Are games art? Do you care?

I wrote a similar article to this in NAG last month - don't know if anyone here read it.

My point, however, was asking why it is that people seem to think that something being "art" somehow legitimises or elevates its status in some way. I mean, if this wasn't true, nobody would bother arguing about it.

Personally, I think "art" is such a nebulous, subjective concept, it's just not worth the effort of debating its definitions or subscriptions at all. It's a stupid, pointless argument, ultimately terminating in nothing more meaningful or significant than a necessarily inconclusive "yes, it is" or "no, it isn't".
 
No Azimuth, you should know no one reads your articles :P
Art ? Who cares, only yuppies that think having THE UGLIEST paint spatters that adorn canvas in their living rooms seems to care about what is considered art and what isn't
Games are Games
 
Xerowing said:
No Azimuth, you should know no one reads your articles :P
Art ? Who cares, only yuppies that think having THE UGLIEST paint spatters that adorn canvas in their living rooms seems to care about what is considered art and what isn't
Games are Games
Click to expand...

+10000
yuppies make me sick.
 
Azimuth said:
My point, however, was asking why it is that people seem to think that something being "art" somehow legitimises or elevates its status in some way. I mean, if this wasn't true, nobody would bother arguing about it.

Personally, I think "art" is such a nebulous, subjective concept, it's just not worth the effort of debating its definitions or subscriptions at all. It's a stupid, pointless argument, ultimately terminating in nothing more meaningful or significant than a necessarily inconclusive "yes, it is" or "no, it isn't".
Click to expand...

People just like to think they are awesome by association. So if games = art, then they think they are complex and cultured, when we actually know the truth about many gamers out there. You just need to log into any competitive online game to see the caliber of many a gamer.

Personally I don't give a toss. Not even sure why I posted :p
 
Last edited:
Are games art? Yes, they all are, even the crap ones. Anything that you create is art, even mappy's body count. But do I care? Not so much.
 
Azimuth said:
I wrote a similar article to this in NAG last month - don't know if anyone here read it.

My point, however, was asking why it is that people seem to think that something being "art" somehow legitimises or elevates its status in some way. I mean, if this wasn't true, nobody would bother arguing about it.

Personally, I think "art" is such a nebulous, subjective concept, it's just not worth the effort of debating its definitions or subscriptions at all. It's a stupid, pointless argument, ultimately terminating in nothing more meaningful or significant than a necessarily inconclusive "yes, it is" or "no, it isn't".
Click to expand...

Why become a gaming critic if you don't want to engage on the most significant discussions? Avoiding the debate just allows uninformed critics writing wildly outside of their domain to make damning pronouncements without correction.

The core of it, as I said, isn't of the nature of what art is - that's quite frivolous - it's whether gaming is capable of producing real, lasting art. And while there may be no consensus on the former definitions, there are certainly acknowledged masterpieces within every other medium.

Great art has certain characteristics: it deals with highly complex, mature themes, it is of an outstanding aesthetic composition that withstands critical scrutiny, it lasts beyond the age in which it was created, and so forth. So with that in mind, what metrics should be applied to videogame criticism? When does a game transcend its medium? Which games until now have attained to real art in some degree? Those are significant, debateworthy questions IMO.

Videogaming needs to mature as a medium - an attitude of contempt towards any attempt at serious analysis rather than just points out of 10 is doing nothing but retarding gaming from ever reaching its potential.
 
jasong said:
Videogaming needs to mature as a medium - an attitude of contempt towards any attempt at serious analysis rather than just points out of 10 is doing nothing but retarding gaming from ever reaching its potential.
Click to expand...

That and the fact that serious art critics/snobs will most probably never accept that something like videogames can be considered art, much less masterpieces.
 
DenSweeP said:
That and the fact that serious art critics/snobs will most probably never accept that something like videogames can be considered art, much less masterpieces.
Click to expand...

The same could have been said for movies at one point - then Citizen Kane changed all of that, opened up moviemaking as a legitimate artistic enterprise.

And believe it or not critics aren't actually just elitist snobs - most of the time they have a more trained artistic sense than the average consumer. They wouldn't be critics if they didn't treasure the things they critiqued.
 
Last edited:
I know they not all snobs, merely being somewhat sarcastic and I would expect them to have a better sense of artistic sense. But this begs the question, what is artistic sense? And what Critic A would critique and say is terrible, someone else might find to be breathtaking.

And that will always be the great thing about art, because it is not whether or not you like something, it is whether or not I like it and that is all that should matter to the person viewing/experiencing/purchasing the work/s in question.
 
All you're doing is dismissing the entire discussion - and for that matter the whole field of art criticism - out of hand because everyone's opinion is subjective. It might be, but there is still critical consensus on the real masterpieces of cinema - and believe it or not there is consensus on the great videogames, albeit gaming is still a very nascent medium. It's not about 'liking' or 'not liking' something; it's about creating a dialogue, a framework, from which to approach the entire field of critical analysis of gaming. And it's about questioning why videogaming is so deficient when it comes to bridging the gap between games-as-entertainment and games-as-art. If you aren't qualified to hold that discussion, that's fine.
 
And what qualifications do I need out of interest?

I understand there is certain criteria and other elements that define what are and are not masterpieces or simply good art. But just because something is a masterpiece, does not mean everyone must like it. You can appreciate it for many reasons, but not have to like it simply because it's the Mona Lisa or a book called To kill a Mockingbird or whatever.I can appreciate the complexities of a painting, the strokes used to do this or achieve that, or the mere fact that it was painted a billion years ago and still achieved xyz. But liking art is subjective. Hell, liking anything is subjective. I think Jessica Alba is a work of art and absolutely stunning, but that doesn't mean everyone else thinks that. I like a Steers Double Cheese Burger with extra cheese, but my wife doesn't.

Art, as with virtually everything in life comes down to personal choice. And that is another great thing about this discussion, you won't agree with me, because it is your choice not to. Imagine how boring life would be if we all liked the same things without fail. If everyone liked comdies and nothing else, then what?

Any case, I think I'm done on this topic. The original question to this topic was simply, Are games art and do you care? My answer, "Yes they are and no, I don't really care!"
 
You don't need any particular qualifications - just the capacity and willingness to hold the debate. You seem to think that just because not everybody agrees on what constitutes art, that there must not be such a thing as great art at all, and it's pointless to try analyzing anything at all because everything is subjective anyway. In which case, that's fine - you automatically disqualify yourself from the debate. You can carry on blissfully gaming away.

But I feel it's a pity when the issue is treated with such perfunctory disregard. Game developers should be able to aspire to something beyond where the medium has gone, to deal with deeper themes, with greater complexities, with brave innovative stylization - and their efforts deserve to be met with an appropriate critical, matured response from the gaming audience.
 
Why do I disqualify myself? Because you said so? I have never said there is no such thing as great art. There is plenty, but that does not mean I like it or have to like it. In the same breath, just because I don't like it, does not mean it isn't a great piece of art.

Answer me this, what defines great art and what are it's characteristics?

Argh never mind.
 
You only disqualify yourself because your response to the entire question is 'I don't care'. That's a self-disqualification - unwillingness to engage in the first place.

Ok we all recognize the difficulties inherent in defining art - great, poor, otherwise. But even you acknowledged now that there is such a thing; even if you don't, you at least know the difference between a good game and a bad one, and that there are ways and criteria for judging art. If not an exact science, it is at least a legitimate field.

If you don't feel that a certain work of art is a valid masterpiece, or if you do feel it, you should be able to explain why - IOW as one criteria that I already supplied above, great art is able to withstand close critical scrutiny over time. Opinions and personal taste are not the same as analysis. That's why gaming needs its own vocabulary, a set of workable metrics by which it can be judged.

But anyway, if you care about it then debate and qualify yourself - if not just shrug in apathy and move on. That's what most gamers do anyway.
 
Last edited:
jasong said:
Why become a gaming critic if you don't want to engage on the most significant discussions? Avoiding the debate just allows uninformed critics writing wildly outside of their domain to make damning pronouncements without correction.
Click to expand...

I don't think it's a significant discussion at all. I explained why.

The core of it, as I said, isn't of the nature of what art is - that's quite frivolous - it's whether gaming is capable of producing real, lasting art. And while there may be no consensus on the former definitions, there are certainly acknowledged masterpieces within every other medium.
Click to expand...

But there's no real, enduring consensus on what exactly constitutes art. Ergo, it's impossible to determine with anything even approaching legitimacy whether or not games are ever art. Or anything else, for that matter. I mean, anyone can say the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is art. But since nobody can really agree what art actually is, what does that even mean? Nothing.

Great art has certain characteristics: it deals with highly complex, mature themes, it is of an outstanding aesthetic composition that withstands critical scrutiny, it lasts beyond the age in which it was created, and so forth. So with that in mind, what metrics should be applied to videogame criticism? When does a game transcend its medium? Which games until now have attained to real art in some degree? Those are significant, debateworthy questions IMO.
Click to expand...

Except that's your definition of art. Other people would disagree. Why, for example, are "mature themes" a prerequisite? What exactly constitutes a "mature theme", anyway?

Videogaming needs to mature as a medium - an attitude of contempt towards any attempt at serious analysis rather than just points out of 10 is doing nothing but retarding gaming from ever reaching its potential.
Click to expand...

Apathy != contempt. And as for "retarding gaming from ever reaching its potential" - why should it be anything more than a bit of entertainment? I mean, I think that's kinda the point.
 
The sad reality in my opinion, is that games will most likely never be rated in the same league as say a Monet, a Da Vinci, Mozart or Bach or even something more contemporary as say, a Steven Spielberg film, or a Matthew Reilly novel. Well probably not anytime soon in any case.

One of gaming's greatest drawbacks I think is that the technology used to develop games is always changing and as a result the "canvas" is always going to be vastly different after time and not fair to make comparisons with. A painting on an actual canvas is comparable to one painted in 1823 and one on 2003. (If the old one hasn't physically deteriorated over time) A canvas, paintbrush etc then, is basically them same as now. Same principle for music or even movies and books.

Therefore games should, maybe not exclusively, be measured more on the emotions they evoke, than on what they look like due to the advances in technology. As you say, the criteria used to measure games should be carefully considered.

A separate point, simply dismissing someone's argument out hand because it doesn't measure up to your standard does not mean they are automatically disqualified. You didn't seem to grasp what I was trying to say, you merely ignored or dismissed it. I agree there are many great pieces out there, some even masterworks, but that does not mean everyone will like it. I was not debating whether or not something is or isn't great, I was saying taste is subjective. Maybe I didn't convey myself properly and I hope I have now made a better attempt at it.
 
Azimuth - all you're doing is condemning videogaming to a ghetto of frivolous, childish pastime. And what of games that do aspire to more? Or adults who actually want something higher than just to be distracted for a couple of hours in a bit of meaningless escapism?

But there's no real, enduring consensus on what exactly constitutes art. Ergo, it's impossible to determine with anything even approaching legitimacy whether or not games are ever art. Or anything else, for that matter. I mean, anyone can say the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is art. But since nobody can really agree what art actually is, what does that even mean? Nothing.
Click to expand...

You're mired down in a pitiful equivalency - then nothing is anything, no game is better than any other, the works of Shakespeare are no more worthwhile than a child's scrawling. Yet musical analysis can be mathematically rigorous. And great literature endures as the best of human endeavors. Oh but nobody agrees so it's all nothing right?
 
Last edited:
DenSweeP said:
The sad reality in my opinion, is that games will most likely never be rated in the same league as say a Monet, a Da Vinci, Mozart or Bach or even something more contemporary as say, a Steven Spielberg film, or a Matthew Reilly novel. Well probably not anytime soon in any case.

One of gaming's greatest drawbacks I think is that the technology used to develop games is always changing and as a result the "canvas" is always going to be vastly different after time and not fair to make comparisons with. A painting on an actual canvas is comparable to one painted in 1823 and one on 2003. (If the old one hasn't physically deteriorated over time) A canvas, paintbrush etc then, is basically them same as now. Same principle for music or even movies and books.

Therefore games should, maybe not exclusively, be measured more on the emotions they evoke, than on what they look like due to the advances in technology. As you say, the criteria used to measure games should be carefully considered.

A separate point, simply dismissing someone's argument out hand because it doesn't measure up to your standard does not mean they are automatically disqualified. You didn't seem to grasp what I was trying to say, you merely ignored or dismissed it. I agree there are many great pieces out there, some even masterworks, but that does not mean everyone will like it. I was not debating whether or not something is or isn't great, I was saying taste is subjective. Maybe I didn't convey myself properly and I hope I have now made a better attempt at it.
Click to expand...

I appreciate your post, and I agree with you entirely.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top