Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

A week or so ago in my studio arts class, my teacher was giving our class a lecture on how art has effected modern culture as a whole. About half way through, my friend Ben raises his hand and asks: "what about Video games? arnt thay art?" And wile I dont remember her responce, I do remember it bugging me (being an avid gamer myself). So Ive decided to bring my friend's question to the forums and see what the general opinion was.

Yes

http://americanart.s...ive/2012/games/

i'm tired of this nerd conversation

Kaxbe, on 15 February 2013 - 01:43 AM, said:

HAY!!! [Bi*** slap] At least im tring to make a valid attempt at NOT shitposting for the first time sence i got on these forums.

This post has been edited by Foolishprototype001: 15 February 2013 - 01:50 AM

it's just a moot discussion to have considering that they never go anywhere. it eventually becomes a conversation talking about what exactly defines art and who determines what art is. it's a long, stupid conversation that doesn't go anywhere and everyone in this forum can p much agree that video games are art without putting any deeper thought into it. this debate always becomes terrible nerd circle jerking

Kaxbe, on 15 February 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Its not like Im begging anyone to post or anything. If you dont like this thread you can just ignore it.

It's not a terrible topic. Roger Ebert had a thing or two to say about it that set off nerd rage across the globe before he recanted. Early games for the Atari or Mega Man or Mario or whatever would only be art insofar as puzzles depicting characters and landscapes could constitute art. The underlying theme was the puzzle itself and the visuals were secondary. These days, you have teams of writers, artists, musicians, programmers adjusting the laws of physics and people making sure all of this comes together for an immersive, cohesive experience. To that end, some are and some aren't in the way that Pong would be dubious art because it was just a basic concept with little effort behind it, not unlike cave-paintings.

On the other hand, if you have to argue that Dead Space and Mass Effect and what-have-you are not works of art, then you would have to apply the same argument to cinematography. Basically, the entire conflict comes down to the fact that photos were the next step from paintings, cinema the next step from photos, and, to date, video games being the next evolutionary step from cinema. Each precursor is an acknowledged art that no one would have immediately defined as art in its infancy.

So, yes, video games are art, (if done right) just as monumental an undertaking as any Michaelangelo's Sistine Chapel or Diderot's Encyclopedia. No purist is going to want to hear that comparison, but the way things are progressing, is it that unlikely that we could get a video game of that caliber?

Kaxbe, on 15 February 2013 - 01:52 AM, said:

Without being sarcastic or snarky (I swear), is that putting deep enough thought into it?

This post has been edited by Jerk: 15 February 2013 - 03:53 AM

THANK YOU!!!

in all honesty, Jerk, that's the most thought i've seen anyone ever put into this argument who isn't Roger Ebert or didn't divert into "what is art" conversation.

and i agree with what you said, by the way. and to add on, when it comes to viewing video games as art, it's important to remember that video games will be judged by their artistic predecessors before any real standard for judging video games as art is set, just as photos were initially judged by the standards of paintings, and cinema was initially judged by the standards of photography. video games are getting there, but until they are taken as serious a medium as cinema, it's unlikely. remember, Roger Ebert said that video games will not be art... within our lifetimes. we are close, but we're not there.

you could technically argue that anything manmade is art, to some degree.

Thank you. And what you said is a lot of what I was trying to articulate in my feeble way (or maybe I thought it and just neglected to type it). I can admit: I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea of a private company creating high-budget video games (not to disrespect indie games at all). I take the Mass Effect series as the closest object to a work of art in the video game genre, it'll help explain why this displeases me.

Imagine a movie came out. A great movie. A fantastic movie, maybe ten hours long or more, of which you would never get bored. But then the theater tells you that you can't see the whole movie unless you shell out a few more bucks. Well, okay, you want the full experience, right? But then they do it again. And again. And again. It's like if you got to see Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" in a gallery and they covered all but six inches in drapes, and to pull those drapes out of the way, you have to pay a fee.

Yes, I like the idea that you can add more on to this work of art of yours indefinitely (or, Hell, change an unpopular ending). But certainly not to the point where you allow an incomplete experience onto the market and hold the rest of it for ransom. Maybe I'm misusing this term, but it seems like extortion to me. That doesn't not make it art, but in respect to the way we've treated art with some kind of sanctity over the centuries, I have a hard time reconciling the way video game economics operate now as opposed to the reverence for the act of creating art itself.

I recall having a conversation with Lily in which she argued that if at least two people think something is art, then it is art. And then it becomes a case where it just happens to be art you don't like, but you can't say "It's not art". So like if you take a crap in a can and that's your artistic piece, it'll be art if other people (minimum two) think so, despite the supposed backlash it would get. It's because our definition of art is always changing, it doesn't always have to be paintings of nudes wrapped around blankets. And so if it starts up a discussion, then there has to be some validity to it.

@ Taeshi: Fair enough, but you have to admit we do make distinctions based on a sense of aesthetics like color, symmetry, detail, etc. You could call it all art, but you'd still make the distinction between good and fan bad art.

I dunno Jerk. Mabie a given game company thought thay had a complete product initally. But as with your example of Mass Effect public outcry (or some other force) caused them to rethink this notion. and on the topic of down loadable content, Ive always thought of it as "stirring the waters so they dont staganate" if you get my meaning.

Jerk said:

People who put time and effort into creating video games (just as any other work of art) are entitled to compensation for their hard work if they want it and can get it. How they do it may not exactly be desirable, but it's not like you're forced to keep shelling out money to them forever. You can choose to spend that money on some other piece of art instead.

Not that I disagree with you, just pointing out the other side of it. Artists still need to obtain basic necessities like food and shelter, and it's up to them how they want to flog their wares.

@wacko Isnt that were the term "starving artist" comes from?

I could understand that, both of you, to a point, but what excuse is there for Day One DLC? That's wrong and everyone knows it. If anything, they could just sell an expansion pack that automatically adds new updates as you choose them. Just one purchase, then automatic new content. It'd be fair for the gamer and give the creators incentive to continue developing their world. I'd certainly buy that. Beats nickel-and-diming us to death ELECTRONIC ARTS, YOUR RANCID CUNTS.

Back to a previous thought, though, I think that the games that we can truly label as works of art in the reverent sense are the games to which we can come back again and again and again and still get taken in by how wonderful it is just to experience it. And, maybe one day, they'll just come out with a game that will update forever. (If World of Warcraft hasn't already had the idea. Mists of Pandiarrhea.)

This post has been edited by Jerk: 15 February 2013 - 05:07 AM

Any game that makes a new world is art. Art is not just pictures any more.

This escalated just a little bit...

Yxela007, on 15 February 2013 - 05:21 AM, said:

And here i thought this thread wouldnt drum up any conversation. boy was I wrong.

Jerk i agree completly. day 1 DLC is jumping the gun completly, But to a certain extent couldnt Halo 4's "Spartan Ops" be considered day 1 DLC.

everything is fucking art

this is a conversation for children

Anything that contributes to our culture is art. the problem is that 'what is art' is always subjective.


i swear this topic is made every 6 months

LackLuster, on 15 February 2013 - 07:23 AM, said:

You say that like it is a bad thing. It is a topic that people can discuss and share differing opinions on, there isn't really a downside to a good discussion or debate in my experience. In response to the original post, I will say that I agree that video games are art, not always good art, but art. Just like someone drawing is considered art, be it good or bad. However, with this in mind, I do agree that day day 1 DLC and on disk DLC is horrible...unless it is given to the people who bought it new. The used sales argument has been had before so I wont go into it. The same goes for online passes. Oh, and on being judged by the predecessor of the art, while I do see what you mean by that, I still don't think Roger Ebert is a very good judge, given that he hasn't played any games and had no real basis. It is worse then judging a film without seeing it, it is judging all films without having seen any. I do think we have games that most certainly qualify as art in out lifetime. Bioshock, System Shock, Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and the Mass Effect series to name a few. In fact, the whole rage over the Mass Effect ending proves the value it has as art. If people hadn't become attached to the series, do you think there would have been such an uproar? The rage at the ending proves that we truly care about the worlds we enter, and that when done well, they can touch us and make us think about ourselves and our actions, as well as how we effect the world around us. This is proof that games are art in my opinion.

Ace, on 15 February 2013 - 01:32 AM, said:

I think it's art. Please hear me out before I get bashed for my reasoning. Last semester I took Music Appreciation 101 and one of the first things our teacher told us was that art is the first thing to evolve and music follows behind it. In this semester I am taking oil painting and I have come to learn so far that anything can be art. It can be a picture you took, a painting you copied from a picture, a painting you painted from your mind, scenery you witnessed, item you molded with clay or plaster, even images created from a computer program. You don't have to melt clocks and take a picture of it to call it art. (See Dali if you don't know what I mean.) It might not be art to other people but I believe it depends on the person. So I say yes. ^^

Art is subjective. To me, video games are art just as movies and music are. Hell, somewhere in this world a person probably considers human waste a work of art.

i worked really hard on that poo

Giygas, on 04 April 2013 - 01:24 AM, said:

You've never heard of pricasso have you? The things pepole consider art can be ridiculous and range from just about anything.

This post has been edited by bluefox: 04 April 2013 - 11:47 AM

bluefox, on 04 April 2013 - 11:46 AM, said:

lol'd

don't laugh tekkadon.

pricasso is a great artist.

No.

Video games CONTAIN art, and SOME video games are art themselves, but most are... games.

thank you SO. FUCKING. MUCH.

Kaxbe, on 04 April 2013 - 10:47 PM, said:

art thou happy now?

shut up

Giygas said:

Considering there are people making jewelry out of elk shit, I'm certain there are some doing the same with the human counterpart as well.

Poop art.