Keiji Inafune: "Games are not art, they are products."

Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that.Keiji Inafune

Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that.Keiji Inafune

Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that.Keiji Inafune

With his reasoning, certain movies aren't works of art then.Mikazukinoyaiba

If games arent art, then why is Okami an art game :wink:

Some games can be considered art forms, though not all. Games on a very broad scale would be more artists then a 10 hour shooter.

If games arent art, then why is Okami an art game :wink:

Some games can be considered art forms, though not all. Games on a very broad scale would be more artists then a 10 hour shooter.

DSgamer64

there both. games are a business above all else but they are still an art form. the fact that games are sold is irrelevant. movies are considered art and yet there sold. same with books and music. games are no different.osan0

Well music is an art form, since its the creation of something for the people. I believe that anything that is created for enjoyment of the general public can be considered an art form. To me music is not as much of an art form now though, music has lost so much originality among the mainstream music that its not even funny. The same logic can be somewhat applied to video games, a lot of developers arent going to new ideas and instead are rehashing the same old things that people have played and done before and like music, its gotten rather boring. (this is why I am a Nintendo fanboy, because they are trying to be original)

You can take video game design as a course at alot of Art Colleges (Conservatories)

Bah you can say the same about movies but those are definetly considered art.

One day people will realize that games are art.

Art can also be a product. People buy and sell art all the time.purplemidgets

Bah you can say the same about movies but those are definetly considered art.

Bread_or_Decide

That's a very narrow-minded way of thinking. Anything can be a form of art. Its all in the eye of the beholder. Well in essence, I guess hes correct as much as any of us are. Kook18

[QUOTE="Kook18"]That's a very narrow-minded way of thinking. Anything can be a form of art. Its all in the eye of the beholder. Well in essence, I guess hes correct as much as any of us are. magus-21

People don't make art with the sole intention to sell it. He makes a serious point, and some people need to realise this. Truewiseblade

Wow since when has this been true? People make art for the sole purpose of selling it all the time. Comic book artist would be at the top of that list of people. I could go on but I think you get my point.

[QUOTE="Truewiseblade"]People don't make art with the sole intention to sell it. He makes a serious point, and some people need to realise this. MentatAssassin

Wow since when has this been true? People make art for the sole purpose of selling it all the time. Comic book artist would be at the top of that list of people. I could go on but I think you get my point.

I think that both he and Hecker are wrong. Games are both art and a product. The ultimate goal is to sell the game, yes, but the best games are the ones that create an experience that is simply beyond anything else. Be it art style, presentation, storyline, gameplay, how you interact with the game, all those things combine to create a piece of art. The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.Hoffgod

Agreed. Also keep in mind that art gains it's value from it's rarity and independant appeal i.e. A one of a kind Van Gogh vs a Limited print Star Wars poster (the painted ones) boyh have value but in different ways. A mint copy of Chrono Trigger would gain value as art does due to it's rarity and individual appeal. 

http://kotaku.com/gaming/keiji-inafune/gdc07-capcoms-inafune-slams-clover-producer-242796.php [quote="Keiji Inafune"]Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that.magus-21

This is 120% wrong.  Why?  Because he is acting as if artistic merit and commercial products are completely opposite.  They are not.  Art is about more than Picasso or artistic dance pieces.  Art is about creating something new and inspiring that grabs people's attention and influences others.

Then again, using even my own definition of art, maybe he's right.  Because the push to corporate game development seems to be killing originality, inovation and anything other than carbon copy game development.  Here I just thought it was lazy, boring, unoriginal developers...turns out it was because games can't have artistic value...who knew?

/sarcasm.

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"]I think that both he and Hecker are wrong. Games are both art and a product. The ultimate goal is to sell the game, yes, but the best games are the ones that create an experience that is simply beyond anything else. Be it art style, presentation, storyline, gameplay, how you interact with the game, all those things combine to create a piece of art. The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.MentatAssassin

Agreed. Also keep in mind that art gains it's value from it's rarity and independant appeal i.e. A one of a kind Van Gogh vs a Limited print Star Wars poster (the painted ones) boyh have value but in different ways. A mint copy of Chrono Trigger would gain value as art does due to it's rarity and individual appeal.

[QUOTE="MentatAssassin"]

[QUOTE="Truewiseblade"]People don't make art with the sole intention to sell it. He makes a serious point, and some people need to realise this. magus-21

Wow since when has this been true? People make art for the sole purpose of selling it all the time. Comic book artist would be at the top of that list of people. I could go on but I think you get my point.

[QUOTE="magus-21"][QUOTE="MentatAssassin"]

[QUOTE="Truewiseblade"]People don't make art with the sole intention to sell it. He makes a serious point, and some people need to realise this. Iyethar

Wow since when has this been true? People make art for the sole purpose of selling it all the time. Comic book artist would be at the top of that list of people. I could go on but I think you get my point.

But do people ever make video games WITHOUT the intention of selling it? People make paintings, stories, books, music, comics, even movies for the sole purpose of personal fulfillment all the time, without the intent of selling it. Can the same thing be said about ANY decent video game?magus-21

Yes, but you would have to be a fairly avid PC gamer to truely understand this.

The point being made is that the video game MEDIUM cannot be considered a medium for art because it doesn't allow for the creation of completely personal, spontaneous works.magus-21

FALSE. Games like GTA and Oblivion have already proven that video games can provide many moments of "spontaneous works" it just depends on what you consider spontenaity and art.

[QUOTE="magus-21"] But do people ever make video games WITHOUT the intention of selling it? People make paintings, stories, books, music, comics, even movies for the sole purpose of personal fulfillment all the time, without the intent of selling it. Can the same thing be said about ANY decent video game?MentatAssassin

Yes, but you would have to be a fairly avid PC gamer to truely understand this.

[QUOTE="magus-21"]The point being made is that the video game MEDIUM cannot be considered a medium for art because it doesn't allow for the creation of completely personal, spontaneous works.MentatAssassin

FALSE. Games like GTA and Oblivion have already proven that video games can provide many moments of "spontaneous works" it just depends on what you consider spontenaity and art.

[QUOTE="MentatAssassin"]

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"]I think that both he and Hecker are wrong. Games are both art and a product. The ultimate goal is to sell the game, yes, but the best games are the ones that create an experience that is simply beyond anything else. Be it art style, presentation, storyline, gameplay, how you interact with the game, all those things combine to create a piece of art. The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.magus-21

Agreed. Also keep in mind that art gains it's value from it's rarity and independant appeal i.e. A one of a kind Van Gogh vs a Limited print Star Wars poster (the painted ones) boyh have value but in different ways. A mint copy of Chrono Trigger would gain value as art does due to it's rarity and individual appeal.

You're arguing method vs result which is like comparing apples to oranges. It's the artist who is artistic because of his methods not the other way around. The artistic result is deemed ART by the public that chooses to accept it or not.

[QUOTE="magus-21"][QUOTE="MentatAssassin"]

[QUOTE="Hoffgod"]I think that both he and Hecker are wrong. Games are both art and a product. The ultimate goal is to sell the game, yes, but the best games are the ones that create an experience that is simply beyond anything else. Be it art style, presentation, storyline, gameplay, how you interact with the game, all those things combine to create a piece of art. The two aren't mutually exclusive, after all.MentatAssassin

Agreed. Also keep in mind that art gains it's value from it's rarity and independant appeal i.e. A one of a kind Van Gogh vs a Limited print Star Wars poster (the painted ones) boyh have value but in different ways. A mint copy of Chrono Trigger would gain value as art does due to it's rarity and individual appeal.

You're arguing method vs result which is like comparing apples to oranges. It's the artist who is artistic because of his methods not the other way around. The artistic result is deemed ART by the public that chooses to accept it or not.

Video games aren't art. Art cannot be entertainment. ninjiijitsu

Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that.Keiji Inafune

What, mods? Those aren't full games. magus-21

Agree. I hate mods and usually dont install them. No I'm talking about games like this:

http://www.golfquestionmark.com/

You completely confuse the perspective which I'm talking about. I'm not talking about PLAYERS providing moments of "spontaneous action." I'm talking about a game designer one day pulling money from his own pocket and creating a video game ENTIRELY under his control because he felt a burst of inspiration. Like a photographer buying a pocket camera and snapping pictures because he feels like it, writer who pulls out a notepad while walking down the street and starts writing scenes out of the blue, or a musician or singer who starts humming a tune he created on his own because he felt like it, or an artist drawing a doodle. These are examples of the spontaneity of creation in the artistic mediums of photography writing, music, and drawing.magus-21

I'm sorry friend but you fail big time with this notion. Again you argue method vs result which is pretty lame to do. Even I wouldnt call a programmer skipping down the street randomly typing code into his notebook an artist. But if what he programes eventually causes a kid to start playing real guitar because he had a real and spontaneous experience playing guitar during a game then yes, I would call him an artist for creating something that inspired someone else.

Too many people with the same attitude as Inafune are the reason the industry tends to be so stale, and innovation so rare. 

Perhaps I might get into trouble if I say this in front of people from the mass media. Games are not a work of art. It's actually a product. If we think of it as a work of art, then... when we think about Picasso and Van Gogh's paintings, the end result is beauty, so it doesn't matter if you sell it or not. However for games, it's a product. It is a commodity. The producer has to think about that.Keiji Inafune

Not so. The artist creates art because of INTENT as well as method, while the public deems a result artistic because of its subjective emotional effect on them. The personal quality to art (i.e. why the artist created a work of art) is what makes it art in the first place, IMO. Art need never be shared at all.magus-21

*Sigh* You truely dont get it do you? Arguing art always tends to lead to a dead end oh well.