Support NeoGAF

[lupinko]

Well I can take games as art because most devs and especially publishers just see them as toys/products/services rather than art.

 

[gfxtwin]

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.

No, I'm not. Like, not at fucking all. Some concept artists probably think there is (and to be fair, feeling like your work is never "good enough" is fuel for getting better), but I've never even hinted that I believed there's actually a real reason for them to think that.

 

[BooJoh]

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"

Commercials can certainly have value beyond trying to sell things. There are people who don't even enjoy sports who seek out Superbowl commercials to watch. I'm one of them, and I'm certainly not seeking them out because I'm desperately trying to be convinced to buy Budweiser or a GoDaddy domain.

Similarly you can find all sorts of commercials - old and new - archived on Youtube, not by the companies that paid for them, but by people who enjoy commercials for various reasons, from appreciating a good ad to nostalgia for the ads we saw in years past.

 

[Conkerkid11]

No, I'm not. Like, not at fucking all. Some concept artists probably think there is, but I've never even hinted that I believed there's actually a real reason for them to think that.

Then why bring it up at all in a thread where you're arguing that video games are either not art, or a lesser form of art?

To literally make the point that is the exact OPPOSITE of what you're suggesting I covertly meant. Nothing more than that.

So then video games are art, and there's no reason for you to be arguing with people in this thread?

 

[gfxtwin]

Then why bring it up at all in a thread where you're arguing that video games are either not art, or a lesser form of art?

To literally make the point that is the exact OPPOSITE of what you're suggesting I covertly meant. Nothing more than that.


EDIT: Illustration can be art, not "lesser" art, but not necessarily the work of an artist who is trying to impact society and culture in a profound way. Two different styles of creative expression.

 

[Danjin44]

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.

Im sorry, This might sound stupid but I dont know what do you mean by this. Are telling me games can only tell stories that its about fighting something? Because there are games like Flower and Journey which that has no conflict in them.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Pong is the equivalent of this, in the medium

Thank you for responding to my post with a jpg. It added a lot of meaningful discussion.

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.

I agreee and disagree with a lot of this. But I think a major problem is dividing indie and AAA. It either is all art or it isn’t or it is good art or is bad, and again we have discussions with people who don’t know what is what. It’s totally bizarre that GOTY is treated as the MTV movie awards. To go back to the original topic, people put a lot on Ebert's validation because he was known. But I think the “art is subjective” is usually a cop out. And we have people who don’t know how to even discuss things because of their youth or what have you. A major problem is our gatekeepers and advocates have no idea what they are talking about. That’s about all I have to say.

 

[gfxtwin]

Im sorry, This might sound stupid but I dont know what do you mean by this. Are telling me games can only tell stories that its about fighting something? Because there are games like Flower and Journey which that has no conflict in them.

I'm saying I'm not sure stories like Taxi Driver, Schindler's List, Game of Thrones, The Wire or Welcome to the Dollhouse, for example, could ever exist in video game form the way they can exist in movie, TV, book and probably comic book form.

 

[Danjin44]

I'm saying I'm not sure stories like Taxi Driver, Schindler's List, The Wire or Welcome to the Dollhouse, for example, could ever exist in video game form the way they can exist in movie, TV, book and probably comic book form.

That can be said about video games as well. If you played NieR Automata, they way it tell its story cant be done in movies, books or comics.

Especially how

Spoiler

Ending E, It can only be done in video games.

 

[PatThePassive]

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.

Commercials can certainly have value beyond trying to sell things. There are people who don't even enjoy sports who seek out Superbowl commercials to watch. I'm one of them, and I'm certainly not seeking them out because I'm desperately trying to be convinced to buy Budweiser or a GoDaddy domain.

Similarly you can find all sorts of commercials - old and new - archived on Youtube, not by the companies that paid for them, but by people who enjoy commercials for various reasons, from appreciating a good ad to nostalgia for the ads we saw in years past.

When you put it that way I have been separating what I deemed their art and what they made to sustain themselves.
You've both given me somethings to think about.

its been fun

 

[gfxtwin]

That can be said about video games as well. If you played NieR Automata, they way it tell its story cant be done in movies, books or comics.

Games offer a unique way to tell some stories, sure. But the medium of video games, for now at least, seems to limit which subject matter can be explored and the ways certain subject matter can be explored. At risk of sounding like a smug douche, I'm not sure video games can explore subject matter that is important to understanding the human condition in as nuanced and sophisticated a way that books, TV, film and comics can. It's mostly about being escapism/entertainment.

 

[More_Badass]

Thank you for responding to my post with a jpg. It added a lot of meaningful discussion.

Do you not get the comparision? The first game (and its aesthetic and design, as simple and minimalist as it is) is displayed at museum and exhibit displays for the medium much like the first moving pictures are displayed in collections and history museums

 

[Danjin44]

Games offer a unique way to tell some stories, sure. But the medium of video games, for now at least, seems to limit which subject matter can be explored and the ways certain subject matter can be explored. At risk of sounding like a smug douche, I'm not sure video games can explore subject matter that is important to understanding the human condition in as nuanced and sophisticated a way that books, TV, film and comics can. It's mostly about being escapism/entertainment.

I disagree. There are game that can explore mental health in very creative way that can only be done in video games.

 

[More_Badass]

Games offer a unique way to tell some stories, sure. But the medium of video games, for now at least, seems to limit which subject matter can be explored and the ways certain subject matter can be explored. At risk of sounding like a smug douche, I'm not sure video games can explore subject matter that is important to understanding the human condition in as nuanced and sophisticated a way that books, TV, film and comics can.

I don’t think it’s a matter of “can’t” but “how”. A game can use interactivity to put you in the shoes and mindset of a period or dilemma in ways that those other medium can’t. Consider a city builder where the stats slowly changes over time, mirroring various factors, and thus subconsciously encouraging you to eventually become more authoritarian in your design decisions because well, that’s just what works best for the city and your population as a whole, right? (the upcoming Animal Farm game is going to use a city building/management foundation) Or how Paper’s Please begins placing moral dilemmas before you through the juxtaposition of your mechanical intent to not make mistakes and stamp passports and the moral obligation of helping others and your family. Or the mobile game Grayout using its mechanics to mirror aphasia, and then using that to present a dystopian society from a unique perspective

Edit: or, as Danjin said, Hellblade and its use of mechanics to explore and present mental health

 

[Xe4]

He was a popular critic of a different medium, and was commenting of another medium that has a popular conception (with some truth behind it) of being simply made for fun. It'd be like someone who doesn't watch any movies complaining of their artistic merit because all they know about is summer blockbusters.

That's not an entirely fair comparison. Movies are much older than games, and games still have a lot of evolving to do, just as movies did early on. The percentage of games that most people see has having no true artistic merit is higher than those of movies as well (IMO). But the problem was when he tried to apply it to the medium as a whole.

It was an incorrect and ignorant statement, but one that was a good example of how most non-fans view video games, and the long way the medium still has to go. I'm certainly not going to hold it against him. It's his views on movies that mattered to me.

 

[brianmcdoogle]

Do you not get the comparision? The first game (and its aesthetic and design, as simple and minimalist as it is) is displayed at museum and exhibit displays for the medium much like the first moving pictures are displayed in collections and history museums

Preface: I'm going to bed soon so this will be my last post before sleep. I'll read through the thread tomorrow.

Yes, I've been to museums. I've seen the horse zoetrope displayed in its full context several times as a precursor to film (and to settle a supposed bet). But, Pong isn't the precursor. The table tennis on radar equipment would be the apt comparison to zoetrope. I've also been to the traveling Smithsonian exhibit "The Art of Video Games" which has a whole lot of video of games and not a lot of interactivity (lots of screens and little controllers). I don't know if you have any idea how film art and history is displayed in museums compared to video games with the analogies you make. And, despite your pat analogies, you're still missing the underlying questions to my posts and of the examples of non-narritive games.

To speak generally and not just to you: Maybe people have no idea about film history and grasps on to it because it is the best they know, despite knowing little about it, and it screws up all conversations after it. It's like me posting in a Logan (2017) thread asking "what is the theme of this movie" and getting back a regurgitation of the plot.

 

[Drkirby]

I am surprised we are still having this argument, games are so clearly art.

A better debate is if something like software or code is an art in its own right.

 

[RPGam3r]

Games offer a unique way to tell some stories, sure. But the medium of video games, for now at least, seems to limit which subject matter can be explored and the ways certain subject matter can be explored. At risk of sounding like a smug douche, I'm not sure video games can explore subject matter that is important to understanding the human condition in as nuanced and sophisticated a way that books, TV, film and comics can. It's mostly about being escapism/entertainment.

Two Brothers had a larger impact on me than most medium in terms of mortality/loss.

Spoiler

Moving that stick... in vain... felt so surreal and cold.

 

[eizarus]

There are way too many posts here trying to compare movies and games in areas where their very nature means that they can't/shouldn't imitate one another.

 

[Peterpan]

At one point films were not considered art. Gaming is fairly new, so it is understable that the question is posed, like when photography came and like when film came out.

In years on the answer will be 'yes video games are art'.

 

[Darkstorne]

To speak generally and not just to you: Maybe people have no idea about film history and grasps on to it because it is the best they know, despite knowing little about it, and it screws up all conversations after it. It's like me posting in a Logan (2017) thread asking "what is the theme of this movie" and getting back a regurgitation of the plot.

What's REALLY bothering me about your argument is this insistence that humans can't possibly appreciate art unless they have thoroughly studied its history across the various mediums. That's what bothered me about Ebert's view too. If I wanted a good discussion about art HISTORY, then yes, I'm sure Ebert would have been the man to go to. No doubt you'd have a lot of interesting things to say too. But that doesn't rule out a human being's ability to appreciate art, which is inherently subjective by nature, just because they haven't been to as many museums as the next guy.

Personally, I'm an artist. I'm lucky enough that I sell my own work and get private commissions. I come from a line of professional artists in my family. I have no doubt that a lot of this disinterest I have towards anyone who tries claiming art must have a definition, and labels of what categorizes art must be broad and definable (and seriously, any art critic who thinks their view of what is and isn't art is more valuable than anyone else's can sod off) comes from studying art history at school and college and being paraded from one art lecturer to the next, all of whom have their own opinion, all of whom believe their opinion on what qualifies as art is the best opinion. And I get it, art history is important. But you really don't need any sort of understanding of art history to form an opinion on what you consider art. That's entirely personal and emotional. I wouldn't even care if someone hadn't heard of Caravaggio - they can still have an opinion on what they consider to be art, and I'd be missing the point of what art is if I was to tell them they're wrong.

 

[Screaming Meat]

Personally, I'm an artist. I'm lucky enough that I sell my own work and get private commissions. I come from a line of professional artists in my family. I have no doubt that a lot of this disinterest I have towards anyone who tries claiming art must have a definition, and labels of what categorizes art must be broad and definable (and seriously, any art critic who thinks their view of what is and isn't art is more valuable than anyone else's can sod off) comes from studying art history at school and college and being paraded from one art lecturer to the next, all of whom have their own opinion, all of whom believe their opinion on what qualifies as art is the best opinion.

I get where you're coming from. I'm not a fan of the snobbier, solipsistic side of the discussion either. But here's where I come unstuck in my thinking (and bear with me here):

If "what art is" is entirely subjective, it follows that anything can be art, right? But if anything can be art, why define anything as art? It turns it into a pretty useless value judgement, synonymous with 'really bloody good' or 'classic', rather than something more, I dunno, universal and (I hate this word) aspirational.

 

[jg4xchamp]

He was a pretty valued critic for cinema, and he made plenty of arguments against games. Because they were "games", which by their nature aren't exactly the same as other story telling mediums. And naturally had limitations n differences from those mediums, especially with the often comparisons made to Cinema. When gaming has way more in common with Basketball and Connect 4 than it does The Godfather.

Personally while he did have a tendency to not grasp everything about games, as well he was ignorant of them. A lot of his points as they came to story telling being at odds with the idea of a game, were spot on, and have always been spot on. Personally I never needed them to be called art to validate my love for them.

I never watched The Godfather or The Wire n thought, man, that's some art right there. As much as I just love those works and found em to be my favorite flick/tv show. Super Metroid not being "art" wouldn't make me think less of it. I'd still think it's an exceptional work.

 

[BennyBlanco]

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

strong contender for the worst tweet of all time

 

[patapuf]

I get where you're coming from. I'm not a fan of the snobbier, solipsistic side of the discussion either. But here's where I come unstuck in my thinking (and bear with me here):

If "what art is" is entirely subjective, it follows that anything can be art, right? But if anything can be art, why define anything as art? It turns it into a pretty useless value judgement, synonymous with 'really bloody good' or 'classic', rather than something more, I dunno, universal and (I hate this word) aspirational.

Imo, producing good "art" is the aspiration. It doesn't really matter if it's a painting, a game or some abstract sculpture.

The vast majority of artists also have to work within economical constaints. Some do their best work when commisioned (and many of the greatest classics are comissions). Some works get additional meaning through external factors rather than original intent.

Walling those off seem a tad misguided? If something is good or meaningful it's just that. I don't think insiting some narrow corset helps analysis. It's only good for categorisation.

On the other hand, gaming is big and broad enough to be it's own medium, whether some consider it artistic or not really doesn't change anything.

 

[IlGialloMondadori]

strong contender for the worst tweet of all time

Wow is this in poor taste. Christ what a knob CliffyB is.

 

[The ๖ۜBronx]

So we have reached the point were art is subjective.

The literal definition of art is somewhat static. The appreciation and value of a piece of art has always been subjective. That's what separates it from design, which has purpose and goals that can be measured against outside of simple personal preference.

Games are art, but whether you value them (or even see them) as being so is subjective.

 

[Prithee Be Careful]

It's an expressive medium. Like other expressive mediums it can be art or it can be cynical, mass-market cross. What moves a person though? That's entirely up to them.

 

[BlastCore]

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

Why did the gaming community decide to stan for a game who's ultimate message was that both sides are bad?

 

[hotcyder]

Every time I see this tweet my life expectancy shortens dramatically

Why did the gaming community decide to stan for a game who's ultimate message was that both sides are bad?

Because people are willing to give an enormously awful game a pass because the first one pulled the "would you kindly" trick

 

[Neff]

Art is not a barometer of quality, it's a term used to describe any creative work from a masterpiece fresco to a Kit Kat wrapper. That someone used artistic talents to convey or evoke an emotion is its only qualification.

There is good art, and there is bad art. All games are art.

/Oscar

 

[TheSpaceBetween]

Never cared. He was judging something he didn't understand. Therefore, his opinion has no merit.

 

[Unit 33]

Anything can be art, I thought folks like Duchamp ended this argument decades ago.

 

[Darkstorne]

I get where you're coming from. I'm not a fan of the snobbier, solipsistic side of the discussion either. But here's where I come unstuck in my thinking (and bear with me here):

If "what art is" is entirely subjective, it follows that anything can be art, right? But if anything can be art, why define anything as art? It turns it into a pretty useless value judgement, synonymous with 'really bloody good' or 'classic', rather than something more, I dunno, universal and (I hate this word) aspirational.

Yep! I don't think that matters though. It's a value judgement that is personal to each and every observer. There are a lot of themes tackled in games/films/books that are worth discussion on their own merits, but attempting to boil all of that down into whether something qualifies as "art" is just... why do some people feel the need to do that? What is gained by applying a strict set of conditions to a label that is subjective by nature? I always find it baffling when someone specifically tries to dictate that something isn't art just because they don't think it's art. It's just the wrong discussion imo.

 

[FranF]

Anything can be art, I thought folks like Duchamp ended this argument decades ago.

Duchamp' performance art would have meant nothing if he hadn't already made a name for himself as a brilliant Cubist

"Art" has a defined meaning, anyone trying to make a living off it learns it the hard way

 

[dragonfart28]

 

[Screaming Meat]

Imo, producing good "art" is the aspiration.

But if we follow the notion that there is such a thing as 'good art' and 'bad art', the term 'art' can't then be a value judgement, surely? Otherwise the term 'good art' would translate to 'good good thing', right? It doesn't make a lick of sense!

On the other hand, gaming is big and broad enough to be it's own medium, whether some consider it artistic or not really doesn't change anything.

Yeah, I agree with that.

Yep! I don't think that matters though. It's a value judgement that is personal to each and every observer. [...]

What is gained by applying a strict set of conditions to a label that is subjective by nature?

That's the thing, I'm not certain of the 'definition of art' myself, so I'm unsure whether it is - on first principle - necessarily subjective.

As much as I dislike the notion that "what art is" can be summed up in an immutable paragraph explanation, I find the idea that it is simply a way of exclaiming something is 'good' equally lacking. What is 'good' changes over time (as does the definition of 'art'), yet certain pieces remain, by consensus, 'art'.

Like, by saying Art has to be a subjective distinction, aren't we kind of falling into the same trap as your lecturers...? If art can be anything - literally anything at all - the term has no meaning or value at all. If that's the case, what exactly is there to aspire (yuk) to...?

It hurts my head!

Anything can be art, I thought folks like Duchamp ended this argument decades ago.

I love Dadaism (I know he's primarily a Cubist), but it isn't the End of the Argument, it's a facet of it. This is an ongoing debate.

 

[Darkstorne]

That's the thing, I'm not certain of the 'definition of art' myself, so I'm unsure whether it is - on first principle - necessarily subjective.

As much as I dislike the notion that "what art is" can be summed up in an immutable paragraph explanation, I find the idea that it is simply a way of exclaiming something is 'good' equally lacking. What is 'good' changes over time, yet certain pieces are still considered 'art' even though the value of what is 'good' changes completely.

Like, by saying Art has to be a subjective distinction, aren't we kind of falling into the same trap as your lecturers...? If art can be anything - literally anything at all - the term has no meaning or value at all. If that's the case, what exactly is there to aspire (yuk) to...?

It hurts my head!

I wouldn't say calling something "art" is the same as defining something creative as "good". There's a heck of a lot of traditional art even that I don't like. But it's going to look good to someone. And I don't think the term "art" loses any value just because it can be applied to anything, because its value is different from person to person and that's what makes it beautiful and human. Same as "love" - try defining that with a set of rules and then telling someone they're wrong for loving someone you personally wouldn't.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I wouldn't say calling something "art" is the same as defining something creative as "good". There's a heck of a lot of traditional art even that I don't like. But it's going to look good to someone.

What (I think) you're saying here is that someone, somewhere has to think it's 'good' before it can be considered 'art'. Is that right? Isn't that still placing art in the bracket of a value judgement...?

And I don't think the term "art" loses any value just because it can be applied to anything, because its value is different from person to person and that's what makes it beautiful and human.

It's not the value of the object I'm talking about, but the value of the term in defining the object.

Same as "love" - try defining that with a set of rules and then telling someone they're wrong for loving someone you personally wouldn't.

That's a really interesting analogy!

I'd say I think 'Art' defines the object, whereas 'Love' defines the feeling one has towards a subject (if that makes sense?).

Like I said before, I'm not terribly keen on an unwavering definition for 'Art', but there has to be some kind of vague outline for it otherwise it simply becomes a bit of a pompous value judgement (which I think we both agree is not what 'art' means).

 

[Artdayne]

Video games can be art, Roger Ebert was wrong but I don't really blame him, he was old and probably had very little experience with video games. I miss Roger Ebert as a movie critic, one of the few actually worth reading on a regular basis.

 

[lazygecko]

The controversy is that the entire culture surrounding the games industry is bogged down by this ridicullous, embarrasing inferiority complex that it will seemingly never get over. People are always going to yearn from some proverbial pat on the back from Hollywood just to validate the medium which they base their entire personal identity on (which by proxy makes Ebert's statement feel like a personal attack).

 

[Ouija Luigi]

I remember when there was a commotion about the Ebert quote, always kind of felt silly to me.

In order to say what is, and what is not art, you should first be able to define it. But aside from the literal definition, personally I think there are as many definitions of art as there are people interpreting it. I can understand the statement that video games are not art, even though I do not share it. To me, if a piece elicits something from me, an emotion, an experience, or anything that I normally wouldn't feel, I'd consider that art. In that sense I would count something like Silent Hill 2 art, visceral, gut wrenching and heavy on darker themes, but art anyway.

Now can all video games be considered art? Probably yes. Just that, much like modern art, there are shitty video games.

So to me it's all about them feels.

Edit: But about all that seeking validation thing, I don't get that. It shouldn't be detrimental to your enjoyment or perception of a game, or the industry in general, if somebody else doesn't validate it first. Would it be awesome that video games were declared as art? Sure, it would mean even more mainstream appeal for the hobby and that wouldn't be a bad thing in my opinion. But is it necessary for my own personal views of the hobby? No.

 

[Yohane]

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

Clifford never fails to amaze me.

 

[Darkstorne]

What (I think) you're saying here is that someone, somewhere has to think it's 'good' before it can be considered 'art'. Is that right? Isn't that still placing art in the bracket of a value judgement...?



It's not the value of the object I'm talking about, but the value of the term in defining the object.



That's a really interesting analogy!

I'd say I think 'Art' defines the object, whereas 'Love' defines the feeling one has towards a subject (if that makes sense?).

Like I said before, I'm not terribly keen on an unwavering definition for 'Art', but there has to be some kind of vague outline for it otherwise it simply becomes a bit of a pompous value judgement (which I think we both agree is not what 'art' means).

I'm probably failing to get my point across =P I don't mean that someone somewhere has to think something is "good" for it to be considered art, but that someone somewhere probably does because of the nature of art. I mean that art can mean different things and invoke different emotions to different people. For example, I don't think something being interactive negates its ability to hold artistic value, but I can absolutely understand why some people would believe that if their interpretation of art somehow requires it to be uninteractive. I have no idea why some people hold that belief though, nor why they feel the need to force it upon others.

I'd say art is literally anything creative if I was pushed for a broad definition of the term, but that its value varies from person to person. It's something that is intrinsically human, and like love, is hard to define in a way that encompasses absolutely everyone's opinions and beliefs. So while individuals will be able to detail strict ideals and values for what they interpret as art (or love) it's not a definition that everyone will agree with, and that's fine. They shouldn't have to. Because it's art =P

 

[TheThreadsThatBindUs]

It always amazed me that people even get hung up over this debate. Games are art, just as TV media, books and illustrative works are art. i.e.

- not all games are art - e.g. competitive MP games
- not all TV media is - e.g. documentaries, educational shows
- not all illustrative works are art - e.g. technical drawings, signs and symbols, logos
- not all books are art - e.g. text books

Any media designed and intended to convey some form of expression of an idea, emotion or experience is considered art.

It's silly to try to disqualify games as art, just because you don't some examples which posses little artistic merit. E.g. for every Tetris there's a Journey, Inside, Limbo or Flower.

Imho, even Bioshock Infinite is considered art. It's a little trite and a little hamfisted in its execution of its ideas, but poorly implemented art is still art.

 

[Screaming Meat]

I'm probably failing to get my point across =P I don't mean that someone somewhere has to think something is "good" for it to be considered art, but that someone somewhere probably does because of the nature of art.

Ahhh, gotcha. My bad.

I mean that art can mean different things and invoke different emotions to different people.

Your latter point is more about the effect of art rather than the object. In terms of the effect on someone, I completely agree, but I don't think the term itself is quite so free form. I lean more towards art, as a term, being about category rather than value.

Spoiler

Frankly, the pseudo-Marxist in me thinks calling something 'art' is a classist thing anyway, so I've no idea why I'm digging so deep on it's behalf.

I'd say art is literally anything creative if I was pushed for a broad definition of the term, but that its value varies from person to person.

Oh great. Now we have to define 'creative'!

Spoiler

I'm kidding. It was good chatting to you about this. Really liked the Art/Love analogy.

Any media designed and intended to convey some form of expression of an idea, emotion or experience is considered art.

That sounds more like a definition of advertising to me.

Or porn.

 

[NewGame]

Video games will never be art




because they're better than art. deal with it mona lisa, go back to you sistine chapel and listen to your bach you uninteractive dumpster fire

 

[Oynox]

That's pretty much how I see it. Video games collect the elements of every other non-painting/sculpture art form - film, music, literature, drawing/graphic arts, etc - under its own unique umbrella

But there are too few games who really nail that and make it generally acceptable as art. There are some instances where would I agree (most recently INSIDE probably) and there are many, many indie games who reach a comparable "art" form but the vast majority of released games are, going by these terms, bad art, I would say. Take all those big franchises and best selling games and one cannot argue that it is "good art".

I am a big contender that video games should be considered art as well, especially in Germany where they are censored because they aren't "art", but if video games are art, the most popular and biggest names in video games are just bad which is really sad.

/edit

Maybe not bad, but mediocre at best. One department of film/music/literature/drawing in video games is often lacking quite a bit and often it is the very essential literature.

Besides that, film also combines music, literature, drawings/photos. Video games are kind of interactive films in my opinion.

 

[SomTervo]

Games offer a unique way to tell some stories, sure. But the medium of video games, for now at least, seems to limit which subject matter can be explored and the ways certain subject matter can be explored. At risk of sounding like a smug douche, I'm not sure video games can explore subject matter that is important to understanding the human condition in as nuanced and sophisticated a way that books, TV, film and comics can. It's mostly about being escapism/entertainment.

SOMA is another example of a game that handily defies the bolded

Video games will never be art




because they're better than art. deal with it mona lisa, go back to you sistine chapel and listen to your bach you uninteractive dumpster fire

you tell em, sister!

 

[oon]

I think video games can be art, but I think it's a medium still very much in its infancy and without any real examples that can compare to the most serious and influential works in other mediums. There is no gaming equivalent to Shakespeare or Dostoyevsky, Kubrick or Kuwosawa, Van Gogh or Rembrandt - but that can't really be expected either, since the medium's only been around for ~40 years.

Still, I think any given year's best art in other mediums far surpasses what's done in gaming. 2001 gave us Mulholland Drive and Silent Hill 2, and as much as I really love it, SH2 isn't close to the same tier as Mulholland Drive - and I think this is a fair comparison, given how Lynchian Silent Hill can be and how they both tackle remarkably similar themes. SH2 is definitely noteworthy for aiming much higher than its genre peers, and it does push the medium forward.

I think for the most part, most video games are art the same way a film like The Avengers or a novel like Da Vinci Code is art - that is to say, kind of, I guess, technically? That doesn't mean they aren't entertaining or worthy of praise, but there's just plain less to talk about and reflect on than with more serious works.

It's not my intention to sound elitist or anything - I think the medium is absolutely capable of greater things, and some games are true works of art. I can just see where a guy like Ebert was coming from.