surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
"I dont believe the Columbine RPG game is art, because its retarded."
You're an art student? You rock this bullshit in your critiques?
"The game was made in poor taste, without any kind of higher purpose other than to be offensive."
Even if that were true, so? Since when does art need a higher purpose? How is "being offensive" and invalid artist project?
You're an art student? You rock this bullshit in your critiques?
"The game was made in poor taste, without any kind of higher purpose other than to be offensive."
Even if that were true, so? Since when does art need a higher purpose? How is "being offensive" and invalid artist project?
@mikeyed
I was referring neither to your comment nor the RPG part. But I think you were using sarcasm there. Can't really tell.
I was referring neither to your comment nor the RPG part. But I think you were using sarcasm there. Can't really tell.
Your entire argument is flawed when you try to restrain the definition of art to something very specific that completely writes many of history's greatest works out of the category. Furthermore, saying something is art because you don't like it or because it 'glorifies a tragedy' is bullshit and you know it. There have been amazing paintings of battlefields where hundreds or thousands have died and those are certainly art - paintings of famed leaders like Napoleon standing over his slain foes for instance. Comedy and satire also certainly fit in as art. I really don't see this post having any point once you realize that you've said less than nothing.
You've made a huge mistake! Games cannot, and never should be compared to the other arts. While I disagree that any art form should be evaluated by yours or any "rules" \, games are especially different than anything we've ever encountered.
Imagine if a painter had no painting tools, was blind, had no hands, and could only make their wishes known through cryptic logic and math. The artist would have to describe a paintbrush, the paint and colors they need, the canvas and easel, and each of these things would need to be made by different artisans with different ideas of how they should be built. Then imagine each of the figures the artist would like to paint, and how different people would make each one of them. Then finally, even more people would place these figures on the canvas, simply based on the orders of artist who will never know how the brush moves on the canvas.
That is what game development is. A conglomeration of ideas. Each piece of a game has someone's soul in it. Whether it's the software engineer who wrote the smallest part of the engine, or the animator, who spent a month making the main character's smile move somewhat more realistically. Each of those pieces individually are art, but the true art of a game is the result of taking all of those bits and turning them into a whole. A game isn't just a man shooting a gun, it's thousands of frames of animation on top of thousands of calculations to help you better visualize a man shooting a gun. Simply because you don't think the man looks like a man, or the gun doesn't act like a gun, or it doesn't matter anyways because this man and his gun weren't created by any single person's artistic ideals.
We'll likely never see the Hamlet of video games. One person's focus won't work with games the way it would with a book or a painting, and it never will. It's simply irresponsible to have your expectations. Then again, if you put an infinite number of programmers in from of an infinite number of computers... maybe someday someone will create a game that lives up to -your- standards.
Imagine if a painter had no painting tools, was blind, had no hands, and could only make their wishes known through cryptic logic and math. The artist would have to describe a paintbrush, the paint and colors they need, the canvas and easel, and each of these things would need to be made by different artisans with different ideas of how they should be built. Then imagine each of the figures the artist would like to paint, and how different people would make each one of them. Then finally, even more people would place these figures on the canvas, simply based on the orders of artist who will never know how the brush moves on the canvas.
That is what game development is. A conglomeration of ideas. Each piece of a game has someone's soul in it. Whether it's the software engineer who wrote the smallest part of the engine, or the animator, who spent a month making the main character's smile move somewhat more realistically. Each of those pieces individually are art, but the true art of a game is the result of taking all of those bits and turning them into a whole. A game isn't just a man shooting a gun, it's thousands of frames of animation on top of thousands of calculations to help you better visualize a man shooting a gun. Simply because you don't think the man looks like a man, or the gun doesn't act like a gun, or it doesn't matter anyways because this man and his gun weren't created by any single person's artistic ideals.
We'll likely never see the Hamlet of video games. One person's focus won't work with games the way it would with a book or a painting, and it never will. It's simply irresponsible to have your expectations. Then again, if you put an infinite number of programmers in from of an infinite number of computers... maybe someday someone will create a game that lives up to -your- standards.
Also of note is that more and more we are seeing indie game developers who will work on their own with no budget and turn out great works - a great example would be the beta MMOFPS 'Love', with it's painting like graphical filtering and procedurally generated world, all created alone by one man,
eh, A lot of artists dismiss games as an artistic medium because of the belief that art should be a communication between artist and medium, and that having multiple participants and a corporate oriented goal dilutes this communication. I'd say while I disagree with the key point, it's irrelevant. Ultimately a game can (and occasionally is) developed by a singular entity with singular vision, for no real monetary gain, a fair portion of the indy market is made up of these.
Along these lines there's also the argument to be made that the art lays within the machine, that the actual combination of multiple artistic skills into a cohesive whole can be likened to that of an orchestra. One person drives the performance, but multiple talented individuals need to bring it to fruition.
As for barriers to entry (cost), another ridiculous argument, there are many free (or cheap) game engines that can be downloaded and used, the unity engine for instance has a free version. Anyone can download it and have a bash. Not to mention the paid for versions, are no higher in cost than most artists tools of choice.
The big point here is the skill level required to interact with most games. This is a fair point, even if one doesn't truly have an ear for music or an eye for paintings, these skills make use of a primitive (singular) sense, aka anyone can appreciate them or at least try to. While a game requires multiple senses, and skills, and an understanding of how games opperate as a whole, gamers have this, but anyone outside that sphere does not.
Along these lines there's also the argument to be made that the art lays within the machine, that the actual combination of multiple artistic skills into a cohesive whole can be likened to that of an orchestra. One person drives the performance, but multiple talented individuals need to bring it to fruition.
As for barriers to entry (cost), another ridiculous argument, there are many free (or cheap) game engines that can be downloaded and used, the unity engine for instance has a free version. Anyone can download it and have a bash. Not to mention the paid for versions, are no higher in cost than most artists tools of choice.
The big point here is the skill level required to interact with most games. This is a fair point, even if one doesn't truly have an ear for music or an eye for paintings, these skills make use of a primitive (singular) sense, aka anyone can appreciate them or at least try to. While a game requires multiple senses, and skills, and an understanding of how games opperate as a whole, gamers have this, but anyone outside that sphere does not.
Sorry, but people have been doing games that aren't meant soley (or at all) as entertainment, usually for free (except those pricks at tales of tales). Obviously this kind of thing isn't done on the scale of large commercial games, but it is there. Try looking harder if those are your reasons for why "games aren't art", because you're simply wrong on those points.
And moreover, you're missing the point. When you make a "game" it's supposed to be entertainment. That's generally the primary focus of any game. There can be ulterior motives as well, but I think if that ceases to be at least a portion of it, you're moving into other realms of interactive media and something can no longer be defined as a game.
And moreover, you're missing the point. When you make a "game" it's supposed to be entertainment. That's generally the primary focus of any game. There can be ulterior motives as well, but I think if that ceases to be at least a portion of it, you're moving into other realms of interactive media and something can no longer be defined as a game.
First off, I think this post is very well written. Second off, I disagree.
There is an over-reliance on money as the-be-all and end-all when considering matters of the humanistic. The focus on entertainment as an inhibitor to art is also a problem in my view. Oshii (Ghost In The Shell, Avalon) holds a similar viewpoint to you, and levels it against Miyazaki. I tend to side with Miyazaki's viewpoint that his focus on entertainment in no way inhibits the artistry of his creations.
The reality may be that the artist who is a painter has freedom from an outside financial interest, but this does not mean that they are not influenced by a thousand-other constraints that affect the outcome of their work. The social conditions, technology, trends in society, drives of the artist, and expectations of the those around the artist influences them strongly.
The independant filmmaker who seeks to create his vision, who saved and scrounged until he could self-finance, will ultimately find that time and budget affect his creation and take away his freedom to do everything he wants. He must make sacrifices.
At the end of the day, there is no medium that is truly the result of free expression. One cannot escape culture, or time, biology, skill, and a thousand other factors that alter production. How then, does absolute freedom necessitate the creation of art? No, it is the intent of these artists, and their struggle to produce their vision despite constraints, that makes their work art. Video games may indeed have specific purposes and constraints applied to them that cannot be leveled at other forms of art, but they also have liberties that those mediums do not.
When one plays a game such as Flower or Shadow of the Colossus, what they see is not the pure vision which existed in the mind of the creator; but art is never a perfect reflection of the mind that created it. The intent of the creator, and the pieces of their vision, do exist in the game's finished form. Ultimately, the existence of these parts that reflect the intent and vision of the creators within games, when controlling the nature of the game and even advancing the medium as a whole, insists that games can be accepted as art.
There is an over-reliance on money as the-be-all and end-all when considering matters of the humanistic. The focus on entertainment as an inhibitor to art is also a problem in my view. Oshii (Ghost In The Shell, Avalon) holds a similar viewpoint to you, and levels it against Miyazaki. I tend to side with Miyazaki's viewpoint that his focus on entertainment in no way inhibits the artistry of his creations.
The reality may be that the artist who is a painter has freedom from an outside financial interest, but this does not mean that they are not influenced by a thousand-other constraints that affect the outcome of their work. The social conditions, technology, trends in society, drives of the artist, and expectations of the those around the artist influences them strongly.
The independant filmmaker who seeks to create his vision, who saved and scrounged until he could self-finance, will ultimately find that time and budget affect his creation and take away his freedom to do everything he wants. He must make sacrifices.
At the end of the day, there is no medium that is truly the result of free expression. One cannot escape culture, or time, biology, skill, and a thousand other factors that alter production. How then, does absolute freedom necessitate the creation of art? No, it is the intent of these artists, and their struggle to produce their vision despite constraints, that makes their work art. Video games may indeed have specific purposes and constraints applied to them that cannot be leveled at other forms of art, but they also have liberties that those mediums do not.
When one plays a game such as Flower or Shadow of the Colossus, what they see is not the pure vision which existed in the mind of the creator; but art is never a perfect reflection of the mind that created it. The intent of the creator, and the pieces of their vision, do exist in the game's finished form. Ultimately, the existence of these parts that reflect the intent and vision of the creators within games, when controlling the nature of the game and even advancing the medium as a whole, insists that games can be accepted as art.
well....game itself as an art, I am not convinced.
However, design aspects in game....hmmm...now, that can be considered as an art.
However, design aspects in game....hmmm...now, that can be considered as an art.
While I agree with much of what you said in the blog, I don't think you're really saying much new about art in general. The top game producers will churn out bad games for a profit. We know this. The thing is this happens with every medium of art. Top 40 music is typically all shit. Housing developers make cookie cutter houses that lack any kind of architectural beauty. Generic paintings are mass produced to sell in Wal-Mart or Target. Every weekend there is a bad movie coming out...
But even through all the mass marketed junk the good art exists. Braid, Shadow of the Colossus, Flower; these games may be a bit harder for the mainstream gamer to find and enjoy, but that's part of what makes them art. I don't expect everyone I meet to think Everything is Illuminated is an amazing piece of film, and I wouldn't expect everyone to enjoy it or understand it. Likewise with most of the music I listen to or books I read. Art is hard.
But even through all the mass marketed junk the good art exists. Braid, Shadow of the Colossus, Flower; these games may be a bit harder for the mainstream gamer to find and enjoy, but that's part of what makes them art. I don't expect everyone I meet to think Everything is Illuminated is an amazing piece of film, and I wouldn't expect everyone to enjoy it or understand it. Likewise with most of the music I listen to or books I read. Art is hard.
I can not agree with what you are saying. I simply can't follow your logic.
First off, I do not agree with your statement that art for the sake of art is the only true way for art to exist. You list literature, music, movies and classical art as various art forms, but in doing so, you contradict your argument. All the types of art you listed could be said to be created with the money in mind. Would that not then, by your own definition, make them not art?
You further this contradiction as you later compare video games to the likes of Hollywood. I don't argue with your comparison, rather the conclusion you draw from it. Even if the video game industry is run in a similar fashion to that of Hollywood, how does this make video games less of an art form. Consider movies. The ability to make money from films is often a concern while they are being made. But even so, are films not still an art form. Or do we begin to apply our own personal judgement to what films are art and which are not? If a film is created such and such way, it can't be considered art. That is the same kind of logic you seem to be applying to video games, and I can't agree with.
Your last argument is that video games are not art because they entertain people. Once again, I must draw some comparisons to some other art forms. Aren't many films and pieces of literature meant to entertain people. So are these also not art? If you, however, do consider them art, why is it that video games cannot be considered art for some of the same feelings that other art forms try to create?
To me, video games are as much as an art form as any other.
First off, I do not agree with your statement that art for the sake of art is the only true way for art to exist. You list literature, music, movies and classical art as various art forms, but in doing so, you contradict your argument. All the types of art you listed could be said to be created with the money in mind. Would that not then, by your own definition, make them not art?
You further this contradiction as you later compare video games to the likes of Hollywood. I don't argue with your comparison, rather the conclusion you draw from it. Even if the video game industry is run in a similar fashion to that of Hollywood, how does this make video games less of an art form. Consider movies. The ability to make money from films is often a concern while they are being made. But even so, are films not still an art form. Or do we begin to apply our own personal judgement to what films are art and which are not? If a film is created such and such way, it can't be considered art. That is the same kind of logic you seem to be applying to video games, and I can't agree with.
Your last argument is that video games are not art because they entertain people. Once again, I must draw some comparisons to some other art forms. Aren't many films and pieces of literature meant to entertain people. So are these also not art? If you, however, do consider them art, why is it that video games cannot be considered art for some of the same feelings that other art forms try to create?
To me, video games are as much as an art form as any other.
I don't even...I just...
This article implies that videogames aren't art because they try to earn a profit.
Earn a profit.
Honestly what do you think artists do? They make art....TO EARN A PROFIT.
I hate articles like these....where people try to "define art"
This article implies that videogames aren't art because they try to earn a profit.
Earn a profit.
Honestly what do you think artists do? They make art....TO EARN A PROFIT.
I hate articles like these....where people try to "define art"
Unfortunately your conclusion is your weakest argument, as many of the games that come close to being considered "art" are made by independent developers rather than teams. There are a lot of things that you say define games that I simply don't think are true.
"the third problem is that games are ALSO meant to entertain people. If a game is not fun we would wonder why someone even bothered to make it at all. But why? Imagine a game that made you feel awful playing it. A game that just tried to upset you. We would probably not want to play such a game" People make games that upset or bother people to make an artistic statement. The same way the Jean-Luc Godard's "Week End" was incredibly difficult to watch, a game like Edmund or Passage isn't fun, so much as it is powerful in its representation of abstract ideas and concepts. Also, you seem to greatly overestimate what constitutes art. Whether videogames as a medium can be considered art is a stupid question to ponder. Of course they can be. If you're interested in the expressive power or potential for games though, you aren't going to find the cream of the crop on a shelf.
"the third problem is that games are ALSO meant to entertain people. If a game is not fun we would wonder why someone even bothered to make it at all. But why? Imagine a game that made you feel awful playing it. A game that just tried to upset you. We would probably not want to play such a game" People make games that upset or bother people to make an artistic statement. The same way the Jean-Luc Godard's "Week End" was incredibly difficult to watch, a game like Edmund or Passage isn't fun, so much as it is powerful in its representation of abstract ideas and concepts. Also, you seem to greatly overestimate what constitutes art. Whether videogames as a medium can be considered art is a stupid question to ponder. Of course they can be. If you're interested in the expressive power or potential for games though, you aren't going to find the cream of the crop on a shelf.
who really gives a fuck if its art?
I love it. I could give a shit if it's looked down upon by stuffy wankers I would hate to actually have to interact with. It baffles me why so many of you are caught up in the whole art argument, like you somehow need some moron who's only idea of videogames is pong's validation.
self important, stuck up their own ass publications like edge and games tm dont help either. If you love games, you love games, and if they are your passion, awesome. why do you care if someone doesnt approve?
I love it. I could give a shit if it's looked down upon by stuffy wankers I would hate to actually have to interact with. It baffles me why so many of you are caught up in the whole art argument, like you somehow need some moron who's only idea of videogames is pong's validation.
self important, stuck up their own ass publications like edge and games tm dont help either. If you love games, you love games, and if they are your passion, awesome. why do you care if someone doesnt approve?
Games already are art. Your argument has nothing to do with the definition of art; it has to do with the quality of it. Take Bioshock for instance. Bioshock is a game that makes you question your morals and by the end of the game, you truly wonder whether you're a good person or not.
If you're trying to say that it can't be art because it was compromised in some way, than you don't think many major works of fine art are art. For movies, Citizen Kane and The Godfather were "compromised" by the producers. I guess they're not art. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel was compromised by the church. I guess that's not art.
I'm saying that you have a few good points but your overall definition of art is a little bit skewed.
If you're trying to say that it can't be art because it was compromised in some way, than you don't think many major works of fine art are art. For movies, Citizen Kane and The Godfather were "compromised" by the producers. I guess they're not art. Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel was compromised by the church. I guess that's not art.
I'm saying that you have a few good points but your overall definition of art is a little bit skewed.
I found this article disturbingly hilarious.
The gist I got, is that games can't be art because they focus on making money.
And as we all apparently know, money is horrible and destroys art...somehow.
So, every painting ever commissioned, any sculpture ordered, any movie made for the summer spree, is not art because it attempts to make money?
Or are you just saying that games can't be art and still attempt to turn a profit just as these mediums have.
The sheer hypocrisy in your statement is astounding. Though you may not be saying it outright, the implications are clearly there. Games, are art. The epic soundtrack of Halo is art. The haunting scenery of Bioshock is art. The intricacies of plot in Metal Gear Solid is art. Though you may not wish to admit it, art, as fluid a concept as that may be, does not cease to exist in the presence of money. A photo is no less striking for being sold, a symphony is no less beautiful for being commissioned, a drawing is no less lovely for being bought for any amount of money.
Yes, Video Games are designed most often with money in mind.
So is most everything else. And it still happens to be art.
The gist I got, is that games can't be art because they focus on making money.
And as we all apparently know, money is horrible and destroys art...somehow.
So, every painting ever commissioned, any sculpture ordered, any movie made for the summer spree, is not art because it attempts to make money?
Or are you just saying that games can't be art and still attempt to turn a profit just as these mediums have.
The sheer hypocrisy in your statement is astounding. Though you may not be saying it outright, the implications are clearly there. Games, are art. The epic soundtrack of Halo is art. The haunting scenery of Bioshock is art. The intricacies of plot in Metal Gear Solid is art. Though you may not wish to admit it, art, as fluid a concept as that may be, does not cease to exist in the presence of money. A photo is no less striking for being sold, a symphony is no less beautiful for being commissioned, a drawing is no less lovely for being bought for any amount of money.
Yes, Video Games are designed most often with money in mind.
So is most everything else. And it still happens to be art.
I respectfully disagree. You clearly explain why it will be some time before video games have complete mainstream respect, as well as why the current industry model can stifle creativity, but neither of these things have any correlation with games being art.
I believe art is any form of human expression. Seriously, anything. Children of Men and Transformers 2 are both art, the difference is that one is good. I don't consider simply referring to something as art a compliment, but merely acknowledging it for what it is.
But let's say you do consider "art" to mean something in and of itself. Not a problem. But you seem to believe to be artistic something must be made with complete creative freedom and motivation, and that because games are made with a profit in mind they haven't reached this artistic plateau. Bullshit. Renaissance artists got paid. Just like directors, authors, and singers. They're producing art for a living, and so are game developers.
Yes, making a great game typically takes a lot of people, who have to appease a studio while keeping entertainment in mind. If that means they're not art, then guess what? Neither is film.
I believe art is any form of human expression. Seriously, anything. Children of Men and Transformers 2 are both art, the difference is that one is good. I don't consider simply referring to something as art a compliment, but merely acknowledging it for what it is.
But let's say you do consider "art" to mean something in and of itself. Not a problem. But you seem to believe to be artistic something must be made with complete creative freedom and motivation, and that because games are made with a profit in mind they haven't reached this artistic plateau. Bullshit. Renaissance artists got paid. Just like directors, authors, and singers. They're producing art for a living, and so are game developers.
Yes, making a great game typically takes a lot of people, who have to appease a studio while keeping entertainment in mind. If that means they're not art, then guess what? Neither is film.
As an artist, I'm a bit conflicted I have to admit. As an artist who pursues an "unartistic" concentration (graphic and industrial design), I find art in many things people wouldn't. Furniture designs, digital environments, hell, even windows. I can see artistic merit in those, which lends itself quite nicely to my belief that games have many artistic aspects. At the same time, I can see where you're coming from. Big AAA games developed by multi-million dollar corporations could never aspire to the same level of artistic merit as something made by one or a small group of dedicated people. Until game development becomes something almost anyone can do without corporate interference, it'll be a while before games can become recognized as true art.
Nobi-Nobi Boy is art by these standards. It was made without a goal, without checkpoints or objectives. Hell, most gamers don't even enjoy it. All you have to do to "control" the "game" is move the sticks. There is no point to any of it. Sure, you get longer and that helps Girl move further along in space and so she can reach other planets and all that nonsense, but the is no reason to do that. Curiosity maybe, but then people study brushstrokes of paintings and dissect every frame of film to decide if it's art or not.
Is it just me or is Dtoid filled to the brim with these cancerous blogs lately? Dtoid needs some serious therapy...
As a lot of comments said, people who make games alone and for free are making art, then. Like Cave Story or some flash games.
I think games are art as much as any other creative product (film, paintings, sculpture, literature, a very nice quilt your grandmother makes you with a poorly stitched picture of a puppy on it because you just love puppies so much) is art. At the same time though, I have to wonder why a game being recognized as art even matters. Does anyone playing a game really need that kind of validation? Can't you simply enjoy it? I would imagine a game creator can be just as proud of his finished product even if it's not viewed as some kind of artistic masterpiece. If you are that desperate for vindication than you were never creating "art for artsake" in the first place.
By saying that the only way art is art is if it's made for art's sake. Which is interesting! What would you consider art? Certainly not Hollywood of course, because they make movies to make money. Not Plays, because they charge... not music because you have to buy that... by your definition what is art? Because every medium of "art" has it's uses. For instance, I learned how to play guitar to get laid. Does that mean that when I write a song it's not art?
By your definition TRUE art is unattainable in a capitalist system. Because anyone who does it for the love of it starves before they get good enough to be considered an "artist". DaVinci, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, were all paying the bills. Would you not consider them artists?
If you want true art you need to look towards a system that allows the creators to explore with no boundaries (financial mostly) and you'll see a great leap in quality - especially of the stories. I think the best facsimile of this right now is Sony 1st party titles. They delay them, throw money at them, but give them space, and the quality of most of them are great. Before them it was the Dreamcast era Sega dev teams that had split up. Making radically different unique games left and right and releasing everything they worked on. Maybe it was their mandate to make money but do you think they expected to turn a profit on a game like SGGGG?
This article seems short sighted in my opinion and I'm not sure what the writer believes "art" is. Because his definition is inaccurate.
By your definition TRUE art is unattainable in a capitalist system. Because anyone who does it for the love of it starves before they get good enough to be considered an "artist". DaVinci, Rembrandt, Shakespeare, were all paying the bills. Would you not consider them artists?
If you want true art you need to look towards a system that allows the creators to explore with no boundaries (financial mostly) and you'll see a great leap in quality - especially of the stories. I think the best facsimile of this right now is Sony 1st party titles. They delay them, throw money at them, but give them space, and the quality of most of them are great. Before them it was the Dreamcast era Sega dev teams that had split up. Making radically different unique games left and right and releasing everything they worked on. Maybe it was their mandate to make money but do you think they expected to turn a profit on a game like SGGGG?
This article seems short sighted in my opinion and I'm not sure what the writer believes "art" is. Because his definition is inaccurate.
Also, back in ye olde times (and today), people PAID ARTISANS TO PAINT and yet we consider that art. Sistine chapel? Entirely commissioned. People have been told how to make art constantly through history so I don't necessarily agree with the "Hollywood" point
Plenty of film auteurs made films to "entertain" their audiences. These directors had strong artistic vision, but still relied on teams of people to perform the task of creating the artistic product, which was then published and distributed by decidedly non-artistically motivated channels. Truffaut and Kurosawa immediately come to mind. Your criterion of art being exclusively the result of something being produced for art's sake is somewhat spurious... or rather it lacks perspective on anything but a very narrow historical sense of how something "becomes art".
I'd say in many ways we are entering an "auteur" stage in games, at least in a few gaming spheres.
I'd say in many ways we are entering an "auteur" stage in games, at least in a few gaming spheres.
I don't believe you're right in saying that games haven't yet had an example of 'pure-art', or that that time is a long way off. Indie devs seem particularly enthusiastic in presenting their 'art' pieces. 'The graveyard' was never fun to play and never meant to be. It was meant to be experienced as a kind of interactive painting. Lamentable and profound in ways. 'Today I die' is presented as an interactive poem, being thought provoking and ambiguous - doesn't that make it a prime example of art, as defined by those other mediums of course.
In a way defining a 'game' as art is oxymoronic. To 'game' is to play, to play is to compete, to compete would be sport no? Entertainment by challenge, that makes art under the definition of 'Games' a completely different thing to those other conventions, although those other conventions have already been explored, experimentally at least. And so I believe you're wrong to define art games by other mediums, and even as so you're wrong to say that games have a ways to go before they're definitively tagged as such (because some are already tagged as such).
In a way defining a 'game' as art is oxymoronic. To 'game' is to play, to play is to compete, to compete would be sport no? Entertainment by challenge, that makes art under the definition of 'Games' a completely different thing to those other conventions, although those other conventions have already been explored, experimentally at least. And so I believe you're wrong to define art games by other mediums, and even as so you're wrong to say that games have a ways to go before they're definitively tagged as such (because some are already tagged as such).
i agree with some of your points, for instance, that creativity thrives on freedom, but i think you raise a very political question with this article. the only reason that artists (no matter the medium) cannot make a sustainable living out of just creating their own art is because of the society in which the modern world is in;thus, if one were to remove such a society, changing to one in which an artist is allowed to live sustainably and for creativity to flourish, then maybe games can become art. i'll stop there before it turns into a wholly political forum and seem like i'm trolling.
First off, where does this argument really come from. Is it really important for games to be considered art? Does it create a sense of legitimacy for those of us who play games...make us feel like we are engaging in something worthwhile? STFUAJPG.
I see a lot of good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But ultimately, how do we truly define art? Are paintings, music, books and film inherently art because society has declared them so? These are not easily created by the masses nor are they always created without a profit in mind. In the case of music and film, collaboration is usually necessary. All four of these "artforms" include a profit motive. Yes, there are people who paint for the enjoyment or create indie films to make a point but this is not the art you find in galleries or at your local bookstore. And yet what we find in these places are considered art. Why is that, and why can't video games be considered art as well? They meld together aspects of all other art forms in a meaningful way. Not in all cases but the same can be said about film and literature. Is it the interactive nature of the genre? To be immersed in the medium you are experiencing can increase the emotional impact. I liken it to being the painter rather than viewing and interpreting the painting. For example, you could go through some games without firing a shot, or you can kill everyone you see. Perhaps the art in videogames is not in the game itself, but in how you choose to play it.
I see a lot of good and bad points on both sides of the argument. But ultimately, how do we truly define art? Are paintings, music, books and film inherently art because society has declared them so? These are not easily created by the masses nor are they always created without a profit in mind. In the case of music and film, collaboration is usually necessary. All four of these "artforms" include a profit motive. Yes, there are people who paint for the enjoyment or create indie films to make a point but this is not the art you find in galleries or at your local bookstore. And yet what we find in these places are considered art. Why is that, and why can't video games be considered art as well? They meld together aspects of all other art forms in a meaningful way. Not in all cases but the same can be said about film and literature. Is it the interactive nature of the genre? To be immersed in the medium you are experiencing can increase the emotional impact. I liken it to being the painter rather than viewing and interpreting the painting. For example, you could go through some games without firing a shot, or you can kill everyone you see. Perhaps the art in videogames is not in the game itself, but in how you choose to play it.
@Sandman104
I don't see this as a "cancerous blog". I enjoy a good thought provoking blog to break up some of the other mindless stuff here. Besides, this is a topic even gamers do not find consensus in. We can not subsist on boobs alone.
I know...blasphemy.
I don't see this as a "cancerous blog". I enjoy a good thought provoking blog to break up some of the other mindless stuff here. Besides, this is a topic even gamers do not find consensus in. We can not subsist on boobs alone.
I know...blasphemy.
I see one problem with your argument. Film is frequently considered art, yet a movie also requires resources and a team of people. Film is made to entertain and to make money. Sometimes it is art, sometime it's just a cash in.
What really defines art is feeling. Paint on a canvas isn't art if it invokes nothing. The written word of a writer is nothing if you don't feel anything reading it. That's how people can differ on what they feel is and isn't art.
Video games are irrefutably a medium. I doubt anyone would argue with that point. When you feel something from a medium, you've encountered art. If you have ever had tears come to your eyes when a character you loved died in a game, or you ever felt disgust at the actions of a villain, or you ever felt joy or accomplishment when you saved the world or rescued the princess, you've proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that games are art.
What really defines art is feeling. Paint on a canvas isn't art if it invokes nothing. The written word of a writer is nothing if you don't feel anything reading it. That's how people can differ on what they feel is and isn't art.
Video games are irrefutably a medium. I doubt anyone would argue with that point. When you feel something from a medium, you've encountered art. If you have ever had tears come to your eyes when a character you loved died in a game, or you ever felt disgust at the actions of a villain, or you ever felt joy or accomplishment when you saved the world or rescued the princess, you've proved, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that games are art.
There is certainly a strong indie community of game developers out there making games to be artistic statements, and they do absolutely amazing things: http://experimentalgameplay.com/ But the fact that they're indie and not really in it for the money doesn't automatically legitimize them as artists. There are plenty of chuckleheads at Newgrounds who qualify as "indie," though I'd certainly hesitate before calling them "artists." Entertainers, sure. Some who are "arty." But indie doesn't mean art, I think we can all agree on that.
People will always assume money equals value, and artists will forever question this assumption. I don't think money is the issue, and I don't think it's something to worry about.
Here's where I target your argument. (OK, not "Problem 1," I agree with that entirely.) You say "The problem is that people with money don't like to spend money without getting money back, so naturally they will do everything in their power to make sure a game will turn a profit."
If indie game makers were doing everything in their power to turn a profit, they wouldn't be making indie games, they'd be on Gears of War 6 already. So clearly there's a motivation to create something that isn't commercial that keeps folks like Terry Cavanagh going. And naturally, his stuff is largely ignored and considered underground by Roger Ebert and the Wii Play crowd because it isn't a multi-million dollar project. And that's.... OK.
I've made my peace with the fact that mainstream games are going to be non-artistic for some time to come. It's the easy route, and most people aren't bored enough with Wii Bowling to want deeper stuff for a good while. As far as the indie distribution goes, I'd question what you consider "unknown." I'd argue that the proportion of people who have experienced "Braid" over the total number of gamers in the world is a similar fraction to the proportion of people who watched "Being John Malkovich" over the total moviegoing public. Actually, that'd be a great statistic to find! Anybody know of any surveys?
People will always assume money equals value, and artists will forever question this assumption. I don't think money is the issue, and I don't think it's something to worry about.
Here's where I target your argument. (OK, not "Problem 1," I agree with that entirely.) You say "The problem is that people with money don't like to spend money without getting money back, so naturally they will do everything in their power to make sure a game will turn a profit."
If indie game makers were doing everything in their power to turn a profit, they wouldn't be making indie games, they'd be on Gears of War 6 already. So clearly there's a motivation to create something that isn't commercial that keeps folks like Terry Cavanagh going. And naturally, his stuff is largely ignored and considered underground by Roger Ebert and the Wii Play crowd because it isn't a multi-million dollar project. And that's.... OK.
I've made my peace with the fact that mainstream games are going to be non-artistic for some time to come. It's the easy route, and most people aren't bored enough with Wii Bowling to want deeper stuff for a good while. As far as the indie distribution goes, I'd question what you consider "unknown." I'd argue that the proportion of people who have experienced "Braid" over the total number of gamers in the world is a similar fraction to the proportion of people who watched "Being John Malkovich" over the total moviegoing public. Actually, that'd be a great statistic to find! Anybody know of any surveys?
http://tale-of-tales.com/TheGraveyard/
Also, I have to disagree about your little comment about Columbine.
I really does go past press releases and whatnot and makes you understand what the two felt. Guilty revenge. It also pokes at the "reasons" why the two did what they did. Also, it's in no way entertaining and really disturbs you.
Also, I have to disagree about your little comment about Columbine.
I really does go past press releases and whatnot and makes you understand what the two felt. Guilty revenge. It also pokes at the "reasons" why the two did what they did. Also, it's in no way entertaining and really disturbs you.
Art is defined in Webster's Dictionary as
"works produced by such skill and imagination"
I fail to see how video games do not fit this criteria. You say that there are some people who will never be able to play games... blind people will never be able to view a painting. Are paintings any less of an art form? Just because games aren't "respected" art doesn't make them not art.
"works produced by such skill and imagination"
I fail to see how video games do not fit this criteria. You say that there are some people who will never be able to play games... blind people will never be able to view a painting. Are paintings any less of an art form? Just because games aren't "respected" art doesn't make them not art.
I wish this arguement of games being art would just go away. It's an endless debate; beating a dead horse...
If you enjoy a game, no, love a game, good for you! Let people know how you feel about it. Just stop this stupidity of forcing culture into it. It's entertainment, just like music and movies. What point is there debating this? So people who don't play games will finally accept it? WHO CARES?!!!! You enjoy it, so it doesn't matter what others think.
If you enjoy a game, no, love a game, good for you! Let people know how you feel about it. Just stop this stupidity of forcing culture into it. It's entertainment, just like music and movies. What point is there debating this? So people who don't play games will finally accept it? WHO CARES?!!!! You enjoy it, so it doesn't matter what others think.
Michelangelo and Da Vinci both created many pieces as commissions. ie. Hired to create a pre-specified work with their creativity for MONEY.
They weren't made simply for the sake of making art, their subjects weren't chosen by the artist and they were made for financial gain. (as well as skill gain and reputation gain as are games or any creative medium.)
This blog (and a few comments eg Sandorasbox's first) seem to be saying those works (eg roof of the Cistene chapel) wouldn't be art either.
Art is not an entity, it doesn't exist as a scientific label tied to certain things. It exists as a cultural judgement just as 'good' or 'bad' do. They depend fully on opinions.
We historically use the 'art' definition once enough people consider it so. Then- If enough people in the world think games are art then it is art to the world. If enough in one culture think it is art then it is to that culture.
And if enough within a small group think it is art then to that small group it IS art and no less valid.
sorry if this is repeating someone, didn't have time to read everything..
Aren't art schools like many these days (see economists and their fear of the unorthodox) full of BS hurdles for students, the 'old guard' and stuck up opinions discouraging free thinking with beacons of hope strewn in-between?? that's what i piece together from artist and curator friend's comments these days..
They weren't made simply for the sake of making art, their subjects weren't chosen by the artist and they were made for financial gain. (as well as skill gain and reputation gain as are games or any creative medium.)
This blog (and a few comments eg Sandorasbox's first) seem to be saying those works (eg roof of the Cistene chapel) wouldn't be art either.
Art is not an entity, it doesn't exist as a scientific label tied to certain things. It exists as a cultural judgement just as 'good' or 'bad' do. They depend fully on opinions.
We historically use the 'art' definition once enough people consider it so. Then- If enough people in the world think games are art then it is art to the world. If enough in one culture think it is art then it is to that culture.
And if enough within a small group think it is art then to that small group it IS art and no less valid.
sorry if this is repeating someone, didn't have time to read everything..
Aren't art schools like many these days (see economists and their fear of the unorthodox) full of BS hurdles for students, the 'old guard' and stuck up opinions discouraging free thinking with beacons of hope strewn in-between?? that's what i piece together from artist and curator friend's comments these days..
Real quickly i would like to point out Braid as an innapropriate example of what you consider games needed to be pitched and compromised in execution to be developed. Braid was developed independently by Jonathan Blow with no external funding or pressure on what he had to make. It was fully indie and was completely inspired by Blow wanting to convey personal ideas and feelings. What i am saying is that Braid was in no way compromised for a profit because Blow was prepared to make nothing and had no external investment
Alright, two things. You can't measure one artform's artistic quality by holding it up next to another. That's just this ever present lack of confidence in gaming to be anything other than an emulation of something else. Stop it.
Secondly, games aren't closer to art because they're pretentious or arty. Naming a game something vague or having a weird artstyle does not bring that product closer or further away from "art".
People want to infuse the word "art" or "artform" with some special, tangible quality. They wanna pin it down and define it, and to do so they look at what is already considered art.
Truth is that games won't become something they aren't already. Either you believe - RIGHT NOW - that videogames are an artform, or you will never be able to make the case that they magically turned into one.
You want something measurable to go with that? The sensation you get from bouncing on a Goomba or clearing a line in Tetris is something unique to videogames. It's not about trying to be cinematic, and it's definitely not about trying to be artsy. It's a quality that videogames possess that is irreplacable by any other medium.
Art, if anything, is about emotion, and I think that pretty much qualifies.
Secondly, games aren't closer to art because they're pretentious or arty. Naming a game something vague or having a weird artstyle does not bring that product closer or further away from "art".
People want to infuse the word "art" or "artform" with some special, tangible quality. They wanna pin it down and define it, and to do so they look at what is already considered art.
Truth is that games won't become something they aren't already. Either you believe - RIGHT NOW - that videogames are an artform, or you will never be able to make the case that they magically turned into one.
You want something measurable to go with that? The sensation you get from bouncing on a Goomba or clearing a line in Tetris is something unique to videogames. It's not about trying to be cinematic, and it's definitely not about trying to be artsy. It's a quality that videogames possess that is irreplacable by any other medium.
Art, if anything, is about emotion, and I think that pretty much qualifies.
this stuff is upsetting my stomach, because there is NOTHING wrong with a visionary working for a client or a specific group. All great artists have done something for somebody else's needs at some point and most of them do even better jobs because of it. Frank Gehry comes to mind.
actually, I'm mostly SICK of Art. That's why I like videogames. World of Goo or Silent Hill 2 is created to make my life more tolerable by guiding me through a novel emotional and cerebral experience. If video games wanted to be like Art, then they'd just need to give people a no responsibility way to express themselves using minimal means so that they may release the fury of their spirits. yeah, we need to GET WORKING on THAT!
f-ing garbage.
actually, I'm mostly SICK of Art. That's why I like videogames. World of Goo or Silent Hill 2 is created to make my life more tolerable by guiding me through a novel emotional and cerebral experience. If video games wanted to be like Art, then they'd just need to give people a no responsibility way to express themselves using minimal means so that they may release the fury of their spirits. yeah, we need to GET WORKING on THAT!
f-ing garbage.
"If the developers were allowed to do whatever they wanted, without ever worrying about money, imagine the kinds of games we could be playing!" Which would leave out the possibility that the entire gaming industry would be bankrupted because 1) today's high budget 2) because the majority (casuals) won't buy it which then pardons our realization that our loyalty and understanding won't be enough to keep developers afloat. Hypothetically speaking, anyways.
"You would be right, but the third problem is that games are ALSO meant to entertain people."...well, yeah, it's called "Entertainment".
"You would be right, but the third problem is that games are ALSO meant to entertain people."...well, yeah, it's called "Entertainment".
I really disagree with what you're saying here, and I know a ton of other people have put their two cents in, but I figure I might as well put mine in too.
Video games are already art. Why? Because they invoke feelings within the player. I honestly think that's the basis for something becoming art. It shouldn't be about the culture that the art form created or the kinds of people who do or do not enjoy the art, it should just be about the feelings it can give people. Obviously culture and whatnot do come into play, it just shouldn't be the main factor in determining whether or not something is art.
Art really isn't something you can define anyway, it's just something you know. Now you don't see video games as art, and that's fine, but obviously other people do. So shouldn't that alone qualify them as art? Anyway, these are just my thoughts on the subject. I believe video games are an art form, and a powerful one at that. We should all just hope more people will see them that way as time goes on.
Video games are already art. Why? Because they invoke feelings within the player. I honestly think that's the basis for something becoming art. It shouldn't be about the culture that the art form created or the kinds of people who do or do not enjoy the art, it should just be about the feelings it can give people. Obviously culture and whatnot do come into play, it just shouldn't be the main factor in determining whether or not something is art.
Art really isn't something you can define anyway, it's just something you know. Now you don't see video games as art, and that's fine, but obviously other people do. So shouldn't that alone qualify them as art? Anyway, these are just my thoughts on the subject. I believe video games are an art form, and a powerful one at that. We should all just hope more people will see them that way as time goes on.
Whether or not video games officially are deemed 'art' doesn't make that emotional connection you feel in certain games any less real. I think they're closer to movies. Or maybe it's that video games can be many things. I'd say there is a 'art' to making good games. Whether or not anyone can appreciate it is another thing.
You couldn't be more wrong.
Games will be art when it stops trying to be art and instead just focuses on being a great medium for entertainment, just like what movies and music is doing.
Oh wait, that's exactly what a lot of games already do? Then I guess games are art.
Games will be art when it stops trying to be art and instead just focuses on being a great medium for entertainment, just like what movies and music is doing.
Oh wait, that's exactly what a lot of games already do? Then I guess games are art.
It's silly to try and classify games "as art" as an entire medium.
When many of the stories of games are clearly works of art, by any conventional definition, their sounds and artworks are often also, saying that the game isn't art for whatever reason is hairsplitting.
It's like saying transformers 2 isn't art. Ultimately it means very little, because the term "art" is so loaded, it's almost as bad as the word love.
another problem is people don't see them as works of art. The same way for the longest time modern art wasn't recognized as art. Before that impressionism wasn't recognized as art, etc etc.
To flatly come out and say "games aren't art" is silly, it's really just splitting hairs.
When many of the stories of games are clearly works of art, by any conventional definition, their sounds and artworks are often also, saying that the game isn't art for whatever reason is hairsplitting.
It's like saying transformers 2 isn't art. Ultimately it means very little, because the term "art" is so loaded, it's almost as bad as the word love.
another problem is people don't see them as works of art. The same way for the longest time modern art wasn't recognized as art. Before that impressionism wasn't recognized as art, etc etc.
To flatly come out and say "games aren't art" is silly, it's really just splitting hairs.
A serious, commercial artist (one who lives off their craft) need money too. They also depend upon a system of buyers, orther artists, exhibition spaces etc., which some might argue is even more convoluted and damaging to the process than the video game publishing industry. Frankly I think there is more room for video game artists to make 'work' that is commercially accepted, and commercially successful than music or fine art. Yes, anyone who likes to paint in their studio can be considered an artist, but I'm not sure that's any different than someone who makes a simple game in game maker for their own enjoyment. I'll agree that its happens less frequently. I see where you are coming from, but I don't think your points hold a tremendous amount of water when you consider the full scope of what being an 'ARTIST' means in non-video game media.
Now that I'm done being all contrary and grumpy pants, I do certainly agree that we need non-gamers to die out before games will be considered art by mainstream media outlets. That is a brilliant point, and I have a feeling that there will be a shift in that way of thinking earlier than you might expect, aka as soon as enough video playin youngsters finally outs their older counterparts in positions of corporate power.
Now that I'm done being all contrary and grumpy pants, I do certainly agree that we need non-gamers to die out before games will be considered art by mainstream media outlets. That is a brilliant point, and I have a feeling that there will be a shift in that way of thinking earlier than you might expect, aka as soon as enough video playin youngsters finally outs their older counterparts in positions of corporate power.
follow
