[General Discussion] Can video games be considered art?

The question is rather simple: Do you think games are a legitimatly be consider art? How do they compare against other form of legitimate artistic expression? What are the best examples of games as an artistic medium? Does art require completely static authorial control to be art? And so on in that fashion.

Gamepoltics had on good article on this yesterday: http://gamepolitics.livejournal.com/357698.html

I could write a rather much lengthier post on this but for now I’ll just focus on describing the difference between art, artistic and free speech. In my opinion:

Speech: both legall and in a more generall sene ultimately boils down this: The medium as a whole has the capacity to convey a message (be it political, entrainment, informational or raw emotional invocation) that can be clear understood by it audience. Games clearly meet this test are protect speech but being protect speech does not mean it art or even artistic.

Art: art convey a message (and thus all art is free speech, but not all free speech is art) but goes beyond merely coveys art attempts to apply human intelligence and craftsmanship to the message. Art is about how the message is delivered. In art how the message is delivered matters just as much if not more then the message it self. To this end is the medium of games capable are capable of being art, but this does not mean that all games are art (even thou all games are free speech) or even that any game has become art, merely that the potential exists.. It is also a medium in it infancy games are still just copying movies and are not full exploring the unique potential that lies in an interactive medium.

The biggest counter to game being art is that game requires player control while serious art demand authorial control. I believe that the interaction games provide does not diminish authorial control over the message being conveyed and most intelligent critics at the least recognizes that games require craftsman’s ship to create. All the choice you have in any given game are dictated by the author you explore the choice the author has decided to give you. That fact that you are given a choice doesn’t diminish the fact that all you see and experience is as such because the author wanted you to have those options.

Artistic: artistic is basically just craftsman ship with out a recognizable message. My chair and my car both have elements of good craftsman ship but without a message In this respect all games are artistic

Ok I’ve babbled on long enough, just thought defining what art and some related concepts are too me would be beneficial, your free to disagree with my definition (will technically you can’t disagree with what the legal definition of speech is, since it is expletively written down and such, you can disagree with weather games meet the definition but I rather not take this thread in legal direction, it included mainly as a point of reference)

Ok that my opinion what yours.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

In my opinion, for a game to be artistic they have to provoke the gamer to feel something. They dont' necessarily have to convey a message, but games that can be branded as "artistic" are games which make the gamer engaged with the world they are playing in.

And there's the difference between an artistic game, and a game that looks stylish. For me, an artistic game is one that envelopes the gamer, but also delivers it in a way so that the gamer is thrust into the world they are playing in.

Although I've played many games which have done that to me, one game that has stuck to me as a "truly artistic" is ICO. Not only did the game make me feel isolated, but it overwhelmed me with a sense of surrealism and the game was that of a dream-like quality. It truly engaged me and not only that, the game played so well as to keep me immersed in the fantasy world created for me to play in. The puzzles thought up using the "two-character" system seemed very real and natural. Yet, the game kept control of you as the gamer because of these very elements. ICO is one of the games I consider to be art.

On the other hand, there are games which are artisically fantastic, but don't play well and don't immerse a gamer. My example is Killer7, where the cel-shading is used brilliantly. Because of the gameplay, however, I wasn't able to get captured into the world of Killer7. Sure, the cel-shading offered a real detective, thriller, surreal feeling to it but as a game which is to be considered "art", it wasn't it. It was just an artistically good-looking game.

And then there's Electroplankton, which I consider to be interactive art, but there are hardly any games like that so I'll just stop here for the time being,

Most amazing jew boots

Oh yeah, I remember this. The authorial control argument is silly and hypocritical. People used to use the same argument against movies. So how come movies can be considered art now? Probably because they became part of the mainstream, heh heh. Anyways, art has no universal definition beyond what it means to the individual, so in keeping things that simple, I believe videogames can be art. Art is simply an expression of something. That something can be expressed by a person, by a group of people, by nature, by whatever. So art isn't defined by authorial control. Art is defined by how it's understood and interpreted by someone. Anything can be art.

As for the interactivity, I fail to see how that stops something from being art. Regardless of what choices a person makes in game world, they are taking place within the confines of the game world as designed by the developers and scenario writers. The experience is slightly different for each person, but you could liken that to how not everyone interprets a movie or a painting the same way. A person's interpretation of (or experience with) art does not have to conform to the author's interpretation or intention in order for the expression to be artistically valid. So I guess the real question is whether or not a combination of different mediums for art such as sight, sound, and dialog can make for a form of art altogether. Since movies fit that category, I'd say the answer is yes. Practical isn't the same as artistic, but just as a fancy chair can be artistic compared to standard one, ICO isn't the same as Madden. Just because videogames are made to be played doesn't mean that they can't be expressive. Pong may not be art for obvious reasons, but a videogame with lush environments, a sweeping musical score, and an involving storyline can't be art just because there's gameplay added to the mix? I think not. Videogames can be considered art.

I've said it before: It's clear that Ebert didn't give much thought to the issue before dismissing games based on some antiquated notion and simple technicality. Frankly, I don't think he's qualified to tell anyone whether or not a game can be considered art. His game experience is no doubt sorely lacking compared to his movie experience. That being said, if the words didn't come from Roger Ebert, I doubt if anyone would've cared. I'll consider Ebert's opinion when it comes to movies, but when it comes to videogames, he's too inexperienced for me to take his opinion seriously. He should stick to commenting on movies, as his crass generalizations of videogames only make him look foolish.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Ebert's an idiot. Tons of games are plot driven, not player choice based. Even if its not plot driven, that doesn't persay make it less of a work. I don't even care what he says about movies, much less any field he has low-to-no expierance in.

Anthropology says: Unique human ability, tied in with symbology. Creative use of the human imagination to interpret, express, and enjoy life. Art is beyond function, and is active on an aesthetic level.

I wouldn't call every game a 'piece of art'. But to me, yes, video games qualify.

Originally Posted by Megavolt

As for the interactivity, I fail to see how that stops something from being art.

Actually, some art is interactive. It in now way affects whether or not the work is 'art'.

Most amazing jew boots

Assuming the interactivity argument holds, would the game become art while watching cutscenes, only to become "not art" as soon as you're using the controller again?

I was speaking idiomatically.

I totaly think that video games are an art. Not just visually but also story wise. Also alot of games feature music composed by some really good composers. There are three types of art that go into the making of a game.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by avanent

Ebert's an idiot. Tons of games are plot driven, not player choice based. Even if its not plot driven, that doesn't persay make it less of a work. I don't even care what he says about movies, much less any field he has low-to-no expierance in.

Wow, I don't think I could've put it any better.

Art is whatever you make art out to be. It's vague, but it's supposed to be. I don't understand why people are so hell bent on finding a concrete definition that can determine what is and isn't art.

Can a game have absolutely no story and still be art? I absolutely believe so, too bad I can't think of an example at the moment

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Darkcomet72

Wow, I don't think I could've put it any better.

Art is whatever you make art out to be. It's vague, but it's supposed to be. I don't understand why people are so hell bent on finding a concrete definition that can determine what is and isn't art.

Can a game have absolutely no story and still be art? I absolutely believe so, too bad I can't think of an example at the moment

You know, I've been taking an art appreciation class, and I've been thinking a lot about the whole video games as art thing. I like to think of Super Metroid as a work of art, not because of an engrossing story, or awesome level design/mechanics, but because of the emotion that it has always invoked within me. I think its a prime example of a game as art, and proves to me at least, that games can be considered art.

There are other examples of course, but it doesn't change the fact that the reason I'm as much of a Metroid fan today wasn't because of gameplay or graphics, its because the game has affected how I judge other games, and my entire outlook in general.

- WraithTwo -

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Yes, but I don't think a game has to be applicable to the term "artistic" as a film or novel or painting is. Even the most simple games, like Tetris or Pong, have an artistic quality to them. I consider the gameplay to be the artistic center of a game, and everything else merely supports or adds to that center.
This is not to say that a game can't be artistic in a more traditional sense, and some are, but they don't have to be for me to consider them artistic.
Plenty of people would dismiss this notion, plenty of people who'd like to think of themselves as progressive thinkers, but that dismissal in and of itself would deny that about them. They're close-minded and only open to what they've known before, what's established and safe to consider artistic.

Anyway, art is a bullshit term. It means nothing. It's so abstract and ridiculous people could argue about this for years and get no closer to deciding on something or agreeing. So let's accept that games are fun and leave it at that. Art, as a word, means nothing.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by avanent

I wouldn't call every game a 'piece of art'.

Right - all photographs represent something, but not all photographs can be considered "art." Art stems from intention in my mind.

I don't think we have to limit ourselves to deciding whether or not an entire game is "art." For example, I felt that portions of F.E.A.R. were very artistic, even though the game overall isn't something I would consider art. By the same token, I thought that the overall "mood" of a post-apocalyptic "Big Brother" setting in HL2, as created by diverse elements including the setting, graphics (including posters on the concrete walls and the video screens), the audio (especially the pre-recorded messages), and a thousand tiny details, was very artistic, even though the overall game was focused on shooting and action.

On consoles, when I truly want to be wowed by atmosphere and design (everything, from environments to characters to water to enemies) I turn on Rayman 2 for DC.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

If the question was "Can all video games be considered as art?" then no.

But if the question is "Can video games be considered as art?" then yes, some indeed can be. It varies between games.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Darkcomet72

Can a game have absolutely no story and still be art? I absolutely believe so, too bad I can't think of an example at the moment

Ikaruga? Burgertime? Tetris? Galaga?

As people have said before, art is defined by the individual. I've played enough games I didn't enjoy or feel any connection to, so the ones I feel a connection with are indeed art to me because the designer's content got through to me and had an effect. The interactivity argument is pretty much void, since in the past, it's only been applied to mediums that didn't have it...Only over-conservatives need apply there. Gameplay is every bit a valid criteria for artistic merit.

And yes...Ebert is a fucking moron.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by GoldfishX

Ikaruga?

Ikaruga has a huge story if you're willing to take the time to read it. Of course this was cut from the english version of the game, but it doesn't really matter. It's still very much there (and very solid).

How ya doing, buddy?

Videogames arent art, Videogames are a media who containts art, and a really good one: The art of entertaint me.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Elixir

Ikaruga has a huge story if you're willing to take the time to read it. Of course this was cut from the english version of the game, but it doesn't really matter. It's still very much there (and very solid).

Abstract art?

FELIPE NO

I think its very possible that some games can be considered as art. Firstly, as already mentioned somewhere up there, there's a huge amount of different arts coming together in a game. The actual artwork and designs, the "acting" if there is any, and the music.

Also someone mentioned that art must evoke some sort of emotion. What about Shadow of the Colossus? A simple story and yet I felt for the characters and awesomely evil looking beasts and yet through the music and camerawork, the game conveys almost a pitiful feel. If that game isn't art, I dunno what is.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?