Art in Videogames

yes there are games that convey art through graphical styles like SotC(though the story element is there as well)and Okami but you may also want to think about storytelling like mgs2(or 1) and ffvii/x.

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

[QUOTE="ianuilliam"]

[QUOTE="Damien_Torrence"]He's right, Games arent art, they're entertainment, a piece of art is something you can always return to and have a connection to that is at least as strong or stronger than the first time you approached, that just cant be said about video gamesDamien_Torrence

That can't be said about a lot of movies. Yet movies are now accepted as art. That can't be said about many books. Literature is art. That can't be said about many songs. Music is art. That is a bad definition. Games, just like any accepted form of art, have degrees of artistry in them. Some are timeless masterpieces. Some are entertaining for a while. Say I see a painting that I really like, totally blown away by it, so I buy it and look at it every day. Eventually, I am intimitely familiar with it. I know the details. When I look at it, it no longer amazes me. I still think it is great, but I don't stop and say 'wow' everytime I pass it in the hall. Does that mean that that painting is not art? By your definition, yes.

Not every song, movie, or painting is art, and no game can ever be a timeless piece of art because the way we play video games constantly change, sure its fun to go back and play an old game, but its not the same experience, our instincts as gamers evolve from generation to generation, but we always view movies and paintings the same way adn listen to music the same way, and I wont lie and say that no video game has ever stirred up emotions in me, but they fade away quickly because I have to keep playing, by its own design, video games kill what real art does to people, and no, that painting is not art, but again, what art is subjective, the mediums of art, arent, look I love video games, if I didnt why would I even be on here? but they dont evoke the same emotions or reactions in me as a song or a good movie, not because it cant, but you have to completely ignore that emotion seconds after to continue to it, and no, a great ending is not a great piece of art.

Yes, all songs, movies, paintings, books, etc. ARE art. Good art? no. But they are art. I guess this is where some people make the distinction between art and Art. Something doesn't have to be a masterpiece to still be art. If it is a medium that can be used to express ideas or evoke emotions or shed light on human behavior/psyche/whatever, it is a form of art. And while you may not make an emotional connection to a game, others might. I have been more deeply moved or had thoughts provoked by video games than I ever have been by any painting. I find some video game music, by modern masters such as Nobuo, far better tham most of the classical masters, but what really brings the emotion to full force is the combination of visual, auditory, and narrative elements. (In other words, the sum of a games artwork, music, and story are greater art than any of them alone).

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

goblaa

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

Sooshy

Interaction has nothing to do with it. Period.

Final Fantasy is a game where you wonder a space, fight the computer, gain levels, and costomize strategies until the game is beaten. That is not art.

Still, there is a story in the game. The game is used to tell a narrative. The story it tells is indeed art, just not the gameplay. The design of the worlds, characters, and monsters are art.

Just not the game.

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

goblaa

How is classic art any different? A painting or sculpture is a closed in form. It can engages the viewer by evoking emotion or sentiment..... emotions that could conflict with one another.... or not.

How is this different from literature? It's formal, closed and almost always has conflict with some type of resolution. Are you saying literature is not art?

"Art" is such a personal thing, you can find art in anything made by other people.

Interaction has nothing to do with it. Period.

Final Fantasy is a game where you wonder a space, fight the computer, gain levels, and costomize strategies until the game is beaten. That is not art.

Still, there is a story in the game. The game is used to tell a narrative. The story it tells is indeed art, just not the gameplay. The design of the worlds, characters, and monsters are art.

Just not the game.

goblaa

If all you do in Final Fantasy is fight the computer, then all you do with Citizen Kane is watch still pictures move really fast.

"the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance." - Dictionary.com

By this definition video games are an art. Look at it as trying to convey a deeper feeling. You have games like Shadow of the Colossus that try to get across the feeling of destroying something great and beautiful for the sake of something else great and beautiful (love), and the consiquences. Then you have a game like Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, which was just a **** fest in itself. Just because there are flops does not mean gaming is not an art in general. It's like saying "Yeah, there is Picasso, but then again look at what that 2 year old drew. It sucked," and concluding drawing/painting is not an art from that.

Understand that it's not the graphics, gameplay, controles, and story but how it all comes together into the bigger picture that makes it an art. Seriously, I could probably write a 10 page thesis paper on how Shadow of the Colossus epitomizes art.

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

goblaa

Ok, but the definition of art is:

'a product of human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses, as well as the human mind, by transmitting emotions and/or ideas.'

Video games meet that criteria. Video games contain game theory. But they also contain art theory. Go Fish is not a medium for telling a story, or expressing a specific emotion to the player. I agree that Go Fish is not art. I would go so far as to agree with you that not all games constitute art. Puzzle type games do not express any ideas or emotions. They are basically board games on a computer, perhaps with some hand-eye coordination thrown in. Sports games would no more be art than the sport they are modeled on. Halo is art (for the record, I am anti-Halo to the core, but I respect that it is a piece of art--I would just say it is bad art ;p ). Heavenly Sword is art. MGS is art. Final Fantasy is art. Even games like Grand Theft Auto are art. All of these games evoke emotion, stimulate the senses and thoughts, or call into question aspects of human behavior or thought. That is what art is.

[QUOTE="Sooshy"][QUOTE="goblaa"]

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

goblaa

Interaction has nothing to do with it. Period.

Final Fantasy is a game where you wonder a space, fight the computer, gain levels, and costomize strategies until the game is beaten. That is not art.

Still, there is a story in the game. The game is used to tell a narrative. The story it tells is indeed art, just not the gameplay. The design of the worlds, characters, and monsters are art.

Just not the game.

It just seems like you're stuck in the traditional notion of art. It really isn't confined to what can be hung on a wall or displayed in gallery space.

I spent my college days working in a gallery and the installations, especially from grad students, ranged from a whole show that was faxed in.... to kinetic sculpture... video, live performance.... and, yes, interactive pieces that required viewer interation.

Games ARE art. Most of it is commercial art, yes, just like the Warhols and Nagels and Muchas of the world.... but it IS art.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

ianuilliam

Ok, but the definition of art is:

'a product of human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses, as well as the human mind, by transmitting emotions and/or ideas.'

Video games meet that criteria. Video games contain game theory. But they also contain art theory. Go Fish is not a medium for telling a story, or expressing a specific emotion to the player. I agree that Go Fish is not art. I would go so far as to agree with you that not all games constitute art. Puzzle type games do not express any ideas or emotions. They are basically board games on a computer, perhaps with some hand-eye coordination thrown in. Sports games would no more be art than the sport they are modeled on. Halo is art (for the record, I am anti-Halo to the core, but I respect that it is a piece of art--I would just say it is bad art ;p ). Heavenly Sword is art. MGS is art. Final Fantasy is art. Even games like Grand Theft Auto are art. All of these games evoke emotion, stimulate the senses and thoughts, or call into question aspects of human behavior or thought. That is what art is.

I would go a step further and say that it's near-impossible to define art.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

VoodooHak

How is classic art any different? A painting or sculpture is a closed in form. It can engages the viewer by evoking emotion or sentiment..... emotions that could conflict with one another.... or not.

How is this different from literature? It's formal, closed and almost always has conflict with some type of resolution. Are you saying literature is not art?

"Art" is such a personal thing, you can find art in anything made by other people.

Classic art is an exploration and expression of the human natural form and state. Literature is a story, just like the story in FF7. That is all art.

A closed formal system in a game means

closed - not part of the outside world. Killing a player is a FPS does not kill them in real life and all natural and physical rules outside the game are put on hold for the game's rules.

Formal system is talking about the system, algorythems (sp?), and math involved int he game's mechanics.

Structured conflict goes back to rules as well. Games soley exsists to engadge players. And the edgadge them through competition. Games challenge players by forcing them to accomplish objectives.

Lastly, games resolve their conflict in an unequal outcome. Simply put, the game promises to end at some point, be it in 5 minitues, or 5 years.

None of this though, is art. It does not in any way convey an emotine or message. The story, and artistic designs within a game certainly do, just not the play.

are we doing his homework for him?redmetal86

Yep, he's conducting research in the form of debated public oppinion. While it doesn't count for anything on its own in academia, it is something that can be used to put things in perspective if backed up by citable sources, such as books or articles.

I would go a step further and say that it's near-impossible to define art.

VoodooHak

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I would go a step further and say that it's near-impossible to define art.

Sooshy

But by that definition, anyone who solves a problem by a creative and simple means is an artists. Is a chemist an artists if he finds some simple and creative mixture to cure a disease no one else could?

Classic art is an exploration and expression of the human natural form and state. Literature is a story, just like the story in FF7. That is all art.

A closed formal system in a game means

closed - not part of the outside world. Killing a player is a FPS does not kill them in real life and all natural and physical rules outside the game are put on hold for the game's rules.

Formal system is talking about the system, algorythems (sp?), and math involved int he game's mechanics.

Structured conflict goes back to rules as well. Games soley exsists to engadge players. And the edgadge them through competition. Games challenge players by forcing them to accomplish objectives.

Lastly, games resolve their conflict in an unequal outcome. Simply put, the game promises to end at some point, be it in 5 minitues, or 5 years.

None of this though, is art. It does not in any way convey an emotine or message. The story, and artistic designs within a game certainly do, just not the play.

goblaa

How is a Picasso part of the outside world? It's confined to avvery finite medium.

A painting if a formal system.... whether the it's with oils on canvas or code and a microchip.... six in one, half a dozen in the other. Art isn't defined by its tools... or else, literature and sculpture wouldn't be art either.

Again to the painting....that also engages the viewer. Its form as well as the content evoke some kind of reaction.

You just described all the criteria that's existed in traditional art for millenia.

Then you talk about gameplay. A game is not just the gameplay. It's the gameplay, story and presentation all together that produce a gaming experience.

Games definitely are an exploration and expression of man and nature.... through form, content and story....

Your still thinking of form as shape. A formal SYSTEM is like a math proof

or it could be:

Turn sequence part 1: Both players roll a die to determine who goes first.

Turn sequence part 2: Players then proceed to move one piece and then pass play to their opponenet.

Turn sequence part 3: Once both players have passed play, the turn ends.

Paintings do not have formal systems. nor do stories, nor music.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"][QUOTE="goblaa"]

The definition of a game is a closed formal system, that engages players in structured conflict, and resloves in an unequal outcome. All games follow this basic strructure be it a board game, or a video game. That in it's self is not art. Go Fish is not art. Quake is not art.

BUT

The theme, setting, and story of quake is indeed art.

The illustration on playing cards is indeed art.

Just not the game itself.

goblaa

How is classic art any different? A painting or sculpture is a closed in form. It can engages the viewer by evoking emotion or sentiment..... emotions that could conflict with one another.... or not.

How is this different from literature? It's formal, closed and almost always has conflict with some type of resolution. Are you saying literature is not art?

"Art" is such a personal thing, you can find art in anything made by other people.

Classic art is an exploration and expression of the human natural form and state. Literature is a story, just like the story in FF7. That is all art.

A closed formal system in a game means

closed - not part of the outside world. Killing a player is a FPS does not kill them in real life and all natural and physical rules outside the game are put on hold for the game's rules.

Formal system is talking about the system, algorythems (sp?), and math involved int he game's mechanics.

Structured conflict goes back to rules as well. Games soley exsists to engadge players. And the edgadge them through competition. Games challenge players by forcing them to accomplish objectives.

Lastly, games resolve their conflict in an unequal outcome. Simply put, the game promises to end at some point, be it in 5 minitues, or 5 years.

None of this though, is art. It does not in any way convey an emotine or message. The story, and artistic designs within a game certainly do, just not the play.

The game is more than just mashing buttons. A game like Final Fantasy 6, for instance. The game includes 'game theory' (the structured conflict and all that). But the gameplay would have no meaning without the story. The story (and the visuals and auio that help to bring the story to life) is as much a key component of the game as the game theory itself. If there was no story at all in FF6, you would not play the game. The game theory, the running around fighting monsters and leveling up, draws meaning from the story that motivates you to play it. The story and the gameplay are intwined together to make one experience. The game is an interactive medium to tell the story and provoke thought on the human condition, love, hate, friendship, loyalty, the triumph of good over evil, etc. When you play FF6, the game is not just holding the controller and pushing the buttons. Playing the game is experiencing the whole package of auditory, visual and narrative elements along with game theory (which is in itself considered by some as the 'art' of studying how humans react in given situations). Its not like h\you read the story. Then look at some pictures. Then listen to music. Then engage in competition. It is all part of the game as a whole. And that game is every bit as valid a form of art as any painting on a wall.

[QUOTE="Sooshy"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I would go a step further and say that it's near-impossible to define art.

goblaa

But by that definition, anyone who solves a problem by a creative and simple means is an artists. Is a chemist an artists if he finds some simple and creative mixture to cure a disease no one else could?

Why not? That act of discovery, when shown to other chemists will evoke a reaction. They may even see it as aesthetically pleasing.

It may not be art to you, but is sure could to others.

[QUOTE="Sooshy"][QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

I would go a step further and say that it's near-impossible to define art.

goblaa

But by that definition, anyone who solves a problem by a creative and simple means is an artists. Is a chemist an artists if he finds some simple and creative mixture to cure a disease no one else could?

Your still thinking of form as shape. A formal SYSTEM is like a math proof

or it could be:

Turn sequence part 1: Both players roll a die to determine who goes first.

Turn sequence part 2: Players then proceed to move one piece and then pass play to their opponenet.

Turn sequence part 3: Once both players have passed play, the turn ends.

Paintings do not have formal systems. nor do stories, nor music.

goblaa

Oh, they definitely... most certainly DO. Painting and drawing have very specific techniques. Stories are usually formed in chapters or logical parts. We all take English classes to learn the formal rules of grammar and spelling. Music uses very specific script to define sound on paper, and every instrument has very specific techniques.

Games.... it's just a new medium, that's all. I think that's the problem you're having.

The story, setting, and music is what drives you through FF6...I know, it's one of my favorite games. I have all the music on a CD reorchastrated. BUT, with out all those, even though I would hate t play it, if you strip all the artistic elements from FF6, it is still a playable game and by definition, a game.goblaa

No. That's like saying you can take the color blue from a painting.... or all the background... or some central element from the foreground.... it's still technically a paining. But it's not in the form it was intended to be in and will not evoke the same reaction. Just like FF6. If you take away the aesthetics, the game mechanics no longer has a context to exist. Gameplay is just another tool to be used by the artist.

The story, setting, and music is what drives you through FF6...I know, it's one of my favorite games. I have all the music on a CD reorchastrated. BUT, with out all those, even though I would hate t play it, if you strip all the artistic elements from FF6, it is still a playable game and by definition, a game.goblaa

But it is not the game that they released. If Da Vinci took all that paints that he was going to use to paint the Mona Lisa, and accidently spilled them across the canvas, It is still all the same paints on a canvas. Is it art? Most likely not, it is garbage.The developers are the artists. The game.. that is the COMPLETE game, is their finished art. playing the game with no artwork, or with no story, or no music is not the piece of art they released, nor would be just reading a novelization. What they released was one complete piece of art that is made up of many elements. Individual elements of that game can be viewed as art on their own merit, such as the music, but that is not the same experience as playing the game. If you stripped out all the elements beyond the rules and logic of the game theory, it would still be playable, and still be a game, yes. But it would not be Final Fantasy 6. It would not be the experience that the developers wanted to share with you. That is only accomplished when all the elements, including the gameplay, are put together.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

Your still thinking of form as shape. A formal SYSTEM is like a math proof

or it could be:

Turn sequence part 1: Both players roll a die to determine who goes first.

Turn sequence part 2: Players then proceed to move one piece and then pass play to their opponenet.

Turn sequence part 3: Once both players have passed play, the turn ends.

Paintings do not have formal systems. nor do stories, nor music.

VoodooHak

Oh, they definitely... most certainly DO. Painting and drawing have very specific techniques. Stories are usually formed in chapters or logical parts. We all take English classes to learn the formal rules of grammar and spelling. Music uses very specific script to define sound on paper, and every instrument has very specific techniques.

Games.... it's just a new medium, that's all. I think that's the problem you're having.

Systems and techniques are not the same thing.

By formal system, goblaa means a particular method of interacting with the medium. In games, there are set rules that the game is designed to be used by. Those rules are the formal system.

There are no rules about how you watch a painting or movie, or how you listen to a song. Maybe techniques have been developed to help you create paintings or music, but that's a completely separate thing.

Defining art is really difficult. Definitions either wind up being incredibly broad ('a medium that transmits ideas' may as well just be 'a medium', and nearly anything can be a medium) or very narrow. My method is that I know it when I see it, which isn't very good for a discussion, but it works for me.

I see what goblaa is saying in terms of separating the skeletal structure of the videogame from its components. You can make chess a videogame, but that wouldn't really be art. However, I don't think that's how it should be looked at.

I guess you can't say, as a rule, "videogames are always art." But art shouldn't be looked at by pieces, but as a whole. If a game, as a whole, cohesive experience, serves to convey emotions or ideas in an artistic manner, I'd call it art.

Here are a few games that are considered art, keep in mind some are based on visual style while others are based on their story and intricate storytelling. I'm only showing a few so you'll have to find the rest yourself. Good luck though, I have had the same argument with my art teacher and even though I eventually got an A- in the end, she still refuses to accept it.

Killer 7-If games are art, then Killer 7 is the new age pop art of the gaming world. Psychadelic and disturbing, the story of the game will leave you questioning many things for a long time.

Ico-But if your teacher is the kind of person who judges things based on looks, Ico might be a tough argument considering how much it has aged. Nonetheless, a worthy addition.

Shadow of the Collossus-If Ico doesn't work, this will. If this doesn't work, your art teacher is an a$$. This game is too beautiful to doubt its amazing artistic s-tyle (sorry, GS doesn't allow that word for some reason)

Bioshock-The amazing retro feel is disturbingly beautiful in this game. Just make sure to avoid the bloody pics. For some reason, some close-minded art teachers don't consider any type of violence to be artistic.

MGS-Practically any Metal Gear Solid game is artistic, despite Kojima's insistence that they aren't. Unless you are very good at explaining the story though, this one will be tough to convince on visuals alone. It will take extremely skilled exposition and writing to convince people of this one. Simply saying "it's about a super soldier who sneaks and kill people" isn't going to work.

Anyway, there are MANY more games that can be considered art, I just chose 5 that are considered some of the best. I suggest you do some of your own research though. Like even games like Starcraft, if you look at the concept art, you can see how much artistic effort is put into those games, so just look around and good luck with your report thing. :D

OH S***! I FORGOT OKAMI! Yeah, look that one up too. That game is like a freaking playable painting.

One more thing though, you should also try to argue without relying on just visuals. You should remind your teacher that even things like movies were once considered not art. Art is an objective subject and the true meaning of art is not easy to define.

FF6 is art, but it's play is not.

And while paintings do have formal techniques, thats not the same as a gam'es system...not even remotley the same. And yes stories are often organized into chapters.

BUT, neither have to. If you make a game, that is missing either its system, it's competitve structure, or it's unequal outcome, it's by definition no longer a game.

If you take the technique out of a painting, it's still a painting, if you choose to organize your story with some crazy system, it's still a story. If when writing music, you break out f allsystem of music, it's still a music. That's why art is not the same as games.

its funny because I was having an argument with one of my friends today about this exact same thing. I don't have anything to add that others haven't, but I am bookmarking this thread and using it to write an article. Then I will print it and give it to my friend, that'll shut him up :)

(Maybe I'll even give a copy to my parents)

If you really feel games are art, then tell me how go fish, solitare, and mine sweeper are art. goblaa

My 5 year old sister just finished her drawing...

(And we're talking videogames, so I don't think anyone said anything about Go Fish)

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

Systems and techniques are not the same thing.

By formal system, goblaa means a particular method of interacting with the medium. In games, there are set rules that the game is designed to be used by. Those rules are the formal system.

There are no rules about how you watch a painting or movie, or how you listen to a song. Maybe techniques have been developed to help you create paintings or music, but that's a completely separate thing.

Of course there are no rules on how to interact with movies, paintings or music... because there's no interaction. That's a fundamental difference with videogames. There have to be rules for interaction with a game. I don't understand how that difference bars games from being art.

Defining art is really difficult. Definitions either wind up being incredibly broad ('a medium that transmits ideas' may as well just be 'a medium', and nearly anything can be a medium) or very narrow. My method is that I know it when I see it, which isn't very good for a discussion, but it works for me.

And that's really my point. The individual really need to decide whether something is art. It can't be dictated by someone else.

I see what goblaa is saying in terms of separating the skeletal structure of the videogame from its components. You can make chess a videogame, but that wouldn't really be art. However, I don't think that's how it should be looked at.

Why wouldn't chess as a videogame be art? If that videogame chess experience makes it unique and evokes a reaction, why wouldn't someone consider it art? It really depends on how its made, doesn't it? Heck, chess itself or the act of playing chess could be considered art.

I guess you can't say, as a rule, "videogames are always art." But art shouldn't be looked at by pieces, but as a whole. If a game, as a whole, cohesive experience, serves to convey emotions or ideas in an artistic manner, I'd call it art.

Just like not every picture is art, nor is every book or piece of music.

sonicmj1

See? The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Well the name of the positions alone gives away the fact that it is an artistic medium. Just b/c people don't think it's art, let alone good art, is subjective banter. Art doesn't have to fit everyone's views, nor does it need to be good to be consider art.

There is a lot of art in this world, a lot of which I think sucks, for lack of a better word. Yet who am I (or anyone) to claim it's not art?

Further more just look at the names of the positions. There many graphic artists. Art director, character designer, music composer, back ground designer, logo design artist, concept artist, model artist (modeler), wrister etc. These are all actual positions on development teams, so be it visual art, written art, or even audio art these all play major roles in videogames.

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

goblaa

Why b/c it's on paper, a "common" medium for "art"? If I did that same thing in texture editor and slapped in on a polygon it some how isn't art anymore? That's an interesting concept.

Of course there are no rules on how to interact with movies, paintings or music... because there's no interaction. That's a fundamental difference with videogames. There have to be rules for interaction with a game. I don't understand how that difference bars games from being art.

VoodooHak

Because if art has a single definition, and games do so as well, and if games have a "fundamental difference" as you say, then games cannot = art.

If you really feel games are art, then tell me how go fish, solitare, and mine sweeper are art. goblaa

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

goblaa

Not every videogame could be considered art, but the same could be said about other forms of art.

Crossword puzzles that are published as a book aren't art

Solitaire (which is actually a card game) and Minesweeper weren't meant to be art, they are much like the crosswords, just there to pass time.

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Of course there are no rules on how to interact with movies, paintings or music... because there's no interaction. That's a fundamental difference with videogames. There have to be rules for interaction with a game. I don't understand how that difference bars games from being art.

goblaa

Because if art has a single definition, and games do so as well, and if games have a "fundamental difference" as you say, then games cannot = art.

Since when does art really have a singular definition, art is in the eye of the beholder, it's completely subjective.

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

-RPGamer-

Why b/c it's on paper, a "common" medium for "art"? If I did that same thing in texture editor and slapped in on a polygon it some how isn't art anymore? That's an interesting concept.

But I haven't been talking about medium at all. Being on paper or on a screen is not what made that pic art. It's an exspression. That's what made it art. Your talking to a graphic artist here.

Games are not art, becasue they are not expression. Baseball is not a for of expression.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="goblaa"]

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

goblaa

Why b/c it's on paper, a "common" medium for "art"? If I did that same thing in texture editor and slapped in on a polygon it some how isn't art anymore? That's an interesting concept.

But I haven't been talking about medium at all. Being on paper or on a screen is not what made that pic art. It's an exspression. That's what made it art. Your talking to a graphic artist here.

Games are not art, becasue they are not expression. Baseball is not a for of expression.

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="goblaa"]

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

goblaa

Why b/c it's on paper, a "common" medium for "art"? If I did that same thing in texture editor and slapped in on a polygon it some how isn't art anymore? That's an interesting concept.

But I haven't been talking about medium at all. Being on paper or on a screen is not what made that pic art. It's an exspression. That's what made it art. Your talking to a graphic artist here.

Games are not art, becasue they are not expression. Baseball is not a for of expression.

So I designer can't express themselves with the exact same texture and slap it into a game?

I don't see how games don't have expression. Sure they're a sum of their parts, but that's doesn't mean there parts aren't expressing anything.

If you consider the pic he showed art, and not the exact same content in a game art, than it's either contradictory logic, or subjectivity. Your choice.

You're teacher seems a little closed-minded. You should remind him that film was once considered to be "not an art".mattbbpl

depends on how art is defined.

the link below is Roger Ebert's view that video games aren't "high art". you may be surprised but Hideo Kojima(mgs) doesn't think they are on the whole art either.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=6529&Itemid=2

[QUOTE="goblaa"]

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

renger6002

Not every videogame could be considered art, but the same could be said about other forms of art.

Crossword puzzles that are published as a book aren't art

Solitaire (which is actually a card game) and Minesweeper weren't meant to be art, they are much like the crosswords, just there to pass time.

Which brings me back to my orginal point. For something to have the term "game" attached to it, it must follow the definition of a game, be it a video game, a board game, or a sport. There is a reason we call something a game. And if fianl fantasy and solitare share that exact same fundemental definition at their core, and if as you say "solitare and minsweeper are not meant to be art" then no game is art.

If you add a story, characters, and setting to mine sweeper, it still has that same core defintion of what makes it a game to begin with. It's the artisitc elements added on to that core that is art, not the core itself.

[QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="goblaa"]

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

Sooshy

Why b/c it's on paper, a "common" medium for "art"? If I did that same thing in texture editor and slapped in on a polygon it some how isn't art anymore? That's an interesting concept.

But I haven't been talking about medium at all. Being on paper or on a screen is not what made that pic art. It's an exspression. That's what made it art. Your talking to a graphic artist here.

Games are not art, becasue they are not expression. Baseball is not a for of expression.

To quote (or paraphrase) EGM and it's Bioshock review. "The thing that Bioshock does right is that it makes you feel."

FF6 is art, but it's play is not.

And while paintings do have formal techniques, thats not the same as a gam'es system...not even remotley the same. And yes stories are often organized into chapters.

BUT, neither have to. If you make a game, that is missing either its system, it's competitve structure, or it's unequal outcome, it's by definition no longer a game.

If you take the technique out of a painting, it's still a painting, if you choose to organize your story with some crazy system, it's still a story. If when writing music, you break out f allsystem of music, it's still a music. That's why art is not the same as games.

goblaa

FF6 isn't FF6 without it's gameplay.

I disagree with you... literature, paintings and music do have to adhere to specific conventions or they're no longer what they claim to be. Techniques define the medium.

What is a story if its incomprehensible? If the plot isn't conveyed well because it's not organized or even in chronological order? Is it still music if the notes don't make sense?

In cla55ical terms, it's called form.

Videogames follow their own sense of "form".

[QUOTE="goblaa"][QUOTE="-RPGamer-"][QUOTE="goblaa"]

What does that have to do with anything?

By the way, he pic you posted is clearly art.

-RPGamer-

Why b/c it's on paper, a "common" medium for "art"? If I did that same thing in texture editor and slapped in on a polygon it some how isn't art anymore? That's an interesting concept.

But I haven't been talking about medium at all. Being on paper or on a screen is not what made that pic art. It's an exspression. That's what made it art. Your talking to a graphic artist here.

Games are not art, becasue they are not expression. Baseball is not a for of expression.

So I designer can't express themselves with the exact same texture and slap it into a game?

I don't see how games don't have expression. Sure they're a sum of their parts, but that's doesn't mean there parts aren't expressing anything.

If you consider the pic he showed art, and not the exact same content in a game art, than it's either contradictory logic, or subjectivity. Your choice.

Because that texture is a expression, those parts are expression...just not the gameplay they are attached too.