Can games be considered art?
please leave SJW bullshit out of this; I don't care about political message - I care about art itself
If chair can called art, then video games can be called art.
Obviously. Animation, music and script/story writing can all be part of a video game. That makes it pretty much impossible to argue that it isn't art.
Transformers 2 was art. Pixels was art. The idea that being considered art is some kind of lofty standard is completely ridiculous.
I don't think there's a lot more to say about the argument to be honest.
Games can be art.
It's just sad that the "games are art" movement is filled to the brim with hipsters and SJW's.
>please leave SJW bullshit out of this.
In all seriousness, though, the SJW element is really exaggerated by /v/. Most devs who try to create art aren't trying to push a political message.
Yes, but most are not. It's mostly because 90% of games pander to the 13-18 male demographic. It's the same reason why anime is mostly trash. Also is the problem with repetition, and how most people want to play the same game each year, just with new graphics. A good example of why this is bad is mgs2. It was a fantastic game with a thought provoking naritive and awsome gameplay, but lots of people hated it because muh snake.
You think THAT's art? THIS, is the epitome of art, right here.
>thread about games that are art
>not a single game is mentioned
Black backgrounds with vibrant symbols like that makes me feel good for some reason.
I get a boner when I go to my monster hunter box.
This game was truly a work of art, and sadly- nothing else will probably grace the console with such a PC-like essence than MAG. There will never be a console game that has more than 64 players in one match, much less 256 players. Really a pity how this game died like a bitch...
For the Brotherhood.
Literally everything a human has ever made is art, no you can be even more abstract, everything a human has ever done ever is art.
>Creative expression of abstract thought
Yes. Video games are art.
People that desperately want video games to not be concidered art mistakingly believe a game must be pretentious or sacrifice gameplay in order to be art.
SOME games can be art
SOME games can tell a story
However, what separates games from everything else is choice and game-play.
A game that is linear and is only story is just an overpriced shitty movie.
Examples of games that can be considered art:
Brothers - A tale of 2 Sons
that's all i can name off the top of my head
I sometimes think when a game uses the game mechanics and level design to give details about story instead of cutscenes/text that it is artistic in a different sense
think Dark Souls or Spec Ops or
I've been thinking about this same thing.
Games have graphics, music and story. All of those are considered to be different forms of art. The same components are also used to make movies. Now, what seperates games from movies is that they have game play. The debate about "are games art" should instead be "is game play art". My personal opinion is yes, game play can be art.
I agree. When people talk about games as art, they too often focus on visuals/sound. Sure, these things can make a game art, but what really has the capability of setting the medium apart is gameplay mechanics (and also things like the interplay of the player and space).
>please leave SJW bullshit out of this; I don't care about political message - I care about art itself
It can't be ignored, we have to touch on the political/propagandic stream of art before we can ascend to the wholly aesthetic side of it.
Remember video games are modern and would be technically be considered modern art, post-modern, whatever it may be.
We have to consider how much video-game expertise you need, and if for what or all consoles? How much of a "gamer" do you need to be to be able to judge the artistic merit of a video game? What makes a video game art? To have a video game SPECIFICALLY be art, it would need to have aesthetic gameplay, much like chess has aesthetic gameplay. If we were to look at chess, games being art isn't even a novel concept.
The confusing parts in this discussion are
1: Video-games are modern, and thus suffer the entrance fee of being accepted as art in the transgressive and ironic thematic of modern art
2: Video-games essentially co-opt other art forms: Story, music, visual design, and so its harder to find the essential "video-gameyness" or game-play and judge that alone, without adding the bias of other artforms.
I say give it a few centuries, Shakespeare was considered bawdy pop-culture in his time, and we keep the porn of ancient times in musuems, we just need new sociological filters to see the world in and to design methods to judge the merit of new media.
The only people who get to decide what is art are people who buy art with loads of money
you don't get to decide if that picture of a blue square is art or not
>Story, music, visual design, and so its harder to find the essential "video-gameyness" or game-play and judge that alone, without adding the bias of other artforms.
I don't think it's so hard to separate the two; people just have to think about it a little more than on just a superficial level. It's just like Duchamp's "art of the eyes vs. art of the mind."
It contains art and the synthesis of said art is an art in and of itself.
Gameplay is a unique element of games and as such helps in developing games as their own artform, you can not achieve the same effect with a non-interactive piece as you can with an interactive one which is definitely a positive for both sides, even the non-interactive side since effects which would be disturbing and annoying in an interactive piece can be used to great effect (Such as heavy emphasis on active camera direction).
Whether or not it is good art can be debated on a case by case basis as is done with movies, books, paintings, sculptures, etc.
Not all games have win states.
Viewer agency is arbitrary. It is ill defined (is interpretation or imagination viewer agency? What if an art piece is especially open ended? Does a linear game give the player "Viewer agency"? Is a non-linear game where every choice is still pre-programmed and allowed for still a case for "Viewer agency" rather than just the illusion of choice? Is a choose your own adventure book still art?) and as mentioned in my earlier paragraph an interactive experience can evoke a feeling that non-interactive experiences can't.
I'm neither anti-intellectual nor anti-art, so your statement cannot be true at all.
Whether or not I'm a dumbass is at least debatable, but you cannot say that I am somehow against intellectualism or art.
Yes, but it's ultimately irrelevant and games that try to be "art games" are usually SJW gutter trash.
The whole topic has been tainted by SJWs and film studies students.
Games can include art or artistic concepts.
Games themselves cannot be art.
>posting this twitter bait nonsense.
Please. This has nothing to do with art; this is just people complaining.
And I disagree. Most "art games" I've come across have nothing to do with politics. It's just that /v/ complains the loudest about the political-message ones.
who the fuck gets to decide if something is art or not. if it belongs in some museum?
eye of the beholder. if you believe your favorite medium is art then it is art, absolutely nothing else matters and if you need to have your hobby validated by society or even believe in some ooga booga SJW-menace you lead a very pathetic life
I never said politics, I said SJW.
In context to art games that means pretentious, ultimately shallow 2deep4u "empathy game" garbage that usually will try to be some sort of vague underlying message that other SJWs can write 1000 word articles about how everyone is actually trans or something.
me neither, I just say its an obstacle to be considered that I don't see explicily stated in most "vidya art" discussions. It's a subliminal thing, if you don't even consider that element, you won't even be aware of how much your perspective on it is skewed, because, as you say, you have conflated the art of the eye WITH the art of the mind.
I'm a bit of an elitist, I think you need training, or at least reflection, to be able to distinguish the esoteric from the esoteric.
I know nothing about cars, they are the same to me, it would be ridiculous to try to convince anyone on the aesthetics of cars, I can't differentiate the intimate and subtle differences between vehicles that are the "space between the notes" that give automobiles their level of craftsmanship and art. But maybe you can sell me on a few bells and whistles of the car, shiny rims and a nice subwoofer, and I can conflate that with the craftsmanship.
And maybe this is why the socialist modern art took off: Atheist elites who no longer wanted the religious propaganda in their art, financed a new medium to the masses that consequentially had no trained eye to differeniate the technical differences between it and its more antequated counterparts.
Of course you can spot the difference between the arts, thats not the point, I mean spot differences that are so intimate that only an expert can truly enjoy them and thus, hold such a moral bond to the art that it is close to sacred.
I think anyone who makes mods or maps has much higher authority in considering games art than anyone else, because they have to train themselves to spot these intimate differences.
>gotta show these guys how edgy and anti-art I am!
But, on the topic of the thread - I play my games, and can appreciate certain gameplay aspects (and even, occasionally, visual/sound aspects) as artistically interesting.
As someone who went to art school: sure, every piece of shit can be "art"
Real answer: no
It is totally art world's fault that they never bother to train artists anymore.
"SJW," and all the things that you mention, are inherently political ideas.
And who cares if some SJW takes the vague message out of some "pretentious" game to their own political ends? Who cares what they think at all? If the underlying message is vague enough, why don't you try to take your own meaning form it?
>everything is politics
>why do you care?
This is a thread about "art". I'm starting games that specifically label themselves as "art games" are usually SJW trash as I've described in my previous post.
This video is completely useless. I honestly thought his intentions were at least for the good of game critique until he mocked the mention of "win states" like that's not in any way important to game design. The guy clearly just has a bone to pick and evidently that's enough to be mistaken for meaning.
MrBTongue and MatthewMatosis are great though and anyone reading this should check them out
but I'm pretty sure you all have.
Seriously, this video is such a fucking lazy attempt to express some pretty typical opinions.