Do you beleive videogames are an art form?

~This is a topic that i've been hearing alot about for a while now. On the one side we have a person like Roger Ebert who say's that "video games will never be as artistically worthy as movies and literature."

He beleives that our beloved medium has "fundamental limatations". And later goes on to say that " video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."

So I was wondering what you guys think about all of this? Do you consider games an art form, or do you agree with Roger Ebert and beleive it will never reach that status?

Also for the people that beleive that games are indeed an art form. Do you think that they should be studied in the same way that film, music, and literature are?

I think that they've already reached "art form" status.

The level of immersion offered by videogames means that, when made well, they can probably trascend most other art forms. The only one more immediate and necessarily interactive is architecture, but whilst that can evoke some feelings, it has a hard time doing so to the extent games can.

Yes, I consider them art, and I would go so far as to say that they will become the medium - for entertainment and for art - in this century.

Play Killer 7 and tell me otherwise.

Yes, I think that video games are an art form. A successful video game is an amazing fusion of visual art (character design, storyboards), film (cutscenes, sound design), architecture (level design), music, animation, and storytelling, along with several new things that other mediums don't have to deal with (such as the actual gameplay mechanics). Furthermore, I don't know about anybody else, but I find video games to be more engaging on a personal level than any other art form. (Obviously I can't speak for everybody though.)

Yes I think that video games should be studied in the same way that other "art" is, I've thought several times sitting through many of my film classes that the exact same critiquing and studying of film that we do in class could be very easily and even seamlessly applied to video games.

I do feel that, as a fairly young art form, you probably won't be able to see many "high art" video games just yet... but I presume we're getting there. =P And for me, it's not a matter of "if" video games are going to be studied in class, it's "when".

I believe it depends on the video game, I guess. This also goes from person to person because art is in the eye of the beholder.

Defenately!

ovcourse.

its like a visual story book n_n

Absolutely! Watch Aeris get skewered, and tell me that it didn't at least tug on a heart string or two. Or Resident Evil and Silent Hill, and say it didn't creep you out, if not scare the bejeezus out of you. When you take a viewpoint of a character you get more involved, hence the immersion of it all. Not to mention you have FAR more time to develop a character than in a movie. I'd say to think otherwise is an insult to the people that work endlessly to make these masterpieces.


Of course, that said, seeings how this is a gaming forum, there's obviously going to be a strong bias.

Well, when making a Video Game, someone would be looking for sales rather than expressing themselves. On the other hand, there are things involved in the making of the game such as Character Art and Music Writing. Level-Design could fit into the category of art as well. Story telling is also another form of art used in Video Games.

I would say for the most part. Some games have stories and characters developed so far above and beyond any movies. And some games are technical beauties.

Some are also just about shooting people in the face. But those are fun, so who cares if they're art or not.

The medium can be considered a viable art form, but it is not all-encompassing. Certain games like Killer 7 or Okami definitely constitute art. Other games like, oh, say, Harry Potter and the whatever-thingy-cashing-in-on-the-movie do not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Behold the Void

The medium can be considered a viable art form, but it is not all-encompassing. Certain games like Killer 7 or Okami definitely constitute art. Other games like, oh, say, Harry Potter and the whatever-thingy-cashing-in-on-the-movie do not.

---

I know exactly where your coming from in this department. But I mean do the games really have to look artsy to be considered art?

What I mean is this, do games have to look a certain way to be considered art?

Games like:
Killer 7
Okami
Ico
Shadow of the Colossus

All of these games have a certain art style in which they were made. Does that automatically make them art?

Also when you take 2 games, let's say any Final Fantasy and compare it to quick buck game like Harry Potter. I mean both games are done pretty much the same way. Sure Final Fantasy might take a year longer to make and the people making the game probably have a lot more passion for their project. But the actual process of making the games altogether is not so different from one to another.

This is the part that really confuses me in this overall topic. Why some games would be considered art but others left behind.

I always kinda thought video games were, you know, games. That I play. To have fun. And maybe enjoy some sort of explorable world or enthralling storyline.

Character designs, soundtracks, and the like, are definitely art though.

Graphical superiority isn't requisite for me to consider a game to constitute "art", but it definitely helps. Storyline, innovation, depth, these are the things that make a game art. Games that try to break out of the mold and do something new and innovative usually constitute art, as do games with an epic and genuinely engaging and interesting storyline (usually happens with games that break from normal storytelling conventions as aside to sticking to the old, tried, and true).

This isn't always the case though, and it's really subjective. I'd say a good game speaks for itself on whether or not it could be considered art.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yami_Yuffie

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JKTrix

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.

---

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:

---

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.

---

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.

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.

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.

---

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arrianna

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.

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)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

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. :p

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.

Video games can be novels, movies, artwork as in pictures and music all in one package. Metal Gear Solid, for instance, could stand up as a film anywhere on all counts, as could many other games. I'm with Hux, video games will be far and away the best representation of art.

Whether or not people will be willing to be openminded enough to find that out for themselves? Doubtful, but that's their loss.

I wrote a much longer defense of my stance today, just put it up on EoFF. If you like, take a look at it here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Miriel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

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. :p

---

are you kidding me, i'd like to see you sing (good at that) while working your buns off dancing on stage. K THX BAI.

neither are sports.

>>> Well, If filmaking its called art I dont know why videogames cannot be considered art too..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

are you kidding me, i'd like to see you sing (good at that) while working your buns off dancing on stage. K THX BAI.

neither are sports.

---

So, now that we're bored of your ludicrous and irrelevant really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., do you have any actual reasons to not consider videogames art?

Of course games are art the only reason Rogert Ebert said that is because he has never played one and this site is about an art series.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dignified Pauper

are you kidding me, i'd like to see you sing (good at that) while working your buns off dancing on stage. K THX BAI.

neither are sports.

---

So, now that we're bored of your ludicrous and irrelevant really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking., do you have any actual reasons to not consider videogames art?

---

do i ever?

further, that wasn't really valid point and i'm impressed by your thinking..

If games are not art then Marik D. Pauper is straight.

Convincing enough? :tongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gir

Yes, I think that video games are an art form. A successful video game is an amazing fusion of visual art (character design, storyboards), film (cutscenes, sound design), architecture (level design), music, animation, and storytelling, along with several new things that other mediums don't have to deal with (such as the actual gameplay mechanics). Furthermore, I don't know about anybody else, but I find video games to be more engaging on a personal level than any other art form. (Obviously I can't speak for everybody though.)

Yes I think that video games should be studied in the same way that other "art" is, I've thought several times sitting through many of my film classes that the exact same critiquing and studying of film that we do in class could be very easily and even seamlessly applied to video games.

I do feel that, as a fairly young art form, you probably won't be able to see many "high art" video games just yet... but I presume we're getting there. =P And for me, it's not a matter of "if" video games are going to be studied in class, it's "when".

---

Not much to add on top of this. I firmly believe videogames ARE a form of art. Unfortunately, today it takes loads of money, time, people and effort to make a videogame, and this means that those who want to invest on that won't make a videogame for art's sake, but will want to get their money back in some way, with all the limitations that we know because of this. But if videogames were to be completely free of commercial logics, we could have masterworks comparable to indipendent movies, especially in the future when graphics will be able to show virtually anything.

I think video games are art. A game can actually change the way you view an act in ways that are more immediate than TV or movies or novels.

In a game, I can set an objective that seems all good, but turns out for bad (one off example, in starcraft one particular victory in the Terran Campaign puts a fascist regeme in charge of the planets). This is more immediate than TV or movies, both of which give you the emotional distance of "sure [movie character] fell for it, but I wouldn't have", mostly because you *did* fall for it. I could use a Karma setting to change events -- if you're an a-hole to the peasent villagers (i.e via Dragon Quest style house-looting), don't expect much help from them, instead, you may find yourself fighting guards. Maybe I could give a choice between a seeming evil act that would work, and a seeming good act that wouldn't -- and have the player decide.

I think that's where games have the greatest potential, the point where a player decides which path to take, and how he wants to play the game. As long as each action has a real consequence, it can be more powerful than anything on TV. It wasn't some hack scriptwriter that made a bad choice, it was you. It wasn't the game designer that screwed over the villagers and put you in jail -- you put you in jail. That's the potential. And hopefully, someday it will be more common.

YES, they have! I'll never forget the cutscene at the beginning of Xenogears when that girl walked out nude from the wreckage of that spaceship. Beuatiful scene, well done. And how about Squall in FF8 rescuing Rinoa and seeing them embrace? You could see the love on Squall's face.That's art!

most games arent but great games with deep storylines and characters like some of the FF's are amazing and better than a lot of books and films. ive found some of the FFs pretty life changing and the legacy of kain series has a great storyline and is a group of games that could be considered as art.

of course games like racing games and pretty simple games like tony hawks aren't really an art form, a lot of games are truly amazing.

This is a biased forum to ask that type of question. I doubt many people would agree with Ebert's statements. To tell the truth, I'm amazed he's said a sentence other than just 'two thumbs up!'

Games are an art form encompassing many others - visual art, in the graphics that are used to create the game, literature, in the storylines behind the games, and sometimes even performing arts - in the acting portrayed by some of the characters [this is from the actors playing the roles of video game characters, with those black suits and all that stuff].

And finally, the main aspect of art in a game is its gameplay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt Boyd

Any future discussions on whether games are art will consist of 15 minutes of playing Shadow of the Colossus and then everyone will go out for cake.

---