Are games art? Do you care?

jasong said:
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?
Click to expand...

This is exactly my problem with the whole, stupid debate. I'll quote my NAG article:

"Besides, what’s with this queer perception that something suddenly being “art” somehow legitimises or elevates its status in some esoteric and otherwise unrealisable way? What, is everything else just completely meaningless, or simply having no significance, relevance, or real value? What’s wrong with games just being games for, you know, the games’ sake, and that being enough?"

So if games aren't art, they're obviously nothing more than a "frivolous, childish pastime"? What a ludicrous inference. This, see, is an attitude that speaks more of your own possible inadequacy than anything else - perhaps you need games to be art to justify playing them. Which I'm not stating as fact, mind you, but perhaps something to consider.

Similarly, I don't need to argue that Shakespeare's work is art to appreciate its inherent quality. I don't need games to be art before I can say that one is better than another. It's like saying models have to be wearing hats before anyone can determine their attractiveness. Basically, it's entirely irrelevant.
 
Azimuth said:
This is exactly my problem with the whole, stupid debate. I'll quote my NAG article:

"Besides, what’s with this queer perception that something suddenly being “art” somehow legitimises or elevates its status in some esoteric and otherwise unrealisable way? What, is everything else just completely meaningless, or simply having no significance, relevance, or real value? What’s wrong with games just being games for, you know, the games’ sake, and that being enough?"

So if games aren't art, they're obviously nothing more than a "frivolous, childish pastime"? What a ludicrous inference. This, see, is an attitude that speaks more of your own possible inadequacy than anything else - perhaps you need games to be art to justify playing them. Which I'm not stating as fact, mind you, but perhaps something to consider.

Similarly, I don't need to argue that Shakespeare's work is art to appreciate its inherent quality. I don't need games to be art before I can say that one is better than another. It's like saying models have to be wearing hats before anyone can determine their attractiveness. Basically, it's entirely irrelevant.
Click to expand...

It seems to be the appellation of 'art' that you take exception to - then what else should we call it? I actually don't have any baggage or preconceptions with the terminology we use, and I'm happy to revise it if necessary. Whatever we mean by art, whatever common elements can be attributed to the great works of humanity - that's what I'm referring to, and forgive my clumsiness. But for the sake of convenience we call it art, and we recognize it when we see it.

I have no particular desire for legitimization. I play whatever I feel like. What I desire is to see videogaming achieve its potential as a creative medium. And when it does, if we call that art, I don't have a problem with it. I want to play something that actually elevates me in the same way as a novel.
 
I think you're still missing my point. I don't see the use in categorising games any further than, well, games. The problem is, we become so caught up in debating whether or not a game is art, that we don't bother discussing it on its own merits. You've suggested that I - and others - are essentially refusing to engage in the whole games-as-art debate, while you're perhaps failing, ironically enough, to engage in discussing whether or not a game is any good.

It's not the designation of "art" that I object to, nor yet the proliferation of vague, conflicting, and frequently fatuous definitions, but rather that the entire debate is an exercise in tedious pointlessness. We might as well argue whether games are a shade of red. You keep talking about games "reaching potential" - the subtext being that, if they're not art, they're somehow inherently inferior in nature - yet seem unwilling to admit to somehow legitimising them this way.
 
I suspect that a massive part of the problem is that many people have this misconception that anything labeled art must be good/nice/pretty/acceptable/likeable/enjoyable or whatever. In my opinion art is merely a word describing something that somebody has created/painted/drawn/coded/written from their own imagination with their own hands. I may be wrong, but that is the feeling I have.

Not all art is great, but not all art is kak either and I still maintain that THAT is what makes art great. The fact that we can both play the same game and one person thinks it's awesome and the other doesn't, but that does not automatically mean he/she dismisses it as a bad piece of art. Variety is the spice of life after all...
 
I'm perfectly happy to discuss a game on its own merits. Where did you get the impression that I wasn't? I really don't care to spend all day fatuously back and forthing over yes-they-are-no-they-aren't bickering.

The point is, and someone above acknowledged (laziness excused), that there are precious few games that have the ability to move him in the same way as a certain piece of music. That is a sentiment I agree with, and a dilemma that I feel merits investigation. Is there some inherent technical limitation with videogames that inhibits them from serving as vehicles of artistic expression? It has nothing to do with legitimization, and everything to do with the thing itself.

Or IOW if you want to discuss games on their own merits, please conceptualize a critical framework in which we could discuss them as such without lapsing into the egregious error of mistakenly daring to call them art? Videogames have unique characteristics, tropes, limitations, strengths - they require a vocabulary that can analyse them on their own terms.
 
Last edited:
Very few games a sense of emotional WOW from me anymore. The problem to me being that too many games are extremely similar. Now this might be because I tend to lean far more towards a certain genre or two, because that's what I enjoy. For instance, I don't play Bad Company 2 for it's artistic value in terms of emotions etc. I play it because it great fun, especially because it's online and I get to blow my friends up and we have a laugh. The single player is interesting for the storyline, to a degree, but overall so many if not all shooters all have a very similar sequence of events.

Two games that completely stood out for me for not only their gaming value, but also the intellectual and emotional value, are the first Deus Ex and more recently Heavy Rain. Two games that were/are extremely unique now and then. They maybe had some technical glitches, but the overall experience when playing them was simply brilliant. Never before have I based my decisions ingame on my own personality. Deus Ex with all it's nano upgrades and what do I wish to become. Heavy Rain for its, if it was my boy, would I cut off my own finger or kill some stranger to save my kid?

There are many ways in which games are rated and many debates as to what should be used etc and what shouldn't, but maybe a factor to consider is also a games emotional effect of you. Graphics, sound, controls all have their place, but somehow simply rating it's storyline or gameplay doesn't always give you the full picture.

Please note when I say these or any other games affect me emotionally, I don't necessarily mean just tears! I also mean when you have finished playing it leaves you with a profound feeling of, "Damn, would I really be able to do that or not do it? Would I want to bio-mechanically want to alter/better myself? Would I really be able to sacrifice myself to save someone I loved?"

So, to maybe avoid going back and forth here, I pose this question, What is the game that most affected you emotionally? Doesn't have to be your best game ever, simply which game had the biggest impact on your life outside of the actual game?
 
TBH I never got to play either Deus Ex or Heavy Rain. One of these days I'll d/l Deus Ex and play it with graphical mods and all the rest of it. Recently I enjoyed Braid a lot though. I ended up trying to control time with my mind. I wouldn't say it particularly moved me emotionally, but it was certainly unique.
 
no PS3 = no Heavy Rain :(. I'd also love to play LBP 1 and 2. Maybe one of these days I'll get a PS3 just to experience those games (and The Last Guardian when it arrives), just like I have a Wii temporarily so I can play Mario Galaxy 1 and 2 heh.
 
Flog the Wii, tell it's owner someone stole it and you are very sorry, then go buy PS3.

I've heard that Alan Wake on Xbox 360 is comparable to Heavy Rain in terms of the experience. Can someone who has played both please comment?
 
This is lovely. I read all of this and feel no need to post. You all have said basically what needed to be said, whether you agree or not. This is obviously a topic which will allude a definition for a long, long time.

Maybe once the technology becomes more static then we can see a better outline forming. Right now I guess games should primarily be games. But for anyone willing attempting to ascend it to greater heights, well I certainly welcome that as well.

Where does Machinima fall into all of this? It uses a game engine, but they are akin to films.

*BTW, this topic was a lot of reading. But was good fun when I felt inclined*
 
jasong said:
I'm perfectly happy to discuss a game on its own merits. Where did you get the impression that I wasn't? I really don't care to spend all day fatuously back and forthing over yes-they-are-no-they-aren't bickering.

The point is, and someone above acknowledged (laziness excused), that there are precious few games that have the ability to move him in the same way as a certain piece of music. That is a sentiment I agree with, and a dilemma that I feel merits investigation. Is there some inherent technical limitation with videogames that inhibits them from serving as vehicles of artistic expression? It has nothing to do with legitimization, and everything to do with the thing itself.

Or IOW if you want to discuss games on their own merits, please conceptualize a critical framework in which we could discuss them as such without lapsing into the egregious error of mistakenly daring to call them art? Videogames have unique characteristics, tropes, limitations, strengths - they require a vocabulary that can analyse them on their own terms.
Click to expand...

You're still not understanding what I mean at all, and I'm done saying the same thing over and over. So, in point form, and for the last time:

1. There is no encompassing, uncontentious definition of art.
2. So anyone can slap some red paint across a piece of latex molded into the shape of a penis, call it something inscrutably ironic like "Hegemonic disestablishmentaranism", and call it "art".
3. Ergo, the designation "art" isn't worth much.
4. Ergo, arguing whether games are art is pointless.

If a game moves you emotionally, it moves you emotionally because it does this, that, or the other thing, and you respond accordingly. Not because the game might be art.
 
Well if they had shaped it as boobs it would definitely be art!!! They only penis that, a dude at least, should call art, should be his own!
 
Azimuth said:
You're still not understanding what I mean at all, and I'm done saying the same thing over and over. So, in point form, and for the last time:

1. There is no encompassing, uncontentious definition of art.
2. So anyone can slap some red paint across a piece of latex molded into the shape of a penis, call it something inscrutably ironic like "Hegemonic disestablishmentaranism", and call it "art".
3. Ergo, the designation "art" isn't worth much.
4. Ergo, arguing whether games are art is pointless.

If a game moves you emotionally, it moves you emotionally because it does this, that, or the other thing, and you respond accordingly. Not because the game might be art.
Click to expand...

Well, having responded to your rather thuddingly obvious point from various angles I'm slightly at a loss how to respond.
 
Consecutive circles. I think this is why some of us shy away from these discussions. How often does one actually affect another thinking, especially in the long term? I am sure apathy is derived from this fact.

Until a game is designed from the bottom up to be art I do not think any game can be considered great art. Right now they are entertainment that bears resemblance to art in the right circumstances, or in the perceptions of one who has NO understanding what art, or great art truly is.
 
Last edited:
jasong said:
Well, having responded to your rather thuddingly obvious point from various angles I'm slightly at a loss how to respond.
Click to expand...

Quite on the contrary, the fact that you're still brandishing phrases like "artistic expression", and suggesting I attempt to define a critical framework that - ludicrously - doesn't allow for games being "art" kinda means you're still stuck on the "games are art" thing. Which I keep trying to tell you is irrelevant to me. It's like talking about some new album, and not getting past the fucking cover.

What moves one person won't necessarily move another. There's no dilemma here at all, there's only subjective experience.
 
Yeah Senticall, sadly most of these topics regress into arguments rather than being discussions. That is the interesting thing about intelligent people. They really struggle to find a middle-ground of understanding, and usually just end-up going in circles until one gets tired and moves on.
 
Last edited:
Azimuth said:
Quite on the contrary, the fact that you're still brandishing phrases like "artistic expression", and suggesting I attempt to define a critical framework that - ludicrously - doesn't allow for games being "art" kinda means you're still stuck on the "games are art" thing. Which I keep trying to tell you is irrelevant to me. It's like talking about some new album, and not getting past the fucking cover.

What moves one person won't necessarily move another. There's no dilemma here at all, there's only subjective experience.
Click to expand...

Well, are you suggesting that videogames don't warrant a serious critical discourse? Look if you have a problem with performance art I suggest you take it up with the establishment - of course you'd be laughed out of the room, but that's hardly my concern. You've got some bee in your bonnet about the definition of art - but nobody, in any domain, ever suggested that there was not such an entity, and that it could not be analysed critically.

Or if you do wish to take games seriously as a creative medium, why quibble about nomenclature - it's the least of all concerns. What is of importance is how gaming can evolve into a mature platform that can deal with real themes or a higher aesthetic expression - if you find those issues irrelevant or indefinable, I'd rather question your role as a critic. If you do feel that they are worth exploring, I'm asking you to suggest a critical framework in which we can do so without touching the question of games-as-art.
 
Last edited:
Somehow I don't think Azimuth cares if games are classified as art or not. In fact, if I understood correctly, she doesn't think games should even be called art, which is kind of stupid if you ask me. That's like saying the Mona Lisa is just a painting and should not be called art. Or the works of Shakespeare are just stories and should simply be read and not called art? Makes no sense to me, because no matter your definition of art, to me something that has been borne out your creativity, no matter what it actually is, is art. Whether or not it's a great piece of art or even an ok piece, is not the point here.

Azimuth, what you are saying is that games are not art and you don't care? Correct?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top