Games as an art form

Because Shaggy McLockhappy demanded it. :)

Movies can be... or might not be art. Depending on how they are presented. I believe the same can be said for interactive computer programs....... some of which might be labeled as games.

When you speak about art...
The man that lives from art it's not an artist.(expect if people buying his art with violence)
Art that created for money it's not art.
Art it's not always beutyfull.
Art it's the mirror of fillings and more often you don't wand to sow your fillings.
And art it's evrything. (So may a game be art)

Anything that is remotely flexible can and can not be art.
Thus, some games are art. There are also many interactive computer simultions that are considered art, which would also be classified as computer games.


Just because the big AAA computer games industry does not make games for art (for obvious reasons) doesn't mean that nobody does. There are tons of games out there -- some of which are completely free -- which could easily be considered art when looked at from the right perspective.


Therefore, Hideo Kojima is incorrect.

I was tempted to resume this discussion as well

If you have to paint, compose and write a story then why shouldn't it be considered an artform? All that's changed is that the computer becomes the medium.

IMHO, of course:)

common anything you do that requires skill and creativity is art, like hedge trimming shapes, or cooking, or martial "arts".

Thing that electonic music remains for some people not an artform. They say that electonic music it's maded by the computer. For people how knows how it is created can be considered as art.
I had many discutions with people like this and to tell you the truth they just protecting their roof from the new technology that came in their house and don't know how to handle it.

..."art"?

If half a dead cow, an unmade bed and a doggy poo on a plate can be considered art then anything can !

@Haramanai: In a similar manner you can say that the music comes from the guitar and that the painting comes from the ink. I guess it's the generation gap that draws the blurry line betwen traditional and modern artforms.

old dog, new tricks...fear of the unknown...oldschool.

I believe that too.
Looks like the "Big Chairs" haven't grown up with a computer at home.

Don't forget the light going on and off.

Here's a simple rule you can apply to such 'works'. It doesn't confirm that something is art, but it helps to rule out what's not art.

Just ask yourself: "Could I--as the average layman when it comes to 'art'--have done that?" If the answer is yes, it's probably not art.

· Unmade bed: I could have done that (do it every day). Not art;
· Dead cow/sheep in a vat of formaldehyde: probably trickier than it sounds, logistically speaking, but I reckon I could manage it. Not art.
· Light turning on and off: I'm sure I could learn enough of the basics of electronics to do this. Not art;
· Etc.

Now ask yourself if you could turn out stuff like this, or if any 'average' person could. Would most people look at the work in question and be completely mind-blown by the idea that a real person could actually create such a work? If so, it may well be art.

[EDIT: Just because you can't do it, though, doesn't mean it is art. This question just rules out the total fakes.]

James: You forget one thing. Lots of "average laymen" have secret skills or hobbies. For example, the average layman couldn't make a game like Xmas Bonus, yet you probably could, so is it art? Martial artists train for years to excel at their art, let they may wey be "laymen" in other areas of their life such as painting or music. Naturally, as with everything, it's all relative ;-)

Having said that, I'm jsut being devil's advocate really as I much prefer art such as that in your link to modern art.

I'm not talking about their 'secret' skills, I'm talking about the work they actually produce. If they churn out something mind-blowing--something I can't possibly imagine a real person could produce--it may well be art.

I also said that just because I 'could' do it, doesn't mean it is art. This question just rules out the definite fakes, eg. "Unmade Bed".

Actually, that's not quite what I said, but if there's any confusion I'll elaborate!

I've arrived in this thread slightly confused. So, I'll bid you all farewell and close the door on my way out.

You're describing craftsmanship, and while it is true that a lot of people include craftsmanship as part of their definition of art, I don't; art can include craft, but it doesn't have to. I define art by it's ability to provoke thoughts and reflection, and that's where elitism is inevitable. After all, different people are going to react to a piece differently, assuming they react at all. Every person brings their own unique context to the experience; their interests, cultural background, previous exposure to other art, etc. As a result, art is intrinsically elitist, and there's nothing wrong with that. The way I see it, art that isn't elitist is bad art. If the object (or sound or whatever) communicates exactly the same way with every person, then it must not be communicating anything particularly meaningful.

At any rate, I would say that the issue really is that the term "videogame" is a misleadingly narrow way of describing a rather broad spectrum of creative output. Any discussion of whether or not games are art feels to me like discussing whether or not sitcoms are art.

There's lots of interactive artistic directions. A lot of exhibitionist art in the 20th century was interactive, ie some of the avant-guard. So if you make your art on canvas and then scan it into a PC it's still art, but if you make it interactive it can be considered a "game" so in that sense it's possible.

Only the cancelled ones, it would seem.

I think that Haramania's 'poem' at the top of the thread is art... Here it is again to save you scrolling up:



Art is the elevation of the commonplace to a level that makes us re-consider with new insight. The 'poem' above does this by taking English and mangling it in subtle ways that force extra meaning into the words used. (e.g. 'mirror of fillings'... 'wand to sow your fillings' - makes me think of a visit to the dentist - a modern day sorceror who raises dead nerves from the tombstone rows of our teeth with his buzzing wand. Is a dentist an artist or a craftsman ? Is art a mirror or a plasterer's 'filling' to cover over the cracks in real life ?)

Art is things made by artists to be art. Period.
The argument then becomes what is 'good art' and what is 'poor art'.

When an artist makes some toast to eat, it is just a slice of toast.
When an artist makes some toast to eat and displays the toast or the eating as an artistic statement, then he/she is making art.
It is then up to the audience to decide whether it is 'good' or 'important' or 'effective' art. Some people will be moved by the artistic context of the display to consider the nature of toast, or the process of consumption, or the relationship of artisit to his/her medium and whether all art is self-consuming.
Other people will just think it is 'pap'.

I disagree with jhocking that good art has to be elitist. Minimalism taken to extremes leaves the 'art' in the viewers mind. This is 'great' art because it says exactly nothing to every person by communicating nothing particularly meaningful... Instead it is the viewer who creates something meaningful in the presence of the 'art'. (Something that would not have existed without the art.)

Games are art from my perspective. Anything can be an art if you're creative enough with it.

A dictionary.com definition of art:


at first glance, this definition seems to describe games perfectly...

However, I think the point of the Kojima's article (the one that Flameduck referred to in the locked thread).. is that while games themselves contain art... they are not an artform of their own...

When someone looks at a game and says.. "The sound is amazing".. or "the graphics are beautiful"... or "nice story"... they are only referring to those specific elements. In other words, on their own, they are art.

Encompassing the whole experience is probably what would define "art". Rarely is a game highly regarded on every level.

David Jaffe had an interesting insight to games as art. Such that, if you try to be metaphorical in your game play, you can turn out a game that's crap, despite being accurate... (I think he described as an example, a FPS in which the amount of inventory you carry around would be directly proportional to your performance. i.e. you carry 5 guns, you're not going to be as effective as you are carrying 2 guns because of the negative factors involved in carrying a bunch of stuff with you. Wouldn't be that fun to play, but would be a great metaphor for greed.)

If it's a corporation that cranks out the latest iteration of Madden 20XX... Then it has little to do with art...

If it's one man in his basement pouring everything he's got into a labor of love without regard to whether anyone but himself is going to like the resulting game... That's art.

Period.

I agree.

Good to see an actual definition of art (one of the most essential parts of this discussion) finally get quoted :)

As James mentioned above, the creative and physical skills are two very important definitive traits of 'real' artists and their work. I'd call the 'half a cow' rubbish a display or arrangement, not art. Same goes for that other bizarre crap... the unmade bed, the boat/shed/boat/whothehellcares/shed thing etc etc.

The game I'm working is definitely art!

Calling a game art is like calling an art gallery art.

Take a look at the old games. Some of those should be classed as art.

Metal Slug for example. The art in that is amazing.

Maybe it's a little black and white to say that games ARE or ARE NOT art. Certainly games contain art elements, but the interactive portion of a game is just that: a game or puzzle. You wouldn't call darts art - that's a game. But darts doesn't contain any art elements. Games contain, in addition to the gameplay, ideas, stories, pictorial art, 3D art, animation art and sound art. But is the gaming platform art in itself? The interactive nature of computer games is what sets it apart from other disciplines, so I would think a discussion about games AS art (rather than containing art elements) would have to focus on that aspect. Maybe.

So your conclusion is that (much like everything else) some games are art, but they are few and far between. Most games (like most movies, most books, most music and most paintings) are garbage.

In that case we agree, but there are definately some games that ARE art.

That perspective is saying that the graphics within a game can be art, but the game itself cannot. I disagree, but you have to understand what about games are/can be artistically interesting. The interactivity - the process - is the essence of games as art, what separates them from other media. Thus, the visuals don't make a game art, you have to examine what is happening.

I can't think of any games that I'd consider art, no matter how good or interesting they are.

Take a look at some of the things people call art nowadays... Bricks arranged on the floor in a square-ish shape, blue-tac stuck to a wall, an un-made bed, a light switch...

Why not games?

Man, people are always dismissive of artwork. The point isn't the bed in and of itself (taking the example of an unmade bed,) it's the context in which the piece is created and exists. And no, I can't explain the point. I just said that the context is where the art is found, and you didn't give any context.

Incidentally, a dictionary definition isn't a particularly useful definition for art. Right off the bat, I take issue with its reference to beauty; sure, art can be beautiful, but it doesn't have to be. Besides, what is beauty anyway? Dictionaries are great for tidy little words (ie. the majority of the language,) but for something as vast and nebulous as art a dictionary is ridiculously reductionist. Would you look to a dictionary for a definition of reality? How about God?

I believe that there are very few games that qualify as Art (the capital letter qualifies the good from the trash that most games / music / movies / etc are). I would say that "Rez" is the best example in my opinion, although one can always debate whether that's down to the game itself, or the fact it's "just" a derivative, but interactive copy of Kandinsksy's work.

But I don't believe that games should, or need to strive to be Art. There are probably more good games that are not Art, than there are good games that are Art.

Yeah, that's an important thing to point out lest anyone think I'm being snobbish in my opinions. I'm really opinionated about what constitutes Art, but something doesn't have to be art to be awesome.

Me too, I can spit out dozens of fantastic games, but I wouldn't call a single one of them art. I really love games but don't think I have played one that wasn't more than good craftsmanship and an engaging story.

Which brings about the point of the thread...

So-called "art house" movies can be merely dismissed as having "good craftsmanship" and "engaging story" as well... yet THEY are regarded as art.

Why can't the same conclusion be drawn for games?

You could dismiss them that way, but you'd be wrong. The story in an art-house film isn't simply engaging. Engaging can be accomplished with big explosions and fancy CGI effects. The stories in films that are artistic have themes which resonate deeply with human experience, and they have multiple layers of metaphor that reward close scrutiny.

However, I would argue that some games have at least attempted something along these lines. Due to the cartoony graphics, games have had more success with artistic humor/irony than other themes. I certainly can't think of any games that have moved me with their tragedy.

Still, my argument from above still stands: being artistic in that direction is best done with other media. What games have that nothing else has is the ability to immerse people in process and decision-making. I would argue that SimCity (the original anyway; the sequels were all @#!*ized and increasingly normalized versions of Wright's vision) can be dissected as art, because it is a manifestation of a personal vision about how the world should work. I wouldn't exactly say that it is art, but it's close enough that the distinctions are vague.

Shadow of the Collosus for PS2....

For those unfamiliar, you're a warrior who's brought his fallen love to a temple (they are ambiguous if it's his girlfriend or sister or whatever). Voices within this temple tell him that there are 16 enormous beasts that roam the surrounding land. The warrior is told that for each beast he slays, he will gain power. And once he has all of this power, he may be able to bring his friend back from the dead.

The paradox is, these beasts are akin to the last 16 dinosaurs. They roam the land... and they will attack you in the same fashion any threatened animal would.

Some will even start to flee (though not very effectively) when their life bar starts to dwindle down to nothing...

It's a morality tale. Is bringing the last 16 "dinosaurs" to extinction worth saving the life of the one you love the most? Or perhaps it's like a metaphor of hunting endangered whales for their blubber to allow your village to survive.

Obviously, to get to the end of this game, you have to make the decision of killing.

Perhaps the interactivity and goals of a game are the double edged sword that keep them from becoming deep and thoughtful. In this game, the paradox is illustrated through cut scenes. But, so far I've seen no place in the game where you can say... "no way, I'm not going to needlessly kill these animals that haven't done me any harm". You have to shut off the console to make that decision.

I think anything you create, which is everything you do, is art, just demonstrating different degrees of artistic versatility. There is art to doing something totally monotonous and repetitive. Art is also having an amazing unified vision of ultimate software heaven. Art, ideally, should liberate your consciousness and allow you to experience mystical comprehension, at its peak, since if you are creating from a `high place` then you can reveal `high things` to the viewer.

So I would say games are art. Those pieces of program don't form into a specific order to achieve a wonderful purposeful creation all by themselves.

"well... i don't know if it's art... but i like it..."

--Mike

I don't see how anyone couldn't consider any game art. They are the culmination of audio visual arts ... with the addition of control and finesse like a sport. Making them is definitely creating art.

You are manipulating colors and sounds into a vision that you have in your imagination ... it's the same thing as paiting or anything else only on a grander and more intricate scale.

Just because it also engages the player in a 'sport' or 'competition' doesn't mean it's not art, if anything it becomes an art on a greater level ... someone who's fantastic at a game could be considered an artist in the same sense as a martial artist.

Art is a 5 year old cutting and pasting, art is Michelangelo painting the Sistine Chapel, and art is anyone creating a game ... it's a work of art.

Perhaps it is those who haven't ever created a whole game on their own that don't deem it to be art. Hideo Kojima ... yeah he views himself as the organizer of a museum because he doesn't actually create anything ... instead he has dozens of artists working for him. Would a conducter of a symphony be considered an artist?

Art is indulging your imagination ... letting it flow. When I create a game that's what I do. It's no different to me than drawing, writing, poetry, or anything else creative.

Another point I have to make ... it only takes one person to think it's art for it to be just that.

Most art galleries that I know of are art... a branch known as architecture.