Are Games Art?

[DougClayton4231]

lulz Dimnos. I think that he means that art is a matter of feeling, not cultural subjections. I don't really agree though. Just because it feels good to paint or program or use a camera doesn't make what you do art. If you've ever listened to grindcore or played "Winter Games" you understand what I mean.

[Grislygus]

No, that's not what I was saying. The artist's respect for a medium does not replace objective analysis, but it's a key component in establishing artistic merit (for people who aren't retards). In addition to the standard popular definition of art, a critical and often ignored factor is the artist's motivation to work in one or more mediums because working in those mediums is pleasurable for him in a visceral sense (ie wet brush, contact with the paper, gliding across and the various subtleties in pressure and resistance). The sheer action itself becomes pleasurable in a really intense way (no, not in that way, freak. Well, maybe for some artists. If they're painting with their dick ) and it becomes a really complex level of feelinin-fine when you combine this with the visual information you get from the marks you are making. and if you're affected like that you get a real adrenaline rush just by looking at a painting/drawing/sculpture at seeing what another artists did with their medium. This is related to why Damien Hirst is a fucking assclown.

I'm assuming that Dimnos is actually right on the money, except I've never met a computer programmer who could get a life-affirming reaction from writing a line of BASIC.

As far as rendering with a tablet... There's still the visceral feeling of the "pen" gently pressing on the tablet, but I don't get that intense fun factor out of it that I do with ink, graphite, and charcoal .


Cue the gross misinterpretations of what I'm saying with my words and the English Language.

[Dimnos]

I only used Gus' definition of art because I feel he is the foremost authority on art around these parts. However I do feel games are a form of art. Yes there are a lot of shitty games out there that dont lend themselves to that argument but the same could be said about painting and books and music. Namely your grindcore bs. (Just a small jab there, no offense) On the other hand there are lots of paintings and books and music out there that do fortify those mediums as art and that side of games is smaller in proportion to the shitty ones, hence the debate. I think Gus pins down and defines art as best as anyone can, because like he himself said its just semantics, but I feel he is mostly comparing games to paintings where I think they are more like movies and/or books. Then again one could argue that in creating a game its more like a painting where enjoying it is more like movies or books.

[Grislygus]

Games are an applied art. It is art made specifically with a utilitarian purpose in mind (this actually includes everything from fucking teapot designs to illustration). Fine art is art made for it's own sake, the kind of art that is either commissioned, motivated by the whole "medium" issue I described above, or (at its worst) designed with museums and fame in mind [Superficial pop art is considered fine art right now, which pisses me off and is reflected in EVERY SINGLE POST I've made here, I can't help that]. WHen most people think "art", they think fine art and don't make the distinction AND NEITHER DO THE EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF CRITIQUE, WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO KNOW THIS SHIT, which is funny.

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by Grislygus

Fine art is art made for it's own sake, the kind of art that is either commissioned, motivated by the whole "medium" issue I described above...

Couldnt some indie games fall under this description?

Originally Posted by Grislygus

...or (at its worst) designed with museums and fame in mind [Superficial pop art is considered fine art right now...

Couldnt some mainstream games full under this description? Obviously not with museums in mind but instead retailers or game conventions or maybe even a magazine or website?

[Grislygus]

The indie game arena is where the argument actually gets interesting, I think the most recent contender was some game where you could choose one of several "little red riding hoods" and you simply explored the forest on the way to grandmother's house and decided whether or not to leave the path (I may be remembering this incorrectly). In the end, though, no one in the outside world really gives a fuck one way or the other in regards to a few incredibly obscure exceptions, so it's a fun debate but amounts to nothing.

Originally Posted by Dimnos

Couldnt some mainstream games full under this description? Obviously not with museums in mind but instead retailers or game conventions or maybe even a magazine or website?

No, the key point is that games are utilitarian. As are illustrations, but illustrations can be considered fine art if, and only if, they stand alone as masterworks outside of their original intention and context. And even THAT can be disagreed on. Gustav Dore was and still is, after his death in 1883,the western world's single greatest and most prolific illustrator (though he used plates and woodcuts, he still counts as an illustrator). He also was skilled with watercolors.

His watercolors were completely ignored (or ridiculed) in his native France, but their gallery run in Britain was a titanic success. To the rest of the world, the watercolors were proof positive that Gustav Dore was a true master. The French thought that they were just more illustrations done in watercolor (and inferior to the genuine grand-mastery of his normal plates) and in no way comparable to "real" fine art like Michelangelo or Raphael (I can't remember who his fine art contemporaries were, we need an art history major to jump in here). And that's in an arena where the difference between applied art and fine art actually IS blurred.

[Dimnos]

So Gus, in your opinion could games one day become art? If so, how? If not, why?

[dextire]

Originally Posted by Grislygus

In the end, though, no one in the outside world really gives a fuck one way or the other in regards to a few incredibly obscure exceptions, so it's a fun debate but amounts to nothing.

So, you're saying a game can only be considered fine art if it's mainstream?

I'm learning a lot from this thread. Grislygus explained in one paragraph what an entire "applied art vs. fine art" book couldn't teach me.

[DougClayton4231]

Originally Posted by Dimnos

I only used Gus' definition of art because I feel he is the foremost authority on art around these parts. However I do feel games are a form of art. Yes there are a lot of shitty games out there that dont lend themselves to that argument but the same could be said about painting and books and music. Namely your grindcore bs. (Just a small jab there, no offense) On the other hand there are lots of paintings and books and music out there that do fortify those mediums as art and that side of games is smaller in proportion to the shitty ones, hence the debate. I think Gus pins down and defines art as best as anyone can, because like he himself said its just semantics, but I feel he is mostly comparing games to paintings where I think they are more like movies and/or books. Then again one could argue that in creating a game its more like a painting where enjoying it is more like movies or books.

Yeah, Grislygus has a great perspective on the art matter. BTW Grindcore is the worst genre of music I've heard. Subjectivity is a major factor in the whole art debacle, but I honestly cannot see people looking back at 80-90% of all the videogames ever made and think "Art". Pac-Man, Pong, and other Atari era shit will probably be in a gallery one day. I just don't expect Modern Warfare to go along with it.

[Grislygus]

Originally Posted by dextire

So, you're saying a game can only be considered fine art if it's mainstream?

Art "being" mainstream and being accepted as art by mainstream society are two different things. In the latter context, yes. Remember Lord Byron? Alcoholic womanizing badass outsider that sent monumental shockwaves through the literary world, whose Byronic heroes inspired the entire concept of the anti-hero, in other words arguably the sole originator of the modern cutting-edge in writing?

Byron was a great writer and he was a the bad boy of literature in his time. He was also nothing more than one of the first 'modern' pop culture sensations. Same was Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allen Poe, and Lord Alfred motherfucking Tennyson.

As I said earlier, if videogames are ever accepted as art by art dealers, art critics, the majority of ground-level artists and (most critically) society at large, it will be universally considered "art" in the Western world, which is the same as BEING art in the Western world.

Key term: Western World. "Art" in Africa isn't considered real art if it isn't manufactured in a specific way for specific purpose, usually cultural or religious. I remember watching a documentary on African art, and the narrator recounted praising a couple of local women for the intricate bead work that they entwined in baskets they were selling, telling them that it was a great example of local art, each basket being unique and beautiful. They laughed at him. In a friendly way, but they thought that he was being funny. In their view, if it WAS great art, it would be carefully and respectfully duplicated. The fact that each basket was unique OBVIOUSLY indicated unimportance.

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by dextire

So, you're saying a game can only be considered fine art if it's mainstream?

I think what he is saying is that just to few games can actually be called up for consideration as art and the ones that could be are mostly indie games that the vast majority of the population dont know and/or care about therefore the category of games as a whole cant be called art. Which I can agree with because to few games can actually be considered as art, by myself or anyone being realistic about the subject, but does that really define the category? Goes along with...

Originally Posted by DougClayton4231

...I honestly cannot see people looking back at 80-90% of all the videogames ever made and think "Art".

Originally Posted by Doug

Pac-Man, Pong, and other Atari era shit will probably be in a gallery one day.

A gallery or a history museum? Like I said before I dont think you can really compare games as an art to things like paintings or sculptures. At least not from the perspective of the user/viewer/appreciator. You dont see books or movies in a gallery.

Originally Posted by Doug

I just don't expect Modern Warfare to go along with it.

Right. Modern Warfare is part of the lump of games I consider not lending themselves to the argument that games are (or at least can be) an art form. While it is a fun game there really isnt anything creative about it or the way you interact with it.

[mew barios]

i just wanted to throw out there that coding is my primary creative outlet, and i would describe finding an elegant solution to a complex problem as being a life-affirming moment. though the thing i really find artistic about a game doesn't have as much to do with the game itself as it does with how it actually works. that's not a perspective i expect to share with many people, but that's the burden of being artsy fartsy

[DougClayton4231]

Though movies and books are not in galleries per say, they are still generally accepted as art. People have tons of awards and award services for them. All games have are shitty Spike TV award shows (which don't matter anyway) and rabid fan praise (say that FFVII sucks in a game store and see what I mean). I guess that once gaming actually becomes completely socially respectable, people could view them as art.

I dunno. I'm still embarrassed to tell people that I play them due to social stigmas attached with playing video games. I don't fit the stereotypes and it seems awkward to play them for some reason. My homebrew Wii has well over 1000 games on it and that's cool but my 360 with ~30 is completely lame. I don't get it.

[Chojin]

Originally Posted by dimnos

oh awesome i love mad libs

Art is about a love of a medium and the resulting use of it and respect for it. If you're an artist nazi, painting or drawing goosestepping feels good. Whatever you're actually painting and drawing gassing jews is secondary. Because you've been drawing/painting gassing jews so long and have fun doing it, your goddamn BRAIN associates the visceral feeling of holding a brush/pencil/pen jew and moving throwing it on the paper gas chamber activates minor pleasure centers in your brain (like listening to music does to normal people).

[Zhukov]

Personally I'd say that anything done for the sake of it rather than for money or other such motive could be considered art by the person doing it. This is a layman term of art here.

[Dimnos]

Art is about a love of a medium and the resulting use of it and respect for it. If you're an artist nazi, painting or drawing goosestepping feels good. Whatever you're actually painting and drawing gassing jews is secondary. Because you've been drawing/painting gassing jews so long and have fun doing it, your goddamn BRAIN associates the visceral feeling of holding a brush/pencil/pen jew and moving throwing it on the paper gas chamber activates minor pleasure centers in your brain (like listening to music does to normal people).

[The Leader]

Chojin, you are fantastic.

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Originally Posted by Zhukov

Personally I'd say that anything done for the sake of it rather than for money or other such motive could be considered art by the person doing it. This is a layman term of art here.

Then Tramps are artists and whores are not.

[DougClayton4231]

Whores are artists in a way lololol

[Dimnos]

Not in Tasmania.

[Pentegarn]

Originally Posted by Grislygus

Art "being" mainstream and being accepted as art by mainstream society are two different things. In the latter context, yes. Remember Lord Byron? Alcoholic womanizing badass outsider that sent monumental shockwaves through the literary world, whose Byronic heroes inspired the entire concept of the anti-hero, in other words arguably the sole originator of the modern cutting-edge in writing?

Byron was a great writer and he was a the bad boy of literature in his time. He was also nothing more than one of the first 'modern' pop culture sensations. Same was Oscar Wilde, Edgar Allen Poe, and Lord Alfred motherfucking Tennyson.

There's something interesting in this. It seems in most cases hindsight tells us something was art. Shakespeare is another example. His works, when broken down to their base elements, are gutter tripe pandering to the lowest common denominator, filled with violence, sex jokes, and the like. Critics in his time found him vulgar at best. Yet these days he is considered an important literary influence.

It would seem time is a better judge of these things than any man.

[DougClayton4231]

I agree Pentegarn, I think that in 20 years people will look back and frown about how poorly videogames have been developed over the past 30 or so years.

[Phoenix Gamma]

http://gamevideos.1up.com/video/id/29092

<3 Scott Sharkey.

[kahljorn]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

[Zhukov]

Originally Posted by 10,000 Volt Ghost

Then Tramps are artists and whores are not.

Artists at what?