Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

But Is It Art?

Posted by Zonk on from the preach-on-brother dept.

Once again the ever popular topic of 'Games as Art' rears its head in a Gamespot editorial. Matthew Rorie talks the artistic and social value of games, and touches on comics and film to boot. From the article: "As of now, innovation in games is driven more by commerce than by any kind of noble artistic ideal. For that to change, and for games to be taken more seriously by people who don't play them, games need to become cheaper to make, they need to be made by more- diverse groups of people, and they need to be more accessible to nongamers. You could argue about the accessibility point, but the other two factors aren't improving, and they probably won't improve anytime soon. Most game companies seem to be preaching to the choir by developing games that will mostly appeal to people who are already interested in them."

5 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. Is It Art by MrCopilot · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No

    Games can be artistic in style.

    Art is art for the sake of art. Games are games for the sake of entertainment.

    Next rehashed question please.

    --
    OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
    1. Re:Is It Art by snuf23 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then how come some films are considered "works of art" when they are also created to entertain?
      And a lot of conventional art is created to feed the artist.

      --
      Sometimes my arms bend back.
    2. Re:Is It Art by _xeno_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Try playing Shadow of the Collossus. That game is art of art's sake, at the expense of gameplay in some ways. (Freaking camera.)

      In the exact same way that TV shows are art and movies are art and plays are art, games are art. I think most people would agree that board games are a form of art, so it would follow that video games are art as well.

      Besides, I'd have to question your statement that "art is for the sake of art." I'd say all art is for the sake of entertainment, at the core. The entire point of art is some form of entertainment, even if it is a more intellectual form of entertainment.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  2. Who Cares? by yotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seriously, who cares? Is a car art? Is the ocean art? Is this post art? Just make me a fun game and I'll play it.

    --
    Pulp Audio Weekly - Geek News and Reviews
  3. Under these requirements, what is art? by nine-times · · Score: 3, Insightful
    As of now, innovation in games is driven more by commerce than by any kind of noble artistic ideal...

    Yes, because movie studios and art galleries don't want to make money. Painters and directors have absolutely no commercial hopes for their creations. I know all the professional painters I know aren't trying to sell their paintings.

    ...games need to become cheaper to make...

    Like movies are cheap to make? Yeah, I mean, I can scrounge up a couple hundred million in a weekend. Paint, canvas, they cost money too. More than you'd think.

    ...and they need to be more accessible to nongamers.

    ...and paintings need to be made to be more accessible to people who don't look at paintings, movies to people who don't watch movies....

    Look, I'm not saying that it isn't possible to improve the game creating/playing community or something, but are they art? Yes. That it can be expensive, commercial, and that it has a limited audience has nothing to do with the question whatsoever. Art can be all of those things. Good art can be all of those things.