surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
@Jonathan Holmes
Interestingly enough, the often endless discussion of the "usefulness of art" is just as old and tired as the "is this art" subject in the games industry ... though it would be relatively new to gamers. I could go on for dozens more features about the unimportance of the "art" title; it's that deep.
It's a keen conjecture to wonder if my personal experience with bad art has painted my view of it entirely. But the fact is that my world once consisted of nothing but art, and the "bad" art takes precedent, meaning it's the standard presented in modern art galleries around the country. And to someone who sees art from a purely observatory perspective (such as yourself), it's still easy to assume that "art" somehow links the stammeringly incredible works of the baroque period to the shit from today ... when it really doesn't.
It's easy for "non-artists" to retain this misguided, almost-religious disposition towards the term "art," when, at its core, it actually does mean nothing more than one's "craft."
The distinction, these days, is that a "craft" can be verified based on sets of standards that have been developed over that craft's existence. "Art," unfortunately, is far from that original definition, and therefor has absolutely no standards attached to it. Ergo, the term itself as a measure of quality (which is how people attempt to use it these days) is utterly pointless.
So, if I had to answer you, I'd say calling games a "craft" is more appropriate, because we can look at a game and say what is bad and what is good. You can't do that with art, making any further forced discussion on the subject a complete waste of time.
Again, this is a huuuuuuge discussion in and of itself. Which makes it kind of a bummer that you're not going to E3, because I would actually like to further explain the pointlessness of the "art" handle to people who still likely link the quality of a familiar treasure (Michelangelo's "David") to a giant paper airplane in the SFMOMA ... simply because they're both categorized under the God-given title of "art."
Interestingly enough, the often endless discussion of the "usefulness of art" is just as old and tired as the "is this art" subject in the games industry ... though it would be relatively new to gamers. I could go on for dozens more features about the unimportance of the "art" title; it's that deep.
It's a keen conjecture to wonder if my personal experience with bad art has painted my view of it entirely. But the fact is that my world once consisted of nothing but art, and the "bad" art takes precedent, meaning it's the standard presented in modern art galleries around the country. And to someone who sees art from a purely observatory perspective (such as yourself), it's still easy to assume that "art" somehow links the stammeringly incredible works of the baroque period to the shit from today ... when it really doesn't.
It's easy for "non-artists" to retain this misguided, almost-religious disposition towards the term "art," when, at its core, it actually does mean nothing more than one's "craft."
The distinction, these days, is that a "craft" can be verified based on sets of standards that have been developed over that craft's existence. "Art," unfortunately, is far from that original definition, and therefor has absolutely no standards attached to it. Ergo, the term itself as a measure of quality (which is how people attempt to use it these days) is utterly pointless.
So, if I had to answer you, I'd say calling games a "craft" is more appropriate, because we can look at a game and say what is bad and what is good. You can't do that with art, making any further forced discussion on the subject a complete waste of time.
Again, this is a huuuuuuge discussion in and of itself. Which makes it kind of a bummer that you're not going to E3, because I would actually like to further explain the pointlessness of the "art" handle to people who still likely link the quality of a familiar treasure (Michelangelo's "David") to a giant paper airplane in the SFMOMA ... simply because they're both categorized under the God-given title of "art."
@Turbokill
Don't worry, I'll be a meat-shield if you need it, because I agree. That's basically how I've always viewed it as well.
It's a shame though that you have to prepare yourself to be hated on for expressing that opinion. But that is a point I've already made in my first post.
Don't worry, I'll be a meat-shield if you need it, because I agree. That's basically how I've always viewed it as well.
It's a shame though that you have to prepare yourself to be hated on for expressing that opinion. But that is a point I've already made in my first post.
"So, please, shut the fuck up, smoke a bowl, order some Chinese food, relax, and just play some freakin' games."
K, the poster is clearly a fucking no life stoner and was baked when he made this. I dont take advice from druggies
K, the poster is clearly a fucking no life stoner and was baked when he made this. I dont take advice from druggies
"Cor Professor! Where did yer TARDIS take us this time?"
"Well, Ace..it seems we ended up in Destructoid circa 2009, during the Sterling-Burch War of Arrrrrt. Mmm, just in time for tea and crrrrumpets, too!"
Da-da-da-dun-da-da-da-dun-da-da-dun-duh-duh-dah-dun-Oooooo-eeeeee-oooooooooo-OOOOOOooWEEEEEEooooooOOOoooOooo-da-da-da-daaaah-da-da-daaaah-d-d-daaahh...
This debate can be solved easily. Video games cannot be art because, by definition, they are games. Games, by definition, are not art. Games are games. I do believe that some of these things people call "video games" CAN be art, but they cease to be video games. Interactive entertainment? Interactive art, maybe? Not games.
I actually had a similar argument with a Facebook "artist" friend who works in the gaming industry as a character designer.
My argument is that "art" isn't just craft, it's also the product - and in that it's on the whole another medium like television, film, books, whatever. The biggest obvious difference between video games and art is that Art (capitalized), such as that found in a museum - essentially serves no purpose other than to evoke something in the viewer, whether it's an emotional reaction, an intellectual debate or an aesthetic appreciation.
Video games may have 'artistic' qualities in them, because they evoke those same exact things - but fucking goddamn, people - They're FUCKING VIDEO GAMES. YOU PLAY THEM TO ACHIEVE GOALS AND/OR SLAUGHTER VILLAGERS MERCILESSLY.
Or you just play them because you like the colors. Either way, they're mainly a form of escapism and entertainment, and they should always be that, because if everyone started making video games that you played...nay, "INTERACTED WITH" and went, "Well...that was some sort of an experience. I appreciated it and also it recalls Rockstarian elements of the destructive forces of man!" then Holy Shit, Video games would fucking suck.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. Nice comment trollin' Perez. ;p
My argument is that "art" isn't just craft, it's also the product - and in that it's on the whole another medium like television, film, books, whatever. The biggest obvious difference between video games and art is that Art (capitalized), such as that found in a museum - essentially serves no purpose other than to evoke something in the viewer, whether it's an emotional reaction, an intellectual debate or an aesthetic appreciation.
Video games may have 'artistic' qualities in them, because they evoke those same exact things - but fucking goddamn, people - They're FUCKING VIDEO GAMES. YOU PLAY THEM TO ACHIEVE GOALS AND/OR SLAUGHTER VILLAGERS MERCILESSLY.
Or you just play them because you like the colors. Either way, they're mainly a form of escapism and entertainment, and they should always be that, because if everyone started making video games that you played...nay, "INTERACTED WITH" and went, "Well...that was some sort of an experience. I appreciated it and also it recalls Rockstarian elements of the destructive forces of man!" then Holy Shit, Video games would fucking suck.
Anyhow, that's my two cents. Nice comment trollin' Perez. ;p
Art is anything thought provoking created by human hands. And so, games are absolutely art. Every single one of them.
@Fuzunga
In an attempt to say this in the simplest manner, what the fuck are you saying? Video games cease to be video games if they're art? So are you saying that Metal Gear Solid is not art, or not a video game, because really, this statement just seems holier than the Pope on Christmas Sunday.
In an attempt to say this in the simplest manner, what the fuck are you saying? Video games cease to be video games if they're art? So are you saying that Metal Gear Solid is not art, or not a video game, because really, this statement just seems holier than the Pope on Christmas Sunday.
Guess what?
I don't give a single shit. I respect that you took the time to write this, but this arguement is like white noise to me. Which is funny, because this point is hypocritical as I'm expressing an opinion on a subject I have no interest on, thus making me have an interest in it.
MINDFUCK
I don't give a single shit. I respect that you took the time to write this, but this arguement is like white noise to me. Which is funny, because this point is hypocritical as I'm expressing an opinion on a subject I have no interest on, thus making me have an interest in it.
MINDFUCK
I love you. I have said this since when there was a fit about Elsa's article about esports. People try and justify to the world that there hobby or job isn't any less "meaninglessness" than what some athlete does on the field. All they're looking for acceptance, justification, and I find that sad, it doesn't help that most people who consider esports sports, don't even like sports (which brings up the question of why you would want the label). It's the same thing with games as art, people don't know one thing about "art", yet they feel ever so obliged to defend it as such.
Subjective and perspective is also another problem with the trying to defend games as art, considering (like you said) most people who make the claim, have no interest in the medium of games, so if somebody like Roger Ebert were to play Shadow of the Colossus, I have no doubt the man would be bored out of his mind and would not find the "meaning" good enough to justify the 10 hours he "wasted".
Subjective and perspective is also another problem with the trying to defend games as art, considering (like you said) most people who make the claim, have no interest in the medium of games, so if somebody like Roger Ebert were to play Shadow of the Colossus, I have no doubt the man would be bored out of his mind and would not find the "meaning" good enough to justify the 10 hours he "wasted".
As Salvadore Dali said "the first person who paints clocks melting off a tree branch is a genius, the second is probably a fool."
I'm starting to see a pattern here of people trying to sound like Jim Sterling.
I'm starting to see a pattern here of people trying to sound like Jim Sterling.
When it comes to art, I live by this rule:
"Anything and everything that is created by intelligent beings is art."
"Anything and everything that is created by intelligent beings is art."
A "degree in art". You just shot yourself in your own left ball with that.
Anything more useless than a college degree with tons of debt and an endless stay at the parents house?
Humans don't know anything. Literally. Typing out our moronic thoughts is always a total failure, including this load of shit i just wrote.
Anything more useless than a college degree with tons of debt and an endless stay at the parents house?
Humans don't know anything. Literally. Typing out our moronic thoughts is always a total failure, including this load of shit i just wrote.
What I find absolutely concerning here is that you treat art like it's a dirty word, and you seem to be preaching ignorance. Art is a mindset more than it is a thing. You can look in the trees and just see trees, or you can stare at it and see art. You can laugh, but art isn't EVERYTHING, but it has the potential to BE everything. That's your mistake here. A drawing isn't art, nor is a painting. You can record farts on a cassette tape, but that doesn't make it art. What makes something art is when people think about it, when people treat it as art.
Now you're probably thinking "Wow, this is absolutely filmsy, art must be AWFUL if everything can be art." Well, not really. If you attempt to appreciate something for something more than its literal worth, you're making it art. Maybe Mario isn't art to 99% of the world, but if one person takes it apart and really thinks about it like it is art, it is.
The biggest mistake one can make is not wasting their time in analyzing too much, but not learning from a moment, and not extracting some sort of worth out of what a cynic would laugh and deem worthless. If you deem something as worthless, it appears that way, but to claim it entirely worthless on every level isn't just wrong, it's wasteful of your life.
And because someone might actually put my posts together and go "Wait, what?" I was being pretty awfully sarcastic for the most part, I disagree mostly with the poster here.
Now you're probably thinking "Wow, this is absolutely filmsy, art must be AWFUL if everything can be art." Well, not really. If you attempt to appreciate something for something more than its literal worth, you're making it art. Maybe Mario isn't art to 99% of the world, but if one person takes it apart and really thinks about it like it is art, it is.
The biggest mistake one can make is not wasting their time in analyzing too much, but not learning from a moment, and not extracting some sort of worth out of what a cynic would laugh and deem worthless. If you deem something as worthless, it appears that way, but to claim it entirely worthless on every level isn't just wrong, it's wasteful of your life.
And because someone might actually put my posts together and go "Wait, what?" I was being pretty awfully sarcastic for the most part, I disagree mostly with the poster here.
@Allistair- There was a giant cock in Dante's Inferno, therefore Dante's Inferno is high art. Q.E,D.
@BrainWasherAttendent
Brilliant, lovely, I wish more comments were like these.
I hope there's a sequel.
10/10
Brilliant, lovely, I wish more comments were like these.
I hope there's a sequel.
10/10
I thought most of these arguments were presented on gaming blogs... Kinda like this one? You're kidding yourself if you think someone not heavily invested in the hobby would frequent a place like destructoid. I think generally the idea is to promote discussion inside the community. So maybe you could shut the fuck up too? Self importance is grand.
I think my idea of games as art is not of validation or snobbery or appealing to non gamers. It can be an insular definition. A lot of commercial, entertainment mediums can be considered to be pop art. It is not meant to change the outlook, just merely accepting it for what it is. I can agree with this article in regard to how games should remain as it is without validation which is not really necessary. However, if individual games and game maker wants to aim for it, good for them. But I agree that it shouldn't invalidate some fanservicey pantyshot adventure as long as it is fun.
@Ryan Perez- The artist whom you mentioned with the bullwhip protruding out of his posterior was Robert Mapplethorpe, a man whose name I'm bought up before during one online debate about videogames and art or other.
What I am left to wonder about in these debates is why no one ever brings up skimpy costumes as a more modest form ofHeroic Nudity and the variability of its perception when modified by gender in games.
If people in the game industry or their customers are going to go on debating the artistic value of games, they might as well debate a different aspect of it for a change and not default to whatever position catches them the least flak from the mainstream audience or media like a certain site mostly full of controversy escape-artists Jim Sterling has gotten himself mixed up with.
What I am left to wonder about in these debates is why no one ever brings up skimpy costumes as a more modest form ofHeroic Nudity and the variability of its perception when modified by gender in games.
If people in the game industry or their customers are going to go on debating the artistic value of games, they might as well debate a different aspect of it for a change and not default to whatever position catches them the least flak from the mainstream audience or media like a certain site mostly full of controversy escape-artists Jim Sterling has gotten himself mixed up with.
the point is to earn respect for your medium. if so many gamers could care less about gaming that an article like this could be written then why didn't gaming just crash and burn? if you would rather no one played games or even cared why are you gamer? excuse me for being interested in my interests.
Interesting article, but really all I got from it was "The years I spent studying art didn't get me anywhere, so I have to tell everyone to shut the fuck up about it."
Seriously, telling people to shut up about a subject you're not interested in hearing about just makes you sound like that giant plaster prick you so tastefully used to make your point. It's like sitting next to two French people having a conversation that has nothing to do with you and telling them to speak English.
As for the actual debate in question: Personally, I've always found games to be a unique storytelling medium. Storytelling = Art. Ergo, Games = Art. There's good art, there's bad art, and then there's polished shit. Games, just like movies, comics, music, etc., can fall into any one of these.
Seriously, telling people to shut up about a subject you're not interested in hearing about just makes you sound like that giant plaster prick you so tastefully used to make your point. It's like sitting next to two French people having a conversation that has nothing to do with you and telling them to speak English.
As for the actual debate in question: Personally, I've always found games to be a unique storytelling medium. Storytelling = Art. Ergo, Games = Art. There's good art, there's bad art, and then there's polished shit. Games, just like movies, comics, music, etc., can fall into any one of these.
@Fearzone
You're implying that Jim somehow invented constructive criticism, cynicism, sarcasm, dick jokes, etc. My mom always taught me that we were all unique little snowflakes. :(
@FearfulInsomniac
While I do somewhat admire your deep appreciation for otherwise mundane things, I can't help but conclude that you're pitching an invisible product: feeling. Not only is this something basic and common to human nature, but forcing it under the guise of "higher thinking" is no different than religion to me. I'm not preaching ignorance, I'm simply asking gamers to set aside their spiritual feelings and start focusing on the tangible. Simply put: Toss the Bible and pick up a science book.
@Faux Furry
Yep, that's the guy, and that's the picture. Thanks for finding it ... brings back a lot of fond memories.
You're implying that Jim somehow invented constructive criticism, cynicism, sarcasm, dick jokes, etc. My mom always taught me that we were all unique little snowflakes. :(
@FearfulInsomniac
While I do somewhat admire your deep appreciation for otherwise mundane things, I can't help but conclude that you're pitching an invisible product: feeling. Not only is this something basic and common to human nature, but forcing it under the guise of "higher thinking" is no different than religion to me. I'm not preaching ignorance, I'm simply asking gamers to set aside their spiritual feelings and start focusing on the tangible. Simply put: Toss the Bible and pick up a science book.
@Faux Furry
Yep, that's the guy, and that's the picture. Thanks for finding it ... brings back a lot of fond memories.
@Fuzunga
So I guess I could say a painting isn't art because its a painting or Music isn't art because it is music or a statue isn't art because it is a statue.... a movie can't be art because it is a movie?
Art is subjective it is whatever you see it as being.
Someone randomly splashes paint on a canvas I don't see it as art I see it as a pointless mess, that doesn't stop others from seeing it as art.
So I guess I could say a painting isn't art because its a painting or Music isn't art because it is music or a statue isn't art because it is a statue.... a movie can't be art because it is a movie?
Art is subjective it is whatever you see it as being.
Someone randomly splashes paint on a canvas I don't see it as art I see it as a pointless mess, that doesn't stop others from seeing it as art.
In my study of philosophy, I actually decided to use video games for my assignment as to what is art and why I think X is art, and provide examples. That was fun.
It sounds like you don't care whether art is art. Therefore, it doesn't matter whether anything is art. And you would be right, because art is making something (which cannot help but represent you somehow), but "Art" is serious business that rich people decide to grace with the value of their esteem. That said, we already talk about games like art, but we do it to appropriate a preexisting language for media.
Hey Ryan, this is a minor point and off the track but it piqued my curiosity, why would you characterise Caravaggio as pretentious?
I do think that videogames have artistic potential: there are a lot of ways to bring a certain point to people through game mechanics alone without the use of text or voice acting, that are not yet discovered. Of course, big mainstream companies aren't interested in that stuff, but that is only until their audience doesn't need their games to be artistic. But needs change overtime. I think that change doesn't need to be forced, it will happen naturally sooner or later.
Are videogames art? Of course not. But the way things go now, games certainly will be at some point in the future. Or maybe not. I'll be sad, then.
Do you want me to shut the fuck up?
Are videogames art? Of course not. But the way things go now, games certainly will be at some point in the future. Or maybe not. I'll be sad, then.
Do you want me to shut the fuck up?
You've expressed my opinion 100% on this subject because.
1) Artistic appreciation if very personal. There's never going to be a universal consensus over any form of art.
2) Most "Artists" I know are pretentious douches that use that term to try and convince people their work is meaningful.
3) We would not enjoy our favorite games any more or any less if they were considered "real" art.
4) Most "art" games suck.
1) Artistic appreciation if very personal. There's never going to be a universal consensus over any form of art.
2) Most "Artists" I know are pretentious douches that use that term to try and convince people their work is meaningful.
3) We would not enjoy our favorite games any more or any less if they were considered "real" art.
4) Most "art" games suck.
@comradetrotskii
While I didn't know the guy personally, I always got the impression that he actively let his reputation precede him. He was one of the most infamous contracted artists of the Church at the time, and it was no secret (especially to himself) that he was a skilled and venerated painter, and leading figure of the Baroque period. His cocksure attitude was a contributing factor to him constantly carrying a sword around, always ready for a fight, and why Rome had a warrant for his arrest after he killed another man in a duel. Hence why I like him.
@Jonathan Johei Oyama
You did see me there! And I indeed remember you from the community. :)
While I didn't know the guy personally, I always got the impression that he actively let his reputation precede him. He was one of the most infamous contracted artists of the Church at the time, and it was no secret (especially to himself) that he was a skilled and venerated painter, and leading figure of the Baroque period. His cocksure attitude was a contributing factor to him constantly carrying a sword around, always ready for a fight, and why Rome had a warrant for his arrest after he killed another man in a duel. Hence why I like him.
@Jonathan Johei Oyama
You did see me there! And I indeed remember you from the community. :)
I don't really think your argument is valid.
first of all, you claim to have a bachelor of SCIENCE in an art subject? art subjects are not science. you can have a bachelor of ART (BA) in an art subject but not a BSc.
secondly you are comparing this issue to the act of calling macdonalds gourmet. sorry, but a more valid comparison would be calling macdonalds 'cooking'. while some people might insult it by claiming it's not really 'cooking' but rather 'production' we can all agree that technically it is cooking.
video games, technically, are art. the ins and outs can be argued on a subjective level, but that is all it is really. subjective.
really, you write such a long article and have these glaring errors, you come across as a windbag.
first of all, you claim to have a bachelor of SCIENCE in an art subject? art subjects are not science. you can have a bachelor of ART (BA) in an art subject but not a BSc.
secondly you are comparing this issue to the act of calling macdonalds gourmet. sorry, but a more valid comparison would be calling macdonalds 'cooking'. while some people might insult it by claiming it's not really 'cooking' but rather 'production' we can all agree that technically it is cooking.
video games, technically, are art. the ins and outs can be argued on a subjective level, but that is all it is really. subjective.
really, you write such a long article and have these glaring errors, you come across as a windbag.
further to my last post, game developers or their supporters might take offence when somebody says "games aren't art" in the same fashion a IT professional might take offence if somebody said his job was not technical. because that kind of statement merely belittles and tears away at the fabric of a person passion. whether that passion be for a creative endeavour or something that is merely hard labour.
there is no mysterious motive for people defending games status as art, it's teh same as a construction worker defending his profession by saying that is is heavy work. they are simply stating what IT IS. there is no crime in reaffirming what something is.
there is no mysterious motive for people defending games status as art, it's teh same as a construction worker defending his profession by saying that is is heavy work. they are simply stating what IT IS. there is no crime in reaffirming what something is.
@TurboKill some interesting Ideas but I think you're confusing terms. each of these that you listed are art.
the difference is between classic and contemporary.
twilight may seem trashy to some (myself included) but it is still classified as an art.
the difference is between classic and contemporary.
twilight may seem trashy to some (myself included) but it is still classified as an art.
okay so we have a 5 paragraph text titled "Why you shouldn't care about X" ... yeah, that makes sense.
No, wait, I care for whatever the fuck I want to care.
Anyway, the artgame discussion is retarded I agree. Everyone has their point of view, I see the interactive media with potential to be greater than what it's let to be.
Goodbye.
No, wait, I care for whatever the fuck I want to care.
Anyway, the artgame discussion is retarded I agree. Everyone has their point of view, I see the interactive media with potential to be greater than what it's let to be.
Goodbye.
this shit starts to sound like the fucking matrix scene where neo talks to the fucking Architect: nothing makes fucking sense!!!
I don't think art has anything to do with quality. Art, to me, is any form of creative expression. Like the plaster cock or Citizen Kane or who cares what. It can be good or bad. That part's very subjective. But it is different from craft. A hat rack serves a purpose, whereas a plaster cock does not. Pornography is usually craft. David Cronenberg's Crash is more art. I think the distinction there is between Crash and normal porn is small but clear.
Sometimes the line is not so clear. Many games are products, designed to entertain, but I think all games have some kind of artistic expression. But how often is artistic expression the primary goal of the game? And how often is the game a realisation of a singular "artist"'s vision? And are these things necessary for a game to be considered a work of art?
Does any of this matter? No. Will games be any different if they are "officially" deemed art? No. Does it affect my enjoyment of video games if mainstream society sees gaming as a valid medium for creative expression and not just a product designed for the singular purpose of cheap, time-wasting entertainment? No, although that would be nice.
But why censor the dialogue? Why can't we discuss games as art?
When Roger Ebert says that games cannot be art, I care because I have a tremendous respect for him as a film critic and as a person and I'm interested in what could make him come to that conclusion, which I so strongly disagree with. It's not because... because.. um... er... whatever crazy reason everyone seems to think it's because.
Ebert believes that because the players have control of the game, the artist or the gamemaker is therefore not in complete control of the player's experience, as in a film or a painting or whatever else. Therefore it can't be art. I disagree.
But that's an interesting perspective that opens up a lot of doors for potentially interesting discussions. So why can't we have those discussions? It'll be fun. If you don't like it... shut the fuck up.
Sometimes the line is not so clear. Many games are products, designed to entertain, but I think all games have some kind of artistic expression. But how often is artistic expression the primary goal of the game? And how often is the game a realisation of a singular "artist"'s vision? And are these things necessary for a game to be considered a work of art?
Does any of this matter? No. Will games be any different if they are "officially" deemed art? No. Does it affect my enjoyment of video games if mainstream society sees gaming as a valid medium for creative expression and not just a product designed for the singular purpose of cheap, time-wasting entertainment? No, although that would be nice.
But why censor the dialogue? Why can't we discuss games as art?
When Roger Ebert says that games cannot be art, I care because I have a tremendous respect for him as a film critic and as a person and I'm interested in what could make him come to that conclusion, which I so strongly disagree with. It's not because... because.. um... er... whatever crazy reason everyone seems to think it's because.
Ebert believes that because the players have control of the game, the artist or the gamemaker is therefore not in complete control of the player's experience, as in a film or a painting or whatever else. Therefore it can't be art. I disagree.
But that's an interesting perspective that opens up a lot of doors for potentially interesting discussions. So why can't we have those discussions? It'll be fun. If you don't like it... shut the fuck up.
hey feel person who has or is goin for a technical art degree. I am going for Aerospace Engineering and i swear ppl don't understand the difficulty or the beauty of it. Math is an art. Once you reach the far more advanced courses where you leave Newtonian methods and have Non - linear, you will see how abstract it gets. Besides hitting a target that is a few billion miles away while massive flying objects interfere is fun.
Interesting... You call yourself an artist... Then you're not an artist. There's the problem, "True" Artists don't call themselves artists... Just like you said about Caravaggio. And about Anthony Hopkins... Well maybe he's not making art. He is making movies, like theater, THEY ARE NOT ART SO WHO CARES.
Who here remembers when video games were a force for hand/eye coordination?
@Ryan Perez
"So, if I had to answer you, I'd say calling games a "craft" is more appropriate, because we can look at a game and say what is bad and what is good. You can't do that with art, making any further forced discussion on the subject a complete waste of time."
I had the same conversation just the other day about how it's inappropriate to call art good or bad. We agreed that it's a matter of taste and flavor for art. Craft is a wonderful way to describe video games, the mechanics and the functionality of it, with inclusion of artwork of course, to create what you said as "something inexplicably awesome".
Actually, yes, "something inexplicably awesome", that is what video games are. Arts, crafts, mechanics, functionalities, literature, rules, trials, errors, failures, achievements, communities, and fun.
@Ryan Perez
"So, if I had to answer you, I'd say calling games a "craft" is more appropriate, because we can look at a game and say what is bad and what is good. You can't do that with art, making any further forced discussion on the subject a complete waste of time."
I had the same conversation just the other day about how it's inappropriate to call art good or bad. We agreed that it's a matter of taste and flavor for art. Craft is a wonderful way to describe video games, the mechanics and the functionality of it, with inclusion of artwork of course, to create what you said as "something inexplicably awesome".
Actually, yes, "something inexplicably awesome", that is what video games are. Arts, crafts, mechanics, functionalities, literature, rules, trials, errors, failures, achievements, communities, and fun.
This "games as art" argument is worn out, people have taken their sides. Now all that remains is stupid competitive circle jerking that makes "Tastes great!" vs "Less filling!" seem like a worthwhile discussion.
The right way to respond to someone who says videogames aren't art is, "Oh, I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think"
This includes Malak impersonator Ebert.
The right way to respond to someone who says videogames aren't art is, "Oh, I'm sorry, you must have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think"
This includes Malak impersonator Ebert.
You're missing it completely. (Most) people who argue that games are art (like me) are not doing so because we think that it will change what the games are or how we experience them. The only reason we are arguing it is because it is factually correct, like saying flies have wings or the sky is blue. If someone said "lol, there's more oxygen in the moon's atmosphere than the Earth's", wouldn't you want to correct them? A neurotic thing to do maybe, but at least when someone makes a decision based off of that piece of information they can do it informed.
What was that one proposed law that was trying to regulate video games like porn? You get things like that when people are not willing to argue for videogames as an art form. If there were no concept that video games were a form of expression, that law would have passed. Also, why are you telling the people in these debates to shut the fuck up, when it is THROUGH TEXT ON THE INTERNET? If you didn't want to read about, why don't you just not read it? I can understand if people starting writing about it frequently in the middle of other discussions, but you don't usually see things like a "COD vs. Battlefield" thread turn into a " Games are art vs. not-art" thread. I feel that you are more emotionally charged about these art debates than the It-doesn't-matter attitude you are trying dress up in.
Also, this whole credibility building paragraph is complete bullshit:
"Ain't that a funny thing? Most of the "games are art" arguments are delivered to those who know nothing about the medium and haven't played a single game in their entire lives ... as if what they think matters at all. Even more hysterical is how most of these arguments are made by people who don't know squat about art and have no experience with it (except for the class they took in high school). Easy credits FTW. But wait, what about me? I have a degree in art -- a Bachelors of Science, to be exact."
Yup, you heard it here on Destructoid, what the masses think neeeeever changes the outcome of any situation. Also, your opinions are clearly more valid because you have a degree in art! It is not like the average person is bombarded by art on a daily basis, and you're not pretentiously under-estimating their ability to think.
Seriously, what the fuck. Are you trying to say that because you have a piece of paper from a college recognizing that you took a bunch of classes that you are better arbeirter of what is art and what is not? I don't feel that anyone who understands art in a significant manner would imply such a thing.
So to sum up your blog, it was good rhetoric with a very lousy point.
What was that one proposed law that was trying to regulate video games like porn? You get things like that when people are not willing to argue for videogames as an art form. If there were no concept that video games were a form of expression, that law would have passed. Also, why are you telling the people in these debates to shut the fuck up, when it is THROUGH TEXT ON THE INTERNET? If you didn't want to read about, why don't you just not read it? I can understand if people starting writing about it frequently in the middle of other discussions, but you don't usually see things like a "COD vs. Battlefield" thread turn into a " Games are art vs. not-art" thread. I feel that you are more emotionally charged about these art debates than the It-doesn't-matter attitude you are trying dress up in.
Also, this whole credibility building paragraph is complete bullshit:
"Ain't that a funny thing? Most of the "games are art" arguments are delivered to those who know nothing about the medium and haven't played a single game in their entire lives ... as if what they think matters at all. Even more hysterical is how most of these arguments are made by people who don't know squat about art and have no experience with it (except for the class they took in high school). Easy credits FTW. But wait, what about me? I have a degree in art -- a Bachelors of Science, to be exact."
Yup, you heard it here on Destructoid, what the masses think neeeeever changes the outcome of any situation. Also, your opinions are clearly more valid because you have a degree in art! It is not like the average person is bombarded by art on a daily basis, and you're not pretentiously under-estimating their ability to think.
Seriously, what the fuck. Are you trying to say that because you have a piece of paper from a college recognizing that you took a bunch of classes that you are better arbeirter of what is art and what is not? I don't feel that anyone who understands art in a significant manner would imply such a thing.
So to sum up your blog, it was good rhetoric with a very lousy point.
follow
