Is this when games become art?

[disastermouse]

Think of the last time you saw a movie or music review where the reviewer obsessed about the technical details like resolution, cameras or equipment used? Even big budget action flicks don't have reviewers obsessing over the minutia of the effects. Heck, for punk or indie, even keeping pitch or general recording value isn't a high priority in the reviews. As a headphone audiophile - someone who does distinctly notice things like recording fidelity and dynamic range - I'm acutely aware that most music reviewers don't even notice those qualities.

Yet with video game reviews, these qualities that pertain to technical excellence often take precedence. Will it be a sign of 'games as art' when these qualities are less important to reviews?

 

[ComputerMKII]

I don't need to buy an expensive graphics card to watch a movie at the best of its graphical quality so my expectations for movies are somewhat lower than for games.

 

[Soulflarz]

Whether or not they are art has no set answer. It is simply an opinion. No one here can answer your question correctly.

 

[Servbot24]

It sends the opposite message to me.

If you ever look back at a game and the first thing you think is 'wow, that game had a great frame rate!" then the content of the game itself was likely not very powerful or artistically ambitious.

Meanwhile I have no idea what resolution Journey was running in. Nor do I care at all that Majora's Mask and Shadow of the Colossus had a bad framerate.

Whether or not they are art has no set answer. It is simply an opinion. No one here can answer your question correctly.

There is a set answer. Games are art. It's a fact. Being art is not a big deal though. Anyone can make art and it doesn't really mean shit.

 

[cuyahoga]

No, no one gives a fuck what resolution the Mona Lisa is in.

 

[timetokill]

Tech will never determine if a game is art. It won't stop the tech heads or "graphics whores" from obsessing over it.

It is a funny overlap between the tech obsessed and those desperate for games to be recognized as art, though.

 

[Clockwork5]

It always has been. It is a multi-media art form. Interactive at that.

Visual.
Audio.
Interactive experiences.
World (level, engine, ai) building.

All are legitimate forms of art.

 

[Currygan]

it depends, is a game technically so bad it hinders the quality of the actual gameplay? If so, the technical aspect should always be analyzed in a greater way than any movie's or music cd's

 

[block tower]

games are already art, some games have left some profound impressions on me. playing some games can be as powerful as looking at a Giacometti sculpture or touring a Wright building.

 

[EmoryM]

The Hobbit running at 48fps was major national news.

Also Avatar's use of 3D.

 

[PKrockin]

No, no one gives a fuck what resolution the Mona Lisa is in.

The Mona Lisa... is a painting. It doesn't have a resolution.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

No, "Art™" is too subjective.
Even if enthusiast started focusing less on the technical merits of games, you'd still have plenty of people arguing why video games haven't been validated to them.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

...What? They obsess over these things because games are interactive experiences (as appose to movies which are non-interactive experiences). The consumer is physically making the experience go forward, so having that experience be interrupted by a the game not performing well is incredibly distracting and can genuinely make the experience worst as a result, therefore is a valid criticism at it as a form of art.

Its like if a movie stuttered and it wasnt somehow the fault of a DVD player or something (Which doesnt happen, but just imagine it and its the same thing.). It wouldnt go past a reviewers eyes.

GAMES

ARENT

MOVIES

They shouldnt be treated, executed, or REVIEWED like movies if they want to be taken seriously, not the opposite.

No, "Art™" is too subjective.

Why does this keep showing up?

"An expression of ideas".

Boom.
Thats the definition right there. No subjectivity about it.

You guys mean "HIGH art"

 

[monocle_wearing_hyrax]

I don't think a large segment of game reviewers care if a game is art. They seem to only ask themselves is a game is fun, of course for it to be an art the criticism as a whole needs to advance beyond that.
Games are art, is just that for the most part they are not very good art, not are they trying to aim for it.
But yes i agree there is a mayor focus on tech side, but remember that there is more space for tech related subjectivity. Since in a game, glitches and such can happen more often. So it is understandable that a focus will be kept on it while i the same time i agree that this focus may be too great.

 

[disastermouse]

The Hobbit running at 48fps was major national news.

Also Avatar's use of 3D.

Exceptions and rules.

 

[Inferno313]

I think games are art.

I think most games are bad art though.

 

[monocle_wearing_hyrax]

It always has been. It is a multi-media art form. Interactive at that.

Visual.
Audio.
Interactive experiences.
World (level, engine, ai) building.

All are legitimate forms of art.

Well in that road so are movies, music and comics. A multi-media could be descriptive of more than videogames. These parts come together to make a whole, a concept that was not born with viedogames.

 

[CaptainGyro]

.
"An expression of ideas".

Boom.
Thats the definition right there. No subjectivity about it.

Where is that the definition of art?

 

[robotrock]

After playing through Transistor, I asked myself if it was the logical conclusion of video games as an art form. I mean, where could it possibly go after this? Does this represent the human brain's highest capacity to create art? How could the formula of game design ever improve beyond this point? Since there is nowhere to go after this, no way to ever top this, no way to surpass this in any way should every developer, every publisher just give up at this point? What human being could possibly add anything more to the concept of video games after this game? Why would you even try? How could you even try? What could you possibly do to add innovation after this has been released? Is this the 10/10 rating that Arthur Gies has been holding back to give? Even after our biological evolution has ended, even after we have mastered transhumanism, even after the universe has become one living, thinking AI with every single atom, all 10^82 of them being used to create something with more artistic value than this video game, could it be done? I think not. I think there is nowhere to progress in video games. I think we have reached the end. There is no point in trying to create a video game anymore. There is no point in trying to search for video games anymore because this is the greatest it can get. Humanity has created its greatest achievement.

 

[DragonGirl]

Tangential: Crowing over the graphics in a video game is like obsessing over the canvas, paints, and whether or not the brush used for a painting was camel hair. Graphics are the tool box, nothing more.

 

[Cyber Caesar]

I really don't understand this thread. Art is meant to be experienced. The more ways we can scrutinize the experience the better. Are we wanting mainstream to validate what we like? Well to hell with that.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Where is that the definition of art?

In a dictionary

Unless this for some reason doesnt count and you mean something "deeper"

 

[CaptainGyro]

In a dictionary

Unless this for some reason doesnt count and you mean something "deeper"

Yeah I am asking you which one

 

[John]

The Mona Lisa... is a painting. It doesn't have a resolution.

it does in planck lengths!

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Yeah I am asking you which one

... Are you serious?

Itd be much easier to find one that doesnt say that.

Hell google it and it will say it.

 

[Data Elemental]

Code is art too, so it makes sense to consider the technical aspects!

From a certain point of view.

"Art" is one of those words that people have tried to define in countless ways, most of them different. That makes it very hard to hold a sensible discussion about whether something is art. There is, of course, some manner of general understanding about it—most people will agree that the Mona Lisa is art and detractors to this opinion will presumably disagree more for expected status effects than an actual, deeply held disagreement.

Beyond that it becomes trickier. Some people like to claim that modern art is not art at all. To hold a sensible discourse, all participating parties should first agree on what definition of art to use. Then, all that remains is to check if a given work fulfils the criteria given by the definition, which can be hard enough. Alas, such an agreement is hard to reach in the first place and attempts will likely lead to futile squabbles about which definition is "better" or on more generally accepted.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Why does this keep showing up?

"An expression of ideas".

Boom.
Thats the definition right there. No subjectivity about it.

You guys mean "HIGH art"

The context in which "ART™" is used really doesn't have an actual definition. It comes off as incredibly personal.
I don't consider a broken toilet with an orange stripe and blue polka dots painted on it art, but some people do.
Calling something art is usually just another way to validate something you like to you or your friends.

 

[Ataru]

Games are art. They've always been art.

They contain art. And music... which is an art. Writing is art. Game design is art. Hell, I'd even argue that programming is an art... so how can games NOT be art?

 

[Chezzymann]

Games are art. They've always been art.

They contain art. And music... which is an art. Writing is art. Game design is art. Hell, I'd even argue that programming is an art... so how can games NOT be art?

Because for some reason people think that a group of people working on something for money means it isn't art. So an orchestra's music isn't art, apparently.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

The context in witch "ART™" is used really doesn't have an actual definition. It comes off as incredibly personal.
I don't consider a broken toilet with an orange stripe and blue polka dots painted on it art, but some people do.

Again.

You mean HIGH ART, which is based around subjectivity entirely.

How you figure out if something is art in general is as simple as asking someone "is it an expression of one's ideas?".
doesnt matter if YOU think its good or they were actually expressing anything meaningful, cause its still art.

Gotta use your words correctly.

High Art is what youre talking about, and thats whats debatable on if Games have reached that level yet, which is as you said, subjective.

 

[Mechazawa]

Video games are an interactive medium and things like framerate and resolution have a direct impact on your ability to perform in a game.

 

[cosmicblizzard]

Tech can be art too.

Or maybe it can't, I don't know. Whether something is art or not will forever be a semantics argument.

 

[CaptainGyro]

... Are you serious?

Itd be much easier to find one that doesnt say that.

Hell google it and it will say it.

... Yes I am serious because there isn't a common definition that is as simple as yours of just "an expression of ideas"

Yes they say it's an expression of idea, but they elaborate further than just saying "An expression of ideas"
for example: "something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings"

And there are also plenty of dictionaries that don't use the phrase " an expression of ideas" at all. So no need for the virtual stunned pause that you gave me
http://www.onelook.com/?w=art&ls=a

 

[DocSeuss]

Think of the last time you saw a movie or music review where the reviewer obsessed about the technical details like resolution, cameras or equipment used? Even big budget action flicks don't have reviewers obsessing over the minutia of the effects. Heck, for punk or indie, even keeping pitch or general recording value isn't a high priority in the reviews. As a headphone audiophile - someone who does distinctly notice things like recording fidelity and dynamic range - I'm acutely aware that most music reviewers don't even notice those qualities.

Yet with video game reviews, these qualities that pertain to technical excellence often take precedence. Will it be a sign of 'games as art' when these qualities are less important to reviews?

Oh, god no, you've got it backwards. In fact, the lack of technical discussion in media is becoming a topic of significant concern in film criticism more and more. Quite a few articles have been published on it lately. Critics are actually very concerned that, in the age of blogging, we've got a bunch of people who don't really know much beyond having read something like McKee's Story or Save the Cat, so they're ignoring the technical stuff, to criticism's detriment.

What's happening is that people are writing about things from a place of ignorance, and the sheer bulk of it's overwhelming the intelligent criticism of works. How a film goes about telling its story is just as important as what the story is about.

 

[disastermouse]

Tangential: Crowing over the graphics in a video game is like obsessing over the canvas, paints, and whether or not the brush used for a painting was camel hair. Graphics are the tool box, nothing more.

Exactly. Garnett Lee is still Raving about The Last Story, which is a Wii game.

 

[Data Elemental]

Even though I dislike arguing definitions...

... Are you serious?

Itd be much easier to find one that doesnt say that.

Correct. It is very easy to find a dictionary which doesn't define art as "an expression of ideas". CaptainGyro already gave a link, here is another one. Try the third and forth sets. Now, if you would please provide your self-proclaimed hard-to-find reference?

 

[disastermouse]

Oh, god no, you've got it backwards. In fact, the lack of technical discussion in media is becoming a topic of significant concern in film criticism more and more. Quite a few articles have been published on it lately. Critics are actually very concerned that, in the age of blogging, we've got a bunch of people who don't really know much beyond having read something like McKee's Story or Save the Cat, so they're ignoring the technical stuff, to criticism's detriment.

What's happening is that people are writing about things from a place of ignorance, and the sheer bulk of it's overwhelming the intelligent criticism of works. How a film goes about telling its story is just as important as what the story is about.

That's very interesting! I have only a passing common knowledge of movie and media criticism, so I haven't read anything about technical proficiency becoming an important aspect of popular art. I kinda wonder if games criticism is contributing to that or whether it's a parallel development.

 

[MisterGrey3000]

Again.

You mean HIGH ART, which is based around subjectivity entirely.

How you figure out if something is art in general is as simple as asking someone "is it an expression of one's ideas?".
doesnt matter if YOU think its good or they were actually expressing anything meaningful, cause its still art.

Gotta use your words correctly.

High Art is what youre talking about, and thats whats debatable on if Games have reached that level yet, which is as you said, subjective.

Nope, I mean "ART". The word Art itself has many definitions, but the context in which art is used in this thread means "Is this a valid form of entertainment?"
I don't buy into that high art or low art stuff.

 

[Ty4on]

Pushing the envelope in camera tech never made photography any less of an art. Of course the camera can't make a good picture on its own, but I don't see why it is bad that modern camera's capture more detail than before in more places than before.

No, no one gives a fuck what resolution the Mona Lisa is in.

It's not a cave painting and has much more accurate proportions than older paintings. Lot's of technology in it too.

 

[jerry1594]

Games are games. This gen hopefully there's some good stories to experience.

 

[francknara]

Video games have always been art.
But its community is depressing sometimes.


How many games hype people mostly because of the technical performance it shows...
Like you release a trailer or a game and the main discussions are resolution, framerate, polygones...

The indie era is certainly helping to change that, but it's still a thing.

 

[Elija2]

To be fair, I don't think game reviewers obsess about resolution and frame rate as much as certain fans do. Movie reviews do often mention when a movie has bad special effects and stuff like that, but they never go into much more detail than that. It's the same as game reviews where the reviewer quickly mentions the game's resolution and stuff like that. Then again, I don't read game reviews that often so maybe I'm wrong about how much detail they usually get into.

 

[disastermouse]

Pushing the envelope in camera tech never made photography any less of an art. Of course the camera can't make a good picture on its own, but I don't see why it is bad that modern camera's capture more detail than before in more places than before.

And that's not even taking photoshop into the equation, which I've been led to believe used to be a very highly contentious subject in photography.

 

[tasch]

videogames have been slowly moving away from art (at least commercial and large budget games have been), it's the same bifurcation which occurred with video after the release of the portapak. What we're seeing is commercial games and indipendant/art games.

As new technology and distribution platforms are given to indie developers, we'll continue to see art games.

They have been around for ever, but any game that prioritizes cinematic experience will definitely be something designed for commercial success and the furthest thing from art.

 

[watershed]

I think the question is: what are the aesthetic criteria used to judge video games as art? Each medium, film, photography, painting, drawing, dance, etc has established a set of aesthetic criteria by which artworks in are judged. The criteria are not always the same, even within a genre the criteria shifts based on period or perspective, but the broad strokes are the same.

So far in videogames the criteria seem to be things like graphics, sound, controls, etc.

 

[Corpekata]

Uh. DO they care?

I mean, didn't we just have a few massive threads about how most reviewers don't give a shit about this stuff? They tend to maybe give a paragraph to it if they aren't Digital Foundry.

 

[Protagonist Jake]

Even though I dislike arguing definitions...



Correct. It is very easy to find a dictionary which doesn't define art as "an expression of ideas". CaptainGyro already gave a link, here is another one. Try the third and forth sets. Now, if you would please provide your self-proclaimed hard-to-find reference?

The first result on Google maybe...

Honestly Im in disbelief this is actually somewhat debatable in the first place, so lets just agree to disagree.

 

[Whiskeymatt]

Video games have always been art. It's a medium of creative expression. Most of them are low/pop art, while a few others can be classified as high/fine art. The ones you consider as the latter is a highly subjective subject.

 

[CaptainGyro]

The first result on Google maybe...

Honestly Im in disbelief this is actually somewhat debatable in the first place, so lets just agree to disagree.

I don't get that as the first google result and I have shown that not all dictionaries just say "an expression of ideas" ( while you haven't actually shown anything) but yeah agree to disagree

 

[Data Elemental]

The first result on Google maybe...

This? I'm not seeing it.