BBC discusses 'Are Video Games an art form?'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9628000/9628274.stm
Pretty intresting listen about there effect on culture and viability as an emerging art form and it's potential to become high art.

its as much art as books and movies , imo yes

If photos can be an art form I don't see why Games can't.

Videogames can invoke emotion in the observer/player so yes, I'd say videogames are art but it's still a developing medium.

It's like TV, it can range from being art or it can not be art at all. I watch a good TV show it's art, I watch the evening news it's not. With Video Games you have something like Mass Effect or Metal Gear Solid and I'd consider that art, but then you get other games like The Sims or Wii fit that I wouldn't consider art at all.

Before listening opinion:

While games always contain art, they are rarely art in their entirety. There are always individual areas in a game's story, world, characters, animations, etc. that are meant to illicit a certain response. These broad areas are themselves composed to individual elements that portray a theme or idea of the game's world. Simply put, you can't create a game world with out having created some form of art. However, there are aspects in a games design that simply aren't art and do not register with the player in the same way. When you are mowing down waves of zombies, robots, monsters, or robot/zombie/monsters, the game designer is really trying to access a different part of our brain. It's no longer appealing to our higher functions, but rather the reward center of the brain. The interesting part is that the process of tapping into the reward area of our minds is very much an artform, but the end result isn't. It doesn't set a tone, make you think... it's whack-a-mole at it's simpliest. Even deep strategies imployed are simply to win. There is nothing existential about them.

After listening opnion:

Same.

Thoughts:

I mostly agree, especially with the idea that most movies, books, music, etc. are not art. Art and entertainment don't have to be mutually exclusive, but they often are separate... and that isn't a bad thing.

It's like TV, it can range from being art or it can not be art at all. I watch a good TV show it's art, I watch the evening news it's not. With Video Games you have something like Mass Effect or Metal Gear Solid and I'd consider that art, but then you get other games like The Sims or Wii fit that I wouldn't consider art at all.

Ilikemyname420

The fact that this can even be considered a debate is actually the most important and relevant point here. Obviously they are art. The question is, why would any person consider them otherwise?

[QUOTE="Ilikemyname420"]

It's like TV, it can range from being art or it can not be art at all. I watch a good TV show it's art, I watch the evening news it's not. With Video Games you have something like Mass Effect or Metal Gear Solid and I'd consider that art, but then you get other games like The Sims or Wii fit that I wouldn't consider art at all.

rpgs_shall_rule

People still debating this topic? The world isn't flat people.JKnaperek

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

HaloinventedFPS

Not all video games qualify as art, but many today do. If a game has some form of narrative, it could qualify; strip away the video game, and the narrative still stands. It might not be the best, but it's still literature.

Then of course there's the more obvious artsy examples.

Not all video games qualify as art, but many today do. If a game has some form of narrative, it could qualify; strip away the video game, and the narrative still stands. It might not be the best, but it's still literature.

Then of course there's the more obvious artsy examples.

mmmwksil

[QUOTE="mmmwksil"]

Not all video games qualify as art, but many today do. If a game has some form of narrative, it could qualify; strip away the video game, and the narrative still stands. It might not be the best, but it's still literature.

Then of course there's the more obvious artsy examples.

MattDistillery

The narrative itself is still a work of art.

I think gaming still hasn't reached the level where it can truly be considered art, but I'm certain it will one day get there.

I'd say they tend to be more than mere 'art'.

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

AmnesiaHaze

There are video games that are art. Most, however, are not.

Art is entirely up to opinion.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18478_the-7-ballsiest-pranks-you-wont-believe-actually-worked_p2.html

"There are some artists that are so famous that everyone's heard of them, even people without the slightest interest in the art world. Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rembrandt, Nat Tate, Monet...

What's that? You've never heard of Nat Tate? Well congratulations, because by admitting that you have more credibility than a lot of people who make a living in the art industry.

Back in 1998, author William Boyd wrote a biography of Tate, an abstract painter who lived from 1928 to 1960. Tate was a troubled genius, who created brilliant paintings but eventually destroyed them all before committing suicide. The book included photographs of Tate and his work, as well as recollections about the man by other famous artists. Oh yeah, and the whole thing was a hoax.

The book was intended as a satire of the New York art community, but Boyd wasn't content to stop at that. He recruited the one group of people with more spare time and boredom on their hands than even our Georgia Tech student up there: celebrities.

He called up Gore Vidal, who promoted and endorsed the book and the claim of it being true, and David Bowie, who arranged a huge launch party for the book in New York on April Fools' Day. Invited were famous artists, collectors, historians and dealers.

So with that many experts on art in one place the scam was quickly revealed, right? Not quite. As Bowie read excerpts from the book everyone nodded sagely and talked about their familiarity with Tate's work.

Only a single newspaper editor realized it was a joke, because he was the only one who would admit to having never heard of Tate. So he did some real in-depth investigation and uncovered the truth. By which we mean he flipped through the book and discovered it had obvious flaws, like using names of supposedly famous art galleries which didn't actually exist.

The hoax made international headlines, the world had a good laugh at the too proud art community and David Bowie went back to leaving flaming bags of his **** on his neighbors' porches."

Given that, I don't give a rat's ass whether "critics" think games are art.

The whole "what is art?" is an issue in itself. Many people might consider some form of narrative crucial to the meaning of art, some people just see it as an object made by someone. There are countless viewpoints and exceptions to each view which makes the argument turn stale.

Are videogames art to me? Yes but my justification for that will go on and on and there will, like I said be exception to even my rule. I will say this though, videogames like Mass Effect, Metal Gear, Shadow of the Colossus and a list of many others have had a profound impact on me, definitely or on par with any other pieces that I have also loved from other mediums.

Art is entirely up to opinion.

http://www.cracked.com/article_18478_the-7-ballsiest-pranks-you-wont-believe-actually-worked_p2.html

"There are some artists that are so famous that everyone's heard of them, even people without the slightest interest in the art world. Michelangelo, da Vinci, Rembrandt, Nat Tate, Monet...

What's that? You've never heard of Nat Tate? Well congratulations, because by admitting that you have more credibility than a lot of people who make a living in the art industry.

Back in 1998, author William Boyd wrote a biography of Tate, an abstract painter who lived from 1928 to 1960. Tate was a troubled genius, who created brilliant paintings but eventually destroyed them all before committing suicide. The book included photographs of Tate and his work, as well as recollections about the man by other famous artists. Oh yeah, and the whole thing was a hoax.

The book was intended as a satire of the New York art community, but Boyd wasn't content to stop at that. He recruited the one group of people with more spare time and boredom on their hands than even our Georgia Tech student up there: celebrities.

He called up Gore Vidal, who promoted and endorsed the book and the claim of it being true, and David Bowie, who arranged a huge launch party for the book in New York on April Fools' Day. Invited were famous artists, collectors, historians and dealers.

So with that many experts on art in one place the scam was quickly revealed, right? Not quite. As Bowie read excerpts from the book everyone nodded sagely and talked about their familiarity with Tate's work.

Only a single newspaper editor realized it was a joke, because he was the only one who would admit to having never heard of Tate. So he did some real in-depth investigation and uncovered the truth. By which we mean he flipped through the book and discovered it had obvious flaws, like using names of supposedly famous art galleries which didn't actually exist.

The hoax made international headlines, the world had a good laugh at the too proud art community and David Bowie went back to leaving flaming bags of his **** on his neighbors' porches."

Given that, I don't give a rat's ass whether "critics" think games are art.

topgunmv

If a painting, book, movie can be art, when you put it all together, then why does it not retain it's being art? These are just some dumb pretentious definitions, it's all art, there's quality art, and crappy art. Now with the 'crappy art' I'd just define that as anything that's too vulgar, that leaves little to nothing to the imagination.

Art is just entertainment, some sort of weird concept that 'intelligent' life has defined and would seem to make very little sense as to why something would find something else entertaining...

-But, whether they are at the precise, absolute high level where you say "hey look, this changes how I see the world in a significant and deep way..."-

If this is their definition of art, then science is basically the only art. In fact how I see the world just changed yesterday, I decided to do math, and actually understand e=mc² and thought that was about the coolest thing to actually understand, and it does actually change how I see the world.

Yes of course.

I would argue that no medium is inheritably art. Instead, various individual pieces within each medium can be classified as art.

Planescape: Torment is art. Uncharted is definately not art.
Citizen Kane is art. The Transformers movies arent.
Fur Elise is Art. Rebecca Black's Friday is not art.
The Divine Comedy is art. But then there is a fair share of literature that isnt.

Games are not art because 1) they are bound by rules rather than opening themselves to interpretation. Only when games have more sophisticated narratives will this change. 2) games do not reflect the emotions of the people who made them. Art has to infect people with the emotions that the creator felt while developing the piece. biggest_loser

1. I'd argue that multiple games such as Planescape: Torment, The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind and Deus Ex have sophisticated narratives that are drenched deep in symbolism. But this is down to personal opinion as I feel that multiple films have weak and shoddy stories and yet are still considered art (Transformers: Dark of the Moon for example.)

2. Art has to infect people with the emotions the creator felt while developing the piece? So the painting of the Sistine Chapel is not art because rather than filling me with the contempt that Michelangelo had for painting, I feel awe and wonder at his depiction of the Christian heaven and God?

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

HaloinventedFPS

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

AmnesiaHaze

Games are not art because 1) they are bound by rules rather than opening themselves to interpretation. Only when games have more sophisticated narratives will this change. 2) games do not reflect the emotions of the people who made them. Art has to infect people with the emotions that the creator felt while developing the piece. biggest_loser

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

HaloinventedFPS

[QUOTE="biggest_loser"]Games are not art because 1) they are bound by rules rather than opening themselves to interpretation. Only when games have more sophisticated narratives will this change. 2) games do not reflect the emotions of the people who made them. Art has to infect people with the emotions that the creator felt while developing the piece. skrat_01

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

HaloinventedFPS

yes it is

SOTC was the game that started "can games actually be art"

and its always brought up in debates

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"] There's a strong percentage of games that defy your points right there, be it Pathologic to Knytt stories and Tower of Heaven. Emotion can be invested, interpretation can be applied, systems allow new methods of defining and creating narrative etc. Furthermore this is a terrible argument in a sense that you can apply these points to a medium like film - a collaboration process, arguing that it dilutes the emotional intention, which is honestly at terribly poor angle to approach from. [QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

HaloinventedFPS

yes it is

SOTC was the game that started "can games actually be art"

and its always brought up in debates

Games are not art because 1) they are bound by rules rather than opening themselves to interpretation. Only when games have more sophisticated narratives will this change. 2) games do not reflect the emotions of the people who made them. Art has to infect people with the emotions that the creator felt while developing the piece. biggest_loser

"If there is anything in me that can be called religious, then it is the unbound admiration for the structure of the world as far as our science can reveal it." - Albert Einstein... You know, I think I feel the same way, and the reason I feel that is because of e=mc², so.. is e=mc² art?

I personally think, your little definition of art is just some fancy bs. I don't feel any extra emotion when I look at a painting, but I feel it when I look at a formula? And I think there are just different 'qualities' of art, not that something is, or isn't art. Vulgar is lowbrow, vague is highbrow, but both can still be equally enjoyable and serve no other purpose beyond being enjoyable.

Also, can't/isn't gameplay open to interpretation? I don't think games like The Witcher 2 have good gameplay, lots of people would disagree with me, they've interpreted it differently.

This makes me think, "what is art exactly?"

Also, paintings are generally called 'art', so, what if a painter just painted something 'cause they felt like it... they were like "yea, I'm just going to do that, why not" and then did it, is it no longer art?

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"] There's a strong percentage of games that defy your points right there, be it Pathologic to Knytt stories and Tower of Heaven. Emotion can be invested, interpretation can be applied, systems allow new methods of defining and creating narrative etc. Furthermore this is a terrible argument in a sense that you can apply these points to a medium like film - a collaboration process, arguing that it dilutes the emotional intention, which is honestly at terribly poor angle to approach from. [QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

HaloinventedFPS

yes it is

SOTC was the game that started "can games actually be art"

and its always brought up in debates

Games are not art because 1) they are bound by rules rather than opening themselves to interpretation. Only when games have more sophisticated narratives will this change. 2) games do not reflect the emotions of the people who made them. Art has to infect people with the emotions that the creator felt while developing the piece. biggest_loser

[QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

[QUOTE="skrat_01"]No, no it doesn't. If anything trying to cite 'oh this game is art, please shutup' only opens a window to more issues. It's about actually being involved in reasoning. SOTC is an excellent game, and a highly expressive one, but hardly a crown jewel in a good percentage of regards. GunSmith1_basic

yes it is

SOTC was the game that started "can games actually be art"

and its always brought up in debates

every time I watch one of these discussions, I always have to be prepared to watch people who know little to nothing about video games, who have hardly played any of them, and who have a predisposed condescension towards them. and somehow i am expected to take their opinion on the topic seriously

is that the case here? i havent watched the video yet, but that's just an educated guess for what im in for.

[QUOTE="GunSmith1_basic"][QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

yes it is

SOTC was the game that started "can games actually be art"

and its always brought up in debates

SquirrelTamer

that should be hanging on the louvre

I don't care if they're art or not, I just play them for fun.

any argument that can be made against video games being art can equally be applied against films being art. definitions of art are like parking spaces. the more narrow they are, the more asinine they become and the more pointless conflicts they end up causing.

if something is a product of human creativity and imagination, than it is art. people need to quit being such pretentious **** heads about it. art isnt about narrow mindedness. rather, the opposite

any argument that can be made against video games being art can equally be applied against films being art. definitions of art are like parking spaces. the more narrow they are, the more asinine they become and the more pointless conflicts they end up causing.

if something is a product of human creativity and imagination, than it is art. people need to quit being such pretentious **** heads about it. art isnt about narrow mindedness. rather, the opposite

arbitor365

Games can be art, but most of them are not. Only few reach a level so high that could possibly be considered art. Movies rarely reach this level too, and so do books and music.

The problem I've always had with this argument is when all games are called art. Not all games are art. And not all movies or books or paintings are art. In fact, only very few qualify. Now, deciding what qualifies is probably subjective, but obviously, theres clear examples of things that can never be art. A sports game can't be art. A political book can't be art. Although in movies, I can't think of a specific genre that couldn't under any circumstance be art. Everything is artistically possible.

But to me, for something to qualify as art there has to be a narrative or story told through sights and sounds that evoke emotions. Games integrate interactivity, which Roger Ebert suggested make games about the experiences and choices and therefore can't be art because the art form shouldn't change from person to person. We should all experience the same thing, even if we all have different reactions. Again, its all subjective. But gamers shouldn't be offended when someone who is an expert on art says games aren't art. It's all opinion.

[QUOTE="skrat_01"][QUOTE="biggest_loser"] There's a strong percentage of games that defy your points right there, be it Pathologic to Knytt stories and Tower of Heaven. Emotion can be invested, interpretation can be applied, systems allow new methods of defining and creating narrative etc. Furthermore this is a terrible argument in a sense that you can apply these points to a medium like film - a collaboration process, arguing that it dilutes the emotional intention, which is honestly at terribly poor angle to approach from. [QUOTE="HaloinventedFPS"]

they are

SOTC pretty much shuts up any old fart critic that says otherwise

HaloinventedFPS

yes it is

SOTC was the game that started "can games actually be art"

and its always brought up in debates