Are games art? Do you care?

Are video games art? Why it doesn’t matter

Quote:

---

A closer look at the “are games art” debate, and why it's silly

---

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?

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.

http://i8.photobucket.com/albums/a45...ot0017-2-1.jpg

Ja dit sal net Plassie wees wat so iets doen maar ja dis art wanneer jy snipe :)

Rofl!!!!!!!!