Are Video Games Art?

I really think it is. If they aren't, where does the line of art and not art start and end? If a painting is art, what if it now plays music? Is it still art? What if it changes and moves? What if it has acting? Now it's like a movie, which is still considered art. What about when you have to press a button to make it work, making it interactive? Is it still art now? I don't get why the cut-off happens when it's made for a game console.

Animators in 3-D movies like Pixar are considered artists, but the team working on Final Fantasy game CG movies aren't. Both are in a business out to make money, so what's the difference? Besides, somebody painting or writing a book doesn't do it to be poor and have nobody see or read it either; that's their job and they need it to support them, too. Nobody makes a painting because they don't want it to be seen at least by someone, and nobody makes a game because they don't want it to be played. I don't see any differences here.

Of course, being "art" doesn't make it good or give it originality or merits automatically. Some will be better then others. But it still falls under the idea of "art" as far as I'm concerned.

Art can be defined as the physical form of human creativity, yes? Games do generally fall into that category. There are even games where the user's creativity plays a large part in what goes on.

Video Games still have the stigma of being seen as something that kids and losers do to waste their time. 'They' won't dare to label such a thing as 'art' even when presented with contrary evidence. Beyond that, I think the fact that games are interactive serve as a barrier to entry into the abstractive definition of art.

We'll have to wait until the generations shift. When people who grew up in a videogame environment are in positions of power, this kind of thing won't be a debate anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Games are art in the same way that movies are art. Most aren't very good from an artistic standpoint, but some are. Like Killer 7.

---

Indeed. There are plenty of unbelievably crap games out there, with little to no artistic or creative merit, but that's true of other 'artistic' genres as well.
As an example, I watched the film Kung Pow: Enter the Fist the other day. If someone was arguing that 'motion pictures are not art', then this would be extremely effective supporting evidence. However, it doesn't change the fact that movies like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Matrix exist as well. Similarly, there are some sculptors who make sculptures out of poo. Quite literally, their works are piles of crap. Nonetheless, sculpture remains a recognised and respected artistic medium.

When Roger Ebert declares video games incapable of being art, he's coming from a biased and self-serving perspective. Chances are he's never played a video game, and is only responding to stereotypical preconceptions; he's likely influenced by all the atrocious game-based movies he's reviewed in his time.

The idea of video games having depth, literary quality, and basically anything other than gratuitous violence is still largely unknown to the general masses. I'd guess that accessibility is a problem. Anyone can watch a movie, but to play a game requires time, effort and expense - something people won't commit to on a whim. Besides, for every Metal Gear Solid and Shadow of the Colossus, there are at least a couple hundred games like Blast Force Omega Max: Ultimate Incendiary or Total Bikini Wrasslin Jamboree' Custard Edition.

What does Roger Ebert know? He only has half a face now.

Ebert is totally biased against the game industry. He gave 300 four stars, but if it was based off a game instead of a graphic novel, I guarantee that would have drastically changed.

When people say that something isn't art they're holding an imaginary quality against an imaginary bar.

Art is a result of human action, not how 'good' something is.

The general use of the word 'art' is one that I am wholly against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ceej

Though I like to see art done by a single person and not by a whole bunch of people working on separate parts and putting them together.

---

I believe that we are entering a new period of an art era,where what you just described will be the norm.The myth of the lone artist who produces masterpieces all by himself starts to fade slowly.

Personally i think video games are the highest artform man ever created.The key point to that is of course the users interactivity which deferiates it from other passive artforms.The player/user immerses in a creativity world made by a collection of artists (programmers,3D artists,game designers,musicians,writers,concept artists) and he/she is free to discover and play it as he wishes.

I agree with JKTrix when he says that we have to wait until the generations shift.Todays majority of art critics and art historians are constituted by old people who are used in seeing art in galleries,exhibitons and museums and they cannot accept (or want to accept) that something which is beyond their areas of knowledge (and power) can be considered art.They refuse to consider that something which is targetted to a mass market can have artistic merits.
As with movies,i consider all games as art.
With that said,of course there is and always have been good and bad art.

I think games can be as much art as films, music and literature can be, if not more. After all, games today have all of the aforementioned in one. Maybe even code and AI scripts could be considered art? Of course, as earlier stated, art does not equal quality, and far from all games have a considerable amount of artistic merit. This makes no difference though, after all, far from all photos, paintings, music and books are good either.

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

I definitely consider video games to be an art form: a very involving art form demanding of the creators. The best games have good controls, music, graphics, characters designed ingeniously with a lot of personality to boot, an enjoyable story etc. and all these things require creativity, patience and ingenuity to make well - much like any other art form.

I think they are an evolution, partially, of storytelling. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Maybe even code and AI scripts could be considered art?

---

Definitely. Games like Half-Life 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. would not have been as amazing if they weren't built on such powerful engines - Source and X-Ray. They build the buildings, render the beautiful lighting effects and play the music and sounds that makes the game come alive. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

---

That's like saying not all music is art. As the end result of a creative process, they are all art, whether you like to think so or not. As said before though, that doesn't mean it's all good. Whether or not something is good though has no bearing on whether or not it's art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

---

That's like saying not all music is art. As the end result of a creative process, they are all art, whether you like to think so or not. As said before though, that doesn't mean it's all good. Whether or not something is good though has no bearing on whether or not it's art.

---

Thank you. I agree wholly. But people tend to have a positive connotation when they hear the word "art" and think of the Mona Lisa, Paradise Lost, and the Statue of Zeus, and it seems to many to be tacky to use the same word to describe those as to describe Fight Night, Transformers, and Harry Potter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

---

That's like saying not all music is art. As the end result of a creative process, they are all art, whether you like to think so or not. As said before though, that doesn't mean it's all good. Whether or not something is good though has no bearing on whether or not it's art.

---

Thank you. I agree wholly. But people tend to have a positive connotation when they hear the word "art" and think of the Mona Lisa, Paradise Lost, and the Statue of Zeus, and it seems to many to be tacky to use the same word to describe those as to describe Fight Night, Transformers, and Harry Potter.

---

I know that. I mean't 'in my own opinion'. Some games can be complete crap while others (like Final Fantasy) can be beautiful, in my eyes.

Theater was originally considered to be a past time of the lower classes. And movies, for a time after they became widespread, were seen as the same - no class or respectability in them whatsoever.

You'd think a guy like Ebert, of all people, would be savvy to this little piece of movie history and be a little more objective to this industry which just emerged into the mainstream but a few years ago.