Games are not art?

In the God's PR Problem topic, Ulairi opined:

Games are not art. They are toys. If a game isn't fun, I don't care what it has to say about problems facing our day. If a game has horrible camera, controls, technical issues, all of the social commentary in the world won't matter. If someone wants to get in the business of talking about those things they should be making movies, writing books, etc.

So... there are no toys that qualify as works of art?

I stopped following the thread last week because it was becoming a very circular discussion. So I have no idea who said what you have quoted there when I say it is one of the most disappointing things I have read on this forum.

Any medium that carries meaning, including games and toys, is capable of expression. Barbie dolls carry an idea of an idealised female form, just as much as any Pre-Raphaelite painting does. A GI Joe has meanings and symbolism regarding masculinity just as much as Michelangelo's David.

Art isn't 'art' because a bunch of overqualified and underpaid 'experts' sit around in a gallery and apply labels.

And to mix up lack of technical polish with expression is either silly or disengenous. There is no reason that a good game can't have meaning, or a meaningful game has to lack polish.

There's nothing wrong with wanting pure entertainment in one's games. But to demand that all of them fit one template because of one's own discomfort is arrogant and insulting.

I wouldn't take a single persons opinion as fact on this matter. Art is all a matter of opinion and taste anyway. The way I see it, if someone doesn't agree with me they are obviously wrong

Yeah, art is very subjective. I personally consider any medium that carries meaning to have artistic potential. A game more complex than Pong has this potential.

But when someone says, 'Games are not art and never will be. End.' My hackles raise.

I sometimes think that people who dismiss discussions of this nature don't realise quite how subjective the nature of art is, and are under the impression that there is some kind of central certifying authority.

I think games *can* be art, but 99.9% of them are entertainment, not art. Big difference in my book.

Personally, I put games in the same general box as film or photography. It's a medium that contains examples of both art and mindless fun, both of which are types of entertainment.

Much like film, it's the "mindless fun" category where most of the money (and hence polish) is.

Jonman wrote:

I think games *can* be art, but 99.9% of them are entertainment, not art. Big difference in my book.

Exactly, but when someone says

Games are not art. They are toys. ... If someone wants to get in the business of talking about those things they should be making movies, writing books, etc.

There is no admission of the possibility that games *can* be meaningful.

Sonicator wrote:

Personally, I put games in the same general box as film or photography. It's a medium that contains examples of both art and mindless fun, both of which are types of entertainment.

Much like film, it's the "mindless fun" category where most of the money (and hence polish) is. :-)

QFT.

The comments of "this is art versus entertainment" are flawed. The word "art" is not a stamp of quality. It is, as Princeton defines, "the products of human creativity". Or Webster's, "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". These definitions don't allow for some faux objective judgment of quality or merit.

There can be endless debate about what is good art or not. But the word itself is inclusive, not exclusive. Every game is "art", and so are Ashton Kutcher movies, no matter how horrible to sit through they may be. Bad art, perhaps, but still "art". To argue otherwise is simply ignoring what the word actually means.

*Legion* wrote:

The comments of "this is art versus entertainment" are flawed. The word "art" is not a stamp of quality. It is, as Princeton defines, "the products of human creativity". Or Webster's, "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". These definitions don't allow for some faux objective judgment of quality or merit.

There can be endless debate about what is good art or not. But the word itself is inclusive, not exclusive. Every game is "art", and so are Ashton Kutcher movies, no matter how horrible to sit through they may be. Bad art, perhaps, but still "art". To argue otherwise is simply ignoring what the word actually means.

Seconded. A better question would be "Can games be meaningful, and how?"

There are two definitions of art. There is art as practice (defined above), and then there is art as label, which may be more in context with the whole 'games are not art' thing.

The definition of art as used by artists tends more towards something that is based on the validation of the art community (Duchamp's urinal, etc...); to say that something is 'art' is to make the claim that the object in question is worth the attention of people who look at art (other art being whatever people who look at art say it is).

So really what the games as art argument is about is the claim that video games are (or will someday be) objects worth serious examination, objects of considerable value to the humanities, objects that present some meaningful interpretation of our existence, etc.... Or objects that some smartass puts in an art exhibition because the curator wouldn't let him in.

The question is, if you want to go that route as an artist. I am working on paintings, writings and now with computers. I don't have to make a living with computer games, because there is a very, very small audience for games, that are not toys with rules.

The gaming crowd does not care and the people interested in art don't know about the beauty of video games. So it is a great field, if you want to end as a 21st century Van Gogh. Most artists work in the old media and stay there... They have their audience and also they have really good critics writing about art. There is nothing to win in the computing field for artists, except ...

Is poker or card games considered art? No. These are games of skill. It's certainly possible that some games may qualify as art, but for the most part games are tests of skill that take elements from artistic works as decoration. So there may be some impressive artwork or the occasional story element that is artistic in nature, but when put into the package of a game it's still someone testing their hand-eye coordination, strategic thinking, or reflexes against another player or the computer program.

This same phenomena is at work in advertising, which contains a lot of art work and creates stories but typically isn't considered art because it's underlying purpose is simply to sell more of the product.

Depends on what you mean by art. I disagree, funken. I think basketball is art. It's art in motion by people so talented at the highest heights, that they do what they do by instinct. I think ballet or musicals can be art. I use those examples because the first is an example of games of skill and the second is more purely artistic.

I think most definitely games are art, but that requires one agreeing with the premise that art isn't just a canvas painting.

I think that what Funken is saying is that we use the same word for two things (game), therefore if one is obviously not art, the other must not be, either.

In which case he might as well compare a child's fingerpainting to a cave painting to a Picasso.

DSGamer wrote:

I think basketball is art. It's art in motion by people so talented at the highest heights, that they do what they do by instinct.

You're expanding the definition of art so far it loses any worthwhile meaning. Basketball players are on the court to score points or prevent the other team from scoring points. If people exercising skill is art, than anyone who is highly skilled at something is an artist.

playing guitar, violin or any instrument is considered art. Musicians are artists, no?

brof wrote:

The question is, if you want to go that route as an artist. I am working on paintings, writings and now with computers. I don't have to make a living with computer games, because there is a very, very small audience for games, that are not toys with rules.

I don't think that a game has to be without rules to be art.

not toys with rules

I meant something else than toys with rules. You can have art with rules, of course...but not toys with rules.

brof wrote:

playing guitar, violin or any instrument is considered art. Musicians are artists, no?

Sure. What about a highly experienced welder?

If he is welding something interesting and creative he is an artist, right?

A game is art if I'm still thinking about it six months later.

Funkenpants wrote:

Sure. What about a highly experienced welder?

Even when acting within the bounds of his profession, and welding something on a construction site for the sake of a practical weld, I would say, yes. A highly-experienced welder might be considered an artisan.

Skill and art almost always go hand-in-hand.

brof wrote:

If he is welding something interesting and creative he is an artist, right?

Yes, which is my many sculptors are very good welders. But are you suggesting that the world's great metal sculptors and the guy welding a ship together are essentially engaged in the same pursuit?

NSMike wrote:

Even when acting within the bounds of his profession, and welding something on a construction site for the sake of a practical weld, I would say, yes. A highly-experienced welder might be considered an artisan.

Artisan, not artist. He's judged by the quality of weld, not the expression represented by the act of welding or its result. Everyone in the building trades would be an artist under this classification. Skilled craftsman are to be admired, but their skill doesn't make them artists. In contrast, punk musicians were notable for being unskilled, and yet are considered artists.

so we can close this thread, stating games are art. Some are great art, many are bad art? And I still doubt that there are great artists working in this field...

I've said this before, but I take the view that a "Game" is not "Art," but a game is made up of elements that are art. When you break the game experience down, it is basically interacting with digital or analogue representations of things for entertainment. This doesn't constitute art, it's a mechanic. A mechanic does something, it performs a task. In this case provides entertainment. The experience is enhanced by the art elements in the game. That lovingly crafted model of the main character that you follow around in the game could just as easily be a block or a sphere as a representation of that character. Art to me is about aesthetics, it makes things look better without providing any intrinsic function of it's own, other than to make something look better. The table you eat off of serves a function, the scrollwork, inlay, stain, etc. make it beautiful. This doesn't make the table "art" it's still a table and provides a function, but the aesthetic qualities are art. Heck I think a painting is just a piece of canvas with colored mud on it, but the aesthetic arrangement of the colored mud makes it beautiful, or ugly, or drab, whatever.

Art to me is about aesthetics

I made Quozzle quest. The complete thing is about aesthetics. When played, I tried to invoke certain emotions in the player. I used certain type of gameplay for it, I used sounds, I used music and images. All pieces together try to push the player in a certain direction.

The side game is all about gameplay mechanics, going slower and slower. The gameplay is part of the aesthetic deal. You can rip all parts apart and tell me : this part is art, and this part not. But I created it as a whole. And the whole thing is art and bigger than its parts.

Funkenpants wrote:
brof wrote:

playing guitar, violin or any instrument is considered art. Musicians are artists, no?

Sure. What about a highly experienced welder?

Definitely, assuming he uses his expertise to make art.

I once heard a work of art defined as a thing that has no practical reason to exist outside of itself or enjoyment. That, coupled with the artist's intent to create art I think makes for a pretty comprehensive definition.

First, perception as to what might be considered art is ever changing and rather prone to fashion-think as well. 20th century saw an evolution of the idea of "art for art`s sake". Well, applying those same rules 4/5ths of the classical content in art galleries would be dismissed. Come to think of it, Michelangelo was just an effing interior designer, for Christ`s sake.

Sonicator wrote:

Personally, I put games in the same general box as film or photography. It's a medium that contains examples of both art and mindless fun, both of which are types of entertainment.

Much like film, it's the "mindless fun" category where most of the money (and hence polish) is. :-)

I would say this statement pretty much shows that yes, games can be art. It's just not as profitable to focus on that aspect of it.

brof wrote:
Art to me is about aesthetics

I made Quozzle quest. The complete thing is about aesthetics. When played, I tried to invoke certain emotions in the player. I used certain type of gameplay for it, I used sounds, I used music and images. All pieces together try to push the player in a certain direction.

The side game is all about gameplay mechanics, going slower and slower. The gameplay is part of the aesthetic deal. You can rip all parts apart and tell me : this part is art, and this part not. But I created it as a whole. And the whole thing is art and bigger than its parts.

No offense meant, but that doesn't really change my argument. As I define aesthetic, the mechanic is a separate entity. Just because aesthetic and mechanic are tied together doesn't make them the same. Sounds, colors, music, and images all fall under aesthetic to me. Also, I don't think you can make a game without some sort of artistic element to it. Even if everything was bare functional squares with minimal color differentiation, there would still be an artistic choice behind the graphical representation of objects. I could theoretically see a game that had no color whatsoever, white background, white objects, but how would you ever accomplish anything? It would be a non game. Though, now that I think about it, that would also be an artistic decision. Bah, whatever.
I'll give another example. I work in a shop that makes signs. The signs are not art in and of themselves, but they are made up of artistic elements. The typeface used to represent the text is an artistic element, it's a decision made by the designer. The color is a decision that affects the sign. If it was a different color or typeface it would be a different sign. Even if it said the same thing in the same language it would be a different sign. It would serve the same function, and it would use the same mechanic, but it would be aesthetically different.
Speaking of which, gotta get back to it.