Are video games considered art?

[rawkergirl]

To decide that you must define the word 'art'. Art can be defined as anything that moves you. So, yeah, video-games are art to some people.

[blueger]

Hehem....

Okami

Just looking at screenshots in this game gives me a warm feeling and I can't wait to pick it up on Wii.
Obviously what people consider art is subjective; in the public eye, art only seems to be paintings and drawings.

The truth is, everything in this world is or can be made into art. Everything from nature to architecture to the sigs on this board.
Just look up at the GoNintendo banner on top of this page-it's art. But some types of art are more stylistic than others, which is why surreal images can be conceived to be more like art than something realistic.
But hey everyone has got an opinion and nobody can ever be wrong; thats why its fun to discuss. This is always a common argument in my art classes, which I take a lot of and I plan to major in.

[beastmaster100]

Games as a whole cannot be art but they can contain art. Some of these such games would be Okami and even Lost Winds. But (currently, I might add) the arts are literature, painting and sculpting, drama, and music.

[thresholdXCI]

Depends what you consider art to be. For me, no not all video-games should be considered art just as most of the 'modern' stuff you find in galleries isn't art in my eyes. However there are exceptions. MadWorld and Okami are very much 'art' and are two examples. Even games like Final Fantasy count for me. There are games that should be praised as art, much more so than an un-made bed, and there are games that shouldn't.

That is just my view though. The beauty of art will always be that it can be whatever you want it to be.

[cortjezter]

Games as a whole cannot be art but they can contain art. Some of these such games would be Okami and even Lost Winds. But (currently, I might add) the arts are literature, painting and sculpting, drama, and music.

i don't agree with any of that; and i don't think 'currently' is accurate, but rather 'previously' describes what USED to be the arts. sure games like okami are noticed more because of their art direction and visual style, but that's only an indication the games are filled to the brim with art. but are they works themselves? of course they are. the one thing all those items have in common are 'creativity' that can be consumed in some fashion, and that's exactly what games are.

some argue that because games are open-ended/interactive, the developers 'artistic intent' can't always be consumed or can be interpreted in too many ways, but that's wrong for two reasons. first, nearly all games have an ending, so regardless of how you get to the ending, you're still winding up exactly where the developer intended, just like a movie or book. and second, anything can be interpreted multiple ways. how many times have you looked at a jackson pollock painting and knew exactly what his artistic intent was?

[Esnel Pla]

Games as a whole cannot be art but they can contain art. Some of these such games would be Okami and even Lost Winds. But (currently, I might add) the arts are literature, painting and sculpting, drama, and music.

I agree, more or less with this. Whatever reason one usually gives for a video game being a piece of art is almost always found in another core artistic study. Metal Gear, for example. Art? Maybe. Art as a video game, though? I'd say rather as a movie.

But once you get into this whole debate, the question soon arises "Well, what is art, anyways?" but really I'd focus on what isn't art. Unfortunately, not everything creative is art, or we'd all be artists. You can look any absolutely anything and say its art.

You can break it down. Industrial VS. high art, or whatever. Break it down to tastes and this, that and the other thing. But it boils down to "Bring me something you think is/isn't art, and I'll explain to you that it is/isn't"

[RegalSin]

First off without the artists who dedicated themselves to creating concepts for games or bringing them to life the entire videogame industry would be dead.

Yes videogames a form of creativity and thus is art. However the recent usage of 3d makes people who couldn't draw a eye for there lives looks like artists.

However there is creativity in 3d games even the shotty games of today.

[the_sackboy]

I know this is an OLD topic, but I wanted to point people's attention to a post I made that sorta is in light of games being consider art:

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=5589

It's on the GoingSony forums, check it out!!

[techsquid]

video game is certainly an art. An art worth mentioning...

[Clowns8me]

I was once told (by an art teacher) that "if you can sell it; it's art". It seemed like a very stupid rule, and I still think it is too general. But if you believe that, then sure it's art.

I think some video games are art, but some are not. Depends on the game.

[Blue_Falcon]

Sooo much reading.

Anyway, In response to the "art games" developers comment: Those are 95% of the games I play. I find them more enjoyable than a concrete molding of a game. I like the feeling of having absolutely no idea what is going on. Things that can't be explained are beautiful.

Usually these games tend to be more simplified because it's hard to concentrate on what "they" want you to concentrate on while you're concentrating on mashing a bunch of buttons. It's like an interactive movie. I'd have my girlfriend play flower while I take a nap on the couch. Games like this may not be much of anything, but they work for what they are meant for. As an interactive design major, that proves that I know more about this than you. (making fun of attitudes of such artist you talk about)

I see where you are coming from though, but most artistic games are very well thought out. (braid, every day the same dream, world of goo, the world ends with you, VVVVVV, flower, passage, etc) The only ones that you have a problem with are bad artistic games. I'm not a fan of bad games in general either.

Alright, anyway, a game company I just don't get is anyone that makes remakes of the same war games every year. It's not really necessary. Same with sports games. I guess it's more about revenue than an inventive game nowadays.

I'm responding to the bold text.

1. What?

2. How come these "interactive movies" are perfectly fine and not wastes of time, but games like Metal Gear Solid 4 or God of War are (according to the developers of such games)? Is it because an art game doesn't have guns or bosses of high scores or levels? Because you have no idea what you're doing or what it's supposed to mean? Because they're usually made made by two people in their garage? Because it was inspired by some big-name contemporary artist? Or is it because only ten people have played it and only five of them can "appreciate" it?

3. I believe "most" is a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe it's just me, but I don't play art games for some deep philosophical reason. I play them because they might look unique or quirky. As I mentioned, I don't need a game to understand the meaning of life.

Most of the games you listed aren't what I was referring to when I criticized art games. World of Goo may have unique visuals, but it's still a pretty good physics-based puzzler. I had no idea The World Ends with You qualifies as an art game. Maybe it does in a certain sense, but it still has many conventional elements. Flower's pretty to look at and some people find it entertaining, myself included, but ultimately it is a shallow experience as evidenced by most gamers' general boredom with the title. I've never played the other three, but VVVVVV is a puzzle-platformer so I can cross that of the list. I've heard of Passage, but never played it and I just tried out every day the same dream... why is this art? Because of the abstract visuals? In that case why isn't Paper Mario art? Because it has some sort of deep meaning that's been abused countless times by dozens of movies and books? In that case why is something like Final Fantasy laughed at? Because only a few people can appreciate it? Where are Wii Music's awards and art game of the year nominations?

And if Flower is art because it has Flowers why aren't the Touhou games art? They have even more flowers, Haiku poems show up every time you start a new level, and are full of spiritual elements inspired by Hinduism, Buddhism and Shintoism. Is it because it doesn't have a big fan base outside of Japan? Because the developer doesn't hang around on art games forums? Or is it because it's too hard and has levels and bosses?

My initial point was referring to the art games that ditch conventional game design in favor of something more abstract (and simple). My problem is that these developers are so ignorant and superficial. I wouldn't mind these games if their developers has bit- no, a lot more humility. And if they understood that bad games will be bad games regardless of whatever superficial, philosophical drivel you made up on the spot, or whatever fancy coding trick you used for the visuals.

@ cortjezter

I agree with you on Sega. Though, I wouldn't say that they're overrated today since they're almost always met with nothing but criticism and disapproval. They still create some really great in-house projects (namely Valkyria Chronicles), but most of their games are sub-par. It's a shame, though. With all the negativity surrounding the company today, you almost forget how many unique and innovative games they used to develop (the Dreamcast had quite the library).

As for how they're still in business, in Japan Sega's more than just a game company. Quite a few companies including Sega, Konami and Square Enix have other business branches. It's only outside of Japan that they focus primarily on video games. If I'm not mistaken, Sega manufactures many toys and gadgets and owns several arcades in major Japanese cities.

[LordTyroxx]

I'm not ruling ANYTHING out as art. I'm not just calling an artistic game artistic game because people have said it's artistic. VVVVVV is artistic. So is katamari. So is Super Mario Galaxy. You just have a problem with simple games.

And to answer your question about the first thing you bolded: Why would one go see a movie rather to playing video games? The experience is different.

I think you just don't like games that are just bad and relate these to art games somehow. Play ET for the NES. (this isn't an art game) Bad games exist for every genre. Get over it.

I don't play art games for a life lesson either. Does anyone? I play them because they are more intriguing than killing 50 people to complete a mission 1000 times.

An art game is a game that emphasizes art. That's it. Think about Okami. This game definitely emphasizes art. Art in general is a bunch of testing to see what people like. If you don't like something, don't play it. Artists aren't going to go out of their way to make the game they've imagined to be a little more conventional. That's not in the spirit of art. I think you've stereotyped this genre to death. To you, games that give themselves the title "art game" don't focus on anything but how the game looks. This is not the case. Limbo is great. Braid is great. Okami is great. Katamari is weird. But great.

Wouldn't you think that any game that sacrifices gameplay or mechanic at all would be bad?


I would explain more, but you just wouldn't get it.

[Blue_Falcon]

I'm not ruling ANYTHING out as art. I'm not just calling an artistic game artistic game because people have said it's artistic. VVVVVV is artistic. So is katamari. So is Super Mario Galaxy. You just have a problem with simple games.

And to answer your question about the first thing you bolded: Why would one go see a movie rather to playing video games? The experience is different.

I think you just don't like games that are just bad and relate these to art games somehow. Play ET for the NES. (this isn't an art game) Bad games exist for every genre. Get over it.

I don't play art games for a life lesson either. Does anyone? I play them because they are more intriguing than killing 50 people to complete a mission 1000 times.

An art game is a game that emphasizes art. That's it. Think about Okami. This game definitely emphasizes art. Art in general is a bunch of testing to see what people like. If you don't like something, don't play it. Artists aren't going to go out of their way to make the game they've imagined to be a little more conventional. That's not in the spirit of art. I think you've stereotyped this genre to death. To you, games that give themselves the title "art game" don't focus on anything but how the game looks. This is not the case. Limbo is great. Braid is great. Okami is great. Katamari is weird. But great.

Wouldn't you think that any game that sacrifices gameplay or mechanic at all would be bad?


I would explain more, but you just wouldn't get it.

I'm starting to wonder why I even bother discussing things on the internet since it seems like I'm the only one who actually reads and comprehends the oppositions arguments.

Once again, I'm responding to the bold text.

1. I never said you were. I said that art game developers were.

2. No, I have a problem with simple games who's annoyingly pretentious developers consider them the end-all, be-all of interactive entertainment and art while scoffing at others' works because they're not superficial like their works of "art." Super Mario Bros. is a simple game. Kirby is a simple game. Pac-Man is a simple game. Wii Sports is a simple game. And I love and enjoy each one of them.

3. I still don't get it. What does the difference between movies and games have to do with:

"Usually these games tend to be more simplified because it's hard to concentrate on what "they" want you to concentrate on while you're concentrating on mashing a bunch of buttons."

4. No, you need to get over your pretentious, superficial "art games." I don't need to get over anything. I am above everything.

5. Are you kidding me? The philosophical, artsy nonsense is the reason these games are developed and why most of their fan base exists in the first place.

6. I don't like violent games or fps games, and yet I still find more than enough variety without having to resort to playing some shallow art game.

7. No it's not. Art is a show of talent and skill honed over years of practice, observation and analysis with just the right touch of experimentation. What you just described is called a product test. Then again, since the last century or so, art has basically devolved into a business where skill is defined by who can most fancily fling paint at a canvas.

8. No I haven't. You're just completely misinterpreting everything I said and reading what you want to read. I don't know if my writing confused you, but here is the key sentence:

"My initial point was referring to the art games that ditch conventional game design in favor of something more abstract (and simple). My problem is that these developers are so ignorant and superficial. I wouldn't mind these games if their developers has bit- no, a lot more humility. And if they understood that bad games will be bad games regardless of whatever superficial, philosophical drivel you made up on the spot, or whatever fancy coding trick you used for the visuals."

Read this attentively: When I criticize art games, I'm referring to the games that the industry raves about for being so "different" and "unique" when it’s nothing more than simplistic computer coding. I’m talking about art games not artistic games. According to these “artists” and many people in the video game community and industry Flower and Braid are art, but Okami and Paper Mario are not art. Why? Well according to them, art is not about level progression and power ups. It’s about superficial philosophical nonsense that needs to be deeply analyzed. It’s also about pretty visuals, but makes no mistake; God of War, Metal Gear Solid, and Crysis aren’t art even though they have pretty visuals. World of Goo and Katamari Damacy aren’t art either. Art is not about good controls and game design. Art is not about mechanics and skill. That’s all just a waste of time. What about all those obscure Japanese games from Sega, Sony, Artdink and other developers? They're not art either because they're old, Japanese and because they weren't developed with the word "art" in mind. Art is new! It has to be because only the young and hip can create art.

Read that. Understand it. Read it again if you have to. But make sure you understand it.

Now I even mentioned that I don’t dislike all art games. I clearly pointed out in my second post that, even though I’m about to criticize the “genre,” I still enjoy quite a few of them such as Flower and Braid. What I dislike is (pay attention) the attitude of these developers towards their games (totally art) as well as other games (wastes of time).

Do you understand what I am trying to say?

"I would explain more, but you just wouldn't get it."

Or you could just admit that you simply can’t explain more.

And every day the same dream is not art nor is it a game. It’s interactive boredom.

@ cortjezter

That's interesting. Toys, gadgets, manga and anime make sense since they target more or less the same audience as video games, but I didn't know they marketed products as detached from games as water.

[LordTyroxx]

Now you're just being anal. Can you give direct examples so i know what company pissed you off to no end? The path was an awful game. Doesn't mean all "art games" are like that. I mean, the only game company that's aggravated me a little is Mojang for their statement "If you're one of the few who haven't bought minecraft yet..." Cockiness isn't appreciated anywhere it's found though.

I thought you could've figured out the difference between movies and games and how that went with my previous post. In movies, you just sit there and watch(very similar to flower, the user controls are very very limited). In mortal combat, you can't just enjoy something existing, you have to PLAY it. And if you don't, you get this nice game over screen.

It's the same deal with musician's personal lives. If I like music, I don't care if the lead singer is a whore. You shouldn't either. Play games because they are fun. Not because who developed them or what they say.

I don't feel like arguing with someone on the definition of art. If i wanted to do that, I'd talk to any pretentious art major out there. As an animator, i don't appreciate how you stereotype artists as people that splatter paint for a quick buck. I know there are some that do this, but paint splatter is still better than a toilet on its side. Colors feed emotions. Sometimes painting pictures based on color and not shape or symbolism is truly artistic. But it is more thought out than you think. If it doesn't look good, it probably wasn't thought out.

I don't know about you, but things like this intrigue the heck out of me. They may be simple. They may have a "deep plot you have to discover" and have a pretty "shallow" story, but I like it because of what it is- palate cleanser from all the fine lines and exact measurements of how something should be.

[Blue_Falcon]

Now you're just being anal. Can you give direct examples so i know what company pissed you off to no end? The path was an awful game. Doesn't mean all "art games" are like that. I mean, the only game company that's aggravated me a little is Mojang for their statement "If you're one of the few who haven't bought minecraft yet..." Cockiness isn't appreciated anywhere it's found though.

I thought you could've figured out the difference between movies and games and how that went with my previous post. In movies, you just sit there and watch(very similar to flower, the user controls are very very limited). In mortal combat, you can't just enjoy something existing, you have to PLAY it. And if you don't, you get this nice game over screen.

It's the same deal with musician's personal lives. If I like music, I don't care if the lead singer is a whore. You shouldn't either. Play games because they are fun. Not because who developed them or what they say.

I don't feel like arguing with someone on the definition of art. If i wanted to do that, I'd talk to any pretentious art major out there. As an animator, i don't appreciate how you stereotype artists as people that splatter paint for a quick buck. I know there are some that do this, but paint splatter is still better than a toilet on its side. Colors feed emotions. Sometimes painting pictures based on color and not shape or symbolism is truly artistic. But it is more thought out than you think. If it doesn't look good, it probably wasn't thought out.

I don't know about you, but things like this intrigue the heck out of me. They may be simple. They may have a "deep plot you have to discover" and have a pretty "shallow" story, but I like it because of what it is- palate cleanser from all the fine lines and exact measurements of how something should be.

I'm responding to the bold text.

1. First of all, I'm not pissed off. Not even remotely. You on the other hand, seem to be getting quite frustrated with my logic and rationale.

Secondly, I mentioned many times which developers behave in such a manner. Thatgamecompany and Tale of Tales are the worst offenders, constantly going on about conventional games being a waste of time and how memorizing that complicated combo won’t bring you anything in life (they are and it won’t, but neither will Flower or whatever interactive garbage Tale of Tales creates).

In addition to the self-aggrandizing “artists,” you have several prominent industry figures as well as many journalists going on about how this is what the industry needs.

Because we aren’t capable of making our own opinions and feel the need to go along with the hip contemporary art crowd so that we feel better about our pastime!

The industry does not need art games. It needs good games. Games that innovate, whether it’s the mechanics or the settings, and bring the players new experiences, not “games” that simplify themselves to the point of being screensavers who’s sole redeeming features are pretty visuals (though Tale of Tales fails in that regard as well) and some inexistent “narrative”. I don’t mind these games; as I mentioned I even enjoy quite a few of them. What annoys me (but in no way pisses me off) is when all these pretentious journalists and developers who are insecure of their passion, start claiming that these games are art, but brush of games with just as much, usually more, artistic value just because they have traditional game elements like bosses and game over screens.

Whenever Jenova Chen rants about emotion in games and how the industry isn’t doing enough to incite emotional responses from game players, I agree and I’ve even defended him from other posters on more than one occasion.

With that said most art games are not going to get anybody, but the pretentious and emotionally unstable individual, to cry or feel any emotion other than those 5 minutes of shallow enjoyment and momentary wonder. I’m exaggerating if it isn’t obvious, but this is exactly how those developers, journalists and art game fans behave. Rosalina’s story, a perfect blend of symbolism and straightforward narrative, provoked far more emotion from me than any art game has. But Super Mario Galaxy isn’t art because, well, pick one of the many reasons I pointed out in my other posts.

2. You don’t say. But in all of seriousness, I understand your what you were trying to say, though it's irrelevant to this conversation because I never criticized the simplicity of art games in the first place.

3. And neither do I. I never once refused to experience an art game (or any other game, movie, novel, etc.) because I dislike the developers’ attitudes so I have no idea what you’re on about right now. It’s actually quite the contrary in my case; these vainglorious and pretentious attitudes have compelled me to play more art games and see what all the fuss was about.

4. I’m not stereotyping artists… just most modern artists. And “some” is a gross understatement. A paint splatter may be better than a toilet turned on its side, but that’s not saying much since both are produced by talentless hacks. It’s like saying my neighbors’ garbage is better than my garbage; in the end it’s still garbage.

5. But only if they’re part of a coherent piece that respects the decades of practice, observation and analysis, with just the right touch of experimenting that went into creating a painting. Nowadays somebody can fling paint in front of a jet engine or shoot a canvas with a paintball gun and sell their works for millions, but immigrants with real skill are out in the streets of Downtown selling their art for a dollar so that they can support their families. And that's just their side-job. Maybe I’m just above these things, but shooting a canvas with a paint gun or having a jet engine blast paint buckets onto a canvas does not feed my emotions regardless of how much colour is used. I believe that at some point we have to draw a line regarding the abstract nature of art.

6. No it’s not.

7. Incoherent colour splatter and shallow storylines aren’t well thought out. Maybe the business side was, but the artistic side definitely wasn’t. I don’t care about the “art is subjective” cop-out arguments that “art fanatics” use, but this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/No._5%2C_1948.jpg is not art, and neither is this http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Newman-Onement_1.jpg.

As for your video, film and static visual arts are very different things. The film you showcased was art because it developed a story, used abstract, but coherent shapes and recognizable objects and subjects, incorporated music into its progression, and developed its themes over a period of time. The visual aspects were art because they were developed into something finer and ultimately meaningful, despite having abstract designs. The criteria for what makes a painting good are very different. Some points are similar (such as ability to showcase a scenario or create relatable scenes), but there are still many nuances. I don’t want to get into a huge argument about the differences between different artistic mediums or about what real art is because we’re never going to agree (or rather you won’t agree with me ). Anyway, to stay on topic:

As I’ve mentioned, I enjoy quite a few art games and have nothing personal against them or their developers. What I’d like is a change in attitude from these developers as well as certain gamers, journalists and industry figures. Maybe Roger Ebert will take Kelly Santiago a little more seriously next time she throws together a PowerPoint discussing games as art if she included games with depth alongside the usual art game choices (he probably won't, but I digress). The point is that if Flower is art, then so is Metal Gear Solid 2. If same dream everyday is art, then so is Majora’s Mask. If Braid is art, then so is Imperishable Night. Of course I doubt the art game community will even consider such a thing. I mean how could they? Clearly the three examples I mentioned aren’t “artistic” enough, because one has guns, one is from Nintendo and the last one is, well, I doubt they could be bothered with learning about games that exist outside of their little art community bubble.

On a side note: How do we hyper-link words like what LordTyroxx did with the animation feature?

[LordTyroxx]

It's not that i can't agree, it's that i don't particularly care for your style of debate, so I've chosen the path of Devil's advocate. That's it. I see your point about the attitudes of developers, and that's what the main topic is all about. Artsy fartsy, elitist groups spouting stuff like "this is art and this isn't" is really really annoying. If something was made for the soul purpose of being artsy with no intention of being a game at all (though it is technically a game), it shouldn't exist. So should movie video games. Those things can die.

When i was referring to paint splatter, i was thinking Jonas Gerard. He's an artist in Asheville NC and he's really really talented. I met him in a class he was giving and he was a very humble man.

Yes, we spend a lot of time playing them, but just because we feel the need to prove to ourselves and others that one of our main hobbies isn't a complete and utter waste of time-and doesn't make us the slobs shown in the media that live in their mother's basements-doesn't mean we have to espouse it as being the next great art form.

No one here plays Second Life right? Now, that game is a waste of time.

[Blue_Falcon]

It's not that i can't agree, it's that i don't particularly care for your style of debate, so I've chosen the path of Devil's advocate. That's it. I see your point about the attitudes of developers, and that's what the main topic is all about. Artsy fartsy, elitist groups spouting stuff like "this is art and this isn't" is really really annoying. If something was made for the soul purpose of being artsy with no intention of being a game at all (though it is technically a game), it shouldn't exist. So should movie video games. Those things can die.

When i was referring to paint splatter, i was thinking Jonas Gerard. He's an artist in Asheville NC and he's really really talented. I met him in a class he was giving and he was a very humble man.

Responding to the bold.

1. Sure, whatever you say.

2. What? There is only one style of debate: the organized, structured, precise one.

3. Good.

4. This is my problem with modern art. Sure, the painting is nice to look at, but is it worth a million dollars? Maybe the man is humble, but does this painting hold more value than an immigrant's portrait, something that was refined over years of practice and hard work? The painting you've shown is here is well done for what it is; it's leagues better than my examples, but what exactly is it other than a mess of pretty colours? What thought was put into it and what does it symbolize? If it means something to you, I'd love to know, but I doubt it has any emotional or mental value to the buyers. Ah well, I guess I can't complain because it's not my money nor is this style of art killing my preferred styles and techniques.

[LordTyroxx]

That piece is only about 4 grand actually. He's different than other artists i've met. He lets you go up to his art and feel it. He lets you take pictures of his art freely. He just asks you not to make a profit of it. He also does representational art.

Spoiler:

If i'm buying art, it better be good to look at. If i'm staring at a photorealistic and boring picture of a beach ball, it wouldn't be as appealing to me as a vivid abstract piece. It let's me decide what it represents. My imagination has never let me down before. Much like staring at clouds or ink blots. The act is fun and enjoyable. Figuring something out instantly takes a lot of fun out of art. haha.

Merged posts. This was going way off topic.

To add my 2 cents on why i believe video games are art, i will start by quoting something that was told to me. "Something is called art if it was intended to be art." Okami would be art because it was called art. Games that never had the intent to be art aren't art, even though these games may be visually pleasing.

[Blue_Falcon]

That piece is only about 4 grand actually. He's different than other artists i've met. He lets you go up to his art and feel it. He lets you take pictures of his art freely. He just asks you not to make a profit of it. He also does representational art.

Spoiler:

If i'm buying art, it better be good to look at. If i'm staring at a photorealistic and boring picture of a beach ball, it wouldn't be as appealing to me as a vivid abstract piece. It let's me decide what it represents. My imagination has never let me down before. Much like staring at clouds or ink blots. The act is fun and enjoyable. Figuring something out instantly takes a lot of fun out of art. haha.

Merged posts. This was going way off topic.

To add my 2 cents on why i believe video games are art, i will start by quoting something that was told to me. "Something is called art if it was intended to be art." Okami would be art because it was called art. Games that never had the intent to be art aren't art, even though these games may be visually pleasing.

Sorry for the late reply... I kind of forgot about this post.

1. $4000 is still quite a bit for a paint splatter. I'm better off going to the local daycare and asking a 2-year old to draw me something with just as much meaning (just to clarify, this isn't sarcasm; children put a lot of thought into their art and every one of us can attest to that). I understand that many abstract artists, such as your example, put much thought into their work, but the prices they put on their works are incredible. I guess price, just like "meaning," depends on who's paying. Though, I still hate the "get rich quick" tactic that's used by many talentless hacks.

2. You have a very valid point. Photo realism is only worthwhile if your painting has any notable content. Sure, a painting of vegetables looks great in a kitchen, but it's not an amazing display of skill nor does it have any abstract meaning. The beach ball example you used could also be considered a form of abstract art. A lone beach ball is boring to look at and it doesn't meant anything either. Just another attempt at making a quick buck.

3. I understand this idea, but I just don't understand how it could work for a good portion of abstract paintings. Looking at clouds is one thing because they actually look like something, but what about the paintings I linked? What in the world are they supposed to mean? The paintings you linked are understandable, I suppose. I'm looking at the first one and I'm imagining a spatial view of some sort of rainbow planet (the different colors are different countries and regions). But every one will see something different. The human brain will automatically try to make sense of something that makes no sense. These art styles are better when incorporated into a living, breathing world like in a movie or game. As stand alone paintings, though... To each their own I suppose.

Your quote was nice. A bit of a fallacy, but a nice quote nonetheless.

[cortjezter]

1. $4000 is still quite a bit for a paint splatter. I'm better off going to the local daycare and asking a 2-year old to draw me something with just as much meaning (just to clarify, this isn't sarcasm; children put a lot of thought into their art and every one of us can attest to that). I understand that many abstract artists, such as your example, put much thought into their work, but the prices they put on their works are incredible. I guess price, just like "meaning," depends on who's paying. Though, I still hate the "get rich quick" tactic that's used by many talentless hacks.

2. You have a very valid point. Photo realism is only worthwhile if your painting has any notable content. Sure, a painting of vegetables looks great in a kitchen, but it's not an amazing display of skill nor does it have any abstract meaning. The beach ball example you used could also be considered a form of abstract art. A lone beach ball is boring to look at and it doesn't meant anything either. Just another attempt at making a quick buck.

3. I understand this idea, but I just don't understand how it could work for a good portion of abstract paintings. Looking at clouds is one thing because they actually look like something, but what about the paintings I linked? What in the world are they supposed to mean? The paintings you linked are understandable, I suppose. I'm looking at the first one and I'm imagining a spatial view of some sort of rainbow planet (the different colors are different countries and regions). But every one will see something different. The human brain will automatically try to make sense of something that makes no sense. These art styles are better when incorporated into a living, breathing world like in a movie or game. As stand alone paintings, though... To each their own I suppose.

to each their own indeed.

your first point is kind of a slap in the face to the concept of art. yes, children may put a lot of thought into something, but so does someone sitting with a calculus exam who hasn't studied. that doesn't make their spinning wheels or the outcome equal to someone who has more extensive experience. the idea with things like abstract art is that you're supposed to understand the principles of art and design before you start 'breaking its rules'. a good percentage of artists who do unusual or abstract work actually have a very good command of other styles, like photorealistic, far before they can make good quality abstractions. not saying there aren't hacks out there, but for people who like and understand quality art, it's usually pretty easy to see which is professional talent and which isn't. children do not inherently understand color theory, balance, framing of subject matter, etc.; so getting one to swap their work with someone having years of experience is kind of hyperbole, even if you didn't intend any sarcasm.

if anything, it reminds me of some of the a***oles you read about on clientsfromhell.com ; these people who think art is just playing with photoshop and having fun, and that creative people have zero value because it's little more than some kind of hobby. to be absolutely clear, when you see a (particularly good) designer asking thousands of dollars for a project, or a hundred dollars per hour as a self proprietor, it's not just the couple hours of time you're paying for; their real value is in the years of experience leading to that point that they can deliver such quality.

points 2 and 3 are totally subjective, and you're entitled to that opinion, but it does nothing to disqualify the notion of art or its validity in those situations. photorealism is harder than you think; as is good abstract art. humans have this annoying tendency to want to label or put symbolic meaning to everything, which is kind of the point of art...sometimes it has such meaning for some people, and not for others. abstract art doesn't have to look like anything, that's sort of implied by its very classification. and a beach ball may not mean much to you, but it could certainly have meaning to someone else, or have another reason it is valuable.. could be unique texturing of paint, especially interesting color or lighting; any number of things. just because it doesn't give you a chubby doesn't mean it lacks skill or value.

as for games, i still maintain that some will find games to be art and some people won't... it comes back to the same subjective nature for each individual. of course it helps if the creators intend it to be more artistic that the final product can be received as such, but again, to each their own.

[TUMF]

Yes, video games are a form of art just as music and movies are also a form of art. Play Shadow of the Colossus and tell me that isn't art. Not all games exhibit artistic qualities however, but most by Nintendo EAD certainly do.

[Koopzilla]

I don't really consider video games as art. Certainly art goes into making a game, but I just don't consider an actual whole game a piece of art. But I could see how someone would consider them art. I maybe would call them a form of entertainment like movies, but I just tend to put them in a category of their own instead of trying to lump it in with something else. I wouldn't even call a cartoon art even though its a series of artwork strung together. I would consider a single cel from a cartoon art. It wouldn't make me have any more respect for games than I already do if i did consider them art. I'm not opposed to someone calling them art, it's just that I don't. Technically you could call many things art, but they just fit better in a different category or a category of their own.You don't normally hear people calling a car art even though artists design the car and materials are shaped into the form of the car (kinda like a sculptor shaping rock into a statue). When you go to the art museum they don't have games set up to play. I wouldn't call an art museum art either, even though it contains many works of art. But call it whatever you want, it makes no difference to me.
Also, I don't think its really fair to put one game into the art category and not another game simply because you don't think it's as pretty. I don't say I don't consider Picaso paintings art because I think they look like crap, but I find Michaelangelos works beautiful so they are art. Or this 1st graders art project is ugly so its not art at all. If you are gonna put them in that category you have to put all games in that category.

[Rock Lobster]

I do not consider video games art. I think that those who do are merely embarassed of their pastime and want to find some way to validate it, convincing their peers they're not total geeks after all. However, I can understand the argument to a degree, since the visuals in some games are beautiful enough to be compared to art(The more recent Zelda titles, Okami, Yoshi's Island, etc.) So while I do concede to the idea that visuals in gaming have evolved to a quality on par with styles in other mediums, I still believe that a game as a whole(particularly gameplay itself)-and video games in general, for that matter- aren't necessarily pieces of art. But should that mean that people needn't give them a chance? Absolutely not.

[Devil_Rising]

You can consider video games art to the extent that it is something carefully crafted by someone else, and can even represent that person's personal expression.

However, games are crafted as a completely different beast than other "art" forms. Movies are created to be watched. Books are created to be read. A painting or drawing is created to be looked at. Music is created to be listened to. Each is presenting the individual with something that is meant to be experienced, but the form those experiences take is wildly different from one another, and thus the means and intent of the crafting of such experiences also varies.

Video games, being what they are, are created for one purpose and one purpose only.

TO BE PLAYED.

They are meant to be an interactive experience in a way that other "art" forms I've mentioned not only do not supply but were never intended to. Art, Music, Film, Literature, Drama, Dance, etc., if you're the audience, in every instance you're meant to experience it by taking it all in, by being taken along for a ride, going where the art takes you, on a personal level.

With video games, you are not being taken along for a ride. You are interacting WITH the ride. You are interacting with a tangible world that you have some measure of control over, and you are the key participant in the experience that the medium is providing. The argument that video games are art, or NEED to be art, is basically people trying to argue that a video game should be an Oscar worthy film, or a best selling album, or a masterpiece painting, or a New York Times bestselling novel. To me, that argument is absurd. Why? Because that was not the intent of video games to begin with. When the very first video games were created in the late 60s/early 70s, they were created with the explicit purpose of being something you could interact with and have fun doing so. It was a wholly new form of entertainment, based entirely on the principle that you the user, would be put in an interactive virtual environment, and action that you can control would be pitted against a computer who commanded actions that you couldn't. Or in the case of pong, you pitted against another player.

In either case, it was providing something new that was meant to do nothing more or less than allow you to interact with the computer program. And the entire experience was (and still does) hinge on one solitary key factor: gameplay. Or more appropriately, QUALITY of gameplay. One key Truth has remained from the genesis of video gaming to the present, and that is: If a game plays like s***, you cannot enjoy it, thus it is not fun, and is not doing it's job by providing you with quality interactive entertainment.

What they're arguing nowadays, is that a video game should be more like a movie, a "cinematic experience". Or that a game should be a like a masterpiece of art, to be enjoyed for it's visual beauty. Or that it should have some mindblowing literary quality inherent in it's story. There is nothing WRONG with the idea of a game having cinematic moments, or gorgeous visuals, or even a well written story. Nothing at all.

But here's what IS wrong, and what I as a person and a lifelong "gamer" DO have a problem with. It seems fairly evident to me, in a LOT of these newer (predominantly Western developed) games, that they are taking this "games as art" nonsense way too far. To the point that, within the last two generations, it seems that more and more games have become about how good the graphics can look, how "Epic" a soundtrack can it have, how "cinematic" does the game present itself, how "mindblowing" is the story, all at the detriment and expense of the one thing that has and always will be THE defining characteristic and key quality of a video game: The Gameplay.

That is NOT to say that I myself haven't played some great looking modern games, with any or all of those above mentioned elements, that didn't also still have fairly fun, or even sometimes great, gameplay. That also isn't to say that I am not mature enough to realize that games that I don't and never have personally liked or even played in some cases (such as GTA, or CoD, or Halo, etc.) DON'T sometimes have quality gameplay to go along with the pretty package. But what I AM saying, is that I have seen far more games that seem to treat quality of gameplay as an afterthought to everything else, and that to me is wrong on a hugely fundamental level. It goes against the very core of what Video Games were and are meant to be.

The proof of this, is that the era we live in, is one in which a huge cross-section of gamers buy games, play them for the story/graphics/whatever, beat them to see the ending or unlock all the goodies, and then trade them in for something else. Once upon a time, part of being a gamer included a value of building up a Game Collection, that if you LIKED a game, you kept it, and were proud to have it in your collection years down the road. Sure, maybe not everyone can afford to do this, but the point remains, that going along with this notion, games also used to be built to last. There is a reason behind this modern symptom of gaming, and that is that these modern "cinematic" games, that put other elements OVER gameplay, don't seem to be built to last like old games were. You take classic NES games now, and the ones that were GOOD, you can pretty much pick up at any point now, and play them and enjoy them all over again. A lot of games today, you play through, see the ending, unlock everything, and then don't really want to touch again. Of course that's a generalization, and can't possibly be true for EVERYONE, but I think I have fair cause to assume that it is the case for a lot of people. I know it's been the case with many modern games for me personally.

That is one thing I appreciate about Nintendo as a developer. They are one of the few who have never abandoned gameplay as being THE most important element of a game. Which is largely why you can pick up something like Smash Bros., or Mario Kart, or Mario Galaxy, or NSMBWii, or Kirby, or Zelda, etc. and enjoy it much more readily at a given moment than perhaps many other modern games. Wii Sports, for all it has been derided for being "Casual" and "the downfall of gaming" (ooooh, silly tardcore nerds), itself embodies the very spirit of what Video Games are supposed to be: first and foremost, Fun to Play.

I just think a lot of modern developers have lost sight of that, in this mad dash to make the most graphically intense, visually gorgeous, and cinematically thrilling game. Not ALL, I know this. But many have. Sure, there are new shortcuts to gameplay longevity, like online inter-connectivity, and death-matches, etc., and yes, some of those CAN be fun. But even then, there is something less memorable and more sterile about playing against gamers online. I kind of feel like video games as a medium, on the multiplayer front, were meant to be enjoyed in person, that you get more out of playing a game with other people right there. And regardless of that, the point remains, that it seems fewer and fewer developers these days set out to make a game with GAMEPLAY being the first thought in their creative process. Like I said, it's become an afterthought.

I don't personally view video games as "art". I don't think they NEED to be "art". I think the very notion that they should be or need to be "art", is basically some sort of subconscious psychological admission of shame or something, like video games on their own, being what they are, aren't good enough, and that they somehow need to be legitimized to the mainstream consciousness, by becoming "art". Something "respectable" to the uninitiated. And that, to me, is silly. Video games aren't art. They are what they are: Video Games. They are their own separate entity, and they should be liked, enjoyed, appreciated, and respected for what they are. An interactive experience that no form of "art" can truly provide. Art in all it's forms is wonderful. But so are video games. And that is where it should end.