It's Wrong to Pretend Video Games Are Art

evilsofa said:
I think there can be art in a game, but the game itself is usually not art. There are a few examples of games that attempt to be art. I think Braid is one of the very few that succeeded in being both a game and an artwork. I can't think of any others at the moment. Guild Wars 2 has a lot of great art and an artistic style that I really enjoy, but the game itself isn't art.
Click to expand...
Spec Ops is the finest to come out recently, imo. I think the problem stems from the attention things like Mass Effect and GTA get. When GTA4 came out, people were actually comparing it to the Godfather, and it's really nothing close. Both are fun and interesting, but their plots are extremely formulaic and the dialogue is about the quality of a B or C movie. But they get a lot of hype, so people outside of gaming find out more about them and see that the story/depth really isn't all that stellar - about what you'd find in those trashy novels at the airport.

Spec Ops steps outside that because immediately you can't take the story at face value. Some people don't like what they think it tries to do, but everyone has a different interpretation on what it's actually doing and why it's doing it. The head writer admits that there are things designed to bother and upset some people about both the game design and the story, and I'm pretty sure most people who finish it do so inspite of not having fun, in a way like watching Schindler's List. It's not meant to lead you from A to B, it's meant to inspire a reaction, which I think great art should do. It does contain formulaic devices, but for the express purpose of showing how formulaic and contrived they actually are.

As for the article, he's writing in response to the MoMa exhibit that features a bunch of classic games. As I said before, I think great art should be to inspire a reaction and not simply lead you from A to B, and in that sense I agree with him about a lot of the games chosen. That said, not all art works that way and especially in painting and sculpture, a lot of things are just meant to be aesthetically pleasing rather than thought provoking.
 
He's correct to some point about why video games are being considered art, but physical games are not. Why should Pac Man be considered worthy of display at MoMA, but not Chess? What's wrong with D&D, Warhammer, or Star Fleet Battles; either one of these can fill up a bookcase with lore, rules, and miniatures - yet, "The Hobbit" is just one little book. "The Hobbit" is art; "Deities and Demi-gods" isn't.

Props to Brian to mentioning Diplomacy.
 
I think that this comment sums up my opinion wonderfully:

"Anax
07 March 2013 3:07pm
Recommend
27
Not only are games art, they are the dominant artform of our civilisation. They are popular, require little subsidy and need no approval from painfully old-fashioned cultural guardians.
There were no art scholars around when the first proto-human carved the first figurine out of animal bones. No-one to validate, no gate-keepers or intellectual posturing. Yet it was art. Games are the same.
"
 
Defining art is currently an intangible process. Many people use such loose constructs to announce strong one-sided opinions (consciously/unconsciously) as fact. I generally find such reasoning a sign of the weak-minded.

This is often the case with those who have more ego/pride than comprehension of the topic at hand. This man is a fool, not for thinking video games are not art, but for thinking he can tangibly define something intangible. What a clown.
 
Actually, based on the original purpose of lots of "art" (something to display to the public or to a particular client), video games are more "art" than the boring samey "art school" post-modern crap that fills galleries now. :D
 
I believe he has the right to his opinion but now, he can pat his mouth dry with some toilet paper and flush it down the toilet.
 
has this guy seen modern art? or even regular art, i would say most of it is pretty shitty. i too refuse to give his ignorant article any hits, but i hope he gets flamed hard for being a douche.
 
Read the damn article before you create these headlines, jesus christ Everything from the snipped quotation to the sensationalist bullshit is completely misleading.

HardOCP, the FoxNews of Tech.
 
I do wish box arts would be more artistic like they were in the 90's. The last genuinely good box art I've seen was Resistance 3.
 
Dreaz said:
Read the damn article before you create these headlines, jesus christ Everything from the snipped quotation to the sensationalist bullshit is completely misleading.

HardOCP, the FoxNews of Tech.
Click to expand...

Regardless, the article was still a shitty opinion piece.
 
I can't believe even Hardforumers here are falling into the trap of "only some games/movies/etc. are art". It doesn't matter if somethings are more artistic and some less artistic. They are still art.
 
Dreaz said:
Read the damn article before you create these headlines, jesus christ Everything from the snipped quotation to the sensationalist bullshit is completely misleading.

HardOCP, the FoxNews of Tech.
Click to expand...

Lol ease down on Steve.
 
I have programmed video games in the past, and just designing and making simple sprites is art.
What I can not fathom is how someone takes a picture with a camera and calls that art? Taking
a picture of the ocean is not art, painting or drawing it is.
 
Well, as others have said, it's wrong to exclude all video games from being art.

Some photos are advertisements, some are recorded memories, some are journalism, some are for education, some are porn.

Games are the same way. Some are toys, some are just games, some are educational, some are porn, but there are definitely some that are art just as much as a movie, book, photo, or painting ever could be.

Games that definitely fall into the 'art' category:
Dear Esther
Journey
Limbo

There are many other games that I would say are artistic or artistically driven, but the three games above I feel definitely use video games as a media for artistic expression, and that the message of that art or expression is made through video games particularly well instead of another medium. They use the interactive nature of video games, and the choice, or lack of choice to share that message in a way another form couldn't.
 
I'll also add that his biggest argument is that, "games have never been art."

And to this I might agree with his point, board games, dice games, card games, etc. have never really been considered art. Certain games may be artistic in design, but still aren't meant to be art. They are meant to be games just to be played.

The issue is that modern video games are much more than Pac-Man. Pac-Man could be labeled as a game only. There's a set of rules and how to earn points and "win," and the main goal is to achieve the highest score. And to this end I would agree that many video games of the 70s, 80s and early 90s are just that; games.

However, video games have evolved into narrative devices that are just as compelling as other art forms. Many of them have a single path and the authors of the game are telling you the story in the same way the director of a movie or author of a book would do. This is a huge evolution from those earlier games.

In this way his argument isn't invalid per se, it's just that video games no longer fall into the same category of 'games' that he is saying aren't aren't, never have been, and never will be. Video games have transcended to be more than what he is arguing.
 
As anyone who understands Art History will tell you that this is the same argument that every generation has about its cultural production. The academy is highly resistant to change and it is difficult for the institution writ large to understand anything that can't be monetized through scarcity.

In the proper context: Everything is art. Life is art. If it makes you think about one's one humanity and/or evokes an emotional response then it is good art. Sure, you can argue monopoly isn't art or angry birds isn't art but it the right context... they transcend to function as art. Monopoly could be read as a construct for faith in the free market and capitalistic values: Angry birds could symbolize our current cultures growing reliance on technology for short-term low-attention span entertainment and diversion.

Anyone who says anything isn't art is either ignorance of its context or just trolling.
 
Veilrap said:
I can't believe even Hardforumers here are falling into the trap of "only some games/movies/etc. are art". It doesn't matter if somethings are more artistic and some less artistic. They are still art.
Click to expand...

hotstocks said:
I have programmed video games in the past, and just designing and making simple sprites is art. What I can not fathom is how someone takes a picture with a camera and calls that art? Taking a picture of the ocean is not art, painting or drawing it is.
Click to expand...

A book full of pictures of art is not necessarily itself art, though it can be. I'm speaking of the making of the book, not the creation of its content. That's the nuance I was making in my earlier post. Most of the games that attempt to be art turn out awful, which is a completely different thing from saying that lots of games have a lot of good art in them. I view most games, books, movies, etc. as being vessels of art, but sometimes the vessels themselves are art too.
 
Are movies art?
IS music art?
Are paintings art?

Then why are games, which can contain all of these elements, therefor not art?

Anyone who says games aren't "art" I simply ask them to play Syberia, play that one game, all the way through, and tell me games "are not art."
 
From the author himself : "It is the nature of art to renew and redefine itself, both as a reflection of evolving culture and as an active catalyst of that evolution. Questioning and healthy skepticism will always be an essential part of this historical process, but we must remain alert to the possibility of a breakthrough."

It seems to me that, despiete his pointless and totally fallacious article, he just conculuded that video games are art.
 
Games can be art, but the stuff we've had access to is on the level of "piss christ" at best. I don't blame this guy for remaining unconvinced; stuff is garbage.
 
art-wont-save-the-world.jpg


Video games are the epitome of ART because it is FOR PROFIT.
And the more compelling the artistic vision in the game the more successful and profitable it is.
This is what they pretentious artsy types don't like. It isn't a "purist pursuit"
These are the same people that believe art is for the purist and is a free expression of passion and emotion.
What a load of horse shi*t.
The greatest artists in the history of the world worked ON COMMISSION from for the wealthy, royalty, the Popes, etc. Art is to make the ARTIST RICH. It is a MARKETABLE skill like anything else.
The reason you see artists in the street creating their art is NOT because they wish the freest expression of their art; it is because their kind of art HAS NO MARKET VALUE and they are really taking donation.
Really, those 3d sidewalk chalk artists are great. But sorry, not in my drive way.
Sit your ass behind a monitor and learn a graphics software and turn your skill into MONEY. Get a life.
 
Kuraudo said:
Games can be art, but the stuff we've had access to is on the level of "piss christ" at best. I don't blame this guy for remaining unconvinced; stuff is garbage.
Click to expand...


Journey
Syberia
The Longest journey
Myst
Ico
Shadow of the Colossus

You play any of them?

Meanwhile you have "Artist" that literally call it art to "stare at someone" for a minute, or shit on a canvas (literally) and other things.

I'd call those games art long before the "art" that people pass off these days as art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top