Support NeoGAF

[Conkerkid11]

Some laughable definitions of art in here.

If you want to talk cultural impact, Call of fucking Duty has had a greater material cultural impact than any poem, symphony, or painting (except maybe the Obama "HOPE" illustration, and that was basically an ad) in the last 100 years.

Yeah, but it's interactive, so it's not art.

I literally said there is NO shame in being a video game developer. I also think there are MANY artists who make video games, but that most games aren't necessarily art.

Saying that there's "no shame in..." implies that the person would even feel ashamed.

 

[gfxtwin]

Shaming video game devs as if they're not on the same level as artists whose work is put into galleries is ridiculous.

Hideo Kojima can also say whatever he wants. That doesn't make it true. He can also say he put a half-naked woman in his game because it allows her to breathe, but that doesn't make it true.


wat

Except I literally said there is NO shame in being a video game developer, check what I wrote again. I also think there are MANY artists who make video games, but that most games aren't necessarily art.

 

[Neith]

I'm not sure, but some people took the lack of validation really hard.

Wow, CliffyB, holy shit. And Bioshock Infinite has great "art" in places but a horribly incoherent artistic message.

Ebert was a good guy. He would have eventually come around. VGs are their infancy still, and Ebert comes from film, so no games had not quite approached film as art back then.

But certain games yes they qualify as art. No arguments.

 

[Teeth]

I literally said there is NO shame in being a video game developer. I also think there are MANY artists who make video games, but that most games aren't necessarily art.

All games are art. Most of them are bad art.

There is no definition of art that you could come up with that would exclude games and not exclude many defining works in other mediums.

Edit: Ebert's biggest problem was his ignorance of games. He was under the idea (or took the position that) a player could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. But anyone who has actually played a game knows that all actions are defined by the creator. That is the art in games.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

I guess I’ll ask some of my questions again since they were ignored or overlooked the first time. Is Pong art? If Pong is art, is the sport of tennis or table tennis an art form? If they are, what does that do to the definition of art? If they are not, what separates them? If Pong is art, why not video tic tac toe or regular tic tac toe?

 

[Conkerkid11]

I guess I'll ask some of my questions again since they were ignored or overlooked the first time. Is Pong art? If Pong is art, is the sport of tennis or table tennis an art form? If they are, what does that do to the definition of art? If they are not, what separates them? If Pong is art, why not video tic tac toe or regular tic tac toe?

Why aren't sports art?

But certain games yes they qualify as art. No arguments.

What games don't qualify as art? Just the games you don't like?

 

[Teeth]

I guess I’ll ask some of my questions again since they were ignored or overlooked the first time. Is Pong art? If Pong is art, is the sport of tennis or table tennis an art form? If they are, what does that do to the definition of art? If they are not, what separates them? If Pong is art, why not video tic tac toe or regular tic tac toe?

Playing Tennis isn't really art, but Tennis is a piece of art. The defined rule set creating an elegance of competition is an art.

 

[gfxtwin]

Obviously, I'm being fairly reductive, but as a band their cultural significance (whic is what you were referring to), began with their debut, which was well before they started experimenting.

OT though, you didn't actually answer my question. Again, why does art need to be "intended to be culturally important" to count in your book? Sure, it can be intentionally challenging, but purposefully making a work of cultural import generally requires a certain amount of privilege beforehand.

Art doesn't need to be "culturally important" to "count" as art. But I do feel like any artistic medium should allow room for a variety of forms of artistic expression, and that includes boundary-pushing, challenging stuff that changes the lexicon of the culture. This is true of books, TV, film, comics, etc. I'm not sold that it's true of video games...yet.

Privileged in what way?

By that definition there are probably a good number of classical art pieces that are not art.

Since when does art require a message to be art? Art is simply creative expression. Whether the viewer is challenged with the harsh realities of life, driven to an emotional response, or simply admires the beauty of the thing, it is art. And as said above, not all art is good art either.

But simply adding interactivity certainly should not disqualify something from being art.

I don't disagree that something that is mostly just aesthetic or escapist can be art, but I think any mature artistic medium will offer stuff that challenges the audience as much as possible. I don't think that such works are the ONLY form art can take, but they are important and need to exist in any medium IMHO.

 

[More_Badass]

Don't forget Dys4ria and how it uses the medium of video games to share the experience of transitioning from male to female.

To be clear, I personally think some games are pretty successful at being art, but they are few and far between. I also feel like overall there are limits to how challenging/boundary-pushing as art games can be due to how they kinda also need to be successful products.

And movies don't need to be?

If anything, games have more potential and have less limits than movies in that aspect, due to the freedom of distribution and access to creative tools.

 

[Danjin44]

To me games are art, same way movies and music are.
Bunch of different artist come together to create games.

 

[TACPhilly]

idk but playing nonstop through games like Uncharted 4 make me feel like i did when i first read Watchmen. that game was so incredibly well made. and only a videogame is capable of brilliance in the way that sequence in the house, after playing crash, it asks you what she was talking about... and you have no clue. i was floored by that.

 

[Village]

For me when the purpose of your creation is to sell me something its not art.
.

That's literally like most art in existence.

And as an artist, that's frankly fucking insulting.

I don't do shit for free unless its for me or for a friend, or for bigger gig. fucking pay me. You sound like those people asking for free art on twitter

 

[wuth]

I guess I’ll ask some of my questions again since they were ignored or overlooked the first time. Is Pong art? If Pong is art, is the sport of tennis or table tennis an art form? If they are, what does that do to the definition of art? If they are not, what separates them? If Pong is art, why not video tic tac toe or regular tic tac toe?

Is pong sitting in a museum to be viewed as a text? Is it part of a performance?

Art is context more than it is substance. Anything can be art, but in becoming art does it lose what made it so great in the first place? We shape art through conversations just like this, and in doing so we elevate the materials that we analyze. There's certainly nuance to this conversation that is fun to pick around at, but it's often left by the wayside as people simply try to hand-wave it away.

Ebert did have a point, though I disagree with his very flawed understanding of what a video game is. Perhaps Overwatch isn't necessarily art, but does that even matter?

 

[FranF]

Gaming's most acclaimed stories rely on non-playable cutscenes and still barely reach the level of cheap genre paperbacks 🤷

Video games are a different entity from "walking simulators," electronic art installments or isolated illustrations and assets in my mind. The mindset of playing a game that requires skill is very different from interpreting or appreciating an artist's message

 

[PatThePassive]

Are games "proper" or "improper" art?

I would say improper

now go! everyone argue!

That's literally like most art in existence.

And as an artist, that's frankly fucking insulting.

I don't do shit for free unless its for me or for a friend, or for bigger gig. fucking pay me. You sound like those people asking for free art on twitter

Come on I didnt say you should do it for free, art requires more than just the desire to sell your work I assume when you make something for or not for money you still put something into it that you value or the recipient will value.
commercials dont have that value its pure commercial

I admire artists mainly because I cant make shit.

 

[Danjin44]

Is pong sitting in a museum to be viewed as a text? Is it part of a performance?

Art is context more than it is substance. Anything can be art, but in becoming art does it lose what made it so great in the first place? We shape art through conversations just like this, and in doing so we elevate the materials that we analyze. There's certainly nuance to this conversation that is fun to pick around at, but it's often left by the wayside as people simply try to hand-wave it away.

Ebert did have a point, though I disagree with his very flawed understanding of what a video game is. Perhaps Overwatch isn't necessarily art, but does that even matter?

Why the fuck not!!? Im not in to Overwatch but it doesn't change that it has great character designs that are beautifully animated.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Is pong sitting in a museum to be viewed as a text? Is it part of a performance?

Art is context more than it is substance. Anything can be art, but in becoming art does it lose what made it so great in the first place? We shape art through conversations just like this, and in doing so we elevate the materials that we analyze. There's certainly nuance to this conversation that is fun to pick around at, but it's often left by the wayside as people simply try to hand-wave it away.

Ebert did have a point, though I disagree with his very flawed understanding of what a video game is. Perhaps Overwatch isn't necessarily art, but does that even matter?

Pong has been shown in art museums, yes. (Ironically for me, just in video form and not interactive) and it was. Or performance like the Pong installations on buildings or whatnot.

Playing Tennis isn't really art, but Tennis is a piece of art. The defined rule set creating an elegance of competition is an art.

Tic tac toe has defined rules and a very small amount of elegance to its game.

 

[Conkerkid11]

Are games "proper" or "improper" art?

I would say improper

now go! everyone argue!

So you admit you're trolling?

 

[More_Badass]

I don't disagree that something that is mostly just aesthetic or escapist can be art, but I think any mature artistic medium will offer stuff that challenges the audience as much as possible. I don't think that such works are the ONLY form art can take, but they are important and need to exist in any medium IMHO.

Personally I’d argue that games have been in the equivalent era of 1910/20s filmmaking for the last 20+ years. You know, when film makers were beginning to explore how editing could be used as a means of storytelling and figuring out the foundational tenets of the craft

That’s where games are now. It isn't a mature medium yet, but it’s been growing and evolving and experimenting for years. Consider everything from Half Life’s novel approach to Telltale’s style to the dreaded forced walking, to Edith Finch and Paper’s Please to Uncharted and Inside...it all falls under the umbrella of developers figuring how to use the tools of game design to tell stories and convey themes and whatnot.

 

[gfxtwin]

All games are art. Most of them are bad art.

There is no definition of art that you could come up with that would exclude games and not exclude many defining works in other mediums.

Edit: Ebert's biggest problem was his ignorance of games. He was under the idea (or took the position that) a player could do whatever they wanted whenever they wanted. But anyone who has actually played a game knows that all actions are defined by the creator. That is the art in games.

I guess I just feel like there is a distinction between entertainer and artist. Art tends to be the work of an artist and it functions as their voice and reveals insightful truths about humanity that only they can. Very few if any games do this (moreso than in the media of film, book, comics and TV) and are more geared towards as general an audience as possible. All games are creative expression though.

And movies don't need to be?

If anything, games have more potential and have less limits than movies in that aspect, due to the freedom of distribution and access to creative tools.

I think movies (and definitely books) are not as creatively restricted by the medium as games are.

 

[gfxtwin]

Personally I'd argue that games have been in the equivalent era of 1910/20s filmmaking for the last 20+ years. You know, when film makers were beginning to explore how editing could be used as means of storytelling and figuring out the foundational tenets of the craft

That's where games are now. It isn't a mature medium yet, but it's been growing and evolving and experimenting for years. Consider everything from Half Life's novel approach to Telltales style to the dreaded forced walking, to Edith Finch and Paper's Please to Uncharted and Inside...it all falls under the umbrella of developers figuring how to use the tools of game design to tell stories and convey themes and whatnot.

I think an argument can be made that there's a reason we haven't gotten a "Citizen Kane of games" yet that mostly boils down to what the videogame industry is right now + the limitations of interactivity and CG graphics on storytelling and artistic expression.

 

[Danjin44]

I guess I just feel like there is a distinction between entertainer and artist. Art tends to be the work of an artist and it functions as their voice and reveals truths about humanity that only they can. Very few if any games do this and are more geared towards as general an audience as possible. All games are creative expression though.




I think movies (and definitely books) are not as creatively restricted by the medium as games are.

Go play games like NieR and 999 and see how they use their medium to tell their story in creative way.

 

[PatThePassive]

So you admit you're trolling?

No I'm serious

why does my question seem like I'm trolling? I'm enjoying the dialog we are having.

although I did put a joke at the end.

Go play games like NieR and 999 and see how they use their medium to tell their story in creative way.

Nier is so goddamn good its right there on the edge for me.

 

[Neptonic]

Some good points made. I never considered games as art, but at the same time, I never considered television or film as art for that matter. My skin crawls when people declare a movie as a "masterpiece", even if I happen to like the film.

Art is just media that makes you feel emotion

so like everything

 

[KJRS_1993]

although I did put a joke at the end.

The art of gaming is no laughing matter, Pat.

 

[Conkerkid11]

No I'm serious

why does my question seem like I'm trolling? I'm enjoying the dialog we are having.

although I did put a joke at the end.

Because now your opinion is that art can be "improper".

 

[PatThePassive]

Because now your opinion is that art can be "improper".

I was applying that if games are art where do they fit into Joyce's definition of proper and improper art.

The art of gaming is no laughing matter, Pat.

.

 

[gfxtwin]

Go play games like NieR and 999 and see how they use their medium to tell their story in creative way.

I'm not saying games can't tell stories in a creative way. At all. In fact, one of the best things I can say about creative expression in games is that they can tell stories in a way that pretty much no other media can. I still think there are limits right now in regards to the kinds of stories that can be told, though.

 

[wuth]

Why the fuck not!!? Im not in to Overwatch but it doesn't change that it has great character designs that are beautifully animated.

Why does it need to be art? It's not any less beautiful or legitimate as a pop-culture object.

And it's not necessarily art when used in the traditional sense. When it's played for competition, it's a 'game' that is made of 'art.' Art, in the traditional, academic, Ebert sense, is a text/object that is analyzed in order to draw meaning from it. Art is a magic trick, one that is taught to very privileged people, in which we take any object and impress our own experiences onto it in order to find a deeper appreciation for it. When we break down Overwatch, what meaning do you draw from it?

That conclusion that you come to is what elevates the object. So when you think about what Overwatch means as a aesthetic text, what metric do you use to define that label? Is it a metaphor for something personal to you? Does it enhance some real-world concept that would otherwise be difficult to explain without the existence of Overwatch?

I actually believe that Overwatch IS art, but not in the sense that it is pretty or made of pretty things. It's art when you step back and take in the larger scope, perhaps as a performance of simulated conflict? Or simply as a strange collection of otherworldly objects?

If this post was not /r/iamverysmart enough for you, I can keep going. I took a lot of art theory classes in college...

 

[FranF]

If I were more than an illustrator who loves game-inspired kitsch, but a true fine artist with something thought-provoking to tell the world, I would never lock it behind a toy that required twitch reflexes. What if the Mona Lisa was a pinball board, or David was a final boss?

 

[wuth]

If I were more than an illustrator who loves game-inspired kitsch, but a true fine artist with something thought-provoking to tell the world, I would never lock it behind a toy that required twitch reflexes. What if the Mona Lisa was a pinball board, or David was a final boss?

To be fair, what if the difficulty was part of the presentation? That you had to 'earn' the bigger picture. But you're right, in doing so the actual text becomes lost in a bigger conversation. If the Mona Lisa was buried in a gigantic, nearly impossible maze then I would think the maze might overshadow it.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Personally I’d argue that games have been in the equivalent era of 1910/20s filmmaking for the last 20+ years. You know, when film makers were beginning to explore how editing could be used as a means of storytelling and figuring out the foundational tenets of the craft

That’s where games are now. It isn't a mature medium yet, but it’s been growing and evolving and experimenting for years. Consider everything from Half Life’s novel approach to Telltales style to the dreaded forced walking, to Edith Finch and Paper’s Please to Uncharted and Inside...it all falls under the umbrella of developers figuring how to use the tools of game design to tell stories and convey themes and whatnot.

The issue I have and is the reason I responded to you earlier in asking you to take the totality of one of my earlier post into consideration is that you are focusing on narrative and thematic games. Yes, Papers Please and Edith Finch have something to say and do so with their narratives and gameplay. What of the games that don't? Maybe this will become into an art form. But, in the 1910, people weren't viewing Edison's electrocution of an elephant as art. Nor the factory workers walking to work. Nor a train arriving at a station. Maybe we just don't know if this will be an art form? I think you're arguing with the supposition that it is undoubtably going to be one.

And yet, people treat Pong as art and put it in museums on "The Art of Video Games".

Again (to be ignored):

I guess I’ll ask some of my questions again since they were ignored or overlooked the first time. Is Pong art? If Pong is art, is the sport of tennis or table tennis an art form? If they are, what does that do to the definition of art? If they are not, what separates them? If Pong is art, why not video tic tac toe or regular tic tac toe?

 

[danm999]

Are games "proper" or "improper" art?

I would say improper

now go! everyone argue!

Come on I didnt say you should do it for free, art requires more than just the desire to sell your work I assume when you make something for or not for money you still put something into it that you value or the recipient will value.
commercials dont have that value its pure commercial

I admire artists mainly because I cant make shit.

Hard as it is to believe lots of people who make commercials do this.

 

[Village]

If I were more than an illustrator who loves game-inspired kitsch, but a true fine artist with something thought-provoking to tell the world, I would never lock it behind a toy that required twitch reflexes. What if the Mona Lisa was a pinball board, or David was a final boss?

Then it would be that then.

I don't think video games having to be played makes them less art, its just how the medium works.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Gaming's defining feature is interactivity. And you can't make a commentary through interactivity.

Yeah, but it's interactive, so it's not art.

Papers, Please?

 

[mavo]

It was only a controversy to "gamers" most people (even some who may casually play games) dont think games are art.

Anyway i dont think they are art and always found funny how some people use smaller "artsy" (for the lack of a better word) games to use as an example of art in videogames, i have always felt that the argument should be made using the giant defining titles trough the history of the industry.

 

[BooJoh]

Video games are a different entity from "walking simulators," electronic art installments or isolated illustrations and assets in my mind. The mindset of playing a game that requires skill is very different from interpreting or appreciating an artist's message

The beauty of games is that they can do both through seamless transitions between interactive segments and audiovisual displays we watch play out onscreen.

To use a fairly cliche example, when I'm fighting a colossus in Shadow of the Colossus - and I allow myself to become fully engrossed in the experience - there are many emotions. Awe at the sheer size of what I'm up against, tension to perform well, satisfaction with every successful blow dealt, excitement as I climb higher and hang on for dear life.

Then as I deal the deathblow, all of that washes away and as I watch this creature fall to the ground dead I'm hit with contrasting feelings: accomplishment and satisfaction from overcoming a challenge, but at the same time, a sense of guilt and shame for destroying this creature for my own selfish means.

In my mind, the emotions certain games can evoke are no different than the feelings we might have walking through a gallery or watching a good movie. I appreciate the beauty of the world I'm exploring, I experience emotions of varying degree and type depending on the game, and in some rare cases, I may come away contemplating my view of the real world. The difference is that with games I can make a more personal connection with the creator's vision. In my mind that makes video games more capable of being art than any other medium. Does that mean every video game is a masterpiece? Most certainly not.

 

[More_Badass]

I think an argument can be made that there's a reason we haven't gotten a "Citizen Kane of games" yet that mostly boils down to what the videogame industry is right now + the limitations of interactivity and CG graphics on storytelling and artistic expression.

Maybe if you’re only looking at AAA games and 3D graphics. How does that affect the indie side? A lot of indie games do things better or more inventive than AAA titles; considering the sheer variety of aesthetic and art styles, I dont think the limits of CG graphics have any bearing here.

===

Also, let’s look at that phrase for a second, the “Citizen Kane of games”. Do people actually consider what it’s actually implying, or just use it as a throwaway meme phrase? Because I assume most people use it in a mocking “what, game as good as Citizen Kane?” way

But that’s not what the phrase is saying. If Citizen Kane is a masterwork of the film medium, in how it presents its story and themes through the cinematography and framing and so on, then a “Citizen Kane of games” would be one that exceptionally ultlizes the strengths of its medium and elements of game design to tell its story and express its message and/or themes

Not that said game or game’s story would be as good as Citizen Kane

 

[Conkerkid11]

It was only a controversy to "gamers" most people (even some who may casually play games) dont think games are art.

Anyway i dont think they are art and always found funny how some people use smaller "artsy" (for the lack of a better word) games to use as an example of art in videogames, i have always felt that the argument should be made using the giant defining titles trough the history of the industry.

Nice of you to jump three pages in and ignore any arguments made otherwise.

Why are games not art?

 

[Spoo]

I never really understood the debate, but I think a part of the reason is that Roger Ebert never saw games as art is because the communities that existed around video games were only *just then* starting to see their entertainment as art to begin with. I mean, there were players, and well-known developers, who both didn't see what they interacted directly with as any kind of art, so it became a sort of argument over social standing and audiences rather than getting to the core of the meaning of the word.

Movies, books, other forms of entertainment, had a better established grounding to be considered art, for no other real reason than they had been around longer. Games were toys, and everything else was art -- if it was "good" enough. Which, by the way, seems a rule of majority consensus more than anything else.

People kept looking for some title here or there to hold up as a gold standard as what "games as art" and kind of missed the forest for the trees I think.

I don't hold anything against Ebert for having had the view he had at the time. And I don't know, personally, if he would have changed his mind even today. I think he saw a lot of the translations of games to film and (rightly, given the examples) felt like they missed a lot of the elements that other pictures had, and used that as ammo in his thought-process.

I think it's far easier and probably more correct to just treat everything as "art" insofar as it's a creative thing, and then decide whether or not it's art worth giving a shit about. If something makes it into a museum, we probably care. If the code and assets are retained and saved, it means we care. Even some games that are notably bad have kind of infiltrated the consciousness of people -- like ET.

 

[veloxStrix]

The "art" question has always led to some of the silliest debates I have ever witnessed. Are video games art? What is art? Is a film still art if it is created with only the intention to be a marketable product? If photography is art, then is a screenshot art? And you can go in circles all day. You could ask a million questions and get no where. You could fairly and logically arrive at any number of conclusions simply based on your own definition of art.

But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. If a video game is or is not art does not affect its value in the slightest. The only thing it affects is how high video game snobs can jab their noses in the air. Even the most diligent scholars of ontology would be hard-pressed to find some sort of advantage to being definitively art (although scholars of the field of marketing would likely be ecstatic). I think Ebert made a remarkably dumb mistake for even answering that question and then felt the weight of his own word settle on himself in a way that did not easily allow him to backtrack on himself.

I think an argument can be made that there's a reason we haven't gotten a "Citizen Kane of games" yet that mostly boils down to what the videogame industry is right now + the limitations of interactivity and CG graphics on storytelling and artistic expression.

Citizen Kane is an excellent film but its fame is built from the way it fundamentally changed the industry and the way films are made. It broke as many rules of cinema as it defined and that is why it is such an important piece of cinema. I don't think CG graphics or any technological constraint is stopping games from becoming a unique medium. People just are afraid to rewrite the rule book. My favorite game is OneShot. It tells a story that acknowledges the fact that it is within another world, that you are a player, and that events are destined to happen. This is a unique story that could only be told as a video game. On the other hand, the Last of Us is a critically-acclaimed industry darling telling a story that would be just as effective in any book, drama, television series, novel, etc. Orwell once said in an interview that had he known what he was doing he could never have created Citizen Kane and maybe this is why the indie scene has been creating such compelling work as opposed to the AAA-space.

 

[More_Badass]

And yet, people treat Pong as art and put it in museums on "The Art of Video Games".

Again (to be ignored):

Pong is the equivalent of this, in the medium

 

[Darkstorne]

I guess I'll ask some of my questions again since they were ignored or overlooked the first time. Is Pong art? If Pong is art, is the sport of tennis or table tennis an art form? If they are, what does that do to the definition of art? If they are not, what separates them? If Pong is art, why not video tic tac toe or regular tic tac toe?

Your problem is the need for a convenient label. "If this is art, this must also be art, that must be art, but that can't be art so neither can that by association..."

The irony of Ebert being asked to decide whether an entire medium qualifies as art runs into that same issue, as well as an even bigger one: art is subjective. It's a huge part of what makes us human. Visit the Tate Modern and listen to almost everyone disagree on which pieces they like and what even counts as art. Disliking is fine. Disliking meaning something isn't art is not fine. Definitions of art should vary from person to person, but one person's opinion of what qualifies as art should never be lauded as more valuable than anyone else's. So yes, games can be art.

That doesn't mean our medium doesn't have a long way to go mind you. We still struggle to have AAA narrative games that aren't primarily about murdering people, which is why we're straying into topics like "ludonarrative dissonance" a lot these days, like Nathan Drake killing up to a thousand people per adventure simply because AAA games are still struggling to find fun methods of challenging player skill outside of combat mechanics. Our medium is the equivalent of every big film being an action film, with other genres of film of not existing outside of the Indie scene. We don't have our La La Lands and Forest Gumps in the AAA space. Everything is the Avengers. But there's still a heck of a lot of artistry on display in the industry when you look for it, and it's always nice to see games struggling at the seams like Spec Ops The Line, which seemed to me like a game that recognised all the flaws of current AAA games and how they overly rely on violence and a lack of thought on the player's count, but STILL couldn't figure out how to escape from exactly that issue so just sort of... embraced it in a unique way.

 

[Conkerkid11]

The only thing it affects is how high video game snobs can jab their noses in the air.

Implying that the ones proposing that video games aren't art aren't the ones causing the conflict in the first place.

Some people might. It's not uncommon to feel like you're inadequate at your craft because you're not a super well-known artist or something. In reality, it's not a contest and the "important art" is just one type of creative expression.

Okay, but you're even implying in this post that someone creating concept art for a video game has a reason to believe that they're a lesser artist than someone whose work is in a gallery.

 

[gfxtwin]

Yeah, but it's interactive, so it's not art.


Saying that there's "no shame in..." implies that the person would even feel ashamed.

Some people might. It's not uncommon to feel like you're inadequate at your craft because you're not a super well-known artist or something. In reality, it's not a contest and the "important art" is just one type of creative expression.

 

[fluffydelusions]

I'm not sure, but some people took the lack of validation really hard.

I enjoyed infinite but the tweet is ridiculous and infinites story wasn't even original....just a rip of of oldboy

 

[PatThePassive]

Hard as it is to believe lots of people who make commercials do this.

Then I am blind to that value and they are art.

But I want to learn to be able to see that value because I always assumed people who make those commercials just do it to fund their "real work"

 

[veloxStrix]

Implying that the ones proposing that video games aren't art aren't the ones causing the conflict in the first place.

There is a phrase that goes something like, "It takes two to tango." I think it fits perfectly in this case.

 

[gfxtwin]

Maybe if you’re only looking at AAA games and 3D graphics. How does that affect the indie side? A lot of indie games do things better or more inventive than AAA titles; considering the sheer variety of aesthetic and art styles, I dont think the limits of CG graphics have any bearing here.

===

Also, let’s look at that phrase for a second, the “Citizen Kane of games”. Do people actually consider what it’s actually implying, or just use it as a throwaway meme phrase? Because I assume most people use it in a mocking “what, game as good as Citizen Kane?” way

But that’s not what the phrase is saying. If Citizen Kane is a masterwork of the film medium, in how it presents its story and themes through the cinematography and framing and so on, then a “Citizen Kane of games” would be one that exceptionally ultlizes the strengths of its medium and elements of game design to tell its story and express its message and/or themes

Not that said game or game’s story would be as good as Citizen Kane

I think indie games are limited in somewhat different ways due to the technological restraints but are less limited in regards to what stories can be told.


I agree, "citizen cane of games" is a stupid phrase. I don't even like that movie. Anyway, I think what most people, at least myself, mean by it now is that we're still waiting on a work of video game art that's as thematically dense as important literature, film, and comics.

 

[danm999]

Then I am blind to that value and they are art.

But I want to learn to be able to see that value because I always assumed people who make those commercials just do it to fund their "real work"

I mean, I come back to people like Shakespeare. Some of the stuff he wrote to please his patrons. Patronage has been huge in the world of art for millennia. Very few artists had the luxury of making whatever they wanted without worrying about commercial impetus.