Coming from another thread of Sword & Sorcery from earlier this morning, I was just starting to type a simple response which sort of spiraled into something a little too big to be a mere footnote there, so I thought it might make a good discussion point in itself in a completely new thread.

The subject matter at hand then: Games as art. Anytime I see someone - may it be through a simple comment, forum post, blog entry, or even a (real) game journalist's article - bring this topic up I just can't help myself but cringe. In a way it always looks like they, the supporters of this notion, try to bring it up in such a way to justify the existence of video gaming (perhaps in a more mainstream/more sophisticated style) we like to call our hobby/pastime in general. At least that's how it comes across to me.

Then you have some games (or at least that's what they try to call themselves) as of late that try to be an experience or an artistic expression. Care to bore me much? If I want art I'll buy myself a freakin' painting, sculpture, or what have you. Hell, even a lovely digital painting as say like a wallpaper I'd be more likely to consider art than a simple game. In my case, I'm just much more appreciative of those things in that form. Does that make me look a bit narrow-minded? Perhaps. Can art be a part of a game? Certainly. Yet, in my mind, it will never be the game.

An 'experience' or whatever you may want to call it in game-form is not fun to me. It's like pretentious art. I don't quite get it nor do I give a hoot. That's also one reason why I'll never look at games as art... ever. It just boggles my mind that there are people out there who like to think so. Games are meant to be actively played with not ogled at. That's the whole point of their existence. Sure, a pretty coat of paint can enhance your enjoyment of said game, but it should only be there to add to the game not replace it.

Also, I'm not buying into all this retro-chique BS in the indie scene anymore. It was okay a while ago, but now that every man and his brother are doing it - at least that's what it feels like at times - it's far from anything special.

Making a good game that is fun to play should always be the bottom line. If you want to do an artistic expression the video game industry is probably the wrong industry for you. It's kind of funny that as much as I don't like Roger Ebert at all - I'll never care much for his movie reviews - I definitely agree with the man that video games aren't art.

Now that I've said that, I don't doubt that some may disagree with me, and that's okay. I just wanted to put my thoughts out there.

every film is considerd 'art'. every painting, every book. every piece of music ever written.

it makes no sense to treat videogames differently.

Pretty much this. The discussion whether games are art or not is quite meaningless, considering that for centuries, aesthetics hasn't been able to come up with a definition of what "art" is in the first place.

You dislike games that stress other elements than gameplay. Which is okay, but your terminology is wrong. Your average Call of Duty is also "art", the same way that Transformers are art and a Tom Clancy novel is art.

But I'd very much agree that the indie scene, or at least a big part of it, is locked in a very strange "me-too" spiral, and it's rather annoying. But fads come and go in all fields of, yes, art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art

In a way I think the word "art" itself is the problem. It's just too subjective. There are very very few books, movies, or music I'd ever consider real art. Hence the existence of commercial art. Mass-producing the shit out them just makes them lose any kind of specialness which I would consider art, not to even touch on all that crap that is out there as well.

I think Frank Zappa said it best:

The most important thing in art is The Frame. For painting: literally; for other arts: figuratively -- because, without this humble appliance, you can't know where The Art stops and The Real World begins. You have to put a 'box' around it because otherwise, what is that shit on the wall?

If John Cage, for instance, says, "I’m putting a contact microphone on my throat, and I’m going to drink carrot juice, and that’s my composition," then his gurgling qualifies as his composition because he put a frame around it and said so. "Take it or leave it, I now will this to be music." After that it’s a matter of taste. Without the frame-as-announced, it’s a guy swallowing carrot juice.

It is and it isn't. You appear to be narrowing the definition to art you like. That could be the real problem.

It might be useful for you to make a distinction between Art and art. All games are the latter, and some try to be the former (and few succeed), which is what you're campaigning against.

I second that.

Games offer another way to experience Art, it's with direct interaction and effect on a given "World".

While painting is frozen art, and the cinema is passive art, video games let you experience art in a new and incredible way.

The same subject came out with the movies back in the time before it was finely admitted as art. I could give example of video games that let you live an experience rather than just fast fun and satisfaction :

-Tale of Tales Games (The path, The graveyard, etc...)

-Thatgamecompany Games (Flower, Flow, Journey, etc...)


It's not only the music and visuals that make it a piece of art, but its combination with the gameplay... It's a whole package really.

You know wether it's a piece of art or not, if wether, after experiencing it you feel like you gain something, a part of your soul grew, or you just got satisfied.


I do believe that video games are the newest media of art, wether people like it or not.



Mainly, these are also games that make you think about your life, so you see your own reflection in them, and since you have direct effect on given "worlds", it just adds to the feeling of immersion.
Games have the potential to surpass paintings and movies but that mere thing.

I know, right. It's kind of like those guys who call rap music. I mean, it's so snazzy and not boring like music. If I wanted music, I'd go listen to a classical album in the library. It's not even that I have added a silly connotation to the meaning of the word 'music', because clearly music only means the boring stuff made by an old guy a thousand years ago. I mean, at least rap can't be considered real music.

...or something?

Just to concentrate on the whole game part again. Maybe that might not be the best example, but let's consider a regular chess set. Would anyone call that art? I doubt it. Yes, you can pretty up the board with marble and have some of the finest pieces ever created, but at the end it's still just a game of chess: meant to be played versus just being ogled.

Insert edit: Afterthought: Chess doesn't exist to be the most thought-provoking or inspiring, but to challenge your and your opponent's wits and skills. That's what video games are to me anyhow.

Maybe that's the only point which I'm trying to get through? I suppose....

Indeed, art is whatever its creator defines as such.

Of course. There is such thing as applied art, too.
You're separating form and function. It's not quite that simple, you know. You could theoretically cut the Mona Lisa out of the frame and use it as a window blind. If you do that, is the painting no longer art? Why not?

what does the number in which a piece of art is produced have to do with its artistic quality? Shakespeare's plays have been re-produced for over 400 years. the works of the ancient Greek philosophers and playwrights for 2,500 years.

it's similar with all other media that are accepted as art. not every film or song or comic book touches on deep existentialist issues. some just want to entertain. a film like "Transformers" can exist and films can still be considered art. so, a chess game can exist and games can still be considered art. the artistic value may vary.

If your only criterion for art is oglability, I am so art.