By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Do you see games as pieces of art? *potential spoilers*

 

Are games a type of art?

Yes 37 68.52%
 
No 11 20.37%
 
Undecided 5 9.26%
 
Just want to see the results 1 1.85%
 
Total:54
snyps said:
JWeinCom said:

I've yet to be presented with a coherent definition of what art is, so I don't know. The thing that might sort of weigh against it is the need for functionality and being fun (generally) that isn't really applicable to other potential art forms.

For instance Mario Galaxy 2 which is my favorite game. Is it art? I dunno. The music is certainly art, the visuals are art, maybe the story is art. But the gameplay which is the core part of the experience? That's iffy. So I don't really know if you could call the whole product a work of art.

In games there are two artists (so to speak). The creator of the objects, sounds, and story; and the player who skillfully performs feats that other players cannot. 

The same way Michael Jordon was an artist on the court, or Bruce Lee displayed mastery of martial arts; someone who expresses in a way that causes an emotional reaction of awe and wonder is an artist. 

I do not consider myself an artist when playing a game. I'm not expressing anything. Just trying to win. Would also not consider athletes artists, generally speaking.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 15 June 2022

Around the Network

I view games more as a medium of storytelling, and a "interactive experiance",.... kinda like a movie but better (depends on type of game).
Or just sheer fun, like I wouldn't call Path of exile, fantastic story telling, or a thrilling interactive experiance.... but non the less I rather enjoy it.

Art? I guess, if you consider Movie's works of art, or Music.... theres something to be said for games as well.



It is a form of art and there is nothing to really be discussed about it.
Even simple games we may not like are still artistical representation, just as your niece drawing is also art even if not high art.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Chrkeller said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

She's totally lost them. The first kind of art expression humans developed was painting, and we started because we wanted to keep register of primitive daily lifes. Some forms of art appeared from very functional needs, think of architecture. 

She isn't lost because it is an opinion.  Many would argue architecture isn't the same as art, which is demonstrated by being two completely programs at University.  

There are different programs for cinema and music as well, it doesn't mean they aren't art. Art was never supposed to be completely useless for practical purposes because entertainment is practical so to speak

I fail to see when exactly artists started to feel that way, but we have performing arts made for entertainment for literally millenia now.



JWeinCom said:
snyps said:

In games there are two artists (so to speak). The creator of the objects, sounds, and story; and the player who skillfully performs feats that other players cannot. 

The same way Michael Jordon was an artist on the court, or Bruce Lee displayed mastery of martial arts; someone who expresses in a way that causes an emotional reaction of awe and wonder is an artist. 

I do not consider myself an artist when playing a game. I'm not expressing anything. Just trying to win. Would also not consider athletes artists, generally speaking.

If you’ve not mastered a play style than I wouldn’t call you an artist either. 

I’ll use Martial Arts to prove my point. The word Arts is in the name. In martial arts you first have to master the basic movements of the particular school you're studying, just like pianists have to master moving their fingers in special ways to play cords and scales, and painters have to master shadowing and perspective. 

Once you master the basic skills of your chosen art, then you can become more creative and do things freely while still staying true to the foundation. At this point I would consider one an 'artist.' 



Around the Network
twintail said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Kojima said he don't think games are art, for me this man can go fuck himself. Never liked his games anyway

Feel free to use the thread to share videos or pictures that prove games are art!

I think you should add a spoiler warning to your opening post, since there's definitely stuff there some of us wouldn't have experienced yet.

As for whether games are art: or media forms are art to varying degrees. And art is about conveying certain emotions and saying something about the world around us. 

In reality, I don't think many games do this: they just tell stories, which is fine, but that doesn't make them artistic. And I think it's possible for someone to truly work out eras for this thing, but really I feel it's no different to how one art form informs what comes next.

You know, before we had pop art, which essentially made art understandable and mass available, we had abstract art (probably one of the more difficult ones to truly understand). So art itself can also be, not really art. Warhol's soup can is just as much art as anything from Da Vinci, Van Gogh and Dali. But it's obviously tapping into a different reality than the other artists I mentioned.

Games wouldn't be any different, I feel. 

Games often tell stories and convey emotions. Literature is art, and it doesn't really need to tell anything about the world around us, as there is fiction and fantasy genres. Any game with some kind of minimum storyline is a sort of literature I think

Games also have for quite some time developed enough visual identity to be placed somewhere along digital art. If animation movies and shows are art, I think games cam be defined as art too. I mean, there are tons of cutscenes that are basically a bunch of anime videos placed in the game, if animes are art so is games I'd say 



IcaroRibeiro said:
Chrkeller said:

She isn't lost because it is an opinion.  Many would argue architecture isn't the same as art, which is demonstrated by being two completely programs at University.  

There are different programs for cinema and music as well, it doesn't mean they aren't art. Art was never supposed to be completely useless for practical purposes because entertainment is practical so to speak

I fail to see when exactly artists started to feel that way, but we have performing arts made for entertainment for literally millenia now.

No idea and honestly don't much care.  If artists think it should be non functional, fair enough.  Opinions are nothing more than opinions.  

Some artists don't view pottery as art, because of function.  



snyps said:
JWeinCom said:

I do not consider myself an artist when playing a game. I'm not expressing anything. Just trying to win. Would also not consider athletes artists, generally speaking.

If you’ve not mastered a play style than I wouldn’t call you an artist either. 

I’ll use Martial Arts to prove my point. The word Arts is in the name. In martial arts you first have to master the basic movements of the particular school you're studying, just like pianists have to master moving their fingers in special ways to play cords and scales, and painters have to master shadowing and perspective. 

Once you master the basic skills of your chosen art, then you can become more creative and do things freely while still staying true to the foundation. At this point I would consider one an 'artist.' 

The word art in martial arts is being used in a different sense than it is in the op which refers specifically to a piece of art. Art can refer to a particular skill or study (i.e. Arts and Crafts, Martial Arts, Industrial Arts, Liberal Arts) but that's not what we typically mean when we refer to "pieces of art". If you want to use the term art to refer to anything that fits under any definition of art, then fine, playing games is an art, I'm not going to argue semantics. However, when we talk about art in the sense of pieces of art, we typically are referring to something that is intentionally expressive or evocative. 

A guitarist composing or performing a piece is an expressive act, in most circumstances. A player playing Guitar Hero, no matter how skilled, is not really engaged in any type of expressive act. The only message being conveyed is "this is the most effective way to hit the buttons being demanded of me". To the extent creativity is employed, it is not done to express any particular message or feeling, just based on efficiency. There may be some scenarios where playing a game could be expressive, but by and large, it is not.



There is no possible “no” for this answer. Are video games high art? That is a different question. But just the act of creation, whether it be a collage of magazine pictures, found sounds in nature that you assemble together, or random doodles in the margins of your textbook, all classify as art. Art is very, very subjective, so your appreciation of it or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with it being defined as art.



JWeinCom said:
snyps said:

If you’ve not mastered a play style than I wouldn’t call you an artist either. 

I’ll use Martial Arts to prove my point. The word Arts is in the name. In martial arts you first have to master the basic movements of the particular school you're studying, just like pianists have to master moving their fingers in special ways to play cords and scales, and painters have to master shadowing and perspective. 

Once you master the basic skills of your chosen art, then you can become more creative and do things freely while still staying true to the foundation. At this point I would consider one an 'artist.' 

The word art in martial arts is being used in a different sense than it is in the op which refers specifically to a piece of art. Art can refer to a particular skill or study (i.e. Arts and Crafts, Martial Arts, Industrial Arts, Liberal Arts) but that's not what we typically mean when we refer to "pieces of art". If you want to use the term art to refer to anything that fits under any definition of art, then fine, playing games is an art, I'm not going to argue semantics. However, when we talk about art in the sense of pieces of art, we typically are referring to something that is intentionally expressive or evocative. 

A guitarist composing or performing a piece is an expressive act, in most circumstances. A player playing Guitar Hero, no matter how skilled, is not really engaged in any type of expressive act. The only message being conveyed is "this is the most effective way to hit the buttons being demanded of me". To the extent creativity is employed, it is not done to express any particular message or feeling, just based on efficiency. There may be some scenarios where playing a game could be expressive, but by and large, it is not.

I cannot agree with your separation. If one is using skill and imagination to create an object or an act, to be contemplated or appreciated as beautiful, then they are an artist. Period. Not typically this or that. Just period.