Are games art?
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Are games art?
After playing this game the answer is clearly *yes*.
Play the game first, and then read the creator's statement.
Windows/Mac/Linux supported.
http://hcsoftware.sourceforge.net/passage/ well that was pointless, quite like a lot of art.
Games are not really what I would call art. Although fantasy illustration is classed under low brow art these days, so I guess it would fit in that category if anywhere.
It takes artistic ability to create aesthetically pleasing games, but, no, games aren't a form of art - they're a form of entertainment.
Why not? Any pretentious pap these days can effortlessly scale the lofty heights of a slug's arse and thus be called 'art'. If a nasty hound can smear her revolting excretions all over her festering bed-sheets and be hailed as an artistic genius, then games must surely be comparable with a Michelangelo Fresco!
I think anything can be art. That would have to mean though that `form` isn't as important as the `meaning` conveyed. You can definitely make artless programs but you can also create programs that are works of art.
hujiklo wrote:
Why not? Any pretentious pap these days can effortlessly scale the lofty heights of a slug's arse and thus be called 'art'. If a nasty hound can smear her revolting excretions all over her festering bed-sheets and be hailed as an artistic genius, then games must surely be comparable with a Michelangelo Fresco!
Ah, but Hujiklo, your "cause and effect" logic only works for science. Art is
not a science, nor is it at all scientific, and so your reasoning is flawed.
I've never played a game that provided noteworthy insight into the human condition nor into the world in which we live. Neither have I ever played a game that is content to just
be. Games have two purposes: to entertain and to make a profit, and the latter is more important than the former.
Games
produce. They are not content to
reproduce or
reflect in beautiful, mundane or even terrible ways, and this is why they are a form of entertainment rather than works of art.
Sorry if that sounds a bit pretentious. I'm not sure that there is a practical, low-brow way to express what I'm trying to say. To put it simply (but unhelpfully): art just
is and a video game isn't it.
I expected more of you guys.
How so, nawi?
A few years ago as an experiment in defining what is art. A group of scientists gave some drawing to some art critics, who when viewing these drawings called the artist(s) a genius and tried to interpret what these artist(s) were trying to convey to the viewer.
Oh I wish I was there to see the look on their faces when they were told that these drawings were drawn by chimps (this could open up to "Do Chimps Express Them Selves Though Art").
As to the question "Are Games Art" then that depends on your view or what you think art is.
I would define art as creativity in all its forms whether it's stoy telling, drawing, painting on canvas, sculpture or a computer games designer building a vitual world for you to lose yourself in.
"If a nasty hound can smear her revolting excretions all over her festering bed-sheets and be hailed as an artistic genius"
Or a dork cutting dead bodies in two and sticking them in formaldehyde.
These people can not be true artists. If they were then evey teenager who's bed room is a mess and mortician on the planet would be artistic geniuses.
Did you play the game I posted JustLuke?
To have an antique definition of the word 'art' to consists only of traditional forms of art like paintings is obsolete, since music and movies are already considered to be art. Games just provide another dimension, which is interactivity. You can of course argue that some game is not good art, but that is an arbitrary opinion.
art /ɑrt/ Pronunciation Key -
–noun
1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.
2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.
3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.
4. the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.
5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.
6. (in printed matter) illustrative or decorative material: Is there any art with the copy for this story?
7. the principles or methods governing any craft or branch of learning: the art of baking; the art of selling.
8. the craft or trade using these principles or methods.
9. skill in conducting any human activity: a master at the art of conversation.
10. a branch of learning or university study, esp. one of the fine arts or the humanities, as music, philosophy, or literature.
11. arts,
a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.
b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.
12. skilled workmanship, execution, or agency, as distinguished from nature.
13. trickery; cunning: glib and devious art.
14. studied action; artificiality in behavior.
15. an artifice or artful device: the innumerable arts and wiles of politics.
16. Archaic. science, learning, or scholarship.
With the right wording, you can make anything considered an art form tbh.
Anyways, a bit OT, but I found it quite clever that the author of the demo used a TGA for recording the music notation.
Depends. The same could be said about movies.. are they art?
I think Rambo is entertainment, but Blade Runner is art. I've just watched the dir.cut last night again, and each and every scene is like a detailed painting. Lights being there for enhancing the image, sounds being there to enhance the atmosphere. As I consider Blade Runner art, I think games *could* be art as well, it's just a matter of who directs it, and whether that person allows a game to become art.
"Blade Runner"
Have you noticed Blade Runnner focuses on the eye, the eye is the window to the soul.
When I created a graphics library for BlitzBasic on the Amiga some people said that it was a work of art. I didn't expect them to do so but they insisted it was more than just a good or functionally useful library. Perhaps it was the overall design, the bigger picture, the elegance of it or stuff `inbetween` the parts of the library itself. Like I said earlier, not so much the form but the stuff that `informs` or holds the form together to convey a greater meaning or to inspire higher truths. I think all art is basically a way of abstractly commenting on `what is`, and you can't not do that to some degree no matter how empty or bland a game seems to be.
I think all art alludes to a spiritual dimension of existence and attempts to bring through inspiration from that viewpoint to provide a perspective on life that many people might not have considered. It's all about opening the mind and creating awareness. I think you can do that with a game as much as you can do it with a chunk of elephant dung.
As a definition of art, I would propose that the value of art is in how it makes us feel and what it makes us think, not in utilitarian concerns. This isn't a definition of art unto itself, but I think moves in the right direction.
I've never played a game that provided noteworthy insight into the human condition nor into the world in which we live. Neither have I ever played a game that is content to just be. Games have two purposes: to entertain and to make a profit, and the latter is more important than the former.
I like this way of defining art, I think I'll write this down somewhere.
These people can not be true artists. If they were then evey teenager who's bed room is a mess and mortician on the planet would be artistic geniuses.
My definition of art is very subjective and context sensitive. Thus, the exact same activities could be art or not art depending on the context. Moreover, I've never considered the notion of art to have crisp delineation like a logician would demand; whether or not something is art is very much dependent on the intentions of the creator and the perceptions of the audience.
A group of scientists gave some drawing to some art critics, who when viewing these drawings called the artist(s) a genius and tried to interpret what these artist(s) were trying to convey to the viewer.
Who were these art critics? A bunch of hacks claiming to be art critics I would imagine. I very much doubt that any reputable critic concluded someone is a genius based on one drawing, or concluded anything at all about a drawing without any context. This story of yours sounds very much like an urban legend.
Well that game really made me think... O_O
On the subject matter, i think i would classify games as art. Movies are considered art (At least ive heard they are). and what are games? Playable movies. Playable stories that unfold before you and allow you to be more in depth, and un ravel the story for yourself. I for one, would classify games as art.
Your post reminds me that I forgot to actually respond to the OP's question. The subject suggests an all or nothing sort of duality; either all games are, or all games aren't. I would say games certainly can be art, but for the most part aren't. Thus, I would say that overall no, games are not art.
Also, "playable movies" is a pretty crummy definition of games, although there certainly seem to be a lot of game developers who think that is the definition.
did any of you play the myst series? that was the hardest and most beautiful game i've seen in a while. but it sorta doesn't count cause it was mostly static images but still it was a game.
I think so but in the same way as movies or books, as for the individuals being "artists" I guess it depends on what job you do for the game company i guess.
I would say a 'game' was a collaboration of many things; of art, literacy, imagination, direction(like movie direction), inginuity & technical skill.
Games are as much art as paintings, sculptures or music are. The problem is how you define what's art and what not as this is a very subjective thing. Mostly people speak of art if they like something a lot so it's likely only a minority would fall into the art category.
If I look at the past, I see art as a form of ingenuity - doing something that others can't. Or putting great effort into something that others can enjoy.
In these days, anything can be art. A painter puts random dots on a canvas and calls it art. A musician composes 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence and calls it art. Or a photographer takes pictures of dead fetuses.
I guess the definition of art is that it causes a strong reaction. No matter if it's a positive or negative reaction. The stronger the reaction, the better the art is. I think it's just wrong, but nobody asked me.
How does that fit into games? Games are more like evolving experiences that can include artistic qualities. Just like movies. So I don't think games are an artform as such.
Well, art comes from the latin ars which means skill, craft. There are quite some definitions about what art could mean and the most interesting answers come from those who create it. There the definitions range from that they don't know what it is and it's just a subjective thing to more detailed descriptions. Personally i like what Bouys said about it: The work of art is the greatest riddle but the human is the answer.
I can't understand why someone thinks a painting qualifies for art but not a media which incoporates several fields as painting, music and something on a first glance more invisible like gamedesign for instance. Actually you would have to throw out every museum installation if the usage of more than one discipline eliminates the art category for you. All the thoughts you are (hopefully) putting into something like a painting you also put into a game, you just use different brushes. Even a wonderful piece of code can be art.
It really astoneshes me how someone seriously can say that a painting is art but not a game.
Yes.
You've got a point there taumel. What just came to my mind, is ballet. It's a collaboration of music, coreography and ingenuity of body coordination. Isn't ballet an artform as a whole or is it just a sum of its parts? Maybe a game as a whole can be art too.
Ok, if we count games as art, where do we draw the line? Is reality-tv an artform?
Theoretically i guess there is no line to draw as in the end it's a subjective experience. In practice the line is drawn by some more common experience/sense. What is the art market interested in? What do curators want? How old is something? ... The history is full of examples were something turned into art only many years after someone died, so it's always some zeitgeist involved too. I don't know in the end it only counts if you can get something out of it. And the more people feel this way the more likely it turns into art.
It might be interesting discussing which games are art for you and why.
Regarding games, for me it's hard to tell what's art and what not. I'd like to stick to my movie example in which Blade Runner is art.
What do works of art seem to be in common? The creater wanted it to be art. That seems functional, simple definition to me. If you try to analyse it too much, you've missed the point of art.
The game posted by the original creater was (I presume) intended to be art, or thought-provoking and it struck me as being quite clever. It's not perfect (you don't need to move down to complete the game so why is it there) but it carries a point.
To me art is something that takes great effort and talent to produce, i.e. excellence...preferably a thing of beauty, this in itself tells us something about the wonder that is us.
Art today has been hijacked by a deliberately self-deluded, ostentatious elite who can no longer tell their arse from their elbow - hence all this opinion and pap. Games easily fit the bill if they excel at what they're supposed to be. As for entertainment and profit? That is a suit's objective not generally the artist's or programmer's (Profit over entertainment that is). Even so, games and movies are way down on my list of what I'd rank as art worth having in my living room.
I agree with Hujiklo. So yeah, some games are art. Most aren't.
"Who were these art critics? A bunch of hacks claiming to be art critics I would imagine. I very much doubt that any reputable critic concluded someone is a genius based on one drawing, or concluded anything at all about a drawing without any context. This story of yours sounds very much like an urban legend. "
You may be right about it being a urban legend with scientists (but who knows), but hoaxers have been pulling this kind of stunt for years with chimps and children and fooling many art critics
http://ecclesiastes911.net/story/pierre_brassau.htmlAnd if I had the time, I would trawl through the net and the News Archives just to see if my story was true.
"Art today has been hijacked by a deliberately self-deluded, ostentatious elite who can no longer tell their arse from their elbow - hence all this opinion and pap. Games easily fit the bill if they excel at what they're supposed to be. As for entertainment and profit? That is a suit's objective not generally the artist's or programmer's (Profit over entertainment that is). Even so, games and movies are way down on my list of what I'd rank as art worth having in my living room. "
Hujiklo hit the nail there.
Its true that fine art has been hijacked somewhat and skill and technique are no longer valued. You get put into the category of being a good craftsman or technician if your not careful.
Things seem to have improved a bit in the last 5 years though. I only found one gallery that would show my representational and figure work back around Y2k. Today most will at least consider it. before they either wanted flowers and landscapes to please your granny, or conceptual and abstract and definately nothing figurative.
Evak put a picture up so we can admire your work and pass jugment. People who manage galleries couldn't see past their noses.
What do works of art seem to be in common? The creater wanted it to be art. That seems functional, simple definition to me. If you try to analyse it too much, you've missed the point of art.
If that is what they wanted then that's a pretty shitty gallery. Sounds more like a Hallmark store in the mall.