Should video games be classed as art?

[Fzero]

This is being asked and exhibited in Washington DC - So i sadly wont be able to pay a visit, but if anyone is local it might be worth a check.


Info:


http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2012/04/should-video-games-be-considered-art.html


At:


http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/

 

[Linux-SWAT]

I like this idea.


I also think programming is an art. It creates life forms.

 

[FaeMinx]

Oh absolutely! Without question!


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[elwing]

Oh absolutely! Without question!

definately not all games...

 

[Linux-SWAT]

You know, Tom Cruise rented an "artist" to sculpt the first pooh of his child...

 

[FaeMinx]

You also get crappy paintings that make a wall look even worse for hanging it up... So quality isn't the issue here. But game creation is definitely an art form... Unfortunately the focus is generally to appeal to the masses and make a profit, thus the expression is really subjective. There's also a huuuuge amount of art that's created in order to make a living and therefore is constrained by the Target market. In other words - not pure art, but art nonetheless.


Sent from my HTC Sensation Z710e using Tapatalk

 

[elwing]

You know, Tom Cruise rented an "artist" to sculpt the first pooh of his child...

lol, that surely suck, but I was not thinking about games that look bad.


I was thinking of game with zero creative work put in them... mainly games that are obviously based on an existing using, show no custom work on the graphic side (games that use always the same prefab and try to be realistic by using bad photography as textures or that are stole/copied from other game). and that worst of all, either are boring and repetitive without anything new in the game play or clones...


edit: and generally any homebrew is more artistic than some of the bad comercial game I'm thinking about

 

[diligentcircle]

I also think programming is an art. It creates life forms.

Programming is a lot more like engineering than art.


As for video games, I think it's silly to call all of them "art". However, some video games are definitely works of art. The first game I usually think of when this topic is brought up is Super Columbine Massacre RPG, and Passage is another good example.

 

[fusion_power]

It really would help to prevent censorship in Videogames. At least here in germany this is a huge problem. Videogames are not classified as "art" so they can easily be censored and cut. Movies for example are art, they are also cut but not in that way like Videogames, especialy when it comes to blood and violence, but also forbidden symbols. So for example, Indiana Jones can fight Nazis in the movies and swastikas are all over there. But in Indiana Jones Videogames there are no Nazi symbols at all, or often not even Nazis. In the German Version of Return to castle Wolfenstein, you don't fight Nazis for example, only some kind of strange Cult called "the wolfes" or something like this.


However, I hate Censorship in general, no matter in what form it appears. Defining Videogames officialy as art would help to reduce all the censorship I'm sure.

 

[Rukal]

I also think programming is an art. It creates life forms.

Programming is a lot more like engineering than art.

Fun fact - Engineering used to be considered an art rather than a science


I think the most convincing argument for games as art is how it differentiates from other media that we would consider art. For example, If we view books as art as a basis, we can argue that a play is also artistic, as it has all the qualities of books with the added complexity of casting, lighting, costuming, and all that. Films can (although I disagree with this opinion, for the sake of ease) be considered plays with an added layer of structure and more complexity, as the audience will always see the same film, compared to a play which there will always be difference between showings and also when an audience member is seated, and complexity is added by being able to determine cinematic features for the film such as camera shots, background music, and the like.


Video games COULD (of course not all) be viewed as just a further extension of this line of art forms. The producers still have control over all the important factors in the previous examples, however this time it is to a level of precision which is unheard - the producers are literally creating the representations of characters, environment, et al. This precision can allow for exactly what the artistic concepts the producer had in mind to be shown. Video games of course have additional features - the audience takes part in the story. Personally, I don't see how an increase in immersion and the suspense of disbelief can be considered a negative thing for an art form.


tldr; games can be seen as a movie where you click stuff, so of course its art


-from, some guy who has been reading far too many philosophy of film books

 

[Fzero]

Personally, i rate the artistic merit of something like Escape Plan game...


http://uk.media.psp....676/imgs_1.html


...a lot higher than something like this, which fetches tens of thousands in the Sothby type auction houses


http://www.wikipaint...-from-tonnicoda


Horses for courses, and art is a very personal thing of course.


But come on ... some modern art really is pushing it [imo]


interesting point about the censorship, hadnt realised or considered that


edit:


Talking of arty games, there's one that i can't think of and it's doing my head in.


It looks like Escape Plan, in that its nicely drawn and all in B&W with nice lighting/shadow effects.


It's a little phone app game, i had it on my own iPhone.


...the first level bit involved dragging a row boat up so you could stand on it to reach the next ledge.


Anyone know that game's name?

 

[Jourdy288]

Yes.


Absolutely.


Sure, there's always the graphical aspect of games that can be looked at as art, but beyond that, I'd definitely say that assembling an engaging experience is most definitely art.


Anybody can tell a story- toddlers do it all the time. What separates the high-speed babble of a baby from complex, stirring sentences of a great novelist?


Same thing could be said to apply to games. True art should draw a person in and become an experience- it's not about the medium. I think there's definitely a line between games that are just meant to be "fun" and games that are meant to be experiences. It's like the difference between Pong and Dear Esther. I suppose the latter manages to push itself further away from being a "game" at all, having very few game-ish elements, but it does go on to show that not only can interactive media be art by "standard" definitions, but that it's also capable of standing alone as its own unique form.


This is awfully funny timing for this thread to appear, as I'm writing an essay on the nature of art...

 

[GiraffeeDreams]

Some games are made to be art, and some games ignore artful direction and go for realism, games like Limbo, XIII, Braid, Journey, Ico and Shadow of the colossus could easily be called art, but you'd hardly call Call of Duty or Formula 1 2011 art.


Problem is art is a vague word, you could call games interactive art as most require artists during devopment, it's more of a personal view I find, I find some games artful and others not so.

 

[Fzero]

Nice one.. Limbo was the game I was trying to remember. Soon as I read it, it clicked. Need to get that again

 

[Prometheus]

I don't think so, no.


They're entertainment products primarily. That's not to say that entertainment products can't also be artistic (plenty of them are, in many and varied ways), or that there's no craft that goes into making them (there is, for some, though many have forgotten their craft, nowadays), but let's not forget the primary purpose of a game: It's for playing, having fun, and using your imagination.


Attempts at "being art" are part of what's left the market with next to nothing I want to buy, anymore, sadly. I have just about lost interest entirely.

 

[Wrath Of Khan]

i agree with some of what prometheus said.Games have artistic components in terms of art/graphics, sound and story but primarily they must be fun.I find edge magazine gets too hung up on the supposed artistic quality of various games.In POP the sands of time the graphics and sound+ the novel method of relating the narrative was artistic and added to the game immensely.The animation was done by hand and was superior to motion captured stuff.little idiosyncracys of the characters were conveyed thru movement by the animators.crfucially it was also a very good and fun filled experience.So a game being made artistic for arts sake is not appealing to me.

 

[WizardStan]

There was a quote I remember from long ago. Paraphrased, "The only purpose of art is to exist". A painting on the wall offers no structural support to the building, it doesn't really do anything but take up space. The beauty of the painting (whatever form it may take depending on the viewer) can be rewarding, but there are no un-contrived situations where having a painting is strictly better than not having one. Poems and stories can be used to convey important philosophical and political ideas, but for the most part they are just diversions.


Movies and video games are something different though. There's a much more interactive aspect to the entertainment they provide. I'm not sure I can look at either and fully answer the question "do these serve a real world purpose?" I am reasonably certain that whatever the answer is, it applies to both movies and video games equally: if movies are considered art, so too should video games; if video games are not art, neither should movies.

 

[diligentcircle]

I don't think so, no.


They're entertainment products primarily. That's not to say that entertainment products can't also be artistic (plenty of them are, in many and varied ways), or that there's no craft that goes into making them (there is, for some, though many have forgotten their craft, nowadays), but let's not forget the primary purpose of a game: It's for playing, having fun, and using your imagination.


Attempts at "being art" are part of what's left the market with next to nothing I want to buy, anymore, sadly. I have just about lost interest entirely.

I completely agree with this statement.

Games have artistic components in terms of art/graphics

I don't necessarily agree with this one. I don't think all (or even most) game "art" is art.