"Are Games Art?" and the Intellectual Value of Design (timconkling.com)

itwbennett writes: Tim Conkling is an independent game developer whose current project, Antihero, is a strategy game about running a thieves' guild in a Dickens-inspired Victorian city. Recently he had the opportunity to talk to (i.e., was held captive by) an elderly and 'accomplished playwright, set designer, and painter' who quickly dismissed game design as 'not art.' The question of games being art or not isn't a new one. Roger Ebert was on the 'games are not art' bandwagon in 2010. More important to Conkling, who wrote about this interaction in a recent blog post, is the notion that any 'intentionally designed' piece is worthy of intellectual respect. "Nobody would ever seriously write off, for example, an Eames chair or a Gehry building; whether these objects fit some random definition of 'art' is inconsequential to their perceived cultural value." writes Conkling.

Comments

Art is whatever

[turkeydance]

you can get away with.

Re:Art is whatever

[ClickOnThis]

Cite your source:

Art is anything you can get away with.
-- Marshall McLuhan

Re:Art is whatever

[tnk1]

Art actually seems to reflect more intention than anything else.

Someone can put up a urinal and sign it, and it will become art. It was intended as art to have some sort of message. I would explain that message, but you are not worthy of Dada, so I will now explain how you are all cows instead. And tricycles. Potato.

Ahem.

A video game can be created with the intention of being art, and so it becomes art. You may think it is rather shitty, but that's just your opinion, man.

Re:Art is whatever

[ClickOnThis]

Mod parent up. Well said: art is defined by intent.

Even John Cage, who once said "My purpose is to eliminate purpose" had to concede eventually that intent of some kind was inescapable in art.

Re:Art is whatever

[njnnja]

The reason why fountain was art was *not* because of Duchamp's intent. He intended it to be art but it was rejected in its day. However, it was revived in the 60's and was put into museums, and therefore became art. Art is defined by the system that it lives in, and can only be defined within some system.

That said, when you have "artists" such as this reject games as art, what they are doing is trying to reinforce the system that they are currently successful in. But like Duchamp's Fountain, as systems change, what is art can change too.

Re: Art is whatever

[Maxoverdrive]

That's just like your opinion man.

      ftfy

Not this shit again

[Anonymous Coward]

We had this debate back in 2010 when Roger Ebert attacked video games. http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art

Re:Not this shit again

[PopeRatzo]

We had this debate back in 2010 when Roger Ebert attacked video games.

When Roger Ebert attacked video games, they were a low, popular medium. Not "art" in the sense that he was talking about as something with lasting value across generational and even cultural lines.

Video games have come a long way. But as with most things, corporate influence is squeezing out any possibility of art. Because art doesn't come with a guarantee of profit (although profit is certainly possible). There's a level of risk-taking to art that only marginal games can abide, and almost all of them suck.

Also, games current dependence on consoles by 2 or 3 corporations will also not allow art to happen in the gaming space. If it's going to happen, it's going to happen on a more accessible platform on which to develop.

Re:Not this shit again

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

There can be art in games, and perhaps a well-told story, but the gameplaying itself is arguably not art.

"I was moved by Superman punching out Joker's heart, before the Joker inevitably got better!" Assuming this is art, a cut scene is not the game.

Re:Not this shit again

[ClickOnThis]

There can be art in games, and perhaps a well-told story, but the gameplaying itself is arguably not art.

I'd suggest the game-playing results in a manifestation of the art, somewhat like playing a piano piece results in a manifestation of the music.

Is the game-playing itself art? Perhaps, insofar as a nuanced playing of a game can result in an exemplary manifestation of the game's art. Again in the same sense as a pianist's exemplary interpretation of a piano piece can be considered art. Of course, there is also skill and technique, which are not art, but are useful for its manifestation.

In general, non-video games have an objective -- an intent -- that calls for the achievement of certain goals rather than the expression of certain ideas. So I suppose in that sense, non-video games are not art, but perhaps video games are, because they have elements of both.

Re:Not this shit again

[Wootery]

Saying something isn't a video-game isn't an insult. Saying chess isn't a sport isn't an insult either.

Here is a relevant YouTube rant arguing the position that a stricter definition of video-games is a good thing.

Re:Not this shit again

[UnknownSoldier]

Exactly. Roger Ebert was a fucking idiot.

So let's get this straight ... A game can include:

* Music
* Pictures
* Videos
* Writing

Basically, 4 different art-forms and yet these retards try to claim that somehow a game "magically" isn't art??? Yeah right.

The medium is irrelevent for art.

Movies, aka screen-play weren't considered art either at first. Gee, looks like history repeated itself.

Re:Not this shit again

[gl4ss]

walking simulators are more artsy than say fallout 3 or 4.

why? they have only an artistic purpose and not an entertaining or storytelling or anything. basically they're nothing else than art.

not skillful or interesting art but they damn sure aren't games.

anyways, money talks bullshit walks

Re:Not this shit again

[keko]

Well... I definitely think that games are art, but because of themselves. Not because they have some music... that's just consequential. Cinema is art too, but not just because they also use music. Games are an unique art form by itself.

If it's good, bad, beautiful, or a piece of crap, it's a different thing. All art forms have plenty of every option. But this discussion has been on for decades. Here's the deal:

Most people who thinks games aren't art are going to die soon. They're usually old people reacting to any challenge to their status quo or specific acquired tastes.

For newer generations, "Are games art?" isn't even an acceptable discussion.

In 50 years a new art form will emerge, and the ones that naturally accept games as art today will outrage and flag it as "not art" in a second. That's just how history works.

the English word is nebulous

[Spy Handler]

"art" could mean just about anything in English, so yes video games can be art.

Other languages are different. For example in Korean, art means painting/drawing/sculpture. Music is not art, it's music. So for Koreans, video games are not art.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[Anonymous Coward]

But video games are a conglomerate of digitally drawn and painted moving pictures. So yes, they are. Just as cartoons and comic books are. Video games are just an interactive medium.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[lgw]

"art" could mean just about anything in English, so yes video games can be art.

Well, there's a bit more to it than that. "Art" allows any expressive medium, and so indeed games can be art to the extent they convey artistic intent.

Is painting art? Well, when painting a house, typically not. Is a random game art? Typically not. But there are certainly games that would fit most definitions of "art" that don't prescribe a medium, from evoking emotion to ambiguity of interpretation to varying schools of expression within the medium. And this of course surpasses mere presentation of other art within the game experience - a screenshot could be art, but that's not game-as-art, and yet game-as-art can happen.

It's not really even a question that games can be art. Of course they can be - it's a rich enough medium for such expression. It's equally clear that most games aren't art, just as most house painting isn't art.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[Spy Handler]

Is painting art? Well, when painting a house, typically not.

Again, English nebulosity (is that a word?) is at play here. Painting your house walls with Home Depot products is a completely different concept from an oil painting or watercolor on a canvas, yet English uses the same word for both. In Korean there are separate words for artistic painting and coloring your house with Home Depot stuff.

I'm not criticizing English btw, the loose nature of English allows for a rich literary culture and I think Shakespeare would've been frustrated had he been born Korean. On the other hand, having a more specific language can be advantageous at times.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[UncleRage]

Very well stated.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[nightcats]

Of course music is art, and classical-type composers and symphony orchestras have done versions of music from Zelda, Mario, and others. As for visual art, there is a rich vein of it in gaming -- I've seen some breathtaking work, and I'm not much of a gamer.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[Dutch Gun]

As a videogame developer, I care about 1000x more if it's "fun" than if it's "art".

Re:the English word is nebulous

[ClickOnThis]

This. Music is an artistic expression rendered in sound. So yes, it's art.

Re: the English word is nebulous

[GoodNewsJimDotCom]

What if it is both "fun" and "art"? We can call it funart or fart for short. Hey have you downloaded any award winning, critically acclaimed fart apps lately?

Re:the English word is nebulous

[tlhIngan]

Of course music is art, and classical-type composers and symphony orchestras have done versions of music from Zelda, Mario, and others. As for visual art, there is a rich vein of it in gaming -- I've seen some breathtaking work, and I'm not much of a gamer.

Video games are more a medium - they can show artistic merit in many different ways. It's like TV - there are very many aspects of "art" that can be expressed through TV, and there are many aspects that can be expressed through video games.

At a basic component level, you have the actual assets - sound, music, graphics, story. But there's also an aspect that's larger than the sum of its parts - the combination of the assets in a way can be artistic as well.

There are games like Gone Home, or The Stanley Parable or Depression Quest whose goal can be considered artistic expression. They use the medium in creative ways to express their message.

And we can even argue about whether these are "games" or "non-games", which to me basically mean they're art - stirring controversy and discussion.

Video games in general aren't art - it's a medium to which one can, at one's choosing, create art. Just like you won't say a TV is art, but some of the programming available for it can be art.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[bioteq]

This is an interesting concept -- language itself.

At what point, does an idea, transcend language? "Art" in English is, as everyone else has stated, "Whatever you want it to be." and in Korea, as Spy Handler stated, "Painting/drawing/sculpture" - so where do they meet? Can one put a mathematical proof to "art" that would bypass language and culture, independently?

IMHO, art is in the eye of the beholder. I am a firm believer that many musics are art forms. Paintings are art. Some video games are art. Tattoos, etc. My list could go on. But in my eyes, what ever -I- perceive as "beautiful" can be art -- Even a beautiful woman may be seen as art.

Perhaps, we has a species, need to globally define art. Or artistic intent. Whichever is easier. Perhaps some mathematician can work on this.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[TeknoHog]

Art in Finnish is "taide", related to "taito" meaning skill. Similarly, science is "tiede" related to "tieto", knowledge. In my understanding, the English "art" is more vague in the sense that it can mean "skill" without the special esthetic connotations, as in "the art of circuit design".

Shameless plug: Is mathematics art? See sig...

Re:the English word is nebulous

[bioteq]

Is mathematics art? Absolutely.

Geek moment: Without Math, art cannot exist. ;)

Re:the English word is nebulous

[AthanasiusKircher]

Well, there's a bit more to it than that. "Art" allows any expressive medium, and so indeed games can be art to the extent they convey artistic intent.

That's certainly one definition of "Art," which owes a debt to the values of German Romantic philosophers of the 19th century. It frequently tends to show up these days in extreme form from pretentious people who like to shout, "But I am an artist!"

In the real world, "Art" is defined by culture, not by someone's capacity for "artistic intent." There are plenty of people in the world who want to "express" themselves in their "art," but no one pays any attention to them because what these "artists" are doing seems weird or obnoxious or even insane to most people. In essence, there is a failure to communicate. Art is a cultural product that requires both a creator and an audience who can find this "expressive" stuff which you talk about and can value it.

Collectively, we recognize "Art" in things that we are taught to see aesthetic meaning in. Other people may practice trades that require just as much skill and have just as much potential for "expression" (whatever that means), but they are seen as "tradesmen" or "craftsmen" or whatever in society.

We need only go back in history to see this used to be the case for just about everything we call "Art" today. The transitions happened at different times. The painters of the 15th century were "craftsmen" in guilds, often creating objects like altarpieces which would be displayed in churches for liturgical ceremonies or for remembrance of certain people in masses. They followed standard schemes of representing saints, etc. beside their patrons. Yet today we view them as "Artists," though we don't often think of their fellow craftsmen in the same way -- who were sewing the gilded alter cloths or vestments, who were making the jeweled chalice, who were building the organs, etc. At some point, a century or two later painting made the transition from "craft" to "Art' (with a capital A).

Instrumental music made this transition in the first few decades of the 1800s. If you read German philosophers of the late 1700s, instrumental music was classified in the same aesthetic league as wallpaper. (I'm serious -- that's what Kant said, for example.) It was something pleasant for a rich dude to have going on in the background at a fancy party, but no one would really pay attention to instrumental music and view it as "Art" (with a capital A), right?

And then along comes Beethoven and his symphonies. Suddenly a number of philosophers and critics thought his music was awesome (often in the literal sense -- inspiring awe). Within decades people were studying instrumental scores of symphonies at home and critiquing them as "Art."

This kind of Romanticist aesthetic and the myth of the "artistic genius" whose intent drives the great creative act is basically what we've inherited as the defining characteristic of "Art." But on another level, it's all a bunch of made-up nonsense.

Take landscape photography. Is that art? It wasn't in the early 20th century. Now it sort of is. But certainly it requires less skill and craft to take a shot of a sunrise over a lake than it does to skilfully restore an old historic house with a good paint job (to take your example of the house painter). It's one thing to "slap a coat of paint on" in a haphazard fashion, but good housepainters -- and particularly those who do restoration work -- are sometimes capable of amazing feats of meticulous and detailed work. But people happily view landscape photography as artistic, and perhaps even "Art," while the house painter is stuck as a "craftsman" at best, if not just a "laborer."

You have a point about the "expressive medium" -- but that's mostly a problem of the audience, not the intent of the creator. Most people just don't have the skill or the interest to appreciate the workings of someone who restores paint on historic houses, for e

Re:the English word is nebulous

[lgw]

In the real world, "Art" is defined by culture, not by someone's capacity for "artistic intent." There are plenty of people in the world who want to "express" themselves in their "art," but no one pays any attention to them because what these "artists" are doing seems weird or obnoxious or even insane to most people. In essence, there is a failure to communicate. Art is a cultural product that requires both a creator and an audience who can find this "expressive" stuff which you talk about and can value it.

That's definitely art: it's bad art. Unless it's so incoherent it isn't even an "expression". But that's not usually the case - usually it's clear what's going on, it just sucks.

BTW, I don't buy that mere "aesthetic engagement" is sufficient for art. Just because something's painted on canvas with skill doesn't make it art! It also has to communicate some idea or emotion. The Mona Lisa is art because of the smile, not the paint. Robotically playing the piano with no emotion isn't art unless the lack of emotion was actually the artistic intent. Painting a great counterfeit may demonstrate the skill of the artist, but contains no new artistic expression.

In any case, it's not about the "craft", it's about the message. Super Mario Bros isn't art (though it contains art). A game that takes you through some emotional journey though your actions in the game and interaction with the presented environment certainly can be. "Second-person storytelling" and all that.

Re:the English word is nebulous

[tehcyder]

"art" could mean just about anything in English, so yes video games can be art.

Other languages are different. For example in Korean, art means painting/drawing/sculpture. Music is not art, it's music. So for Koreans, video games are not art.

That is completely correct but entirely useless .

Clearly, you are a mathematician.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

[Krazy Kanuck]

Or in the pixels my eye perceives. Art is about experiencing the artist's perspective or portrayal of a subject. If artist and the viewer are requirements for art to exist, so if someone creates a thing and both parties agree its art who can argue otherwise?

Re:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

[alvinrod]

so if someone creates a thing and both parties agree its art who can argue otherwise?

Internet pedants.

Re:Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...

[donaggie03]

Or in the pixels my eye perceives. Art is about experiencing the artist's perspective or portrayal of a subject. If artist and the viewer are requirements for art to exist, so if someone creates a thing and both parties agree its art who can argue otherwise?

It looks like you are begging the question though. Of course, if artist and viewer consider something to be art, then it is art. There's no argument there. The problem comes when the artist considers something to be art, but the viewer does not. Or vica versa. What if the viewer sees art, but the "artist" does not. Perhaps the artist does not even consider himself to be an artist. What then? Does this change the artness of whatever it is we are talking about?

Also, what about when neither "artist" nor viewer consider it to be art, but some random dude on the internet proclaims it is. Then is it art? In this case, I am referring to people who aren't looking at the thing specifically, but say things like "All video games are art. Period." Is this necessarily the case?

Games are art. Period.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not a matter of opinion. The quality of any work of art is subjective, but its status as art is an objective, self-evident, irrefutable fact.

And it's not just the "best" games, or the ones that meet some arbitrary threshold of "artiness". Yes, Braid and Bioshock are art, but so are Duke Nukem Forever and Custer's Revenge.

Nor is it just video games. It's all games. Everything from tag to checkers to D&D to Monopoly is art, too.

There is not, never has been, and cannot ever be a game that is not art.

Are they?

[AdamStarks]

Usually not.

Can they be? Unquestionably, yes.

Re:Are they?

[Mashiki]

Don't let the hipsters know that, they'll get butthurt because their walking simulators and games with 1980's graphics aren't doing so shit hot.

Re:Are they?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, Hipster is referring to a very specific type of person, who acts a very specific way when you don't like their trash-tier 5 minute text adventure game.

Re:Are they?

[truck_soccer]

So you still admit that you don't actually know what the word means.

Re:Are they?

[alvinrod]

I think it's typically used to mean a pretentious or ostentatious person or at least that's how it comes off in this case. There's nothing wrong with enjoying a simple game (some are just as enjoyable as bigger budget games) but attempting to pass it off as something more than that is what tends to draw the hipster label.

Art teacher quote

[truck_soccer]

"There is such a thing as bad art, you just never see it."

Re:Art teacher quote

[ememisya]

Indeed without context it's purely subjective. The fellow in the article should have directed the guy who didn't call his game art should have directed them to this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Although he gets publicity either way and I think that was the point.

Dada...

[wardrich86]

If a urinal on a pedestal is art, a game can certainly be art.

Re:Dada...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know ... even that standard is too high for a lot of AAA games these days.

Angry Birds

[ememisya]

Okay, if you can take the "Bloody Penguin from Yeti Sports" and simply give it a fresh look and walk away with millions, then "the intellectual value of design" is clearly there. Since it's samzenpus's pick I always automatically assume it's a monetary issue. The word "art" is much like the word "natural", everything and nothing is depending on the context.

An example of the value of art: http://news.nationalgeographic...
Personally, I learned how to code, and how to speak English all because of a game called Meridian 59 http://www.meridian59.com/, and am proud to admit, I still dream of the landscape from time to time. So John can suck it! (Don't tell him I said that.)

Meaningless question

[Beerdood]

Are games art? Well they definitely contain art and require some creative input and material. So maybe Zork or other text-based games might technically not count as art; call it adventuring or role playing or something? It's like asking if an art gallery itself, is technically "art" (Not really? Sort of? Maybe? but it contains artworks).

The most important question is, who cares whether video games technically count as art or not? I could take a dump in a styrofoam container, cover it in rainbow sprinkles, put some edgy label on there like "GMO free" or "Monsanto", and sneak it into an art gallery - and people would be convinced it's technically "art". The existing definition is so vague, that's it's practically meaningless.

Re:Meaningless question

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

It never really took off(outside of 'Choose Your Own Adventure" books for kids and a few '80s futurists who thought that hypertext was going to inaugurate a new form of literature); but I don't think that there is any particularly strict requirement that writing needs to be intended to be read back in a linear and deterministic order in order to potentially qualify as 'literature' and 'art', so even text based games arguably have a shot.

That said, though, the fact that there's an argument for almost anything to be 'art' suggests that you'd be better off asking a more interesting question.

Re:Meaningless question

[Incadenza]

I could take a dump in a styrofoam container, cover it in rainbow sprinkles, put some edgy label on there like "GMO free" or "Monsanto", and sneak it into an art gallery - and people would be convinced it's technically "art".

I call prior art!

Art

[fluffernutter]

I think games utilize art. Textures are art, the music is art, the plot line may be art. But a game itself is a computer program that brings all these different types of art together into a form of entertainment.

Re:Art

[nitehawk214]

You can say that about a movie or a book. What is the point?

Re:Art

[PopeRatzo]

I think games utilize art. Textures are art, the music is art, the plot line may be art. But a game itself is a computer program that brings all these different types of art together into a form of entertainment.

Here's the thing: the word "art" is used to mean different things. It can be "state of the art" or "term of art" or the notion that the pictures my daughter drew with crayons when she was four were art.

When Roger Ebert complained about games not being art last decade, he was lamenting how little had been done with this amazing medium, and he was absolutely right. Within the first 20 years of the medium of film, there were several works of fine art that are still studied and appreciated today. Video games are more than 20 years old, and there's precious little from the medium to point to as something that will endure. And this is not the fault of the artists and developers working in games. It's the fault of a corporatism that has not served the medium well. And to some extent, it's the fault of the gamers themselves, many of whom are provincial in their outlook, and have undemanding tastes. Part of this is because it's a medium that has catered to kids. And when those kids grow up, they seek to recreate their childhood experiences with games. So you get childish games and childish gamers.

Video games are certainly capable of being seen as fine art. Unfortunately, their own success and corporate provenance are the biggest hurdles they face on the way to getting there.

Re:Art

[PopeRatzo]

the early days of film, the medium was derided and considered as nothing more than a diversionary form of entertainment (basically pablum) even after many films that are today considered works of art had been created. As late as the 1930s many film theorists were spending their efforts defending the contention that film could be a legitimate art medium.

Birth of a Nation was 1915. Broken Blossoms was 1916. Der Golem was 1920. The Great Train Robbery was 1903. Le voyage dans la lune was 1902.

These films are still studied - and enjoyed - today.

. You can not tell me that Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (1999) is not a work of art -- it is actually more thought-provoking than practically any Hollywood movie released in the past century.

You must not have seen a lot of the great films of the past century. Nobody is going to be studying - or enjoying - Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri 100 years from now. Unless of course, video games never achieve the next level of artistic development, and then it will be studied as a curiosity.

Re:Art

[nitehawk214]

There are plenty of interactive art exhibits.

How is this even a question?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

I find it hard to understand why "are games art?" strikes anyone as enough of a question to even be asked. Unless you hew to a far narrower definition of 'art' than even most critics and artists do; it seems pretty obvious that they have the potential to qualify.

This doesn't mean that most of them are anything but sophomoric schlock produced entirely for mercenary purposes; but the same is true of music, film, photography, etc. and nobody seriously advances the "Music can't be art; because boy bands and pop tarts!" position or argues that Uwe Boll refutes the artistic status of film.

Re:How is this even a question?

[sg_oneill]

The problem is , its a question that has institutional meaning that can have effects in quite significant ways.

As Art, it is speech, and thus owed protections under the first ammendment. If its not art, then its hard to argue that its anything more than an industrial product.

As Art. its eligible for arts development grants that can be vital to starting indy game devs towards being financially self reliant.

As Art, we recognize it as a legitimate topic of review and critique, and as something important to societies internal dialogue about itself.

And so on.

Re:How is this even a question?

[PopeRatzo]

I find it hard to understand why "are games art?" strikes anyone as enough of a question to even be asked. Unless you hew to a far narrower definition of 'art' than even most critics and artists do; it seems pretty obvious that they have the potential to qualify.

This doesn't mean that most of them are anything but sophomoric schlock produced entirely for mercenary purposes; but the same is true of music, film, photography, etc. and nobody seriously advances the "Music can't be art; because boy bands and pop tarts!" position or argues that Uwe Boll refutes the artistic status of film.

You managed to say in two short paragraphs what I could barely say in three times as many words. You get it.

Re:How is this even a question?

[Qzukk]

I find it hard to understand why "are games art?" strikes anyone as enough of a question to even be asked.

Because, for better or worse, we've given our government the ability to censor things that are not "speech" and the government has decided that artistic value is one of the things that it will use to decide what is "speech" or not.

Because, for better or worse, certain people have been agitating for years for the government to come in and start censoring videogames. (This predates the current batch of agitators, and will likely continue long after these are gone.)

Re:How is this even a question?

[Pseudonym]

I find it hard to understand why "are games art?" strikes anyone as enough of a question to even be asked.

You'd think so, but right now there is a small but vocal subset of gamers who are resisting anything which resembles cultural criticism of games and the game industry, but cultural criticism is one of the prices you pay for using the label "art".

Re:How is this even a question?

[Darinbob]

Art is in the mind of the beholder. A lot of the people who declare things art are somewhat snobbish, it's just like literature where they refuse to consider anything that's popular as being art. Games are popular, therefore they're not art. A movie may have the best cinematography, but the snobs don't consider it art if it was a popular movie rather than an art house movie from a tiny production company. Even "pop art" wasn't really popular art but a look at popular culture.

For games, I can see them having great designs for sure; in terms of the space, images, etc. But in terms of game play that's harder. Storytelling is too haphazard, most players miss the big story and don't bother reading the text. Many games even if intentionally created as art are more like performance art (most of which I don't really consider art myself despite superficial cultural appearances). Games like "Life Is Strange" may straddle the definitions though, that is more like a graphic novel that's been done in game format. If a graphic novel is "art" then I assume that game should be also.

Re:How is this even a question?

[johannesg]

It's not about the question, it's a way for our cultural elite to make derogatory comments about video games, and by extension the people who play them. Asking the question is an elitist trick to separate you from them.

If videogames were art, then they must also accept that the people who play them appreciate art. It would elevate Mario to the level of the Mona Lisa, and a gamer to their own level of rarified cultural sensitivity. Since that can never be allowed to happen, games can never be art.

For the rest you are absolutely right: who gives a fuck whether they consider our hobby to be art? Both the question and any answer we could come up with are irrelevant.

My opinion, not that it matters at all, is that video games can be, but don't have to be, art. It's all about the experience they offer - if it's one that stays with you, it's art. Same as with "real" art, really...

Re:How is this even a question?

[tehcyder]

The people who state games as not a form of art have not ever made a single game asset in their lives.

As Dr Johnson said, you may scold a carpenter who has made you a bad table, though you cannot make a table.

Re:How is this even a question?

[SirLordGodfrey]

They don't reject it per se -

They simply won't stand for disingenuous criticism, which no medium should stand for.

Re:How is this even a question?

[Pseudonym]

I don't want to derail this thread, but it's fair to say that different people have different motives.

Re:How is this even a question?

[SirLordGodfrey]

What a cop-out. You won't even stand by what you said with conviction.

Re:How is this even a question?

[fuzzyfuzzyfungus]

There is room for the argument that a thing can contain art; but not be art(the most agonizing example is the lobby of your average generic corporate campus/office complex: there will invariably be some sort of 'art' hung around to keep the walls from just being bare; but the result is not what you'd call a work of art.)

However, we don't seem to bring that argument out when somebody directs a play: Well, sure, Macbeth is art, and the costumes are art, and the set is art; as are the choreography and lighting; but the director is just a menial logistics technician." Might start a fun fight; but not a generally accepted opinion. I'd be curious to hear anyone who thinks that directing is art; but games aren't, discuss why exactly a game isn't analogous to a complex and technically demanding play with elements of audience participation and improvisation.

"dismissed game design as 'not art.'"

[Punto]

So what? Games don't *have* to be art, they have to be games. If we get into the debate as it is presented (ie "are videogames art?"), we concede on a very important point that we shouldn't: art is not better than games. Games don't have to "rise up" to the level of art, they're already on the same level. They're important for human development in their own way, just like art is. How come nobody goes up to an artists and asks "this is nice, but is this a videogame?".

Re:How convenient...

[aitikin]

That's exactly what they said. OP is using "their sphere of media" as a generic term for movies for Ebert and plays for the playwright and "not-their-sphere of media" as a generic term for video games.

Art.

[grub]

I remember playing the controversial game Manhunt back in the day.

I popped a plastic bag over a bad guy's head then as he was gasping for air, I kept punching him in the face until he was dead. Then I used a shard of glass to stab out another person's eyes. Disemboweling scumbags with a sickle was always fun. Then, of course, the chainsaw on PigMan was the crowning glory.

So, yeah, video games are art.

Everything can be Art

[angel'o'sphere]

When I was young many programmers claimed programming was art. In our days we see discussions on /. whether if there is any engineering involved in "crafting software". Some people even claim there is no "computer science" as software has nothing to do with science (in relation to medicine or astrophysics).

My opinion is pretty simple: everything starts with the trade, or the craft, while you improve your craftsmanship you might look at the same problems more from an engineering and later a scientific point of view. You an even do that without a lot of craftsmanship ... plenty of software engineers who design/develop software but are mediocre or "non elegant" programmers proof that. Similar for scientists. However both scientists and engineers benefit greatly from actually being good in "the craft". The more elegant, expressive and probably simple and emotional a piece of craft is: the more it is art.
Science can be Art (E.g. the Theory about Relativity), Engineering can be Art (e.g. the Eiffel Tower), Craftsmanship can be Art (e.g. Jewelry or Furniture), music, movies, theatre is Art, so obviously computer games can be Art, too.

Many things are art ... just google "the art of" a nice hit: http://www.ovationtv.com/serie...

The Art of War, Martial Arts, the Art of Cooking, the Art of forging a superb sword ... the Art of Dancing, the Art of Making Love ... the Art of Healing ...

Neglecting a certain craft or human activity the potential to be an Art or can be developed into an art is just plain stupid.

Zen, Tea Ceremony, playing Go, Archery, Mastering a Horse, Sailing around the world, crafting a cloth, there are cloth patterns in the world where a single person needs decades to make enough of the cloth for a single dress. Of course that is not Art ... just a Sisyphus Arbeit .... pfffft

How poor a mind you must be if you don't see and appreciate the Art in the simplest things.

Let's Define Our Terms

[Princeofcups]

If you thing that games are art, then you are using a different definition of art than the art community. Unless you have taken art and design classes, then you probably do not understand what they mean when they say art. You can trivialize it all you want, and use the lame "any word means what I think it means." But in reality, words mean things. Very specific things. Sometimes they are hard to understand unless you have the correct background. And in that context, no, games are not art.

Re:How convenient...

[Austerity Empowers]

While I was a teenager, I had two friends, both musicians who were constantly ragging on me about the need for more "creativity in my life". Both were musicians, one a bassist aspiring to metal bands, another was a guitarist more closely aligned to classic rock. In any event, I argued that my computer & electronics habits were absolutely a creative outlet, where I was free to express myself and create anything I wished. They claimed it's all equations, logic and deus ex machina. I pointed out that music is just a bunch of notes & chords strung together which human ears and brains find pleasing, which they argued is totally different. I could never get a definitive answer for how, I got "emotion", "expression", "unpredictable", "unthinking", each of which I systematically tore apart as clearly not being both exclusive properties of art, nor present in all forms of art. But they remain unconvinced. I think it's impossible for someone to appreciate art, who doesn't appreciate the medium.

What is art?

[dissy]

Looks like video games match every single English definition of the word "art" out there:

art - noun \'art\

* something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings
* works created by artists : paintings, sculptures, etc., that are created to be beautiful or to express important ideas or feelings
* the methods and skills used for painting, sculpting, drawing, etc.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art

* The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
* Works produced by human creative skill and imagination
* Creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/art

Re:What is art?

[almitydave]

The eternal lynchpin of this discussion is the definition of art, and certainly some video games meet the dictionary definition. Two examples that immediately leap to mind are Grim Fandango (from 1998) and Limbo (2010). Both indisputably works of art in my mind.

Is art art?

[nitehawk214]

Unless we are going by the definition of "anything I don't like is not art", then only the artist gets to decide.

Now, art can be shit, but it is still art. Just like most video games, in fact.

Games as art.

[Dutchmaan]

Art can be many things. The term itself is subjective which is why we're actually having a debate as to whether or not a game is art. There are definitely art components to a game, but the end result typically is not. Can a game be art, absolutely. Art is a form of communication with an express purpose to cause a some specific reaction in the viewer to to help us realize something about ourselves or whatever else the artist is trying to convey.

A game can defintely be beautiful, with many "art" components, but I would call it art with a "little a" because the game is commercial and meant to be a product rather than a message. Games come very close to being art at times, but until such time as they are intended from the start to be "Art" where the success of a piece can be determined in accomplishing something beyond what it is as a physical product.

In counterpoint I look at something like a Michelangelo sculpture, what differentiates that from some mass produced statue in a store? To that I would say that the artist was trying to capture his vision and create it in a physical form.. in which case a game could definitely be considered "Art"...

So is a game art.. i guess the only answer can be.. "If it was intended to be" .. at which point one can weight whether or not it was successful art.

Almost all games are art

[drinkypoo]

Almost all games are art. Not all games are great art. Or even worthy of consideration.

Re:Longtime Gamers Know it's Art

[PopeRatzo]

We don't need the likes of Roger Ebert to recognize us.

Yes, you kind of do. Even Bioshock (specifically the first one), a game with clever (but derivative) art, and a clever (but derivative) story, was really just a low pop confection. There is still a long way to go.

All games are art.

If only that were so.

Is Monopoly Art? Is Poker Art? Is Pac Man Art?

[Yergle143]

It really just goes to Art quality. Why do people playing games demand to be taken so seriously?

Re:Longtime Gamers Know it's Art

[David_Hart]

We don't need the likes of Roger Ebert to recognize us.

Yes, you kind of do. Even Bioshock (specifically the first one), a game with clever (but derivative) art, and a clever (but derivative) story, was really just a low pop confection. There is still a long way to go.

All games are art.

If only that were so.

I would argue that games are not "art" they are an experience, much in the way that movies are not true art. There is a reason why certain films are referred to as artistic pieces. They were created purely to be appreciated, not specifically for enjoyment. However, I don't think that there has every been a game created that has been built purely to be appreciated and for no other reason.

Re:Games are art. Period.

[serviscope_minor]

There is not, never has been, and cannot ever be a game that is not art.

I give you: Big Rigs over the Road Racing.

Or just possibly, it's a very elaborate piece of performance art.

Artistic, yes. Art, no.

[eepok]

My personal view draws some relatively bold lines between something being art and being artistic.

The fine arts (music, dance, painting, sculpting, etc.) are obviously art. The value of the their existence is based squarely on their appraisal as art.

An automobile, a house (even a Frank Lloyd Wright home), and a video game can be artistic when judged for their artistic elements, but since they have primary functions beyond art, they cannot be wholly works of art. A video game, first and foremost, must be intentionally interactive with some sort of agenda for the player to fulfill. If an automobile does not have an engine, then it's not an automobile. And Frank Lloyd Wright himself continually professed that the form (artistic elements included) of an object should follow its function. He wasn't creating raw art, but integrating artistic sensibilities to functional pieces of everyday life.

Lastly, and I always piss some people off with this one, I don't think something can be art in the traditional sense if it is digital. Art must have the potential to be a failure. Painting, sculpting, even oration can all fail. Photography with traditional film can be an absolute waste if the appropriate lighting, focus, framing, etc. is not achieved. But in digital photography, you get the seemingly limitless opportunity to edit. Digital photography captures images and editing alters those images whereas film captures single, uneditable moments.

Video games can be written, re-written, launched, patched, upgraded, and have relative artistic value based on hardware. When all is said and done, it's more machine than man.

I also distinguish between sports, races, competitions, games and endeavors.

I do not expect many positive points for this post.

Re:Artistic, yes. Art, no.

[UnknownSoldier]

> a video game can be artistic when judged for their artistic elements, but since they have primary functions beyond art, they cannot be wholly works of art

The word is called super set. As in Form + Function designed to bring out emotions.

Guess what, most movies at the box office have a function beyond art too: Too make money.

This is a red herring.

> I don't think something can be art in the traditional sense if it is digital.

You're going to tell me all those artists who used to shoot pictures/movies in analog, such as photographer Sebastião Salgado, and now shoots digitally are now magically not creating art?? i.e. Salt of the Earth

1. That's completely disrespectful to them, their craft, and their skill.

2. How fucking retarded can you get???

Why the hell does the medium even matter??

It doesn't for painting.
It doesn't for photography.
It doesn't for film.
It doesn't for sculpting.
It doesn't for acting.

So why single out the digital medium??

Video game programming also can involve creative use of the hardware in solving problems. Writing efficient code is an art form, in contradistinction to it being just a purely deterministic process.

> Art must have the potential to be a failure.

1. Says who?? Who died and made you king of definitions???

2. Whether the medium is analog or digital **both** have the potential for failure:

Oh look! My memory card died and I lost my pictures.
Or, my hard drive died and I lost my pictures.
Or, the program corrupted my picture.
Or, I over-wrote my original and I no longer have it.

Gee, room for failure in the digital world too.

> Digital photography captures images and editing alters those images whereas film captures single, uneditable moments. /sarcasm Riiiight, because there was zero variation or control in exposure, shutter settings, or in the darkroom film developing process. NOT.

How about _actually_ educating yourself about photographers such as Ansel Adams instead of making ignorant claims.

Adams developed all his own film, using a small space in his parents home, and while in the field. He first used matte and changed to glossy paper to increase the tonal values. He spoke often about using the natural light and small apertures with long exposures. Adams also suggested to "visualize" each image before taking it. This means, taking your time, walking around looking at things from different points of view.

Adams, was a promoter of "pure photography" "Pure photography is defined as possessing no qualities of technique, composition or idea, derivative of any other art form.' Soft focus lenses were prohibited, but in Adams earlier work of the Monolith, he used a strong red filter to create a black sky. Adams mounted a camera platform on the top of his station wagon, to get a better vantage point over the immediate foreground and a better angle for expansive backgrounds. Most of his images from 1943 forward were made from the roof of his car.

Whether you use filters pre-processing or post-processing is completely irrelevant. The effect is the same. You are still _interpreting_ and _presenting_ a representation of the scene that _you_ find interesting. Whether this is done chemically, or digitally, this doesn't change the intent.

To present a beautiful picture.

Bullshit excuses like "soft lenses were prohibited" doesn't change this fact.

--
Why is always the people who have never written a game are always the one trying to make excuses for why games "can't" be labeled as art???

Re:Artistic, yes. Art, no.

[eepok]

You sound very angry. I would personally love to respond to your post to discuss the topic further, but I get the sense that you are so entrenched in your own definition that discussion from my side would be civil and you would be on the attack. I'm disappointed because it looks like you have a great deal of insight from which I could learn. Another time maybe.

Re:Artistic, yes. Art, no.

[UnknownSoldier]

If I appear angry it is because after shipping games on PC, PSX, PS 2, Wii, etc., I get tired of other people without a fucking clue about game development constantly tell me what I do for a living isn't "Art" by their self-imposed and artificial definition. They need to get off their high horse.

We make games because we want to entertain -other- people.

That is the very definition of art.

No different from a screen-play, aka, movies.

It really doesn't get any simpler then this.

Re:Longtime Gamers Know it's Art

[PopeRatzo]

movies are not true art. There is a reason why certain films are referred to as artistic pieces. They were created purely to be appreciated, not specifically for enjoyment.

That's an artificial distinction. You can appreciate the best painting or music or theater as well as enjoy it. The best movies can be appreciated as art and enjoyed. I don't think "appreciation" and enjoyment are mutually exclusive.

I think it's the ability of a work to endure and cross generational and even cultural barriers that makes a work a true "work of art" in the sense of fine art.

Re:Games are art. Period.

[vux984]

There is not, never has been, and cannot ever be a game that is not art.

Sure. Just as there cannot be a door knob that is not art. Or a zipper pull tab that is not art. Or ballpoint pen that is not art. Or a chair. or a pizza box. or a monthly credit card statement, or screwdriver, or a coupon for cat food. All of these things required some creative choices ... colors, textures, fine details, and their placement, etc. It's all art.

So yes, if that's the threshold, then "all games are art". That's not a very interesting thing to say though.

So when people ask whether games are art, they ARE invariably referring to a more nebulous definition of an artistic pursuit wherein an artist is attempting to evoke a response from his audience. Are games THAT kind of art is what they are asking?

And yes, absolutely, some games, most definitely do rise to that level of art. You named a few yourself.

But a simplistic knockoff freemium game on the app store that is little more than a skinner box attached to a nag screen for your credit card number... it's art on the same level as the coupon book from mcdonalds I got mailed yesterday is art.

It has nothing to say. It's not trying to get you to think (and really it would just prefer it if you didn't think and just entered your credit card number for some more coins/gems/whatevers). And anything thinking you do end up doing is entirely incidental to it's raison d'etre; and probably a detriment to it fulfilling its purpose of distracting you into extracting a few more dollars from your wallet without your noticing.

And seriously, even Duke Nukem had things to say and even caused controversy and was an intentional parody of it's genre.

But a lot of the stuff i see on the app store. Yeah, some guy drew some cutesy icons and animations, and that's "art" but the game itself is no more interesting artistically than a dollar store toilet brush. That is to say: yes its art, but so what?

Ditto for tag. Tag isn't artistically interesting.

Tomato Soup Can

[tomhath]

A painting of a soup can is art. Rap is considered music (by some, not me).

ART

[ArylAkamov]

Almost anything could be considered art.

This post is art.

What is art?

[hymie]

Art is work intended to interact with the aesthetic sense of its audience.
(Aesthetic sense is evaluation of a work other than for its utilitarian aspects.)

Re:Games are art. Period.

[phantomfive]

Tycho over at Penny-arcade made the point:
They hired dozens of artists who worked together for a year to create something that looks nice. Sounds like art to me.

One the other hand, if you're asking for Great Art, something that moves your soul, and changes the way you view the world, most isn't but neither is most of anything.

Read between the lines

[CanEHdian]

any 'intentionally designed' piece is worthy of intellectual respect

Guess what that "respect" actually means? (a) Critics should discuss the work of art and how it criticises society and condemns the status quo, and how the artists uses various means to do that or (b) lining the pockets by inventing some new copyrightable or trademarkable or designmarkable (what the heck do we already have nowadays?!?) thing?

Are vocalists musicians?

[HiThere]

There was a music director that just about got fired for an implicit answer to that question: "Musicians to the left side of the room, vocalists to the right." (The department chair was a vocalist.)

The boundaries of all the arts are fuzzy. Anyone who makes a claim that something is, or is not, art is telling you more about their thought processes than about the physical universe. Or they could be being prescriptivist about the social universe. They aren't talking about anything even in principle physically measurable. It's like the definition of pornography. If it doesn't turn you on, it's not pornography, no matter what it does for someone else. (I'm *NOT* asserting that everything that turns you on is pornography. A wide boundary is all I feel comfortable even considering. Erotica is much more varied.)

i forget whose quote this is

[Falos]

Science starts with something complicated and tries to make it simple.

Art starts with something simple and tries to make it complicated.

Re:Longtime Gamers Know it's Art

[PopeRatzo]

I know some youngins that instantly recognize the name "Mario" and are even fairly familiar with the first NES Mario game from 1985, a good 15 years before they were born.

Those same youngins don't even know the name Roger Ebert, Stanley Kubrick, or Beethoven.

Of course they'd know Mario. He went on to become the primary mascot of one of the three big console companies. That character is a property that's used to sell products to kids. Don't you think that's more a function of marketing than any enduring artistic legacy? They probably know the names of all the minions, too. Precious few of them are playing the NES Mario game from 1985 without prodding from their GenX parents.

I find it funny that you didn't even know the name of that "NES Mario game from 1985". That shows you how much enduring effect it has had.

Re:Games are art. Period.

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry your parents wouldn't buy you that PS4 you kept bugging them for, but this isn't the way to handle that.

Semantic discussions are stupid...

[ET3D]

... when people don't realise they're that.

It's important to realise that the issue at hand is the definition of 'art', and that's not directly related to video games. If and when a definition that's agreed upon by all sides can be reached, deciding whether games are art would be easy.

It's a pretentious label

[91degrees]

Essentially it doesn't matter.

Do you enjoy games? If so, awesome. If not, fine - there are plenty of other pursuits you can enjoy. If you do, then I hope you appreciate the mental, and emotional experience.

If I declare games to be "art" does it in any way enhance that experience? If I declare them "not art" does it in any way diminish it?

It's a pretentious label. Most gamers don't care whether it's art. They don't care whether books or music are art either. They just enjoy them.

Are games art? Artist's final word on the matter

[Dekonega]

There are games that are art but not all games are art.

Re:Games are art. Period.

[tehcyder]

It's not a matter of opinion. The quality of any work of art is subjective, but its status as art is an objective, self-evident, irrefutable fact.

And it's not just the "best" games, or the ones that meet some arbitrary threshold of "artiness". Yes, Braid and Bioshock are art, but so are Duke Nukem Forever and Custer's Revenge.

Nor is it just video games. It's all games. Everything from tag to checkers to D&D to Monopoly is art, too.

There is not, never has been, and cannot ever be a game that is not art.

Well, ok, but that's just like saying that if a two year old draws two circles and calls it a cat, or if I whistle the Close Encounters motif out of tune, then they're "art" too, because they are drawing and music.. Having such a wide definition reduces the term to meaninglessness.

Is me laying a rotten plank of wood over a puddle "civil engineering" as much as the Golden Gate Bridge?

Art is required

[cwsumner]

Art is required in games, just as it is required in movies and books. But not all games are art, just as not all movies or books are art. Some far from it. 8-)
For that matter, art is required in Engineering and Crafting. And some of those are art, even though some deny it.