Video Games - The Ultimate Art Form

[TheGooch69]

I hope at least three people will take the time to read my whole essay.

If you paint pictures, whether they are as magnificent as the Sistine Chapel ceiling or as idiotic as a single red dot on a white canvas, with some exaggerated explanation of its true meaning, you are an artist. If you express thoughts, meaning, and emotions with words in a coerce way (or sometimes not (Dada), you are an artist. You use a camera to take a still photograph that can convey meaning and feelings to the viewer, you are an artist. If you do the same through the use of a series of moving images, you are an artist. You compile beautifully sounding musical notes (or sometimes disgusting) you are an artist.

Yet, if a large team of highly talented artists compile all of the above into a single product, and give the person the option to directly interact with it, control, and alter it to their own unique experience, you are a menace to society. I am of course speaking of video games, the most modern form of art. Video games are a compilation of every type of art form in human history, plus the added interaction and direct control to make EVERY experience unique. Video games also allow you to interact with others, evolving the expression of art into a fourth dimension. A video game is developed by artists in all fields, from visual artists, to writers, to musicians, to cinema directors, to voice actors. I will even go as far as calling the programmers artists, their hard and demanding work just deserves to be called so. Video games are the ultimate art form, borrowing and fully utilizing every art medium and fusing it into one.

So why does the majority turn their nose up at video games, refusing to recognize them as a respectable art form? Perhaps it's due to the fact that the public immediately associate video games with hardcore violence, mindless escapism, ignoring the beautiful characters and stories that developers such as Square Soft have brought us, more notable, Final Fantasy VII. Perhaps it's because most art mediums, like cinema, teach the spectator something about themselves, or passionately deliver a message. Is there a better piece of art that expresses the horrors of addiction better than Requiem for a Dream? If a video game attempted to do the same, send out a meaningful and emotional message about addiction, how could it possibly be taken seriously?

Let's take the addiction message and apply it to a video game. Like film, video games have several genres. The most appropriate genre for a message of this type would be a RPG (role-playing-game). How could you possibly apply this to a FPS? Have Duke Nukem blow away crack addicts offering hand jobs, followed by a slick line "Keep your hands off my crack". While I'm sure the gaming community would welcome it with open arms, Harvard University isn't going to begin to offer Intro to Games: A deconstruction and study of the theories of video games just yet. The overall point being, the large majority of video games are the equivalence to a Michael Bay film, mindless escapism with little to no message or theme (Grand Theft Auto IV is the first to change this, brining to light the question of assimilation and poking the shit out of pop culture). I am sure there are people out there who would still consider Michael Bay an artist. Yet Jeffery Kaplan, lead designer of World of Warcraft, isn't even considered an artist. Because, is there honestly anything more to WoW than simple, mindless, fun, escapism? Do you play WoW to discover that, yes, war and out-of-control nationalism is dangerous and we as a race need to learn this or else we will suffer the fate of Azeroth and destroy our land and suffer horrible deaths.

I sure as hell hope not. Yet, you should.

Let's look at what I consider to be the greatest video game and story told, Final Fantasy VII. The famous film critic Roger Ebert (who is a hack if I ever saw one, he doesn't know the definition of a good film, but that's another story) has stated on several occasions that video games can never have the emotional strength and storytelling power that a film can have. He's never played FFVII, or any game for that matter. FFVII is the perfect example of storytelling. A person could write an entire book deconstructing it, yet for the sake of time and length, I will only briefly discuss it. What's more important for storytelling, characters or plot? FFVII gave us both. Never in any medium of storytelling have I encountered such compelling, complex, interesting characters. You cared for these polygon characters, more than a person would for any film character. You empathized with them to the fullest, and wanted nothing more than to see them achieve their goals. Best and unique part? You were controlling their actions the whole time. One of the many commandments of screenwriting is to get the audience to root and empathize with the protagonist, make the audience want to see the protagonist achieve their goal(s). In video games, you are not only doing the same thing, you are assisting the character all along the way. In essence, you are the character; the latter become your own achievements and desires. I want to see film accomplish that.

So video games have the ability to be the most powerful form of storytelling. Is that not art?

Let's take a look at a Michael Bay film equivalent of video games, Unreal Tournament III. You can really take a stretch and to say that UT3 is trying to convey the message that capitalism and industrialization will bring us to a world reduced to gladiatorial sports. Sure, why not. As subjective as this statement might be, UT3 did feature fantastic visuals and artwork at the time of its release. It was, and still is, a beautiful game that pushes many gaming rigs to the limit. How did the game achieve such stunning visuals? Where did they originate from? The pencil strokes of a concept artist, drawing and laboring over detailed pieces of art that moves its way down the video game development chain, going through so many versions and improvements, to appear on your PC monitor or TV screen. Is that not similar to film? All too similar, yet UT3 is completely ignored as art.

And I'm not even discussing all of the other art mediums that bring a video game to birth.

It may seem that I am picking on the film medium all too much. Not only am I filmmaker and screenwriter, but video games and film are too closely related, and the two biggest entertainment industries in America. It is simply unjust that considering one meaningless yet the other one of the most respected art forms.

On a very basic level, if a director decides to shoot his protagonist from a very low angle, it gives that character the sense of superiority over the situation, larger than life, god like even. Shoot the same character in the same situation and in the same stance, only from a high angle, they appear weak, small, not in control. Can the same type of meaning be conveyed in a video game? Can you easily placed the game camera in the exact same way? Does it make sense of the game mechanics? Let's go back to Duke Nukem 3D, another favorite of mine. The character is the camera, so you can't convey meaning the way a film would. The camera could leave the first-person view, climb above the character, get the same shot, and then rush back to first person view. It would completely break the rules of the FPS genre and alienate the gamer. So how do we show that Duke is weak, fucked, and out of control? In video game art language, make sure the player has little to no ammo, low health, and swarm the map with enemies. You know what Duke is feeling, because you are feeling the same exact thing. Your asshole is puckering up, sweating and nervous because if Duke dies, you die (rhetorically). Video games not only feature a totally different language system than film, but directly connect the player with the character.

Film could never achieve that.

A film crew on a big budget Hollywood production may work 12 hour days for 3-5 months during principal photography. The overall process of script to screen may take over a year. Film as a medium deserves to be called art if only due to the hard work and dedication it takes to create.

A development team on a big budget video game production may work 12 hour days for 2-4 years. The overall process of design document to screen may take over 2-3 years. Video game as a medium deserves to be call art if only due to the hard work and dedication it takes to create.

Video games have grown from two rectangles bouncing a square back and forth. They have grown to be a strong, powerful, and compelling storytelling medium. Storytelling has never been more personal and interactive. No longer do you vicariously sit in the dark surrounded by strangers you don't like, experiencing the gift, power, and entertainment of story. Now, YOU are in control, YOU move the story forward, YOU experience the pain, sorrow, and happiness. Video games are not only the ultimate art form, they are also the ultimate storytelling tool.

 

[House Julii]

I read the entire thing. Very nice.

 

[TheGooch69]

I read the entire thing. Very nice.

Thank you, much appreciated.

 

[PuppettMaster001]

Read the whole thing also, very nice article. I have a few people that I think need to read this.

 

[TheGooch69]

Read the whole thing also, very nice article. I have a few people that I think need to read this.

Please feel free to recommend the essay to whomever.

I want to revise it as there are several other ideas and points that I still want to make. I may consider writing a short book on the subject.

 

[damonposey]

or as idiotic as a single red dot on a white canvas

Dude, you insulted minimilist artists everywhere! keep that out of the book!

 

[finalgt]

I agree that some video games are art, but I do not believe that applies to all or even most of them, and I disagree that they are the "ultimate." The notion of video games as an industry means, by simple definition that industries exist to make profit, that the primary compulsion behind creating a video game is to provide entertainment. The vast majority of products created through artistic techniques, be it film, novels, or video games, exist solely to provide entertainment. In my viewpoint, entertainment can be considered a "low" form of art.

The Transformers is not art.

The 3,345 books that Nora Roberts has written are not art.

The Madden NFL series is not art.

 

[Fumarole]

A mostly good read. Do you plan on doing anything more with this, something professional perhaps? If so, I'd recommend polishing it up a bit more. Saying "Film could never achieve that" is on the same level as what you accuse Ebert of doing. And I'd remove the insults entirely.

 

[Slartibartfast]

"Harvard University isn't going to begin to offer Intro to Games: A deconstruction and study of the theories of video games just yet."

Already happening. I will be doing that sort of thing at MIT's GAMBIT game lab starting in the fall.

http://gambit.mit.edu/

ITU Copenhagen offers a Ph.D. in videogame studies.

 

[Chombo]

To be honest I think the primary reason that video games aren't considered art is that they are profit driven. People think artists should be destitute and their work isn't something you actually pay for until well after the artist is dead. If people made games because there is a wonderful story that the developer is just dying to show us, not because they can make millions. I would believe that games were art.

Ironically the "artistic" movies are the ones with either no budget or don't make any money.

 

[TheGooch69]

damonposey: And damnit, I shall do it again!

finalgt: Some very good points that I would like to tackle to prove and disprove if I decide to right a book on the topic. It's difficult to defend games like Rockband and Guitar Hero as intellectual pieces of art, but not impossible. The basis for my whole argument is that artists of almost every medium come to piece together a product.

Fumarole: I honestly might. What I posted is an essay I wrote while bored on a whim without proof reading it. I just wanted to see how people took my ideas. And there's a difference between making a statement based on fact, and plain out insulting someone or making a statement with no justification or way to back it up. What I said is a true statement. Roger Ebert is guilty of looking down upon video games when he knows very little about them, and immediately assumes that film is superior in every way.

Slartibartfast: It's very interesting and delightful to see that respected colleges are beginning to take video games and video game studies seriously. I will look further into their programs to see what exactly they are teaching and how they approach the subject.

 

[TheGooch69]

To be honest I think the primary reason that video games aren't considered art is that they are profit driven. People think artists should be destitute and their work isn't something you actually pay for until well after the artist is dead. If people made games because there is a wonderful story that the developer is just dying to show us, not because they can make millions. I would believe that games were art.

Ironically the "artistic" movies are the ones with either no budget or don't make any money.

The film and music industry are 100% driven by money, even the independent scene. This is a captilist society. Video games probably has the best example of a "true" independent scene, where a group of people design and develop games on an almost zero budget and for zero profit.

To the gaming community, it is referred as the Mod community.

Ambitious programmers and designers band together to create whole new games based on an existing game engine all the time. How do you think Counter-Strike came into existence? People design levels and add-one just because they love to do so. Only the extremely gifted get recgonized by game developers and get hired.

The process is almost indentical to independent filmmaking, except the young director is trying to get recgonzed so that they may make a few million for doing what they love.

And they get the priviliged of being called an artist, or auturer.

 

[Chombo]

The film and music industry are 100% driven by money, even the independent scene. This is a captilist society. Video games probably has the best example of a "true" independent scene, where a group of people design and develop games on an almost zero budget and for zero profit.

To the gaming community, it is referred as the Mod community.

Ambitious programmers and designers band together to create whole new games based on an existing game engine all the time. How do you think Counter-Strike came into existence? People design levels and add-one just because they love to do so. Only the extremely gifted get recgonized by game developers and get hired.

The process is almost indentical to independent filmmaking, except the young director is trying to get recgonzed so that they may make a few million for doing what they love.

And they get the priviliged of being called an artist, or auturer.

I agree with you that the mod community/first time developers are the true artists. They have an experience that they want us to experience. They do it regardless of any monetary compensation.

How many companies would stop producing games if it wasn't profitable? I would say almost all. Those remaining who do it because they love it are the artists. The same goes for movies.

 

[TheGooch69]

Like I mentioned before, perhaps the main reason video games aren't widely received as art because their main purpose and nature is to entertain and be fun.

But so is film, summer blockbusters especially, yet the directors, actors, writers, and producers of these films strut around claiming to be artists.

As far as business goes, the video game industry is quickly surpassing the film industry, in fact, I forget which year it was exactly, but the video game industry DID surpass the film industry in profits. However, this is mainly due to the fact that gaming is a much more expensive hobby than film-going. $60 for a game vs. $12 is a huge factor, and there are a hell of a lot more people who are film-goers than gamers. For a film to make $200+ million in four days takes over 16 million people to go buy a ticket.

 

[Fumarole]

Fumarole: I honestly might. What I posted is an essay I wrote while bored on a whim without proof reading it. I just wanted to see how people took my ideas. And there's a difference between making a statement based on fact, and plain out insulting someone or making a statement with no justification or way to back it up. What I said is a true statement. Roger Ebert is guilty of looking down upon video games when he knows very little about them, and immediately assumes that film is superior in every way.

This is what I was referring to in part:

The famous film critic Roger Ebert (who is a hack if I ever saw one, he doesn't know the definition of a good film, but that's another story)

A good argument need not belittle another to stand up on its own merit. I'm not saying I disagree with how you feel about Ebert, I'm simply saying your essay would be the stronger for removing such statements.

 

[TheGooch69]

This is what I was referring to in part:
A good argument need not belittle another to stand up on its own merit. I'm not saying I disagree with how you feel about Ebert, I'm simply saying your essay would be the stronger for removing such statements.

I understand your point. I feel the more controversial and outspoken a piece is, the more attention it will receive, and I feel this is a topic that deserves wide spread attention.

Perhaps I could think of a more polite way of putting it.

 

[damonposey]

if paintings were as entertaining as movies, then painting artists wouldn't be considered as artistic by pop culture, but pop culture doesn't dictate to me what is art, I decide for myself.

So I do think its true that a video game has the most potential out of any work to have the most artistic potential. Heck, a level editor alone gives a level designer a huge amount of artistic flexibility.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Your "essay" was actually an editorial/rant.

If you paint pictures, whether they are as magnificent as the Sistine Chapel ceiling or as idiotic as a single red dot on a white canvas, with some exaggerated explanation of its true meaning, you are an artist.

With this paragraph your piece becomes an editorial, not an essay.

If you express thoughts, meaning, and emotions with words in a coerce way (or sometimes not (Dada), you are an artist. You use a camera to take a still photograph that can convey meaning and feelings to the viewer, you are an artist. If you do the same through the use of a series of moving images, you are an artist. You compile beautifully sounding musical notes (or sometimes disgusting) you are an artist.

Not entirely sure what you're saying here - could use some proofreading and revision (how do you express things in a "coerce" way?

Yet, if a large team of highly talented artists compile all of the above into a single product, and give the person the option to directly interact with it, control, and alter it to their own unique experience, you are a menace to society. I am of course speaking of video games, the most modern form of art. Video games are a compilation of every type of art form in human history, plus the added interaction and direct control to make EVERY experience unique. Video games also allow you to interact with others, evolving the expression of art into a fourth dimension. A video game is developed by artists in all fields, from visual artists, to writers, to musicians, to cinema directors, to voice actors. I will even go as far as calling the programmers artists, their hard and demanding work just deserves to be called so. Video games are the ultimate art form, borrowing and fully utilizing every art medium and fusing it into one.

You might want to explain what you mean by "art" here. You keep saying "X is Y" without defining Y. And are games really a compilation of every art form in history? Do they incorporate dance? Poetry? Is a game a work of art because it's components can all be considered art, or is the whole art in and of itself?

So why does the majority turn their nose up at video games, refusing to recognize them as a respectable art form? Perhaps it's due to the fact that the public immediately associate video games with hardcore violence, mindless escapism, ignoring the beautiful characters and stories that developers such as Square Soft have brought us, more notable, Final Fantasy VII. Perhaps it's because most art mediums, like cinema, teach the spectator something about themselves, or passionately deliver a message. Is there a better piece of art that expresses the horrors of addiction better than Requiem for a Dream? If a video game attempted to do the same, send out a meaningful and emotional message about addiction, how could it possibly be taken seriously?

Let's take the addiction message and apply it to a video game. Like film, video games have several genres. The most appropriate genre for a message of this type would be a RPG (role-playing-game). How could you possibly apply this to a FPS? Have Duke Nukem blow away crack addicts offering hand jobs, followed by a slick line "Keep your hands off my crack". While I'm sure the gaming community would welcome it with open arms, Harvard University isn't going to begin to offer Intro to Games: A deconstruction and study of the theories of video games just yet.

You never actually applied the addiction story to videogames, or created an example of how it could work. Providing examples of how you think games can be art would make this much, much stronger. Right now it reads like a rant. Also, stating that Harvard is NOT going to offer such courses only weakens your argument. The person reading this is going to say "Well if Harvard is not going to do it, why the hell should I listen to the yahoo who wrote this?"

The overall point being, the large majority of video games are the equivalence to a Michael Bay film, mindless escapism with little to no message or theme (Grand Theft Auto IV is the first to change this, brining to light the question of assimilation and poking the shit out of pop culture). I am sure there are people out there who would still consider Michael Bay an artist. Yet Jeffery Kaplan, lead designer of World of Warcraft, isn't even considered an artist. Because, is there honestly anything more to WoW than simple, mindless, fun, escapism? Do you play WoW to discover that, yes, war and out-of-control nationalism is dangerous and we as a race need to learn this or else we will suffer the fate of Azeroth and destroy our land and suffer horrible deaths.

Grand Theft Auto IV is hardly the first to be different.
Why do you assume that Kaplan is so universally derided and not awarded the status of "artist?" This section is just whiny.

I sure as hell hope not. Yet, you should.

WTF are you talking about?

Let's look at what I consider to be the greatest video game and story told, Final Fantasy VII. The famous film critic Roger Ebert (who is a hack if I ever saw one, he doesn't know the definition of a good film, but that's another story) has stated on several occasions that video games can never have the emotional strength and storytelling power that a film can have. He's never played FFVII, or any game for that matter. FFVII is the perfect example of storytelling. A person could write an entire book deconstructing it, yet for the sake of time and length, I will only briefly discuss it. What's more important for storytelling, characters or plot? FFVII gave us both. Never in any medium of storytelling have I encountered such compelling, complex, interesting characters. You cared for these polygon characters, more than a person would for any film character. You empathized with them to the fullest, and wanted nothing more than to see them achieve their goals. Best and unique part? You were controlling their actions the whole time. One of the many commandments of screenwriting is to get the audience to root and empathize with the protagonist, make the audience want to see the protagonist achieve their goal(s). In video games, you are not only doing the same thing, you are assisting the character all along the way. In essence, you are the character; the latter become your own achievements and desires. I want to see film accomplish that.

1. If you want to be taken seriously, don't attack Ebert like that (as has been mentioned above).
2. It's never a good idea to tell your audience what they are/were thinking and feeling. People resent it.
3. You never discussed FFVII to the extent required by someone who has not played it. What makes the characters powerful and compelling? We're not going to take your word for it; defend your argument.

So video games have the ability to be the most powerful form of storytelling. Is that not art?

Says you. Defend your argument. Videogames have so far failed miserably at conveying inner conflict, as well as other common narrative elements.

Let's take a look at a Michael Bay film equivalent of video games, Unreal Tournament III. You can really take a stretch and to say that UT3 is trying to convey the message that capitalism and industrialization will bring us to a world reduced to gladiatorial sports. Sure, why not. As subjective as this statement might be, UT3 did feature fantastic visuals and artwork at the time of its release. It was, and still is, a beautiful game that pushes many gaming rigs to the limit. How did the game achieve such stunning visuals? Where did they originate from? The pencil strokes of a concept artist, drawing and laboring over detailed pieces of art that moves its way down the video game development chain, going through so many versions and improvements, to appear on your PC monitor or TV screen. Is that not similar to film? All too similar, yet UT3 is completely ignored as art.

Again, this sounds whiny. Basically what you're doing is saying that UT3 has complicated visuals, and therefore it's art, and it's not fair goddamnit. Just because something is hard to draw doesn't make it art. Also, avoid slang like "gaming rigs" if you're writing seriously.

And I'm not even discussing all of the other art mediums that bring a video game to birth.

You did above, when you talked about music and writing.

It may seem that I am picking on the film medium all too much. Not only am I filmmaker and screenwriter, but video games and film are too closely related, and the two biggest entertainment industries in America. It is simply unjust that considering one meaningless yet the other one of the most respected art forms.

Most, if not all, game academics are pushing against this concept. Videgame studies have typically borrowed from film studies, but people now recognize this is too limiting. They are only related in that they attempt to convey a story visually. What does Citizen Kane have in common with Tetris?

On a very basic level, if a director decides to shoot his protagonist from a very low angle, it gives that character the sense of superiority over the situation, larger than life, god like even. Shoot the same character in the same situation and in the same stance, only from a high angle, they appear weak, small, not in control. Can the same type of meaning be conveyed in a video game? Can you easily placed the game camera in the exact same way? Does it make sense of the game mechanics? Let's go back to Duke Nukem 3D, another favorite of mine. The character is the camera, so you can't convey meaning the way a film would. The camera could leave the first-person view, climb above the character, get the same shot, and then rush back to first person view. It would completely break the rules of the FPS genre and alienate the gamer. So how do we show that Duke is weak, fucked, and out of control? In video game art language, make sure the player has little to no ammo, low health, and swarm the map with enemies. You know what Duke is feeling, because you are feeling the same exact thing. Your asshole is puckering up, sweating and nervous because if Duke dies, you die (rhetorically). Video games not only feature a totally different language system than film, but directly connect the player with the character.

Film could never achieve that.

...provided you are playing some sort of character-based game. What about an RTS?

And do you really believe that breaking the rules of a genre will alienate the gamer? I think Half-Life did something along those lines: integrating the story into the gameplay of an FPS. Some of gaming's biggest success stories are genre-busters. Puzzle Quest anybody?

A film crew on a big budget Hollywood production may work 12 hour days for 3-5 months during principal photography. The overall process of script to screen may take over a year. Film as a medium deserves to be called art if only due to the hard work and dedication it takes to create.

A development team on a big budget video game production may work 12 hour days for 2-4 years. The overall process of design document to screen may take over 2-3 years. Video game as a medium deserves to be call art if only due to the hard work and dedication it takes to create.

Hard work = art? I didn't realize the state employed so many artists fixing bridges and laying down asphalt. Again you should probably present your definition of "art" at some point. All scholarly discourse requires clear definition of terms.

Video games have grown from two rectangles bouncing a square back and forth. They have grown to be a strong, powerful, and compelling storytelling medium. Storytelling has never been more personal and interactive. No longer do you vicariously sit in the dark surrounded by strangers you don't like, experiencing the gift, power, and entertainment of story. Now, YOU are in control, YOU move the story forward, YOU experience the pain, sorrow, and happiness. Video games are not only the ultimate art form, they are also the ultimate storytelling tool.

1. Videogames didn't begin at pong.
2. Storytelling has certainly never been more interactive, but more personal? When was the last time you felt a deep connection to a videogame protagonist on the level that literature can provide? If it happens to you often, I recommend reading more.

I'm glad you are passionate about games and willing to take the time and effort to express that, but when writing you really need to consider your audience and structure. This piece is obviously written by a gamer for a gamer, and that type of writing will never advance anything. You need to reach out to the layperson and demonstrate why games should be considered art, not just complain about the fact that they are not.

 

[Draax]

I like gaming, but I have a hard time considering video games art, then again I may be biased considering I am an artist. Perhaps a select few may blur the line, but the vast majority of video games have horrible: plots, character development, environments, you name it.

 

[DavePars7]

You guys should check out eXistenZ.

No...........not the penis pills, the Cronenberg movie.

It has some bearing on this thread, and for the record I've been arguing this topic for years with many types of people. Only the select few "get it" most are sheep who only know GTA violence. Its a blessing and a curse on the art I suppose.

-dave

 

[Fumarole]

You guys should check out eXistenZ.

Seconded.

 

[TheGooch69]

I have seen eXistenZ. Cronenberg often deals with "what is reality" questions and subjects. It is a good film for any gamer to see.

Slartibartfast: I greatly appreciate your time and your comments. I really should stress that I wrote the essay spontaneously with almost zero research, based on knowledge that I already have. I do plan to write a more academia essay with proper research, structure, and grammer I often type faster than I think, or is it the other way around?

What I wrote is for gamers and is an unfinished first rough draft of what I ultimately plan to complete.

Says you. Defend your argument. Videogames have so far failed miserably at conveying inner conflict, as well as other common narrative elements.

Have you played any Final Fantasy game, or RPG for that matter? Cloud as a character battles equally with himself and his inner conflicts as he does with the external conflicts.

Even Max Payne does a great job of conveying a horribly emotional scarred character that is as much at war with himself and his inner conflicts as he is with his external conflicts.

 

[KillaChaos]

Can you explain why you chose UT3? It has excellent visuals, but its Unreal Engine 3, so of course it does. If you are going to choose a game as an art form, you should use a game with an excellent and deep story line. Bioshock for example. Or Call of Duty 4 that sets war into a game and while its not "war is hell" it still portrays a "beautiful" war.

 

[TheGooch69]

Can you explain why you chose UT3? It has excellent visuals, but its Unreal Engine 3, so of course it does. If you are going to choose a game as an art form, you should use a game with an excellent and deep story line. Bioshock for example. Or Call of Duty 4 that sets war into a game and while its not "war is hell" it still portrays a "beautiful" war.

I was purely discussing the visual art medium of video games during that section and how games that are equivalent to a Michael Bay film can still be consider art due to the expansive and visually stunning art work that is put into the game. A painting may lack a story or meaning behind it, which I feel most modern art does; the artists tend to overstretch and overcompsnsate a meaning, going back to my low blow to modern art, but is still art, is it not?

 

[zz2]

As Slartibartfast said to answer the question if games are art or not, art needs to be defined. there are probably hundreds definitions of art.

here is definition of an art from Longman dictionary (LDOCE):

art /ä:t $ ä:rt/
1 [uncountable] the use of painting, drawing, sculpture etc to represent things or express ideas..

games are representing things and expressing ideas so by this definition they are art

 

[damonposey]

my posts on this forum are art! use the search function to see all of my works of art.

 

[zz2]

my posts on this forum are art! use the search function to see all of my works of art.

haha.. your posts are art to me as much as red dot on white canvas

 

[Jynio]

Video games are not a form of art. That's just ridiculous. They comprise of various art forms, but just because of that fact, the result is not a piece of art.

I don't understand what you're trying to prove in your first paragraph. Yes, if you're a painter, poet, photographer, musician etc, you are an artist. The exact same applies to video games. Whether you're involved in concept, textures, modeling, rigging, animating, lighting, rendering, etc, you could be considered an artist.

Your second paragraph isn't any better. When does talent or a large team have any influence on whether or not something is considered art? I can draw a stick man, and it's considered a piece of art just as much as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

The vary reason you proclaim video games to be the ultimate art form, is the same reason why they are not viewed as one (Control, and how every experience is unique).

 

[damonposey]

The vary reason you proclaim video games to be the ultimate art form, is the same reason why they are not viewed as one (Control, and how every experience is unique).

Control actually gives the player the ability to be an artist. a good open-ended game with freedom lets a player express him/herself to create a unique group of choices and actions. So then gameplay is a players artistic expression inside of a game that is a piece of art made by artists! Can't get more artsy than that!

Also, not all musicians/songwriters are artists imo. Those songwriters that bring you bubblegum pop hits only write those songs to hand off to major label artists so they can get paid.

 

[TheGooch69]

I can draw a stick man, and it's considered a piece of art just as much as the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel.

Thank you for voiding your whole argument and further strengthening mine.

You go back to my "red dot on a white canvas" argument. Minimalist artists are still considered artists, no one dares to call them any less (except for me of course).

Why should a piece of minimalist art be consider respectable art and video games are not?

And the ability to have the user control the art is nothing new. I can't remember the name of the artist off the top of my head, but he lined Central Park in New York City with countless of very simple structures (again I am recalling from memory, sorry I'm not specific enough). Why did he do this? Because New Yorkers who stroll around Central Park needed a change of scenery, a new view of the same perception and reality. It's like painting your house red when it's been brown your entire life, just to change your perception and watch your reaction.

The spectators reaction is as much the art as the actual creation. Sounds a lot like video games doesn't it?

To further prove my point (and again I am going from memory, I fail to remember the musicians name), an musician/artist created an entire piece of techno-electro-symphonic music. He played it to a large crowd at a typical orchestra theater (I believe it was outdoors as well). However, the place was riddled with speakers from all different angles and potions, each playing individual sounds (think the ultimate surround sound experience). Every single person heard and experienced the concert differently. What one person heard up front was very different than what a person in the back was hearing. The audience wasn't necessarily controlling the art, but it was a unique, individual experience to everyone who attended.

EVERY video game is a unique and individual experience, some more than others. Add the ability to control it, and you have an art form that is ultimately superior to all others. The art is as much the players as it is the creator.

Adam Sessler of X-Play (say what you want about him) made the same argument about video games being art. An artists/musician gathered a large crowd to listen to five minutes of silence. The audiences reaction was the art.

 

[Jynio]

Let's put your argument on whether or not videos games are a form of art to the side for a second. Explain to me one thing please, and why videos games are the 'ultimate' art form.

I've heard music scores which are more moving and expressive then any video game I've ever played. I've read books which place myself in a world far more realistic then any video game. By appealing to more senses you are limiting the imagination of the viewer, and therefore removing them from the experience.

A simple example.
"The most beautiful woman I ever laid eyes on walked into the room."

While reading this, the imagination builds the perfect scene for each individual depending on their definition of true beauty.

Why can a video game not even come close to representing this? Their use of visuals and audio make this statement impossible to recreate. You can't compete with the imagination, so how can video games ever become the ultimate art form?

 

[damonposey]

I don't see what you're trying to say. Art is an attempt at turning imagination into something tangible. So by your logic, wouldn't a world without art be ideal since you have to rely on your imagination 100%?

 

[Jynio]

There needs to be something expressed by the artist. Personally I don't believe leaving it 100% to the imagination is art. However, others may disagree, and believe a blank canvas can be art. Or as TheGooch69 mentioned, 5 minutes of silence.

Why do movies never live up to their written counterparts? Same concept, they appeal to more senses and therefore leave less to the imagination.

 

[finalgt]

Thank you for voiding your whole argument and further strengthening mine.

You go back to my "red dot on a white canvas" argument. Minimalist artists are still considered artists, no one dares to call them any less (except for me of course).

Why should a piece of minimalist art be consider respectable art and video games are not?

And the ability to have the user control the art is nothing new. I can't remember the name of the artist off the top of my head, but he lined Central Park in New York City with countless of very simple structures (again I am recalling from memory, sorry I'm not specific enough). Why did he do this? Because New Yorkers who stroll around Central Park needed a change of scenery, a new view of the same perception and reality. It's like painting your house red when it's been brown your entire life, just to change your perception and watch your reaction.

The spectators reaction is as much the art as the actual creation. Sounds a lot like video games doesn't it?

To further prove my point (and again I am going from memory, I fail to remember the musicians name), an musician/artist created an entire piece of techno-electro-symphonic music. He played it to a large crowd at a typical orchestra theater (I believe it was outdoors as well). However, the place was riddled with speakers from all different angles and potions, each playing individual sounds (think the ultimate surround sound experience). Every single person heard and experienced the concert differently. What one person heard up front was very different than what a person in the back was hearing. The audience wasn't necessarily controlling the art, but it was a unique, individual experience to everyone who attended.

EVERY video game is a unique and individual experience, some more than others. Add the ability to control it, and you have an art form that is ultimately superior to all others. The art is as much the players as it is the creator.

Adam Sessler of X-Play (say what you want about him) made the same argument about video games being art. An artists/musician gathered a large crowd to listen to five minutes of silence. The audiences reaction was the art.

The structure of the product is not what makes it art. It's the effect of the structure.

 

[TheGooch69]

Jynio: You say that true art is only something that makes the wheels of the imagination turn, thus creating an image, world, thought, appear into the brain, and that video games don't do that? I don't even know where to begin with that.

The structure of the product is not what makes it art. It's the effect of the structure.

Role Playing Games are basically interactive films. I don't know how any person can call film art, where you sit vicariously, watching events unfold before you, with zero direct interaction and control, and not call video games art, which include all of the latter, with the added individual experience and control.

I am a film studies major. I have watched and studied countless number of films and television programs. Yet the most emotionally engaging story, the most complex, interesting, evolving characters, most beautifully and appropriately composed music, I have ever experienced and witnessed wasn't from a film. It was from Final Fantasy VII. Forget the fact that it is a video game. As a piece of storytelling, it is perfect in every way. Playing that game was a very emotional experience for me.

The close second is The Sopranos but I don't have the energy to dive into that further.

And I'll admit, maybe video games aren't the "ultimate" art form, but they are the most unique form of art. I refuse to be told any differently. Like film, video games started out as simple and pure forms of entertainment. As time has passed, they have grown into much more meaningful pieces of art, the interactive story that can bring out all different types of emotions and feelings in a person.

 

[Jynio]

Jynio: You say that true art is only something that makes the wheels of the imagination turn, thus creating an image, world, thought, appear into the brain, and that video games don't do that? I don't even know where to begin with that.

Perhaps you have trouble reading. I never once mentioned that video games leave nothing to the imagination, I simply said they leave less to the imagination then other forms of art. For this reason many people find books and music more captivating and emotional.

And I'll admit, maybe video games aren't the "ultimate" art form...

You should probably reword your title then.

 

[ScretHate]

Putting the Sistine Chapel in the same category as a red dot is asinine. As a result, so is your entire article.