Video games and art: are they both the same??...

I am just gonna give it to you straight - Games ARE a form of art. Phew! I just wanted to get that one off of my chest beforeI begin to defend my view...

Anyway, let us think about the true definition of art in general. Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none...

Now, let us go over theother various forms of art and their mediums. Paintings, drawings, sculpture, graphic design, engineering, architecture, mosaics, coligriphy, literature, story telling, pottery, stop motion, motion pictures, silk screening, music, and many other works that I cannot recall off the top of my head are all considered as, and constitute artistic works. so as you can see, all of these things (in which some are radically different from others) are essentially art...

Now, if all these forms of creative works (like motion pictures) are art, then what exactly prevents video games from being art as well?? I mean, video games have all the elements and principles of art. even the first video games held art fundamentals. fundamentals like texture, shape, arrangement, form, tints, shades, line, tone, immitationalism, emotionalism, and color. And with the progression of time, video games have become even more artistic due to the advent of newer and more innovative technologies. I am not just talking the graphical aspect of games, though they make up most of the artistic elements. I am talking about the aspect of a video that most do not consider as art - physics and camera dynamics. they are ever-present in another form of art - motion pictures. Sorry Roger Ebert, but if video games do not do qualify as art, then neither do movies - both have too much in common for one to be art and the other to not be. both video game and movies have, storylines, plots, characters, roles, protagonists, antagonists, flow of events, an exposition, a rising action, a climactic turning point, a resolution, cinematography, choreography, camera dynamics, emotion, locations, sound, visual effects, animation, framerate, all the artistic elements I listed before... need I go on?? They say that a motion picture is the most collaborative form of art in all known existence because it has so many artistic elements. What about games?? they contain all the pre-existing elements of film, plus more. games have true user interactivity - something that films cannot and will never achieve. Listen, I love film and enjoy watching it, but like I said before, movies and games share many of the same elements and therefore are both art...

Lastly, I like to give credit to an aspect of video games that no one sees - the actual code that makes it all happen. I mean, have you ever actually seen a video game or part of it in code form?? Its amazing. Maybe Im the only one who sees it, but only a computer programmer could regard the code as such. Coming from a programmer's standpoint, games have so much more potential as art than any other medium. and there are no limits to how many styles can be portrayed through games. also art has never, at any time, needed a deep and profound message for it to be considered art. if you were take a bucket of flat red paint, splash it against a big canvas, and name it "frustration", then you have created a work of art. it really is just as simple as that. done. And just to defend my (opinion) that game code can be art, look at architectural blueprints. they are works of art, and even some of them are considered artistic masterpieces - and this is the drawing, not the actual finished building. so, if blueprints can be called art, then why cant game code be considered the same?? I know its a stretch, but if you yourself are not a programmer then I dont expect you to agree nor understand...

But to sum it all up games are art. they are art because they contain artistic elements and principles. they also share the same aspects as films, which are embraced as art by lots of people, including a delusional Roger Ebert. the whole game is art, and not just some elements of it. looking at just some parts of a game is like picking out little parts of a painting or a film and take away from the overall work...

See, the thing about "art" is that the word has become so overused that it has lost most of its meaning. Going by your definition, when I make toast in the morning it is art. Maybe even clipping my toe nails could be considered art. While I'm at it, why don't I say fluffing my pillow just the way I like it is art.

Also, video games are worked on by hundreds of people now. Many games have more in common with a cheap Happy Meal toy than the Mona Lisa.

See, the thing about "art" is that the word has become so overused that it has lost most of its meaning. Going by your definition, when I make toast in the morning it is art. Maybe even clipping my toe nails could be considered art. While I'm at it, why don't I say fluffing my pillow just the way I like it is art.

Also, video games are worked on by hundreds of people now. Many games have more in common with a cheap Happy Meal toy than the Mona Lisa.

AtomicTangerine

your toast is not a depiction of anything, nor are you trying to express anything. even if it holds some of the principles and/or elemts of art, if theres no intent by the creator to make it expressive or depictive then its not art. are you saying that making toast without the care of making art is like making a painting or a sulpture or a movie or a video game. people who creat art do it with the pupose and intent to create an expression or depiction, while you are simply just trying fill your stomach. you are obviously just a gamer and not artist or else you would have already known this. oh well...

I agree, Happy Meal toys are better than the Mona Lisa :)Kev_Boy

actually i think the technical drawing that show those toy's design are more like art than those taoys, as they are a depiction of what a particular toy should look and feel like. the toy itself is made in a factory in some foreign country by those who only care about making a product and not creating their or art or creative for m of expression. it takes more than the artistic elements for it to be art. the creator has to have the the desire to make it say something or to redefine something, and not just to entertain. games accomplish this, just as copletely as films and other style of art do, unlike your fast food restaurant toys...

Thats your opinion. Art isnt something for someone to feel about so that object is art just coz somebody feels its art. You have to look back at ''art's'' history and defination. That being said, if you done your own research, Im not gonna do it for you, video game is not art and that is a FACT. That being said, we have lots of intangbles or wateva supporting what I just said. Kojima said video game is not art. Do not defy Kojima. Do not defy art in general. Worst still, dont taint the word art by categorizing it as being able to be a video game. You just not educated in art and logic. Nobody in the industry have ever said video game is art, in general. In contrast, there's a ''couple'' of people that said video game is not art. So case closed. By the way, a game can be artistic but never be art,.......yet.....who knows? One last thing, you people dont know the word innovation means. Same goes to hardcore and art, words that people just throw around with video games being the subject of discussions. Im much more clever than alot of you guys, not to boast or anything.Captain_Swosh69

well, then if you say that a game (something that has exactly the same dynamics and elements that films do nowadays) is not art, then you are also saying that a movie cannot be art. both a game and a motion picture hold many if not all the elements that make a creation a work of art, that is if you fully read my statement above. ill repeat, if video games do not do qualify as art, then neither do movies - both have too much in common for one to be art and the other to not be. both video game and movies have, storylines, plots, characters, roles, protagonists, antagonists, flow of events, an exposition, a rising action, a climactic turning point, a resolution, cinematography, choreography, camera dynamics, emotion, locations, sound, visual effects, animation, framerate, all the artistic elements I listed before... need I go on?? They say that a motion picture is the most collaborative form of art in all known existence because it has so many artistic elements. What about games?? they contain all the pre-existing elements of film, plus more. games have true user interactivity - something that films cannot and will never achieve. Listen, I love film and enjoy watching it, but like I said before, movies and games share many of the same elements and therefore are both art.

Kojima has not been able to present any "FACTS" to the contrary, and neither have you. the "FACT" is that the word "art" does have a set definition that has never really changed what so ever; the forms of art are the things that keep on changing, as new styles and mediums are being introduced. so yeah, look at arts definition and yes look at its history (as you left yourself open to say) because if you do, then you will find that art takes many form, but yet they still hold to the same definition and also keep the same elements and principles. so, you say that games are artistic, but not art. that makes absolutely no shred of sense at all. arent paintings artistic... then they must be art right?? arentmovies artistic... then they must be art right?? arentmosaics artistic... then they must be art right?? what im getting at is that you obviously have no inkling as to what "artistic" means. it means anything that folllows the definition of art, and in turn share or use the artistic principles and/or elements. knowledge is power my friend, why dont you use it.

the last thing i have to say is i hope you are not some Kojima fanboy or anything because thats what you sounded like back there. saying something like "Kojima said video game is not art. Do not defy Kojima." is atrue classic fanboy response. and on the matter, Kojima does not have the right nor the authority to say that allvideo games are not art. he can say that the games he makes arent art, but he hasnt the slightest clue as to whether every developer feels that way about there own works. thats the equivalant of someone who looks at a painting and says "that is nota finished painting". it isnt up to the viewer to decide if one's work is a finished piece; that is soley up to the creator to decide. so for Kojima to look at all video games and label them like he labels his as being truth without giving facts to the opinionisnt up to him. he isnt god and he certainly doesnt make the world go 'round, let alone the whole video game industry. you obviously arent clever enough to see the facts, and therefor, you are just another of those guys. sorry, but your only proves my statement about you, for you have facts to back up your facts, as where i have introduced many. also, it does help that i am an artist, a gamer, and a game programmer so my argument comes from the right standpoint. you are just like the others; you are just a gamer, so my facts just bouce of your skull because you sway with the opinions of the majority, rather than thinking about the issue for yourself. my advice to you is to have some individuality, and dont come crawling to Kojima...

Thats your opinion. Art isnt something for someone to feel about so that object is art just coz somebody feels its art. You have to look back at ''art's'' history and defination. That being said, if you done your own research, Im not gonna do it for you, video game is not art and that is a FACT. That being said, we have lots of intangbles or wateva supporting what I just said. Kojima said video game is not art. Do not defy Kojima. Do not defy art in general. Worst still, dont taint the word art by categorizing it as being able to be a video game. You just not educated in art and logic. Nobody in the industry have ever said video game is art, in general. In contrast, there's a ''couple'' of people that said video game is not art. So case closed. By the way, a game can be artistic but never be art,.......yet.....who knows? One last thing, you people dont know the word innovation means. Same goes to hardcore and art, words that people just throw around with video games being the subject of discussions. Im much more clever than alot of you guys, not to boast or anything.Captain_Swosh69

You aren't explaining yourself. You're just making statements. I don't see that as very clever. You can't be clever without having an explanation to back your ideas up.

You aren't explaining yourself. You're just making statements. I don't see that as very clever. You can't be clever without having an explanation to back your ideas up.

selbie

thats exactly what i have been trying to stress this whole time. you gotta have the facts to back up an opinion, and i am certainly glad im not the only person here who sees that. thank you for making sense when Captain_Swosh69 couldnt...

[QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

See, the thing about "art" is that the word has become so overused that it has lost most of its meaning. Going by your definition, when I make toast in the morning it is art. Maybe even clipping my toe nails could be considered art. While I'm at it, why don't I say fluffing my pillow just the way I like it is art.

Also, video games are worked on by hundreds of people now. Many games have more in common with a cheap Happy Meal toy than the Mona Lisa.

kanedajjj5757

your toast is not a depiction of anything, nor are you trying to express anything. even if it holds some of the principles and/or elemts of art, if theres no intent by the creator to make it expressive or depictive then its not art. are you saying that making toast without the care of making art is like making a painting or a sulpture or a movie or a video game. people who creat art do it with the pupose and intent to create an expression or depiction, while you are simply just trying fill your stomach. you are obviously just a gamer and not artist or else you would have already known this. oh well...

Just for the sake of argument, making toast (or any food) is part of the culinary arts. depending on what you do with said piece of toast it can indeed be art.

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Thats your opinion. Art isnt something for someone to feel about so that object is art just coz somebody feels its art. You have to look back at ''art's'' history and defination. That being said, if you done your own research, Im not gonna do it for you, video game is not art and that is a FACT. That being said, we have lots of intangbles or wateva supporting what I just said. Kojima said video game is not art. Do not defy Kojima. Do not defy art in general. Worst still, dont taint the word art by categorizing it as being able to be a video game. You just not educated in art and logic. Nobody in the industry have ever said video game is art, in general. In contrast, there's a ''couple'' of people that said video game is not art. So case closed. By the way, a game can be artistic but never be art,.......yet.....who knows? One last thing, you people dont know the word innovation means. Same goes to hardcore and art, words that people just throw around with video games being the subject of discussions. Im much more clever than alot of you guys, not to boast or anything.selbie

You aren't explaining yourself. You're just making statements. I don't see that as very clever. You can't be clever without having an explanation to back your ideas up.

LOL. I think he wrote that post with the intent to not make sense.

[QUOTE="selbie"]

[QUOTE="Captain_Swosh69"]Thats your opinion. Art isnt something for someone to feel about so that object is art just coz somebody feels its art. You have to look back at ''art's'' history and defination. That being said, if you done your own research, Im not gonna do it for you, video game is not art and that is a FACT. That being said, we have lots of intangbles or wateva supporting what I just said. Kojima said video game is not art. Do not defy Kojima. Do not defy art in general. Worst still, dont taint the word art by categorizing it as being able to be a video game. You just not educated in art and logic. Nobody in the industry have ever said video game is art, in general. In contrast, there's a ''couple'' of people that said video game is not art. So case closed. By the way, a game can be artistic but never be art,.......yet.....who knows? One last thing, you people dont know the word innovation means. Same goes to hardcore and art, words that people just throw around with video games being the subject of discussions. Im much more clever than alot of you guys, not to boast or anything.brianpoetzel

You aren't explaining yourself. You're just making statements. I don't see that as very clever. You can't be clever without having an explanation to back your ideas up.

LOL. I think he wrote that post with the intent to not make sense.

heh he must have huh? hey i love your sig picture...

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"][QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

See, the thing about "art" is that the word has become so overused that it has lost most of its meaning. Going by your definition, when I make toast in the morning it is art. Maybe even clipping my toe nails could be considered art. While I'm at it, why don't I say fluffing my pillow just the way I like it is art.

Also, video games are worked on by hundreds of people now. Many games have more in common with a cheap Happy Meal toy than the Mona Lisa.

brianpoetzel

your toast is not a depiction of anything, nor are you trying to express anything. even if it holds some of the principles and/or elemts of art, if theres no intent by the creator to make it expressive or depictive then its not art. are you saying that making toast without the care of making art is like making a painting or a sulpture or a movie or a video game. people who creat art do it with the pupose and intent to create an expression or depiction, while you are simply just trying fill your stomach. you are obviously just a gamer and not artist or else you would have already known this. oh well...

Just for the sake of argument, making toast (or any food) is part of the culinary arts. depending on what you do with said piece of toast it can indeed be art.

a culinary piece of art still must follow the definition of art though. just making toast isnt art - one must use it to make a depiction of something or an expression of something. if i were to make some toast and put the butter on a spot next to it and call it "i dont butter my toast" then it is art. i am expressing that i dont put butter on toast. just making it doesnt costitiute art if it all has no meaning depiction... okay lets stop talking bout food its making me hungry :lol:...

you're just one guy on a forum. this is the internet.I not gonna back up my claims just becoz its the internet, becoz if I dont, its not true, right?? Right?? Or am I right??? Now TC, if games are not art, so are not movies. Nice. Nicccceeee. Now to back up your claims, you throw around stuff like cinematography or what not. Niiceeeee. But screw that coz the fact of the matter is ''some'' films are considered art, generally,...........and video games.....NOOOTT. Films, films, films. Why dont you get specific instead of twisting your own words???? Terminator 3 is not art. Terminator 3: The game is not art. Spiderman 1, 2, 3 are not arts and Spiderman 1, 2, 3: the game are not arts. They're blockbusters. Go get some real sense of what real art is.

p.s. If you gonna reply to this, im not gonna retort coz I just blow away your argument with my film-games examples so im just gonna go to OT. art is expression blah blah blah. Expression : Ahnold: I'll be back = art. Expression: Ahnold from game: I'll be back = art.

[QUOTE="brianpoetzel"][QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"][QUOTE="AtomicTangerine"]

See, the thing about "art" is that the word has become so overused that it has lost most of its meaning. Going by your definition, when I make toast in the morning it is art. Maybe even clipping my toe nails could be considered art. While I'm at it, why don't I say fluffing my pillow just the way I like it is art.

Also, video games are worked on by hundreds of people now. Many games have more in common with a cheap Happy Meal toy than the Mona Lisa.

kanedajjj5757

your toast is not a depiction of anything, nor are you trying to express anything. even if it holds some of the principles and/or elemts of art, if theres no intent by the creator to make it expressive or depictive then its not art. are you saying that making toast without the care of making art is like making a painting or a sulpture or a movie or a video game. people who creat art do it with the pupose and intent to create an expression or depiction, while you are simply just trying fill your stomach. you are obviously just a gamer and not artist or else you would have already known this. oh well...

Just for the sake of argument, making toast (or any food) is part of the culinary arts. depending on what you do with said piece of toast it can indeed be art.

a culinary piece of art still must follow the definition of art though. just making toast isnt art - one must use it to make a depiction of something or an expression of something. if i were to make some toast and put the butter on a spot next to it and call it "i dont butter my toast" then it is art. i am expressing that i dont put butter on toast. just making it doesnt costitiute art if it all has no meaning depiction... okay lets stop talking bout food its making me hungry :lol:...

LOL. Yeah. I had to go make myself breakfast after that.

But food is kind of unique in the fact that it's meant to be consumed. It doesn't really make an expression or message. It's just meant to be beautiful, more like a sculpture. Food can be art but not all food is. I feel the same way about games. Most games are not art but some are. And I believe that games are just as capable of being art as movies, books, paintings and photography. It just depends what we do with it.

Thats your opinion. Art isnt something for someone to feel about so that object is art just coz somebody feels its art. You have to look back at ''art's'' history and defination. That being said, if you done your own research, Im not gonna do it for you, video game is not art and that is a FACT. That being said, we have lots of intangbles or wateva supporting what I just said. Kojima said video game is not art. Do not defy Kojima. Do not defy art in general. Worst still, dont taint the word art by categorizing it as being able to be a video game. You just not educated in art and logic. Nobody in the industry have ever said video game is art, in general. In contrast, there's a ''couple'' of people that said video game is not art. So case closed. By the way, a game can be artistic but never be art,.......yet.....who knows? One last thing, you people dont know the word innovation means. Same goes to hardcore and art, words that people just throw around with video games being the subject of discussions. Im much more clever than alot of you guys, not to boast or anything.Captain_Swosh69

That's the best imitation of Salazar from Resident Evil 4 I've ever seen. Bravo. I like to think you're wearing the hat too. You got it backwards that you're clever and games aren't art. But that's opinion, not fact. Ebert tried to be a screenwriter, but someone who could only write things like Beyond the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens isn't that persuasive about what is and isn't art.

you're just one guy on a forum. this is the internet.I not gonna back up my claims just becoz its the internet, becoz if I dont, its not true, right?? Right?? Or am I right??? Now TC, if games are not art, so are not movies. Nice. Nicccceeee. Now to back up your claims, you throw around stuff like cinematography or what not. Niiceeeee. But screw that coz the fact of the matter is ''some'' films are considered art, generally,...........and video games.....NOOOTT. Films, films, films. Why dont you get specific instead of twisting your own words???? Terminator 3 is not art. Terminator 3: The game is not art. Spiderman 1, 2, 3 are not arts and Spiderman 1, 2, 3: the game are not arts. They're blockbusters. Go get some real sense of what real art is.

p.s. If you gonna reply to this, im not gonna retort coz I just blow away your argument with my film-games examples so im just gonna go to OT. art is expression blah blah blah. Expression : Ahnold: I'll be back = art. Expression: Ahnold from game: I'll be back = art.

Captain_Swosh69

sorry to destroy your lousy arguments that lacks true subtsance, but the story that terminator crafts is art in itself, and so is the follow up story in the game. remember storytelling is a form of art, and both terminator 3 and its video game counterpart have that form of art, along with most, if not all the art principles and elements. you are just twisting the true definition of art. you think that all works of art have to be masterpieces or theyre not art, and thats not the case. in your pitiful retort you say these "game-film" examples prove that movies and games arent art, because they also happen to be bad movies and games. i agree, they are not the greatest movies and or games, but whether theyre great or not doesnt have any bearing on whether they are art or not. so, why dont you "go get some real sense of what real art is".face it, you have no argument, and the more you make points without facts, the more you prove my point, and the more you prove that you dont know what you are talking about and that you are an absolute ignorant fool. in the real world you need facts to back up your claims, and just because we are posting on aforum over the internetrather than talking face to face doesnt change the equation whatsoever. you are simply just flying off the handle and making an argument based on nothing of factual substance. and you are still ignorant to what art is. why dont you do some actual research??

you can come up with more game-movie examples, but im just going to prove that they are just simply art-art examples. get some facts, and then we'll talk...

How are video games NOT art????

If a video game make you cry its art. And I cried when I saw the Halo 3 trailer at e3.... Yep, H3 looks that awful....

How are video games NOT art????

If a video game make you cry its art. And I cried when I saw the Halo 3 trailer at e3.... Yep, H3 looks that awful....

bucknut85

but its still art, even though its awful. at lest you make sense, unlike that other dude...

Anyone could define just about anything as art if they really want. The word is far too general and vague. Myself, I tend to believe games are not art, not as it is right now, but that they do have the potential to become art and that a very few games have gotten surprisingly close. Then again, I also think alot of the crap being thrown around as art is just, well, pseudo-intelligent wannabe crap. Just because a game looks good or unique does not make it art!

A general definition of the word art is the use of a specific medium to display aesthetic principles, or similarly to master a specific form to the point where you're effectively in a category of your own, a master of your craft or art! Some people might also argue art is when the meaning or moral or what have you of the particular piece transcends that of its chosen medium, so effectively is better than anything anyone though possible by that medium. The problem is, no matter which definition you choose of those games have yet to do any of them... atleast in my oh-so humble oppinion.

Games are designed to be fun and to be entertaining, not to portray the deeper meaning of the world around us etc etc. Sure games can do that, but usually it's meant as a more dramatic presentation for the overall game, not the games entire purpose. A couple games come close though, off the top of my head I can think of two; Planescape: Torment and The Longest Journey. Not art, but definently closer than almost anything else has gotten. But that just presents yet another problem, neither of these games were particularly... err, fun to play. Great games to be sure, but ask most people who've played em and they'll tell you they kept playing because of the plots, not the gameplay itself. Which brings up the entire "Are they still even games?" debate, which I have no urge to go through yet again after Dreamfall came out.

But hey, that's just my oppinion. No, I don't think games are art. Yes, I do think they have potential though.

Anyway, let us think about the true definition of art in general. Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none...

kanedajjj5757

well there's your definition of art, theres your answer, this is fact, not opinion, its a factual definition and video games fall within its parameters, may not be your more traditional concept of art but hey, things change

Anyone could define just about anything as art if they really want. The word is far too general and vague. Myself, I tend to believe games are not art, not as it is right now, but that they do have the potential to become art and that a very few games have gotten surprisingly close. Then again, I also think alot of the crap being thrown around as art is just, well, pseudo-intelligent wannabe crap. Just because a game looks good or unique does not make it art!

A general definition of the word art is the use of a specific medium to display aesthetic principles, or similarly to master a specific form to the point where you're effectively in a category of your own, a master of your craft or art! Some people might also argue art is when the meaning or moral or what have you of the particular piece transcends that of its chosen medium, so effectively is better than anything anyone though possible by that medium. The problem is, no matter which definition you choose of those games have yet to do any of them... atleast in my oh-so humble oppinion.

Games are designed to be fun and to be entertaining, not to portray the deeper meaning of the world around us etc etc. Sure games can do that, but usually it's meant as a more dramatic presentation for the overall game, not the games entire purpose. A couple games come close though, off the top of my head I can think of two; Planescape: Torment and The Longest Journey. Not art, but definently closer than almost anything else has gotten. But that just presents yet another problem, neither of these games were particularly... err, fun to play. Great games to be sure, but ask most people who've played em and they'll tell you they kept playing because of the plots, not the gameplay itself. Which brings up the entire "Are they still even games?" debate, which I have no urge to go through yet again after Dreamfall came out.

But hey, that's just my oppinion. No, I don't think games are art. Yes, I do think they have potential though.

the_mad_madman

the definition of art isnt vague; its is quite specific. and unlike what you claim art to be, art is any form of expression or depiction. you say art is just aesthetic or visual, but it isnt just that. there are many forms of art and each has its own mode of human interation. music isnt visual, but its art, culinary works arent more visual than tasted, but its art. no form of art has ever needed some level of recognition to be art. majority opinion doesnt make something art; something created to be an axpression or depiction in any way shape or form is art. with games they are played, making them yet another unique form of art. as for me, i believe that allgames (not including text games for obvious reasons) qualify as art because of all the facts and reasons in my original post. your definition of art is an opinion, and not the true definition of art. art doesnt need to be deep and profound, and when you imply that it must be deep and profound you just prove that you are not only not an artist, but that you also have no comprehension of what art really is. my initial post has the accurate meaning of the word art. why dont you check it out?? and, those two games you mention are both art and games, like every other game. like i said before, just because its bad or not so great, doesnt mean it isnt art. ive seen many a bad painting, but they are still art. its no different with games. i respect your maturity. i also respect your opinion, but since theres really no fact in it, i dont really agree with it...

...and some of your info is false

A general definition of the word art is the use of a specific medium to display aesthetic principles, or similarly to master a specific form to the point where you're effectively in a category of your own, a master of your craft or art! Some people might also argue art is when the meaning or moral or what have you of the particular piece transcends that of its chosen medium, so effectively is better than anything anyone though possible by that medium. The problem is, no matter which definition you choose of those games have yet to do any of them... atleast in my oh-so humble oppinion.
the_mad_madman

Games are designed to be fun and to be entertaining, not to portray the deeper meaning of the world around us etc etc. Sure games can do that, but usually it's meant as a more dramatic presentation for the overall game, not the games entire purpose. .

the_mad_madman

The way I see it, Roger Ebert is simply getting old. If a game can move me more than an Academy Award winning film for Best Picture (Dreamfall: The Longest Journey vs. Lawrence of Arabia), then I'm forced to say that video games are just as much art as movies are. The act of working my way through the story and everything else for extended periods of time makes me relish the experience even more. There are games coming out now (Mass Effect, Bioshock) in which the player gets involved on a much deeper scale than any movie has been able to reach. There are games already out (Oblivion, Morrowind, and yes, Halo) which have such extensive universes put into place for the player to explore that most players will never have learned all of the history and opinions of in-game people and places. Again, movies don't create very extensive worlds (with the exception of Star Wars and Star Trek, although how much detail is actually put into the movies and not the books is debatable).

The goal of books are to make the reader see what the author sees and/or form opinions and ideas from it. The goal of music is to place the listener in the studio (or at the concert) and hear what the musician heard at its conception. The goal of movies are to put the viewer in themindof the director.

The goal of art in general is to put the person experiencing the art in the creator's vision through the creation itself. But no art form has ever had an instant transition between having no art and having art. Before paintings there were cave drawings. Before books there were myths, fables, history and religion. Before symphonies there were people humming. Before motion pictures there were plays, and before good motion pictures were made they needed to develop camera, editing, and scriptwriting techniques. Before games get any good, programming, art and design need to be improved. Right now we are on the cusp of having video games that can truly be called art. Just as we look back at Citizen Kane, we'll someday look back at Mass Effect in the same way.

I hope this isn't too wordy or complicated for people to understand.crucifine

i agree, and i know you make a load of sense, but think about some of the older games. even thoseoldies are in a lot of ways art, for they are so creatively and wonerfully made. and they hold much of the real definition of what art really is, even if the graphics are dated. and remember, art doesnt necessarily need to hold some deep, profound message...

the definition of art isnt vague; its is quite specific. and unlike what you claim art to be, art is any form of expression or depiction. you say art is just aesthetic or visual, but it isnt just that. there are many forms of art and each has its own mode of human interation. music isnt visual, but its art, culinary works arent more visual than tasted, but its art. no form of art has ever needed some level of recognition to be art. majority opinion doesnt make something art; something created to be an axpression or depiction in any way shape or form is art. with games they are played, making them yet another unique form of art. as for me, i believe that allgames (not including text games for obvious reasons) qualify as art because of all the facts and reasons in my original post. your definition of art is an opinion, and not the true definition of art. art doesnt need to be deep and profound, and when you imply that it must be deep and profound you just prove that you are not only not an artist, but that you also have no comprehension of what art really is. my initial post has the accurate meaning of the word art. why dont you check it out?? and, those two games you mention are both art and games, like every other game. like i said before, just because its bad or not so great, doesnt mean it isnt art. ive seen many a bad painting, but they are still art. its no different with games. i respect your maturity. i also respect your opinion, but since theres really no fact in it, i dont really agree with it...

...and some of your info is false

kanedajjj5757

A quick look on Dictionary.com says we're both right in our definitions, same with define:art on google. No, in this case you're wrong and it is a very general term. Also, how was anything I said false? I didn't quote anything at all except the definition of art, everything else is my own oppinion, just like I made sure to point out a couple times. Calm down there sparky, it's just my own thoughts on the topic, if you weren't prepared for people to disagree why'd you post in on a forum? No need to get all touchy because I didn't go with the usual offended gamer routine.

Look, I don't think games are art. This is an oppinion, just like your post is an oppinion. This is a forum, where people go to discuss their oppinions and debate them with other people... atleast in theory. Cool it with the insults, I respected you right up untill then. Shesh!

A general definition of the word art is the use of a specific medium to display aesthetic principles, or similarly to master a specific form to the point where you're effectively in a category of your own, a master of your craft or art! Some people might also argue art is when the meaning or moral or what have you of the particular piece transcends that of its chosen medium, so effectively is better than anything anyone though possible by that medium. The problem is, no matter which definition you choose of those games have yet to do any of them... atleast in my oh-so humble oppinion.

the_mad_madman

Eh? So you don't believe that games "display aesthetic principles"?

Anyway - if the true definition of "art" is so vague, why then do you feel the need to intellectualise more complicated boundries in which art could only be something more than just fun? Couldn't you just say that video-games are bad art to you?

The way I've always understood the word, is that it means "something which is artificially created in order to emotionally affect readers."

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

the definition of art isnt vague; its is quite specific. and unlike what you claim art to be, art is any form of expression or depiction. you say art is just aesthetic or visual, but it isnt just that. there are many forms of art and each has its own mode of human interation. music isnt visual, but its art, culinary works arent more visual than tasted, but its art. no form of art has ever needed some level of recognition to be art. majority opinion doesnt make something art; something created to be an axpression or depiction in any way shape or form is art. with games they are played, making them yet another unique form of art. as for me, i believe that allgames (not including text games for obvious reasons) qualify as art because of all the facts and reasons in my original post. your definition of art is an opinion, and not the true definition of art. art doesnt need to be deep and profound, and when you imply that it must be deep and profound you just prove that you are not only not an artist, but that you also have no comprehension of what art really is. my initial post has the accurate meaning of the word art. why dont you check it out?? and, those two games you mention are both art and games, like every other game. like i said before, just because its bad or not so great, doesnt mean it isnt art. ive seen many a bad painting, but they are still art. its no different with games. i respect your maturity. i also respect your opinion, but since theres really no fact in it, i dont really agree with it...

...and some of your info is false

the_mad_madman

A quick look on Dictionary.com says we're both right in our definitions, same with define:art on google. No, in this case you're wrong and it is a very general term. Also, how was anything I said false? I didn't quote anything at all except the definition of art, everything else is my own oppinion, just like I made sure to point out a couple times. Calm down there sparky, it's just my own thoughts on the topic, if you weren't prepared for people to disagree why'd you post in on a forum? No need to get all touchy because I didn't go with the usual offended gamer routine.

Look, I don't think games are art. This is an oppinion, just like your post is an oppinion. This is a forum, where people go to discuss their oppinions and debate them with other people... atleast in theory. Cool it with the insults, I respected you right up untill then. Shesh!

im fine with your opinion, and i respect it. but i simply dont agree with it. no offense given at all. but your claim that art is general in definition is not so, and in turn is false. just because the word applies to many things doesnt make is generalt. the criteria in which something is considered art is specific. if it doesnt meet the proper criteria, then its not art. if that isnt specific then i dont know what is. you points and opinions are well taken, but if you are gonna base them on your own definition of art, rather than the real definition (the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. thats the dictionary definition by the way) then your views stand very little chance of holding water. im not attacking you, but your perception of what art is in definition doesnt match its true definition and is false. my opinion has many supporting facts behind it, tracing ultimately back to what the definition of art is. even if its friendly debate, we should all have facts and opinions, and not just opinions. your info was your definition of art. the way you shoehorned your own fabricated version of what art is, it made me think you looked at no facts. you did at least try to do some research this time around. like i said, it isnt you but it was your misperception of what art is. thats all

Some of the older games were definitely what I would consider art, but they were a lot more spread out than they are now. You had Ultima, Fallout, System Shock, most of the Black Isle stuff, Deus Ex...but there weren't many that really stood out apart from that, which is why I'm using the present as an example.crucifine

i understand where you are coming from. its much easier to associate the newer releases with art than it is to do with older games. thanks for introducing something new to the equation. despite age difference,i feel that they fulfill the criteria to be art to a "T"...

[QUOTE="the_mad_madman"]

A general definition of the word art is the use of a specific medium to display aesthetic principles, or similarly to master a specific form to the point where you're effectively in a category of your own, a master of your craft or art! Some people might also argue art is when the meaning or moral or what have you of the particular piece transcends that of its chosen medium, so effectively is better than anything anyone though possible by that medium. The problem is, no matter which definition you choose of those games have yet to do any of them... atleast in my oh-so humble oppinion.

greenzealot

Eh? So you don't believe that games "display aesthetic principles"?

Anyway - if the true definition of "art" is so vague, why then do you feel the need to intellectualise more complicated boundries in which art could only be something more than just fun? Couldn't you just say that video-games are bad art to you?

The way I've always understood the word, is that it means "something which is artificially created in order to emotionally affect readers."

that is true, but thats only one part of the equation, yet it is one of the more important parts of it. though it doesnt need to, art usually makes one think or feel or see in newer ways. i can accept someone saying games are bad art - thats meerly opinion, but saying something isnt art isnt up to the viewer to decide. if it is art, then it is permanantly so, regardless of what the viewer says or thinks. for example, i see two paintings. one i like, and one i dont. do i have the right to say the other one isnt art, just because i dont think it is, or dont like it?? whether i think it is or not, it is the creator and the meaning of art itself that decides, unless we alter the current definition of art...

I believe the similarities are our concepts and feelings, put into each art project and/or game production.

Anyway, let us think about the true definition of art in general. Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none...kanedajjj5757

Man, I just have to take issue with your definition of art. By this definition, road signs are art. They use shape, color, and form to express some sort of message (i.e. green shield tells me which way and how far to Portland, or orange rectangle tells me how many miles of road construction I can look forward to). I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't consider road signs art.

Furthermore, your insistence that there's a set, agreed upon, definitive meaning of the word "art" is a little amusing. There's an entire field of study devoted to the question, it's called Aesthetics, and while not the most common career path in the US, there are actually people who devote their lives to the study of what is art and what is beauty. So slapping down a definition like the one you did is hardly incontrovertible evidence.

The first question posed by this thread is, "Video games and art: are they both the same??..." I'm going with "no". I mean, even if all video games are art, all art is not video games.

Boo yah. I'm winnar.

Anyway, here's more: "Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period." That would make this thread a work of art then? After all, "if you were take a bucket of flat red paint, splash it against a big canvas, and name it 'frustration', then you have created a work of art," so that can only mean this thread is a work of your art.

Wha...?

The guy that brought up the toast is absolutely right. Your line of thinking sucks away the merit of calling things "art". With a definition so broad and loose, differentiating is irrelevant. And for the things that really are art, it's insulting.

I don't consider games to be art. There are some possible exceptions to why, and that's fine (I also don't feel that movies in general are art- but again, there are some arguable exceptions), but on the whole, it's just entertainment.

The biggest reason I personally feel games aren't art is because modern game design is a massive team effort. Art has to be a singular vision, something that doesn't gel well with groups. Yes, every game has one person leading it, but most games are so diluted in terms of ideas from their underlings to marketing concerns that it's not really that one person's vision you're seeing. There are a few guys left who seem to command that ability, but it's extremely rare. You look at a piece of art and say, "oh, that's a Picasso" or whatever...most games don't afford us this ability. Now, I know some people are going to cite musical groups as evidence to the contrary, but there was a very good quote I heard from a musician about bands- "the best bands always have a dictator."

The second issue I find is that if games were to be art, they're currently being developed backwards. I think many of us would agree that art tries to convey some kind of message/story/emotion. Now, for games, many times this message is the story. But you can't tell me that you believe even a simple majority of games are developed around the message(story). I find it really hard to believe that Epic was really trying to tell us the tale in Gears of War- no, they wanted to make a game with shooting people. Now they need a reason to go do it aka the story. So the message is only there because gamers need a reason to go blast through the world, not because it was the vision created by the developer.

Similarly, games are supposed to be about gameplay, yes? Well, look at how the "message" is spread in games- non-interactive cutscenes. If games were to be a true artform, in my opinion it would have to express it's intended message/emotions through the actual gameplay. Strip out any non-interactive cutscene except for the intro and and the conclusion, and how many games would actually make you feel something? Very few. You'd still have fun jumping on those platforms or shooting those baddies, but you really wouldn't care why.

Those are my particular reasons, but as a few wise people here have noted, since there's no true definition of art, nobody can be right.

The first question posed by this thread is, "Video games and art: are they both the same??..." I'm going with "no". I mean, even if all video games are art, all art is not video games.

Boo yah. I'm winnar.

Anyway, here's more: "Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period." That would make this thread a work of art then? After all, "if you were take a bucket of flat red paint, splash it against a big canvas, and name it 'frustration', then you have created a work of art," so that can only mean this thread is a work of your art.

Wha...?

The guy that brought up the toast is absolutely right. Your line of thinking sucks away the merit of calling things "art". With a definition so broad and loose, differentiating is irrelevant. And for the things that really are art, it's insulting.

ShenlongBo

A form of art is a view from both producer/artist and the public. Yes, there is much more to art. To say it is an insult, is to say that the work these designers put into these games that are viewed by the public,are what then?

On another note, why does anybody really care? I feel like there is the one side saying games are art because it validates all the time they spend playing them. Then there is the other side saying it isn't art because it's main purpose is to entertain. Personally, I tend to believe art can't be part of a multi-million dollar industry, and the only instance where a number should be in the title is when it is followed by symphony or actually describing the piece by itself and not reminding you that it is part of a bigger fictional universe.

Except Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because that last part with the Nazi dude drinking from the wrong cup was awesome.

im fine with your opinion, and i respect it. but i simply dont agree with it. no offense given at all. but your claim that art is general in definition is not so, and in turn is false. just because the word applies to many things doesnt make is generalt. the criteria in which something is considered art is specific. if it doesnt meet the proper criteria, then its not art. if that isnt specific then i dont know what is. you points and opinions are well taken, but if you are gonna base them on your own definition of art, rather than the real definition (the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. thats the dictionary definition by the way) then your views stand very little chance of holding water. im not attacking you, but your perception of what art is in definition doesnt match its true definition and is false. my opinion has many supporting facts behind it, tracing ultimately back to what the definition of art is. even if its friendly debate, we should all have facts and opinions, and not just opinions. your info was your definition of art. the way you shoehorned your own fabricated version of what art is, it made me think you looked at no facts. you did at least try to do some research this time around. like i said, it isnt you but it was your misperception of what art is. thats all

kanedajjj5757

Oh for the love of... Look, if you respected my oppinion, instead of saying somehow that I'm false, you'd take the time to consider whether or not I'm right and look it up yourself instead of just stamping FALSE across my forehead. You know what? HERE, HERE, and HERE. I'll do it for you, you can thank me later. Read it, you might find it somewhat illuminating.

I love video games, I really do. I played em when I was a kid and I play em now as an adult (admitedly not the most mature adult, but still...) and will hopefully keep playing em for the rest of my life. But the subject of whether or not they're art is not something you can sum up with one little phrase. People have spent their entire lives trying to define what is and what isn't art, it doesn't work the way you're trying to say it does. People are free to have their oppinions uppon whether something is or is not art, hell, that's practically a facet of art in itself, but you can't just do what you're doing and say 'it is, you're wrong!'.

Seriously, read the links I provided. The last one in particular is pretty interesting.

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]Anyway, let us think about the true definition of art in general. Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period. there are absolutely NO restrictions or limitions to these given parameters. none...SophinaK

Man, I just have to take issue with your definition of art. By this definition, road signs are art. They use shape, color, and form to express some sort of message (i.e. green shield tells me which way and how far to Portland, or orange rectangle tells me how many miles of road construction I can look forward to). I don't think I'm alone in saying that I don't consider road signs art.

Furthermore, your insistence that there's a set, agreed upon, definitive meaning of the word "art" is a little amusing. There's an entire field of study devoted to the question, it's called Aesthetics, and while not the most common career path in the US, there are actually people who devote their lives to the study of what is art and what is beauty. So slapping down a definition like the one you did is hardly incontrovertible evidence.

I couldn't tell you for sure what art is. And I'm not sure if games constitute art. I think a good definition of art needs to reference both beauty and truth, and I'm not at all convinced that the games industry in general is concerned with either of those things. But I've had gaming experiences that have involved both. For me, for now, the jury's still out on the question.

the real definition of what art is resides in the dictionary. its as simple as that my friend. and i can agree that thechnical drawings behind street sign are art, for they are designed, but the fact that they are created by machines that have no intention to express or depict anything, then it most definately isnt art. the there is no creator there who is making something of artistic substance; road sign were intended to be functional and to prevent people from losing there way. actually, if individuals designed their own street signs one by one and made then different in their own ways, then i can look at them as works of art; not my favorite art mind you, but still art.

and yes like i said before, art's definition is literally set in ink and deeply engrained in our society. im not going to copy and paste the definition because one can either look to my previos posts or even my initial post. and i know art has a vast amount of possibillities, but nothing changes the fact that art hold with it (like many other notions or concepts) a certain criteria, and if they arent met then it isnt art. it really is as simple as that, there really is no philisophical litmus needed to see what is art and what isnt.

im sorry you say for yourself what art is, and i understand if you do not believe, but i at least hope you do see that games in one or more aspects are artistic...

The first question posed by this thread is, "Video games and art: are they both the same??..." I'm going with "no". I mean, even if all video games are art, all art is not video games.

Boo yah. I'm winnar.

Anyway, here's more: "Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period." That would make this thread a work of art then? After all, "if you were take a bucket of flat red paint, splash it against a big canvas, and name it 'frustration', then you have created a work of art," so that can only mean this thread is a work of your art.

Wha...?

The guy that brought up the toast is absolutely right. Your line of thinking sucks away the merit of calling things "art". With a definition so broad and loose, differentiating is irrelevant. And for the things that really are art, it's insulting.

ShenlongBo

first of all sir, this thread isnt art, for this is a depiction of anything, nor is it meant any other message than what i have written. also if im the creator or 'artist' behind this work, its up to me to decide wheter my creation is art, based on my intentions behind creating it. the guy who brought the toast thing was simply saying that art can be anything and that it doesnt have to meet the criteria of the definition of art. that is the kind of thinking that stinks here. my line of thinking stems from the dictionary definition of art, and not opinions of other people and/or a perverse twisted interpretation of art's meaning and definition...

I don't consider games to be art. There are some possible exceptions to why, and that's fine (I also don't feel that movies in general are art- but again, there are some arguable exceptions), but on the whole, it's just entertainment.

The biggest reason I personally feel games aren't art is because modern game design is a massive team effort. Art has to be a singular vision, something that doesn't gel well with groups. Yes, every game has one person leading it, but most games are so diluted in terms of ideas from their underlings to marketing concerns that it's not really that one person's vision you're seeing. There are a few guys left who seem to command that ability, but it's extremely rare. You look at a piece of art and say, "oh, that's a Picasso" or whatever...most games don't afford us this ability. Now, I know some people are going to cite musical groups as evidence to the contrary, but there was a very good quote I heard from a musician about bands- "the best bands always have a dictator."

The second issue I find is that if games were to be art, they're currently being developed backwards. I think many of us would agree that art tries to convey some kind of message/story/emotion. Now, for games, many times this message is the story. But you can't tell me that you believe even a simple majority of games are developed around the message(story). I find it really hard to believe that Epic was really trying to tell us the tale in Gears of War- no, they wanted to make a game with shooting people. Now they need a reason to go do it aka the story. So the message is only there because gamers need a reason to go blast through the world, not because it was the vision created by the developer.

Similarly, games are supposed to be about gameplay, yes? Well, look at how the "message" is spread in games- non-interactive cutscenes. If games were to be a true artform, in my opinion it would have to express it's intended message/emotions through the actual gameplay. Strip out any non-interactive cutscene except for the intro and and the conclusion, and how many games would actually make you feel something? Very few. You'd still have fun jumping on those platforms or shooting those baddies, but you really wouldn't care why.

Those are my particular reasons, but as a few wise people here have noted, since there's no true definition of art, nobody can be right.

Vampyronight

i do see your point, and going on to say movies arent art leads to a domino affect. if movies arent art, then the theatre isnt. but thats another matter. if you say that art can only be acheived by one creator, then you have inadvertantly ruled out all the other forms of art. at one time in history, two people have probably made a painting together. going by your definition that painting is not art. art is amazing in the sense that it becomes more expressive, and more poweerful if done with more than one mind.

i also think the newer games are taken it backwards, but that would simply make them realy bad works of art :lol:...

[QUOTE="ShenlongBo"]

The first question posed by this thread is, "Video games and art: are they both the same??..." I'm going with "no". I mean, even if all video games are art, all art is not video games.

Boo yah. I'm winnar.

Anyway, here's more: "Art is a form of expression and/or depiction. anything that depicts a something or expresses some sort of message is an artisic work. period." That would make this thread a work of art then? After all, "if you were take a bucket of flat red paint, splash it against a big canvas, and name it 'frustration', then you have created a work of art," so that can only mean this thread is a work of your art.

Wha...?

The guy that brought up the toast is absolutely right. Your line of thinking sucks away the merit of calling things "art". With a definition so broad and loose, differentiating is irrelevant. And for the things that really are art, it's insulting.

Gmer4x

A form of art is a view from both producer/artist and the public. Yes, there is much more to art. To say it is an insult, is to say that the work these designers put into these games that are viewed by the public,are what then?

art can range emotionally from funny, to profound and moving. and ther IS a lot more to art, which is why i cant be restrained to a certain number ofstyles. with the litmus of what art can take the form of, are ways to depict and express are limitless! :D...

On another note, why does anybody really care? I feel like there is the one side saying games are art because it validates all the time they spend playing them. Then there is the other side saying it isn't art because it's main purpose is to entertain. Personally, I tend to believe art can't be part of a multi-million dollar industry, and the only instance where a number should be in the title is when it is followed by symphony or actually describing the piece by itself and not reminding you that it is part of a bigger fictional universe.

Except Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, because that last part with the Nazi dude drinking from the wrong cup was awesome.

AtomicTangerine

well, my overall message here is know exactly what something is and then defend opinion with fact. and it takes the form of this thread where most of those here are making there own definitions to a word that already hasa well established dictionary definition for it. my opinions ultimately stem from it and all my experience as an artist and one who has lived life loving art.

and you say that the art industry can be a multi-million dollar industry... but it is. people pay literally millions of dollars for famous paintings and many other art pieces of different forms. in the music industry, millions of dollars are spent over music which is a form of art classified as performance art. and like the other forms of art you can also break the whole piece down into its elements, which can done for games also...

[QUOTE="kanedajjj5757"]

im fine with your opinion, and i respect it. but i simply dont agree with it. no offense given at all. but your claim that art is general in definition is not so, and in turn is false. just because the word applies to many things doesnt make is generalt. the criteria in which something is considered art is specific. if it doesnt meet the proper criteria, then its not art. if that isnt specific then i dont know what is. you points and opinions are well taken, but if you are gonna base them on your own definition of art, rather than the real definition (the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. thats the dictionary definition by the way) then your views stand very little chance of holding water. im not attacking you, but your perception of what art is in definition doesnt match its true definition and is false. my opinion has many supporting facts behind it, tracing ultimately back to what the definition of art is. even if its friendly debate, we should all have facts and opinions, and not just opinions. your info was your definition of art. the way you shoehorned your own fabricated version of what art is, it made me think you looked at no facts. you did at least try to do some research this time around. like i said, it isnt you but it was your misperception of what art is. thats all

the_mad_madman

Oh for the love of... Look, if you respected my oppinion, instead of saying somehow that I'm false, you'd take the time to consider whether or not I'm right and look it up yourself instead of just stamping FALSE across my forehead. You know what? HERE, HERE, and HERE. I'll do it for you, you can thank me later. Read it, you might find it somewhat illuminating.

I love video games, I really do. I played em when I was a kid and I play em now as an adult (admitedly not the most mature adult, but still...) and will hopefully keep playing em for the rest of my life. But the subject of whether or not they're art is not something you can sum up with one little phrase. People have spent their entire lives trying to define what is and what isn't art, it doesn't work the way you're trying to say it does. People are free to have their oppinions uppon whether something is or is not art, hell, that's practically a facet of art in itself, but you can't just do what you're doing and say 'it is, you're wrong!'.

Seriously, read the links I provided. The last one in particular is pretty interesting.

sorry, but the more you try to throw random stuff at me, the less i am able to rescpect your claim and its basis. you are basing your opinion on another man's opinion, who doesnt even produce the definition of what art is. aesthetics are but one aspect of art, and does not make up art in its entirety. and lastly, i hope you know that wikipedia is by no means a credible source of information, for anyone can go into any wiki page and write anything they want, without it being true or even relavant to the suject/word for that matter. you want my information?? you want my proof?? you want my facts?? its sitting in your dictionary, and its sitting in any other book that explains the principles and elements of art. not in another's "opinion". not in the description of only one aspect of art. and certainly not on a web site in which its credibility is dubious. art is only as complicated as the worksthat an artist produces. the difficulty doesnt lie in what it is. the only thing thats illuminating to me is how you can present to me misinformation and yet expect me to come around say that the dictionary is wrong and that art isonly what someone thinks it is, rather than what it truly is...

A form of art is a view from both producer/artist and the public. Yes, there is much more to art. To say it is an insult, is to say that the work these designers put into these games that are viewed by the public,are what then?Gmer4x

Yes, I'm aware there's a whole branch of art where people do just splash paint on a canvas, and what they make is accepted as art, but even that has more to it than a name bestowed on a random splash. It should, anyway. If it doesn't, then sure, it's art, but nothing worth taking seriously.

I see these sorts of threads all the time, and a lot of times it just seems sort of frustrating to see people toss back and forth the same arguments...so I'll just toss in my own viewpoints:

1. I find the "Is (insert item here) art?" argument/question to be a relatively pointless question to delve into, especially since few people have really meaningful classifications of what actually makes something art, and not art. I've been more of the mindset to ask the question "Does this specific work (not a general field of work) contain artistic expression?" In that stance, what I mean is whether there was some sort of commentary/meaning that was attempted to be conveyed through the medium itself in some way. This is typically possible after the person working in the medium has achieved some level of mastery/competence of thet medium in order to express such commentary. I could go into more details, but the main point I wanted to drive to was point two...

2. I don't view the creation of anything to be inherently an art. I don't think it's appropriate to call it something like "Culinary arts," or "Visual arts," or even "Game art," at the more or less general level, as for the most part, the majority of what is done in these endeavors aren't inherently trying to say anything through their work. As a result, I prefer to refer to the creation of something not as an 'art,' but moreso as a 'craft.' This isn't to imply a lesser level of importance, because there are people who are exceptionally skilled at various crafts, both those for practical purposes, and for purely aesthetic/entertainment purposes.

All it is meant to convey is that just because something is created, and even just because something created can elicit an emotional response, doesn't make it have artistic expression inherently. It can be very well made, and even something that causes people to be emotional in response.

So that's my stance. Games are just as capable of achieving artistic expression as other medium, but what makes something a work that contains artistic expression extends well beyond just being well made, or even enjoyable to look at/listen to/play.