I just noticed a tweeter discussion regarding the matter. Of course, being tweeter and all, the discussion was hard to follow and one of the members eventually chose to block the rest, because ...
Anyway.
What do you people think?
Are games art?
Are they merely products?
Or they start as products and have the potential to become art, given the test of time?
Also:
Are people working on these projects artists?
Or they are they just making a very good product?
A product can be anything and art can be a "product."
If I did a painting every year and sold that painting for money that would be "a product." It would have other value, the value that art can give, which is subjective, but it is a product.
Remember, Rodin would have apprentices and would give them specific instruction on what to do for one of his larger works. They would sculpt all the bits and bobs and the Rodin would do the main subject and finish the work.
None of his works are any less for having a team work on them.
I would say that those people who create assets, write dialogue, etc are artists who work on a project that, when it is complete, could be considered a work of art.
I know artists who are amazing but they still make money by creating logos and designing wrapping paper.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar Authored 139 missions in VendettaOnline and 6 tracks in Distance
Anything can be art. You simply need to be able to explain how it is art. And you can totally BS how you explain it, as long as it convinces someone that it's art. But that's someone trying to sell their product as art.
The flip side is someone can accidentally spill a can of paint and someone passing by can call that art. The person who spilled the paint wasn't trying to make art, but someone considered it art.
Essentially as long as someone considers it art, it can be called art.
Most games are designed products. (when budgets are involved, anyway) Design does not exclude art though, it just means you have a goal and shape your product accordingly.
Basically, games are more like commercial art, where form follows function. The function is to make a successful game and artistry plays a huge part of making that happen.
Most often games are just entertainment but there are games that are more art than entertainment. There are also moments when it ends up being both art and entertainment.
Iselin: And the next person who says "but it's a business, they need to make money" can just go fuck yourself.
Art is subjective. Everything thing is art and not art at the same time.
Is nature art?
Art is interesting like that. I think most would say no, but once captured in a photograph or painting, it suddenly becomes yes.
With games, I would argue that many qualify as art, having begun as an idea and turned into an interactive audio/visual experience that has a thematic story to tell which is designed to provoke an emotional response. That said, you could be playing Solitaire or Sudoku or Madden or Truck Simulator, and I wouldn't think of any of those things as art.
Now for some strange reason, in my head I don't think of board games as art, even though the more thematic ones offer all that same stuff I just said about videogames, with the bonus of having been "sculpted" into a real-life, tangible thing you can touch. Weird.
Art is subjective. Everything thing is art and not art at the same time.
Is nature art?
art does need to be planned out or directed by someone to be art. Art can be found in natural processes creating the items. Crystal art, cavern mineral colorations, or clouds in the sky. Art is the act of appreciating something someone finds aesthetically pleasing, thought proving, or creating an emotional response.
Here's an interesting definition that has implications for video games as art:
"The main difference between applied art and fine art is purpose. Applied art is tailored for functionality, or in other words, the design meets a practical purpose; its used for something. While, on the other hand, fine art is solely for aesthetic, visual purposes."
Art is subjective. Everything thing is art and not art at the same time.
Is nature art?
Not unless the section of nature was designed by a person (ie a garden).
Games are art by looking at the word origin along with "artificial" and "artiface". All have the same root concept of something intentionally made by skill. Cooking, writing, programming, building, etc are all forms of art. There is no reason not to include games.
Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting [three panel], 1951
You can't make this up.
Why in the heavens do I see a divided society there? A commentary on unnecessary divisions and overreliance on categorization instead of just accepting things as they are. I see...shackles and friction. Huge walls ; both literal and metaphorical. Besides the obvious two lines / three rectangulars, ofc. Edit: It could also be a colorless version of French / Italian etc flag.
No way man! It's the Holy Trinity of course. Father, Son, Holy Ghost, separate but the same. Isn't it obvious??
Or maybe it's an artist's depiction of wall paneling painted white. Brilliant!
Ooh, ooh, it's three extremely close up photographs of three eggs. Yeah!
I know! It's the artist's personification of his own laziness. Step one: Hang blank canvas. Step two: ??? Step three: Profit!
Art is subjective. Everything thing is art and not art at the same time.
Is nature art?
Not unless the section of nature was designed by a person (ie a garden).
Games are art by looking at the word origin along with "artificial" and "artiface". All have the same root concept of something intentionally made by skill. Cooking, writing, programming, building, etc are all forms of art. There is no reason not to include games.
In that case everything man made or done by man is art. In which case nothing is art.
Whats the difference between a soccer game, a game of chess, and an mmorpg? Since painters compete for the resources of patrons of their art, painting is a game.
The stock market is a game. Making plain napkins at a factory is a game. Communicating on forums is a game. Drudge work is a game. And all of them are art. And any of those activities being considered primarily a game or art is useless and wrong.
Any definition that includes almost anything is useless. Definitions, by nature and common sense, need to be exclusive to be of value.
At their root, base level games and art are not the same. Everything that is art isn't a game, and everything that is a game isn't art. Almost any work that the vast majority of people would agree is primarily art would not also be considered a game. Almost any game the vast majority of people would agree is primarily a game would also not be considered art.
Some players of the game may play the game artfully, and some artists may create art playfully.
Is chess a better game when the pieces are beautiful pieces of art? Would Rodin have been a better sculptor if his creations chased people around playing a game of tag?
A game is good regardless of its artistic value. Art is good regardless of if it can be interacted with or has some sort of game aspect to it.
Edit - Of course Rodin would be a lot more well known if his sculptures chased people around. But the artistic beauty of his sculptures would be judged independently of his magical ability to turn them into automatons. Its a bad example since it is based on magic but you get what I was trying to say hopefully.
I don't want to stir a bees nest here, but I have too often encountered people using "art" as some kind of prestige or status thing, the more outrageous, the more prestigious. I see the same for people calling games "art."
You just reminded me of this quote:
"The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist." - Nikhil Saluja
There's "art" that is about skill as well as subject matter and there's "art" that is about the artist asking the viewer to think about things in a different way.
If one were to look at the other end of the spectrum, say Jackson Pollack, criticism could be made that what he did took no "talent" as a kid could do it.
But if you watch the videos of him painting one gets the sense that he truly meant what he painted. And what he painted was a sort of visual representation of his improvisatory movements as well as his choice of color, texture, etc.
Not to say everyone can or should appreciate or even like this stuff but understanding what is going on is part of understanding why some consider this "art."
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
There is also the fact that video games inspire art that is outside the game. Here is an example, with a song from GW2 (inside teh game) being sung by a fan (outside the game, and definitely art):
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
There's "art" that is about skill as well as subject matter and there's "art" that is about the artist asking the viewer to think about things in a different way.
If one were to look at the other end of the spectrum, say Jackson Pollack, criticism could be made that what he did took no "talent" as a kid could do it.
But if you watch the videos of him painting one gets the sense that he truly meant what he painted. And what he painted was a sort of visual representation of his improvisatory movements as well as his choice of color, texture, etc.
Not to say everyone can or should appreciate or even like this stuff but understanding what is going on is part of understanding why some consider this "art."
Sorry, but I have to point out how lacking in substance these arguments are. This "asking the viewer to think about things in a different way" is intellectual claptrap. What they are doing is coming up with an idea for you to think about, and because the art elite buy into this it has to be amazing. If you don't "get it" you must somehow be of lesser intelligence, not able to master the ability to see beyond what you see. It reminds me of the fable of the Emperors clothes.
The Emperor has tailors who prepare for him the most amazing costume made from a fabric so fine that only those who are intelligent enough can see the fabric. If courtiers cannot see the fabric surely they are not fit for office. But as he parades around the courtiers do see it and admire the outfit. The tailors were con artists and the Emperor was naked, but to not see the clothes, well that would make you stupid wouldn't it?
It seems this sort of con has been around a rather long time.
You get thousands of ideas thrown at you in a book, but somehow we are to believe the idea above is special? Come to the gallery, put on your face of studied thought as you look at the painting, think your great thoughts, you to can be a courtier and see what cannot be seen.
There's "art" that is about skill as well as subject matter and there's "art" that is about the artist asking the viewer to think about things in a different way.
If one were to look at the other end of the spectrum, say Jackson Pollack, criticism could be made that what he did took no "talent" as a kid could do it.
But if you watch the videos of him painting one gets the sense that he truly meant what he painted. And what he painted was a sort of visual representation of his improvisatory movements as well as his choice of color, texture, etc.
Not to say everyone can or should appreciate or even like this stuff but understanding what is going on is part of understanding why some consider this "art."
Sorry, but I have to point out how lacking in substance these arguments are. This "asking the viewer to think about things in a different way" is intellectual claptrap. What they are doing is coming up with an idea for you to think about, and because the art elite buy into this it has to be amazing. If you don't "get it" you must somehow be of lesser intelligence, not able to master the ability to see beyond what you see. It reminds me of the fable of the Emperors clothes.
The Emperor has tailors who prepare for him the most amazing costume made from a fabric so fine that only those who are intelligent enough can see the fabric. If courtiers cannot see the fabric surely they are not fit for office. But as he parades around the courtiers do see it and admire the outfit. The tailors were con artists and the Emperor was naked, but to not see the clothes, well that would make you stupid wouldn't it?
It seems this sort of con has been around a rather long time.
You get thousands of ideas thrown at you in a book, but somehow we are to believe the idea above is special? Come to the gallery, put on your face of studied thought as you look at the painting, think your great thoughts, you to can be a courtier and see what cannot be seen.
Pretentious nonsense.
But you can put that type of thinking onto anything. Art is in general understood by the person making it, and the people interested in it. It's 100% subjective. Some artists don't consider other artists work good, and reverse.
It happens in music as well. Different genres for different people. I like some music that others would call a wall of noise, but I think it's good and know what is going on. Others like music I find absolutely abhorrent.
There isn't a right or wrong. People will take advantage of the rich or prestigious by catering to their idea of how art should be, but others make the same type of art because they feel those emotions. Just because it isn't what you expect it to be doesn't make it any less. Art can be whatever the artist makes it. Just because some bad seeds cater to a higher crowd just to bank off of it, doesn't mean everyone does that.
Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting [three panel], 1951
You can't make this up.
Sorry, but I have to point out how lacking in substance these arguments are. This "asking the viewer to think about things in a different way" is intellectual claptrap. What they are doing is coming up with an idea for you to think about, and because the art elite buy into this it has to be amazing. If you don't "get it" you must somehow be of lesser intelligence, not able to master the ability to see beyond what you see. It reminds me of the fable of the Emperors clothes.
The Emperor has tailors who prepare for him the most amazing costume made from a fabric so fine that only those who are intelligent enough can see the fabric. If courtiers cannot see the fabric surely they are not fit for office. But as he parades around the courtiers do see it and admire the outfit. The tailors were con artists and the Emperor was naked, but to not see the clothes, well that would make you stupid wouldn't it?
It seems this sort of con has been around a rather long time.
You get thousands of ideas thrown at you in a book, but somehow we are to believe the idea above is special? Come to the gallery, put on your face of studied thought as you look at the painting, think your great thoughts, you to can be a courtier and see what cannot be seen.
Pretentious nonsense.
But you can put that type of thinking onto anything. Art is in general understood by the person making it, and the people interested in it. It's 100% subjective. Some artists don't consider other artists work good, and reverse.
It happens in music as well. Different genres for different people. I like some music that others would call a wall of noise, but I think it's good and know what is going on. Others like music I find absolutely abhorrent.
There isn't a right or wrong. People will take advantage of the rich or prestigious by catering to their idea of how art should be, but others make the same type of art because they feel those emotions. Just because it isn't what you expect it to be doesn't make it any less. Art can be whatever the artist makes it. Just because some bad seeds cater to a higher crowd just to bank off of it, doesn't mean everyone does that.
The elite of the art world are deciding which ideas are worth putting in a gallery and which are not. I am not saying the idea has no worth, I am saying that picking out certain ideas from favoured artists and holding them up as worthy is elitist nonsense.
But also I find the ideas are rather shallow and obvious in the main, you only have to listen to the contorted explanations of art "experts" to realise that. It is about what interpretation you can put into it, for me that rather means we are doing all the work and the artist very little.
Art doesn't have P2W features in any of its variations. Games are just the products of computer science (programming) and story telling. Individual assets such as a model, can be considered Art, but as a whole it's a product. A product the developers want you to spend money on consistently.
But that's just my opinion. Like beauty, art is in the eye of the beholder.
Comments
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/29/arts/video-games/what-supreme-court-ruling-on-video-games-means.html?nytmobile=0
"The simple is the seal of the true and beauty is the splendor of truth" -Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar
Authored 139 missions in Vendetta Online and 6 tracks in Distance
Robert Rauschenberg, White Painting [three panel], 1951
You can't make this up.
Design does not exclude art though, it just means you have a goal and shape your product accordingly.
Basically, games are more like commercial art, where form follows function.
The function is to make a successful game and artistry plays a huge part of making that happen.
With games, I would argue that many qualify as art, having begun as an idea and turned into an interactive audio/visual experience that has a thematic story to tell which is designed to provoke an emotional response. That said, you could be playing Solitaire or Sudoku or Madden or Truck Simulator, and I wouldn't think of any of those things as art.
Now for some strange reason, in my head I don't think of board games as art, even though the more thematic ones offer all that same stuff I just said about videogames, with the bonus of having been "sculpted" into a real-life, tangible thing you can touch. Weird.
"The main difference between applied art and fine art is purpose. Applied art is tailored for functionality, or in other words, the design meets a practical purpose; its used for something. While, on the other hand, fine art is solely for aesthetic, visual purposes."
https://study.com/academy/answer/how-do-fine-arts-differ-from-applied-arts.html
I'd say video games certainly can qualify as applied art.
Games are art by looking at the word origin along with "artificial" and "artiface". All have the same root concept of something intentionally made by skill. Cooking, writing, programming, building, etc are all forms of art. There is no reason not to include games.
Or maybe it's an artist's depiction of wall paneling painted white. Brilliant!
Ooh, ooh, it's three extremely close up photographs of three eggs. Yeah!
I know! It's the artist's personification of his own laziness. Step one: Hang blank canvas. Step two: ??? Step three: Profit!
Whats the difference between a soccer game, a game of chess, and an mmorpg? Since painters compete for the resources of patrons of their art, painting is a game.
The stock market is a game. Making plain napkins at a factory is a game. Communicating on forums is a game. Drudge work is a game. And all of them are art. And any of those activities being considered primarily a game or art is useless and wrong.
Any definition that includes almost anything is useless. Definitions, by nature and common sense, need to be exclusive to be of value.
At their root, base level games and art are not the same. Everything that is art isn't a game, and everything that is a game isn't art. Almost any work that the vast majority of people would agree is primarily art would not also be considered a game. Almost any game the vast majority of people would agree is primarily a game would also not be considered art.
Some players of the game may play the game artfully, and some artists may create art playfully.
Is chess a better game when the pieces are beautiful pieces of art? Would Rodin have been a better sculptor if his creations chased people around playing a game of tag?
A game is good regardless of its artistic value. Art is good regardless of if it can be interacted with or has some sort of game aspect to it.
Edit - Of course Rodin would be a lot more well known if his sculptures chased people around. But the artistic beauty of his sculptures would be judged independently of his magical ability to turn them into automatons. Its a bad example since it is based on magic but you get what I was trying to say hopefully.
"The fact that no one understands you doesn't mean you're an artist." - Nikhil Saluja
~~ postlarval ~~
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests
The Emperor has tailors who prepare for him the most amazing costume made from a fabric so fine that only those who are intelligent enough can see the fabric. If courtiers cannot see the fabric surely they are not fit for office. But as he parades around the courtiers do see it and admire the outfit. The tailors were con artists and the Emperor was naked, but to not see the clothes, well that would make you stupid wouldn't it?
It seems this sort of con has been around a rather long time.
You get thousands of ideas thrown at you in a book, but somehow we are to believe the idea above is special? Come to the gallery, put on your face of studied thought as you look at the painting, think your great thoughts, you to can be a courtier and see what cannot be seen.
Pretentious nonsense.
It happens in music as well. Different genres for different people. I like some music that others would call a wall of noise, but I think it's good and know what is going on. Others like music I find absolutely abhorrent.
There isn't a right or wrong. People will take advantage of the rich or prestigious by catering to their idea of how art should be, but others make the same type of art because they feel those emotions. Just because it isn't what you expect it to be doesn't make it any less. Art can be whatever the artist makes it. Just because some bad seeds cater to a higher crowd just to bank off of it, doesn't mean everyone does that.
But also I find the ideas are rather shallow and obvious in the main, you only have to listen to the contorted explanations of art "experts" to realise that. It is about what interpretation you can put into it, for me that rather means we are doing all the work and the artist very little.
[YT]
EQ1, EQ2, SWG, SWTOR, GW, GW2 CoH, CoV, FFXI, WoW, CO, War,TSW and a slew of free trials and beta tests