Of course its art.

Mark Hamill

ghostchant wrote: »

A predefined win/loss criterion.

I've heard this before as a reason why you cant consider games as art, but in what way does this actually prevent games from being art?

hooradiation

Magill wrote: »

What ??? What exactly does a game like SOTC borrow from any of those ?

Those are specific to a very small number of games... you could say the same about piece of "real" art... or you could just look at this and realise that if this is what "ART" is then im glad games aren't an art form !

Think about it for a second. SOTC is a game because it has rules, set parameters for what you can and cannot do , is competitive and and has clearly defined win&loss conditions - all of which apply to football, chess, M:TG and solitaire.

Contrary to what you've said they are specific to every game, simply because games are just that. Games.
If Football, Chess and card games are not art then why are video games?

It's a genuine question and nothing more, before people get all butthurt.



And as an aside, I do like how these conversations always have people linking to pictures of works of art they don't 'get' and going "well if this is art then so are games" and same time maintaining the position that games are art and if you disagree you just don't get it.

johnny_ultimate

I think many video games have moved well on from basic game comparisons. Like any book or film, they have to end eventually, which is another way of looking at a win/loss criteria. Many games are strictly games, but that doesn't mean the medium is restrictive on the artists who make it.

And after all, a good game of chess or poker or rugby can be a thing of great beauty - and I'm far from a sports fan :pac:. Does it really matter whether we call it art or not?

Aldebaran

It's an interesting question and I'm not sure if there's a straight yes or no answer to it. It could be argued that any sort of creative endeavor can be classified as art, and video games would be no exception to that.

But it's interesting to note that Game Studies are beginning to receive more attention within the humanities, and I'm convinced that in the future certain games will be read as 'texts' and games in general will become an important focus of study when examining late 20th or early 21st Century culture, they are important cultural objects imo.

o1s1n

hooradiation wrote: »

And as an aside, I do like how these conversations always have people linking to pictures of works of art they don't 'get' and going "well if this is art then so are games" and same time maintaining the position that games are art and if you disagree you just don't get it.

You completely misunderstood why I posted images. What I was getting at is that if Duchamp's ready mades and Manzoni's Artist's sh1t are considered art when put in a specific setting, then anything can be. Including games.

A friend of mine made a videogame as part of his end of year show in Fine Art Media a few years ago.

My own show, which was mainly drawing, also featured video and sound. At one point I was going to use an arcade cabinet too but I didn't fancy leaving it on site unattended.

Whether they are art by default is another thing completely.

Then again, wtf is art by default?

...

You've just reminded me how much I hated these conversations in college.

ghostchant

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I've heard this before as a reason why you cant consider games as art, but in what way does this actually prevent games from being art?

I'm not saying it does, I'm just saying that SOTC is similar to the other games mentioned due to it.

I suppose art is very subjective, one of those "I'll know it when I see it" kind of things. Personally I haven't played or seen a video game that I'd consider to be art yet. I'm not in any rush to either.

Grumpypants

Artists don't pay tax here thats why Bertie doesnt pay tax on his earning from his book.

If games where considered the same all the developers could move here create a booming industry.

ghostchant

Grumpypants wrote: »

Artists don't pay tax here thats why Bertie doesnt pay tax on his earning from his book.

If games where considered the same all the developers could move here create a booming industry.

But almost everything can be considered art if you look at it the right way. cars, clothes, the Microsoft Windows GUI, etc. are all aesthetically pleasing to different people and might even be considered 'art' to them, should their developers/creators all avoid tax too? Personally think it would be better if the tax break was removed.

o1s1n

ghostchant wrote: »

Personally think it would be better if the tax break was removed.

It doesn't need to be removed, just managed fairly.

There are people who cream from that like Bertie, but I know a lot of struggling artists who can barely survive on what they make with the tax break. Galleries take a massive chunk out of their money too.

If they were paying tax on top of that a lot of them would just have to give up. This would have a negative impact on the culture and creativity of the country - which is why we have the tax break in the first place.

Magill

o1s1n wrote: »

Hey now, Pollocks paintings are cool! Not exactly worth $140million, but cool nonetheless. He gets too much flack from people. You should be linking things like this instead. Yes, it is exactly what it says on the tin.

Im sorry, i just don't see the point in that 'painting' He just through some paint on the thing ffs !!! I could do that.... not a bother... i could even cry and slap the paint on like some doped up hippie just too add some deeper meaning to it !

And yeah that tin is a more obvious argument....

I don't see what the difference is between



and

o1s1n

Magill wrote: »

Im sorry, i just don't see the point in that 'painting' He just through some paint on the thing ffs !!! I could do that.... not a bother... i could even cry and slap the paint on like some doped up hippie just too add some deeper meaning to it !

Ah, but you see he didn't just throw some paint on it. He got some crap and sealed it up in the tin, then created a label and THEN put some paint on it

You could probably do that too...but why the hell would you want to!?

D

Art is any deliberate thing that evokes an emotional response beyond its intrinsic value.

hooradiation

Magill wrote: »

I don't see what the difference is between



and

ones a painting, the other is a screenshot.


Or, one is where an artist tried to capture the beauty of nature for the sake of it the other is just the backdrop against which a game is played.

Grumpypants

hooradiation wrote: »

ones a painting, the other is a screenshot.


Or, one is where an artist tried to capture the beauty of nature for the sake of it the other is just the backdrop against which a game is played.

what if the first one was a back drop for a play?

o1s1n

Grumpypants wrote: »

what if the first one was a back drop for a play?

By his logic it would cease to be art and become a backdrop.

Aldebaran

hooradiation wrote: »

ones a painting, the other is a screenshot.


Or, one is where an artist tried to capture the beauty of nature for the sake of it the other is just the backdrop against which a game is played.

Or the other is just a backdrop against which a story is told. Games can tell stories just as well as literature, theatre, and films. They just tell them in different ways.

humanji

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Can't a game be made as a game and art? You've got stuff out there like the Mother/Earthbound series. They work excellently as JRPGs. However the creator shigesato itoi set out to illicit a very specific emotional response in the player by the end of the game and this was his goal which he succeeded in. And then you have stuff like LSD on the PS1 and Yume Nikki which don't even try to be games. People are think about games as art by their experiences with mainstream games. I wouldn't look at literature and look at the best sellers list or film and look at what's the biggest films in the box office to find something with artistic merit. And I certainly wouldn't look at the music charts for it either! It's the same with games.

The way I see it is art is created to be art. That's why it exists. Art can be a game or a film or a painting or a urinal on it's side. But it's principle reason for existence is to be art.

The problem with the question is that it's a generalisation. So in general terms, I label things by their primary purpose. You mention Shigesato Itoi setting out to illicit a specific emotional response from players. But was he making a game that illicits an emotional response, or did he decide he was creating something specifically to get that response? By that I mean did he start off making a game, or art? Because he's the one who dictates if it's art or not, not us.

There's also the use of the word "art" as a noun or a verb. Above, I use it as a noun. But I think some may be using it as a verb, ie to say a game is artistic, and reasoning this to mean that it's art. But if the creator didn't make it as art, who are we do decide it's something different? It's a blurry line that's hard to define without the creator's explicit explanation.

Retr0gamer

When he approached Nintendo with the idea for Mother it was because he thought videogame narratives were terrible but could be so much more. With Earthbound he used the game to get as a factor to illicit the emotion he wanted. With that game he set out to create the emotions you feel when youthful innocence is shattered and you realise that the world isn't a nice place. I believe styling the game after Dragon Quest which most japanese people remember playing from their youth was a big part of it although it's a shame there's so little information on it. It's hard to say really without interviewing him and asking him. All I can say is he's a clever guy and if you play the game it really does seem that the way the game plays and the crazy things that happen during it all filter into what you feel when you beat it. If you watch just the ending on yuotube it's not going to mean anything unless you've experienced the rest.

As for LSD and Yume Nikki there's really no argument. There's no win lose situation and the whole thing is about the experience.

ghostchant

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for LSD and Yume Nikki there's really no argument. There's no win lose situation and the whole thing is about the experience.

Ah but is it a game then? I can buy language translation software and cooking guides for the DS but that doesn't make them games.

Retr0gamer

I think games can have far more than a win lose situation to define them. Look at Minecraft. Also what's to say thatart can't have a win lose situation as part of it.

o1s1n

ghostchant wrote: »

Ah but is it a game then? I can buy language translation software and cooking guides for the DS but that doesn't make them games.

You wander around LSD experiencing the enviornments you're in. But you still have to walk into items to trigger events/go to new enviornments.

It's not 100% a game in the traditional sense, but it's not a cooking guide either.

Retr0gamer

In other words pigeon holing stuff into genres and categories is stupid including pigeonholing stuff as art

humanji

Retr0gamer wrote: »

When he approached Nintendo with the idea for Mother it was because he thought videogame narratives were terrible but could be so much more. With Earthbound he used the game to get as a factor to illicit the emotion he wanted. With that game he set out to create the emotions you feel when youthful innocence is shattered and you realise that the world isn't a nice place. I believe styling the game after Dragon Quest which most japanese people remember playing from their youth was a big part of it although it's a shame there's so little information on it. It's hard to say really without interviewing him and asking him. All I can say is he's a clever guy and if you play the game it really does seem that the way the game plays and the crazy things that happen during it all filter into what you feel when you beat it. If you watch just the ending on yuotube it's not going to mean anything unless you've experienced the rest.

As for LSD and Yume Nikki there's really no argument. There's no win lose situation and the whole thing is about the experience.

Well, I haven't played any of the games you mentioned, but from your description it sounds like he created games that illicit emotions. That doesn't mean they aren't arty, just that they are games.

I think Johnny Ultimate nailed it when he said it's all "nitpicking semantics". It's just that to me, I view it as there's the nouns "game" and "art" and the adjectives "game/gamey" and "art/arty". So a game can be arty and art can be gamey. But they have an original purpose and that's what I'd class them as.

So in general something that is designed to be a game isn't art. It can be artistic and it can illicit all sorts of emotions and responses, but it was created as a game above all else. And something designed as art can be interactive and played with, but it was still created as art.

ghostchant

o1s1n wrote: »

You wander around LSD experiencing the enviornments you're in. But you still have to walk into items to trigger events/go to new enviornments.

It's not 100% a game in the traditional sense, but it's not a cooking guide either.

Sounds more like an art gallery or museum than a game :P I wasn't comparing it to a cooking guide, that was just an example that not everything released for a console is automatically a 'game'. I know everyone knows that but people tend to brush over the fact in debates like this.

There are a lot of artistic elements in games but I'm just not sure that's the same as art. I mean is an architect an artist? I would say no.

Also, am I the only one who looks at that RDR screenshot posted earlier and can only think about how much they want to shoot the duck?

Mr.Nice Guy

To me, art is a created piece of work which moves you in some profound way. I have most definitely felt this way about many games I've played and the characters and stories have been as rich and as vibrant as any I've seen in books, films or television. I would say games without a shadow of a doubt are art. The fond memories and experiences I've had from gaming have enriched my life and given me many great moments and I hope future generations will be able to enjoy and appreciate them as much as I have.

humanji

ghostchant wrote: »

Sounds more like an art gallery or museum than a game :P I wasn't comparing it to a cooking guide, that was just an example that not everything released for a console is automatically a 'game'. I know everyone knows that but people tend to brush over the fact in debates like this.

There are a lot of artistic elements in games but I'm just not sure that's the same as art. I mean is an architect an artist? I would say no.

What about Frank Lloyd Wright? He created art that was usable as buildings. This is kind of what I was getting at (but most likely explaining terribly). The main function of art is to be art, but it can have other uses. The urinal that was posted before is art. But a urinal in a bathroom is there to function as a urinal. You can still use the first one to piss into, but that's not why it's there.

ghostchant wrote: »

Also, am I the only one who looks at that RDR screenshot posted earlier and can only think about how much they want to shoot the duck?

And no. No you're not!