Where do you actually stand on the "video games as art" argument? On one hand, I think many are unique creative works that deserve to be called an creative artwork.
I also understand the argument that because the player influences the game, it can't be constituted as a work solely by the developer, and therefore not really art in the creative sense. But maybe that is a form of art in and of itself.
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
>reddit: the debate
Kojima had an interesting take on it. He said video games are like a multimedia museum, they’re collections of individual pieces of art like the music, actual visual art, gameplay, story, acting, writing, etc. if you don’t like one aspect of the museum maybe you will enjoy another
This. He agreed with Ebert btw l. If even the most pretentious developer thinks games aren't art then games aren't art
They're an amalgam of corporate and commercial art. They will never be fine art, because truly great art comes from the individual or a select few making it without constriction. Basically
There are many highly acclaimed and popular games that are made by either a single person or a very small group.
And your average "Art" film has a larger crew than most indie games.
Something that stops video games from being art is that they are utilitarian on top of being mass produced. Handicrafts also are utilitarian but each one is unique even if a dozen of similar ones have been made. Now, certain handicrafts have went through a centuries long refinement process, like asian pottery or european israeliteelry, which allowed them to become art pieces on its own right.
Video games have a shot at becoming art but they have to go through a refinement first. They also have this problem that if the story or graphics are above the game itself they become a poor imitation of a book or a movie, so gameplay would have to be the first thing to be refined.
The only games which would be as close as an art piece would be Ocarina of Time or Perfect Dark, as they took elements from previous games and improved them.
Kojima is literally the Jeff Koons of video gamed.
post the webm where you can see his shirt through his mouth
games are objectively an artform, regardless of what "quality" of art they are
however any developer who actually claims their game is art is a fart-huffing twat
Gameplay = Art. Simple as.
Only paintings are art.
t. Mathematician
Anything can be art as long as it was created to be presented as such
Whether it is good or bad art is another matter
>because the player influences the game, it can't be constituted as a work solely by the developer
The developer has to program in everything that the player is allowed to do, so the work is constrained by the boundaries set by the devs. The player can't just make a new ending happen in the game unless it gets modded in.
I think video games have art in them, and since I hate artists that means I hate video games. Frick em.
Kain is deified.
Developers are also called "creatives" and it makes
sense that therefore games are an artform.
But I don't think they should be treated as such.
Games don't belong in a museum, and they
should not be made for the artist only, that was
never their purpose.
Games are a form of entertainment, they should
be treated like opera and music, forgotten fast
and sometimes revisited.
>because the player influences the game, it can't be constituted as a work solely by the developer
this is bullshit. Players don't influence games any more than readers influence books. Unless it's a sandbox game like Minecraft.
I see no reason why video games can't be art. The only reason this is even a debate is cause not a single game released so far, not even indie, has anything remotely close to the same artistic value as the best songs, films, TV shows, books, etc. But that's just because the type of person who gets into gamedev for programming is just that, a programmer not an artist. And the type of person who gets into game design is essentially a software project manager with some ideas. And the type of person who gets into writing for vidya is usually a talentless hack who failed his way into that job. I'm sure that will change with time as the industry becomes more diverse, and game direction becomes a more accessible career path for artists
>Developers are also called "creatives"
no they're not. Are you seriously letting HR and Marketing from Soulless Corpo Inc. define what a developer is?
television, film, literature, virtually any medium you can think of is also entertainment, or was once JUST entertainment.
>The only reason this is even a debate is cause not a single game released so far, not even indie, has anything remotely close to the same artistic value as the best songs, films, TV shows, books, etc.
That's because you're judging the attributes of games within the context of established art, and judging them as their parts rather than the sum. It's also difficult to recognize history when you're inside of it
This has always happened. Many, many painters throughout history were mocked as shit and only became lauded post-mortem. In 100 years Minecraft, Mario 64, etc. will go through the same process. What they really are, are works representative of post-modern digital industrialization much like works produced during the industrial revolution reflected social and economic changes of the time.
videogames are entertainment
art is for rich people to launder dirty money with
anyone who wants videogames to be art is to be ignored
wtf is up with that guy's head?
He got cancer or some shit and he doesn't have a israelite anymore
>doesn't have a israelite anymore
Explains so much...
Poor guy, probably feels goyish and lonely without his israelite.
he doesn't have a heartbeat anymore either.
Yeah, Siskel died in '99.
He had a form of cancer where is lower jaw had to be amputated. The doctors used flesh from his body to give him a mockery of a face and he died shortly after.
He got cancer and they had to remove his jaw. How old are you kek?
>How old are you kek?
why would I give a shit about some rando with a moronic face?
ok just looked him up and he was some movie critic? why the frick should I know about someone that's literally matters as much in the movie industry as some rando on twitter to the videogame industry
If you have to call it art incessantly, it ain't art.
The people who keep trying to call it art are the ones holding it back tbh
entertainment =/= art
art can be bad. I see no reason to say games aren't art
There are only two types of people who deny video games being art:
>People who know absolutely nothing about them yet are arrogant enough to think they understand what they are
Like the dipshit in OP's pic. Fricker didn't even understand the medium he critiqued. If he understood it, he would have been making films not critiquing them. No one becomes a critic for any reason other than that actually creating in that medium was too difficult for them. Not a single reason beyond that. Therefore, any critic's viewpoint is automatically trash. If he can't even succeed in a medium he dedicated his life to, what the frick is he going to know about other creative mediums?
>People who like video games but are terrified of the social stigma.
They know video games are seen as "for losers" so they think if they claim to think lowly of video games that they can escape the stigma and be seen as one of the exceptions.
>Where do you actually stand on the "video games as art" argument?
In my opinion "art" is a worthless term
A banana glued to a canvas is art
Dirty toilets are art
Random trash on the floor is art
MSPaint tier scribbles are art
If videogames don't count as art they lose nothing from it
If videogames do count as art they gain nothing from it
Being entertainment is more important to videogames than being art
Video games are just like film, it *can* be art. Like Silent Hill 2, a lot of people would call that game art, I'd personally say that Rez is art too. It would be more accurate to describe video games as an art FORM though. After all various artists come together to help make the project a reality so it only makes sense for it to be considered and art form. Of course exceptions exist like Dwarf Fortress but I'd say stuff like text adventures are a pretty small minority. Video games certainly can be art, but not all of them are. Hell if you really wanna stretch definitions you could say the Devil May Cry gameplay is an art in itself.
art is a meaningless term
They are art, but not in the way people want to think of art and art. They're art in the way the interactivity, gameplay music, visuals, and story make you feel, but people want it to be art just based on the story alone.
High level mastery of chess is an art. Ergo, games that have the same depth of complexity can reach the heights of art.
But really, the best approach is the one the pioneers of jazz took: don't give a single solitary frick about the critics who say jazz isn't art and just keep creating out of passion.
Anything man-made is a work of art
Yes, even that is art. Which is why "art" as a concept is as moronic as the people that take it seriously.
The people playing videogames are the artists
Video games are art, anyone who argues this a moron
Art already had any of its meaning and value stripped away when the next great thing is supposed to be period blood rubbed on a wall. Modern art is just a israeli money laundering scam.
Of course its an art form, I can't think of any good reason to exclude them aside from boomerisms
>muh art
Art means frick all nowadays, so I don't care whether video games are "art" or not. Art is just pretentious bullshit with arbitrary rules so people can make a few strokes of a brush on a canvass and sell it for minions and sniff their own farts.
I don't really care.
Yes, but something being art is only as important as you want it to be and we can distinguish better or worse art but doesn't change that it is art.
It's art. Midwits disagree because art has a practical use and meaning to them. If it doesn't make them feel less like an insecure cultural philistine, it's not art. "Multimedia "Experience"" is a really pathetic cope that auteurs (autists) use to justify themselves to idiots in other mediums, who are always going to be butthurt when a new medium comes along and takes some of their limelight. It happened to novels, music, films, and now it's happening to games. Composers were butthurt that some guy with a guitar can capture an audience then. Now oil painters are butthurt that you can bing bing wahoo in world that looks like an oil painting. Soulless corporatization happens across all mediums so I don't buy that there needs to be some threshold of integrity across all works that needs to be met before it can be called art.
>art has a practical use
kek
Reading comprehension.
artists are worthless hacks
As long as you're entertained who gives a shit if it's art or not?
Paintings are interactive because where your eye goes is up to you. That makes it interactive, therefore games are art too. Also Ebert is dead and therefore not usable as bait.
dis homie claims to be smart
can't even chew his food lmao
I feel that people who are invested so heavily in the debate are just a little insecure about the fact that they play video games and need to justify it to themselves and others. It literally does not matter if they are considered art by people who don't give a shit about games. All that really matters is if they are entertaining or not.
the term "art" is not a subjective thing
"art" doesnt have to be good
art means anything you create
there is good "art" and bad "art", it's all still art
if it took a brain to make, it's art
hoity toity homosexual "arty" people who think they get to control what is and isnt "art" are why the public at large has a misdefinition of what "art" is
now, back to the topic, given the above, yes, games are literally art
i have the final answer for you
it isn't a distinction worth caring about
also this
just silently regard the people who say no as "morons", nod, and move on
Video games are indeed art, but the ones that put all of their focus into being art tend to suck.
If art is taping a banana to the wall, I don't want video games to be art.
hoity toity homosexual
Congratulations, you almost typed a sentence and I am impressed you were able to solve a captcha. Maybe next time you can also form a coherent thought. Why do I even bother?
lmao seethe
Cringing, not seething, FYI.
Jesus, for every worthwhile post, there's ten garbage ones like yours.
cry more about it
literally fricking assblasted little s 0 y cuck
No
Monopoly and DnD aren't art
You can't "lose" to art. Art has no objectives or conditions. Kojima was spot-on in saying games weren't art either. That being said they can contain elements of art (such as music and whatnot)
You don't "lose to" a game by experiencing a fail state, that's part of the experience. Devs have to program that state in and in some games you're forced to "lose" depending on plot/narrative or the bad endings can end up being the more poignant/rememberable parts of the game.
>Where do you actually stand on the "video games as art" argument?
I think videogames are entertainment first and foremost. Now if something excels at what it supposed to do then it can be art. Like some view cars or specific engines as piece of art. Same way if a video game entertains excellently it can be art.
Thing is, what entertains whom, is a very very subjective thing.
art has no criteria
all those examples you listed of "people consider" are pretentious homosexuals trying to hold domain over what they subjectively think art has to be
thats not how the world works, nor definitions of words
if i drew a plain face on a paper, it's art
Art is meaningless.
You'd have to define art first. As far as I can tell the term is so broad and nebulous that I have a hard time caring about it. Games are cool and fun to play, and that's the important part.
They can certain serve as a form of art, but the AAA is ruining its image with monitisation and shit.
white people don't make art, they make capitalist garbage
>Where do you actually stand on the "video games as art" argument?
A medium is not art. Not every painting is art. Not every sculpture is art. Not every song is art. Anything can be art, the medium doesn't matter.
>because the player influences the game, it can't be constituted as a work solely by the developer
You can't do something the developer didn't put in the game.
>Where do you actually stand on the "video games as art" argument?
I don't actually care either way, because whether or not games are "art" doesn't actually change anything. The argument, and any consensus that might be reached on it, is completely pointless beyond being mental masturbation fodder by pseudo kiddos who aren't actually good at video games but still somehow want to "participate" in the hobby without having to deal with the fact that they suck as something as trivial as an electronic children's toy.
Also, anyone who debates this is a gigantic reddit Black person and the sort of insufferable homosexual no one can stand to be around.
Video games are entertainment products that contain art in then.
I don't think video games are art but they can be if there was intent in the process of the craft. Even then, putting it simply there's still the notion of "good" and "bad" art, so just because it's "art" it doesn't mean it's immediately exempt from criticism.
if you consider movies and comics art, then video games are art.
He was just a shitty contrarian, that's all he was and nothing more.
I believe video games should be considered art in the legal sense, with any benefits that would give the medium, but as far as any artistic merit goes I don't really care beyond that.
I like how, without fail, people use the word "art" like they know what they mean by it or have an infallible definition, let alone one that is agreed upon by everyone. It doesn't matter if it's on Ganker or some place else. Every discussion about this topic is the fricking same, and it doesn't matter how many times someone points out how meaningless that term is, too many people just keep running with it like it has some profound magical attachment by default.
As a simple thought exercise, imagine what would change if the opposite of what your stance on "video games as art" happened. So if you think they are not art, imagine the opposite opinion to be universal and vice-versa. Now, would you stop playing games if they're "not art anymore" (whatever the frick that's supposed to mean), or play them more if they "became art"? would the people around you would radically change their opinion on video games if no longer were considered or became art officially?
Hell, I would even extend that to all "art" in general. A creative work either has meaning (or better yet, a purpose) and people love it or not, that's about the only thing that matters, not the semantic shit.
>I believe video games should be considered art in the legal sense
Exactly. This is the only actual useful point of this discussion. Anything beyond that is just mental masturbation.
It doesn't matter whether you call it "art" or not.
I am of the opinion that any product of human creativity, ingenuity and effort can be art. Games, films, music, paintings, are all of course art. But art can also be architecture, or a new type of engine that's more efficient. I think bench pressing 400 pounds can be art, or running 100 meters in 10 seconds. Anything you poor your life into, is art to me.
cant be art because of the hand rubbing and savant syndromes of enthusiast devs
>design art but art gets ruined by production
>design "art" but you're an autist not an artist
>design art but nobody will blindly make your art game because why the frick would they?
games cant really be art they just include artists work