Printable View
i think that aspects of a game come together as a new form of art, and profit as an intent in the creation of such art doesn't nullify any artistic quality in the least.
visually, musically, and story-wise, there are many works of art in video games...i think that they could even be classified on their own since they are interactive
dialogue, plot, music and the fantastic sounds of Final Fantasy VIII...indeed. video-games combine literature and music, and some other stuff i didn't mention.
Aesthetic appeal?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yami_Yuffie
Videogames as a whole won't be considered 'art' by the general populace. There may be a select few now and then who can possibly approach it, but it doesn't fit in the same category as paintings or architecture.
Art presents itself the same way to everyone. You may feel differently about the presentation than someone else, but you still see and experience the same thing that everyone else does.
Games are not like that. The interactivity in it means that not everyone will witness the exact same presentation, and if you don't have the appropriate skills for certain games you won't even see it to completion.
Games do not fit inside the classified box of 'art'. Rather, the 'Art box' is a part of the game. You have elements of art within a game, but the experience is so much more than just art.
Then, there is the word 'art' that describes proficiency in a skill. Certainly, one can have the 'art of making a game', but that's a different kind of art, which is still a small part of the bigger picture of Games.
I disagree. Primarily because I expect you are severely underestimating the potential the genre has, and which we will probably not see for another 20 to 30 years. When that comes around, as I said in my prior post, I expect videogames will become the ubiquitous medium of the century.Quote:
Originally Posted by JKTrix
I see what you are saying - and certainly the final point about not seeing everything the game has to offer has validity - but I would contest that, because videogames are still a fairly new industry (Yes we've most of us grown up with it, but next to literature or even film, it's still very nascent) we might see different considerations come into play. I think your definition of art is somewhat flawed, more importantly, and does not consider the possibilities held by a medium which does show different things to different people, depending on how they play.Quote:
Art presents itself the same way to everyone. You may feel differently about the presentation than someone else, but you still see and experience the same thing that everyone else does.
Games are not like that. The interactivity in it means that not everyone will witness the exact same presentation, and if you don't have the appropriate skills for certain games you won't even see it to completion.
In fact, what is possibly one of the best examples of videogame art - Deus Ex - is commonly held in such high regard precisely because it offers variety of experience and differing routes to success. Look also at various games of Will Wright's, such as The Sims, Sim City, and the upcoming Spore - I think it someone narrow to see art only in the game's aesthetics and gameplay, because what the players create themselves (Whether in an extreme manner in sandbox games like Spore, or a more contstrained manner such as DX) and what players take away could possibly be considered an important artistic facet of the genre.
I actually think you're bang on the money with the idea that games do not really fit into the 'art box', and that it is more than what we typically consider art - but I think you are drawing the wrong conclusions from it, and I would contest that what is required is an expansion of the term 'art', rather than excluding the term's application to videogames.Quote:
Games do not fit inside the classified box of 'art'. Rather, the 'Art box' is a part of the game. You have elements of art within a game, but the experience is so much more than just art.
Games are most definitely an art form, in that they are a way of expressing or conveying emotions and ideas. Whether they're good art is another question. I think that, on the whole, video games are yet to make as great a contribution artistically as other popular media. This is of course due in part to the relative youth of the industry, but also because its reliance on the development of more advanced technology means that it has until recently been somewhat limited in what it can achieve. That said, because of the interactive nature of gaming, it has nearly boundless potential for creative input. Because of this, gaming will surely surpass other artistic media in the near future; just imagine the possibilities available in a virtual reality environment.
Yes. The are an expression of thought. Even if they are milking harry potter, it is interpetive art.
But what is an "art form"?
I don't think of liturature as being an art form because when I think of art I think of visual. To me games are liturature with an art medium. Whether that would make it an art form.... I don't know. Maybe that makes it a bastard.
I guess it all depends on just what an "art form" is.
As for Roger Ebert, it seems to me he's talking about the classics. I don't think games have reached that status yet and have to wonder if they even can.
As gaming begins to permeate mainstream culture (and not just in a "Hey, check out my ironice Ms. Pac-Man T-shirt" way) this will happen. Plenty of games are already accepted as classics in the gaming community, but because gaming isn't taken as seriously by the wider population they haven't yet been given true cultural recognition. The closest thing the world has to a classic game so far is Tetris, but others will emerge as the public's perception of the medium changes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arrianna
I agree with MILF and others expressions: a clear definition of Art would definitely help.
This is an awesome topic for discussion, thanks RiseToFall. ;)
Games are art, but to varying degrees depending on the game.
To me, art is something the artist creates not ultimately for $$$ (though of course that always figures in because it is their livelihood afterall) but primarily to portray a person/setting/event/etc., to evoke emotions, to question societal or personal beliefs, etc. etc. Art is created because the artist believes it is something worth being shared.
Some games aim to induce a "high" for the purposes of getting the gamer to feed this high by buying nearly identical games for the purpose of generating $$$. These are lowest on the totem pole of "artistic video games." A lot, though of course not all, FPSs fit into that category. At the top would be games created not for the purpose of making money or entertaining, but because the developers had a vision (in scenery, sound, story, and gameplay) they believed they need to share...perhaps because they thought it was beautiful, or emotional, or contained an important message, whatever.
Unfortunately, games that are meant to be art are often going to bring in less than their production costs. Not necessarily in terms of dollars, but definitely in terms of worker commitment in time and energy...why make art when you can turn out three cash-cow games for game-junkies with the same amount of time and effort? It may, in the future, often come down to people with lots of dough simply having a vision for a particular game and not caring about making money off of it (much in the same way wealthy movie stars will often make their own movies...George Clooney's Good Night and Good Luck is a perfect example). Either way, we will of course see games that approach the artistic pinnacle.
And of course within any game there are elements that are very much art. The person commissioned to do the background art and/or animations, or the person writing/recording the music are, I would guess, fairly concerned with the artistic quality of their work and not so much how much money the game makes. Even the gameplay features can be artistic. Active participation by the observer does not preclude something from being art. There is a lot of art, visual and audal, that requires the observer to do something to experience a work and guaranteeing that their experience will differ at least slightly from the experience of other observers, wether it be how fast they spin a dial or how quickly they wave their hand over a colorful heat-sensitive combination of compounds, etc., etc. Walk into a student art gallery in any large university town and you'll see such art. And if that counts, surely the gameplay element of a video game counts as well.
Video games are most definitely art forms. But I would have to agree with ol' senile Ebert and say that I don't think video games will ever be as brilliant an art form as literature or film.
if video games are a form of art
then...
Cheerleading and Showchoir are sports.
I believe you all know my stance.
(by the way, I was a showchoir fag, and no, it's not a sport)
Showchoir isn't a sport, but cheerleading is. Competitive cheerleading requires hecka atheletism. :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper
I don't think a video-game itself is art, however I do think that the drawing of the characters and what not are art.