Are games art? Do you care?

I guess you could classify some games as art. Maybe your simulation/user creation games, like the Sim X, and Simcity X series, as those aren't all copies from reality (although some user content tries to be), but they are creations of the player. If they create something within the framework of the game that makes us go wow, moves us, or evokes a feeling of beauty or disgust or whatever, then I think we can classify it as art.
 
The term art is attached to certain objects so that some people can feel all poncy/snobbish about said objects. Certain games, for instance Bioshock 1 and 2, contain more artistic integrity and creativity than anything you'll see at say a modern art exhibition (here we have a turtle wrapped in foil. I call it: The Rise of Communism).

People also always speak of the art of filmmaking, in my opinion games these days are so far ahead of films in terms of design and scope, what with Hollywood churning out remakes by the dozens. Of course there are smaller films which do the same, but you get my point.

I think the reason games are not referred to as art (I don't care really), is because of the stupid stigma attached to gaming, that of it being a childish pasttime and little else.
 
I'll admit, I've played some games before like Okami and Killer7 where at points I would say the game is like appreciating a good work of art. So I think it depends on the game and what the intentions of the developers were. Looking at games like Halo, GTA and sports games, I think it would be a joke to call them art because I think that might have been the furthest thing from the developers' minds at the time. So yes, it depends. And do I care? Not really, because I can enjoy a game without it being 'artistic.' Then again, when I consider a game to be 'artistic' it's usually a very, very good game and leaves me with happy memories.
 
Every videogame is art in some sense of the word. The real question is whether a game can be elevated to the status of GREAT art - to rank alongside a Monet, Kubrick, Schumann, Proust, Neruda. I don't agree that it's a silly debate, I think it's a fundamental one for gamers - especially since if we're honest there are precious few games that are ever able to achieve any level of thematic maturity. Games are overwhelmingly hobbled by clunky, poorly integrated exposition. Where can you point to an element in a game that approaches greatness in the same manner as traditional artistic vehicles like the novel?

I feel that the problem isn't one of multiple choices as Ebert mistakenly does. I suspect it's because a videogame is a game in the foremost - if you strip away the aesthetic varnishing you'd still be left with a coherent gameplay mechanic that is actually the heart of the entire craft. Whereas a novel or a painting is purely ABOUT delivering a visual, narrative, or aural experience, a game adds those elements as an afterthought, and lives or fails on the strength of its gameplay. SoTC isn't about the atmosphere it conjures, it's about killing bloody great monsters by working out their weaknesses through exploration and experimentation. More often than not, storytelling intrudes into the actual experience - in any case it's rarely completely integral to the game.

Does anyone see what I'm getting at here?
 
Last edited:
yes, yes and why? because as the definition you gave, its a product of human creativity, the beauty of Video games being considered art is that they will gain more respect
 
I don't care for arty games. Unless I am killing something lol. But it would be nice to see games using different styles instead of the ultra realistic stuff.
 
This is is what I call art.

shot0017-2-1.jpg
 
"Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics............Traditionally, the term art was used to refer to any skill or mastery. This conception changed during the Romantic period, when art came to be seen as "a special faculty of the human mind to be classified with religion and science".[2] Generally, art is made with the intention of stimulating thoughts and emotions."

As quoted from wikipedia.

Well games evoke thoughts and emotions. Emotions such as rage, enjoyment, happiness, laughing etc, have happened to me whilst gaming and is therefore in my opinion art. Simple question, simple answer based on the above definition.
 
So
Pictures is art
Music is art
Story is art

Interactive pictures with music and a story is not art?

I don`t get it

a game is a product of of many artists.. from modelers to programmers.
 
Last edited:
It kiiinda is. (David Spade from Rules of Engagement)

The question is: "Are games art?"

By the definition I gave, they are. The elicit emotions and are expressions of someone's creativity. Ok, the expressions was kinda my own thought, but I think that is the whole point. Art is down to personal taste. Which come to think of it now, is maybe the what the question is trying to ask or should have asked. Do you find games to be art? Because in the strictest definition IMHO, it is. But that is what makes art what it is, matter of personal taste. You might not like the Mona Lisa say, or the statue of David, but is still art. Just because someone might find something ugly,distasteful etc, or not understand the subject, doesn't mean it isn't art.
 
That's ok lol. It isn't so simple because of the reason I gave above: Yes in the broad dictionary sense games are technically an art form. But the issue is whether games will ever be able to produce great art, art that can stand up next to its novel, poem, painting (etc) masterpiece counterparts? And if they are, what form would that take? How would we know it if we saw it?
 
Hmm... I get where you are going jasong. I come from a family of artists and I oddly find myself struggling to define what is art for a myriad of reasons.

I have thought about this topic and I would like for the gaming medium to be considered art, sure it shares elements with art, but it lacks depth due to its nature.

Would a game ever be great / fine art? No, I highly doubt it. As it stands the gaming industry is primarily shallow affair. Sure I do experience emotional events, but nothing that truly stirs my soul like say a great piece of music does. However I do believe if a group like-minded people got together to create art in this medium they could very well achieve it. But as it is gaming is entertainment, and is created as such.

The question for most is not whether a game can be art, but more what IS art. And that alone is a complex affair.
 
Problem is games will in all likelihood never be seen as a masterpiece by art gurus, because they will always see it as juvenile computer games. It's not like we will ever see games being displayed in the Louvre or The Metropolitan.

For what it's worth, I really think Heavy Rain is either or very close to being a great piece of art. Stunning visuals, awesome soundtrack and a very gripping storyline. But like I say, art will always be a matter of personal taste.
 
jasong said:
That's ok lol. It isn't so simple because of the reason I gave above: Yes in the broad dictionary sense games are technically an art form. But the issue is whether games will ever be able to produce great art, art that can stand up next to its novel, poem, painting (etc) masterpiece counterparts? And if they are, what form would that take? How would we know it if we saw it?
Click to expand...

Good argument. Something that is meant to "amuse children" will never reach the status of high art simply because it doesn't get taken seriously in that sense. So, high art - doubtful in our lifetime. Art in general - absolutely without question.
 
Last edited:
Yeah you see... I actually do like playing highbrow, indie, critically rated videogames and reading Edge and the rest of it. I guess I'm a bit of a poncey gamer heh. You have a handful of games that are always held up as examples of real bona fide works of art - Shadow of the Colossus, Flower, Heavy Rain. Whether they actually qualify as real art is another matter, but they are certainly closer to the traditional definition of art than the average gun orgy.

The issue that I raised above though really plagues me - the dichotomy between the story, if there is one, and the actual gameplay, which is where the 'real' heart of the game is IMO. An RPG isn't 'about' a group of characters saving the world or something, it's about strategic turn-based battles, careful resource management, upgrading and so forth. And if it succeeds in one direction but fails in the gameplay, it fails completely.

Recognizing something as art is a remedial task - acknowledging a masterpiece in an unfamiliar medium is a completely different challenge. Zelda: OoT is usually considered the greatest game of all time but its story is laughable. It succeeds on the terms of videogaming - level design, coherence of world, puzzles, and other elements that have nothing to do with classical great art.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top