Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Simple question, do you consider video games art?

Yes.
They have aesthetic qualities.
They usually tell a story.
Effort has been put into it.
Not to mentioning the programming and expertise required to get it to work.
Its an art form.

....well, ok it does depend on the game in question. Farmville is a game, and that hardy deserves to be called art. Silent Hill does deserve to be called art, due to the symbolism and intricate story involved.

Of course they are. Presenting Big Rigs:


Simple. Like all great art pieces this game is simply misunderstood by this generation. After 100 years this will be displayed in every museum as a pinnacle of artistry and perfect embodiment of human existence.

Here's an interesting little video:

http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/teamt/oancitizen/miscellany-and-hodge-podge/34689-the-art-of-video-games-and-video-games-as-art

There are very few that are, same as with movies (or books).

I'd have some of these printed on canvas and hang them on the wall:

I do not consider sports to be art.
I do not consider books to be art. (Even things like Hamlet)
I do not consider movies to be art (even things like Casablanca)


So I have no reason to consider video games art. Video games are something I do to have fun. This is by the games having me do something fun or tell a story. I do not consider that to be art.

(Me personally)

 Galdos wrote:
I do not consider sports to be art.
I do not consider books to be art. (Even things like Hamlet)
I do not consider movies to be art (even things like Casablanca)


So I have no reason to consider video games art. Video games are something I do to have fun. This is by the games having me do something fun or tell a story. I do not consider that to be art.

(Me personally)

What do you consider as art then? Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking your opinion. I'm just curious.

 Galdos wrote:
I do not consider sports to be art.
I do not consider books to be art. (Even things like Hamlet)
I do not consider movies to be art (even things like Casablanca)


So I have no reason to consider video games art. Video games are something I do to have fun. This is by the games having me do something fun or tell a story. I do not consider that to be art.

(Me personally)

Really because literature and movies I think are universally accepted as art now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artistic_media

How would I know what is art when I don't even know what art is?

 illuknisaa wrote:
How would I know what is art when I don't even know what art is?

I suppose you could do some research on the topic.

Let me rephrase my question: What isn't art?

The defination is so vague that it loses all meaning. My philosophy teacher says art is something that produces emotion. I personally can't agree to that because then everything that a troll writes is also art. Is this art?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

Both of these are titled "what is art"
http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Art%3F

A better topic for discussion would be "What games are good/bad" That discussion would have a premise which is somewhat defined.

I recently went to an art gallery at the Smithsonian that did a piece on video game art and it was very interesting.

I think some games are art, they convey messages, emotions and ideals in a creative way. But some games are simply made to entertain and give sensory stimulation.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I recently went to an art gallery at the Smithsonian that did a piece on video game art and it was very interesting.

I think some games are art, they convey messages, emotions and ideals in a creative way. But some games are simply made to entertain and give sensory stimulation.

Hint: both mean the same thing.

 illuknisaa wrote:

 Mr Nobody wrote:
I recently went to an art gallery at the Smithsonian that did a piece on video game art and it was very interesting.

I think some games are art, they convey messages, emotions and ideals in a creative way. But some games are simply made to entertain and give sensory stimulation.

Hint: both mean the same thing.

Yes, but that second group is as close to art as a playboy magazine.

 illuknisaa wrote:
Let me rephrase my question: What isn't art?

The defination is so vague that it loses all meaning. My philosophy teacher says art is something that produces emotion. I personally can't agree to that because then everything that a troll writes is also art. Is this art?: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

Both of these are titled "what is art"
http://arthistory.about.com/cs/reference/f/what_is_art.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_Art%3F

A better topic for discussion would be "What games are good/bad" That discussion would have a premise which is somewhat defined.

Art to me is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, so the barriers to what isn't art is very little.

I put some are and some arent...

Sports games, like Madden, NHL, Tiger Woods and the like are NOT art in my eyes.

Games like Metal Gear Solid, Darksiders, God of War and the like are.

Personally, the longer a series goes on, the less art it becomes... so for me, silent hill, Resident Evil and Final Fantasy are becoming less art and more "money grabbing product" regardless of the work, story and whatnot that goes into them.

 Mr Nobody wrote:
Yes, but that second group is as close to art as a playboy magazine.

Erotic nude art is as old as people grinding up mud to paint with their fingers on cave walls. It can be argued that playboy is closer to art than most of the gak in the Tate Modern...

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
I do not consider sports to be art.
I do not consider books to be art. (Even things like Hamlet)
I do not consider movies to be art (even things like Casablanca)


So I have no reason to consider video games art. Video games are something I do to have fun. This is by the games having me do something fun or tell a story. I do not consider that to be art.

(Me personally)

What do you consider as art then? Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking your opinion. I'm just curious.

I figured, hence why I made it clear it was my opinion.

Im not sure if I can describe it, it's something like if I saw it I could say if it is or isnt art.

Pictures (as in photos) are art
Sculptures/statues
Paintings/drawings



I remember visiting the Museum of Art in Washington DC and us commenting that some of the pictures do not deserve to be called art. *shrugs*

 Galdos wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 Galdos wrote:
I do not consider sports to be art.
I do not consider books to be art. (Even things like Hamlet)
I do not consider movies to be art (even things like Casablanca)


So I have no reason to consider video games art. Video games are something I do to have fun. This is by the games having me do something fun or tell a story. I do not consider that to be art.

(Me personally)

What do you consider as art then? Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking your opinion. I'm just curious.

I figured, hence why I made it clear it was my opinion.

Im not sure if I can describe it, it's something like if I saw it I could say if it is or isnt art.

Pictures (as in photos) are art
Sculptures/statues
Paintings/drawings



I remember visiting the Museum of Art in Washington DC and us commenting that some of the pictures do not deserve to be called art. *shrugs*

Ok, so you believe only visual art can be art a very classical definition I might add.

They can be.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D7VJ4lP-05A

All video games are art. However, like films, not all are good art. Modern Warfare 3 might not be a wonderful piece of art and is full of jingoistic politics, but it's still art. It's still making a statement through the medium it's in. Even so, games are still full of art in and of themselves. Concept artists, modelers, animators, texture artists, composers, voice actors, lighting specialists and so on are all making art.

Definitely, if some slapper making a bed dirty counts as art, then they surely are, and they require hours of design.

Yes, video games are art.

Here's the main problem when this comes up. Art =/= good.

People confuse the compliment "art" with the simple word art. Such as "Wow, this is a work of art!" as opposed to the dictionary definition. Art is just something people create for the sake of it. Art can suck too.

For a game to be considered art for me, it has to tell a good story. This rules out games like Farmville, Counter Strike, League of Legends, Minecraft and most Sports Games. This also eliminates nearly all multiplayer options in games. MW3 single player is art thanks to the plot and notable events. MW3 Multiplayer is just a bunch of kids shooting each other and complaining about how certain guns are unbalanced.

Some games fall into the middle. Games like Def-Jam Vendetta, Crash Bandicoot and Painkiller are only loosely considered art in the same way modern rap is considered poetry by many.
"The Evolution of Rap"


I put such things akin to modern art; they do indeed qualify as art, but they fail. They are given a medium to work with, jumble it around a bit, and call it finished. Just don't get me wrong, Crash and Painkiller are good games; they just are not good art.

On the other hand, Braid and Home World are amazing works of art. Great scripts, visuals and soundtracks. Both even tugged at your emotions. Hell, who didn't tear up in HomeWorld when you came out of Hyperspace to listened to the Fleet Commander's voice crack as he reported the Kharak was burning?

Art:


Not Art:

If you say Painkiller isn't art, I will fight you I love Painkiller. Art is hard to nail down in a definition. I usually sum it up as something created in a medium that gets a reaction out of you, or evokes emotion. The story in Painkiller is absolute trash, but the visceral reaction I get from that game is something that would qualify it as art for me. It made me feel a certain way (the way it intended) and that is what makes it art for me.

Hanith wrote:
For a game to be considered art for me, it has to tell a good story. This rules out games like Farmville, Counter Strike, League of Legends, Minecraft and most Sports Games. This also eliminates nearly all multiplayer options in games. MW3 single player is art thanks to the plot and notable events. MW3 Multiplayer is just a bunch of kids shooting each other and complaining about how certain guns are unbalanced.

I would argue that minecraft can be considered art because I've seen people create art within the game.

 Mr Nobody wrote:

I would argue that minecraft can be considered art because I've seen people create art within the game.

Beyond my "all games are art" opinion, I'd say Minecraft is art because of the emotions it can induce. When you're looking out over a sunrise from the top of something you created and this serene music starts playing, it just washes this relaxing calm over you. Conversely, the tension and fear when you're underground with loads of diamonds and you're trying to escape monsters is palpable too.

Sum, but very few. Mainly RPGs. Planescape: Torment, Morrowind, and KotOR1&2 are the only games I would put up on that pedestal.

I believe games are harder to nail down in definition to art than others but pictures/movies are a touch easier...