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

I would say to some degree yes, depending on the game - but at least for me, the entertainment factor comes first and foremost. In other words, I'd much rather play a super fun video game with zero artistic sensibilities than an artistic masterpiece that was flawed in terms of gameplay quality/mechanics or boring.



 

"We hold these truths to be self-evident - all men and women created by the, go-you know.. you know the thing!" - Joe Biden

Around the Network
IcaroRibeiro said:

Very well written, you bring a very broad definition and most of what you said make perfect sense from my own understanding and (granted, very shallow) studies of art means. I like how you also deconstructed some arguments that people threw here in a way I couldn't myself, thanks for you input I wanted to give more upvotes lol 

Thanks for your response, i tried to be as concise as posible even thought there are a ton of things left to discusse about art, what i've learned through the years of personal experince and academic instruction (i've went to schools that teached both sciences and humanities) is that sadly, people sometimes tend to adhere too blindly to very closed definitions when the areas of study are really broad and aren't as rigid as let's say "exact sciences", or do the oposite and think that because the objects of study of areas like phillosophy, humanities, social ciences sometimes aren't as definited as the ones from exact sciences, they can just be on an eternal digress wandering aimlessly, spewing nonsense after nonsense without really paying attention to bullcrap they sometimes "teach".

IcaroRibeiro said:

I was reading there must be a line dividing what is art and is craft and design. I guess this line really exists, I'm a software engineer and software engineering isn't REALLY engineering, but it's design. It's creative, as I can write my code in a perfectly different way of another developer and we somewhat arrive at the same results, this make coding software craft and design for most part, even though it's still largely based on science. I, indeed, think this is what set software engineering and computer science apart

However people who design aesthetic concepts for websites and apps in general, they are concerned with how people will perceive their work, so here while we are still doing design we are starting to cross the line from design to arts. Games are similar, it has science components, design components and art components

When devs need to think how to solve vectorial problems to be able define the physics of a game, games are science
When devs need to think how the physics can be used to create levels and and challenges, games are design
When devs need to think how they can they can use sounds to creative immersive experience to communicate and evoke some kind of feelings, games are art

Makes sense for me

Yeah there are still several considerations about breaking down processes in artistic generated expressions, that is why i put the part about the martial arts movies as a question should we or not break down something appart to see if we can tell if each part counts as art, part of the answer is that we have being doing both through time, movies have been analyzed both by studying the performances individually, the technical parts, the direction, but of course there is the moment when we can evaluate the movie as a whole. 

But you highlight another aspect of the sequences or processes, very good point to the discussion as you say a crossing of lines between the craft, the design and the final artistic expresion, as the user mentioning martial arts was saying the part in which the dedication, effort and the hours of practice involved to master martial arts, the by itself it could be considered in the broader definition a form of art, but even if to others it may just be akin to the craft, the movements learned may be like the design, still the final mastering of the movements and their execution could be akin to a master artistic performance.

Software engineering good, probably a lot of things were centered on computers and programming, did you lean something about "less utilitarian" things to do with computers or just that part about web design?



JWeinCom said:
snyps said:

The meaning of the word art (and the word artist for that matter) still means what it used to. You’ve been wrong from the onset. You think that a person who is skilled and creative with his talents is not enough to be called an artist yet you mock me by calling me one? You think I’ll feign indignation while you call me dishonest? 


I know you are saying that it’s more common these days to say artist and mean visual artist. That doesn’t take away the FACT that artist can encompass many, (unlimited) fields of study. You ignored the history of the word art and how relevant it’s history is to how the word is still used today. Then you cherry pick the definition of artist while ignoring the totality of its meaning. I screenshot the webpage you referenced, you only cited the first part. It goes on to say what we are both saying. Like I said, anyone skilled at a craft is an artist. Like you are implying, artist especially means one who practices visual design.

You know I’m right. You are ignoring facts. Just admit that games are art, the creator of fine and entertaining gameplay is an artist, and players that light up their friends and admirer’s faces with their uncanny skill — are artist’s in their own right. 

If you can’t do that then that’s something you are going to need to work out on your own. 

I am calling you dishonest, because you have avoided answering very simple questions and to acknowledge virtually any points, as you have continued to do. Do you still talk in preshakespearean English? If someone asked you who your favorite artist is would you even consider naming a speedrunner under any realistic circumstance? These are simple questions, and the fact that you can't address them is telling and, yup, dishonest.

Yes, the common usage is what I said. Thank you for acknowledging that. If someone's using the common usage that would make sense in the context, and you counter by arguing that another usage would change the answer, you're just being obnoxiously pedantic. If someone faints and calls for a doctor, and you rush up saying "I have a PHD in Political Science" then you're being an asshole because that's clearly not what they meant. Likewise, if you promise your significant other that you'd take them to see some art over the weekend, and then show them a Mega Man 2 speedrun, you're also being an asshole, because that's not what any rational person would mean in that situation. 

And it is absolutely hilarious to have someone who won't acknowledge that words change over centuries telling me I am just ignoring facts. I legitimately laughed out loud, so thank you.

As for "cherrypicking" definitions, I'm confused how I could possibly do that. Weren't you arguing that there was only one usage for a word? Ands that the definitions for artist could be equated? And that definitions don't change? And we had to go to the original meaning? That's why I used the first part, because you were implying that was the true one and only usage. I was using your standard. So, then why would any meaning but the original meaning matter. Unless *gasp* words have multiple meanings, those meanings change over time, and the meanings we were discussing are not equal. Whaddayaknow.

Quite impressive. I might say that you are an artist at self owning. As for "admitting you're right" nope. By your definition it would be, but that is not what the OP seemed to be asking, nor what anyone who has ever asked that question meant. But using the "Because I said so" argument is a bold strategy. Maybe back it up with an actual argument about why your usage makes any sense in this context over the and I'll reconsider. 

So, let's review. If you're honest, then you can answer the questions. They're not hard I promise. Yes or no. 

Do words have multiple potential meanings and usages? 

Have those usages changed over time?

Is the common usage for artist the one that is given as the primary definition on the website you appealed to as an authority for the meaning of words?

By that definition would a gamer not qualify as an artist?

If the answers are yes, which they are if you're being honest, then that validates exactly what I've been saying. If you can't answer simple questions, that pretty much also validates what I've been saying. Fair is fair so I'll answer whatever questions you have. It's very easy when you have a reasonable and consistent position.

Calling people names like dishonest, obnoxious, etc etc (your list of name calling grows every post) doesn’t support your argument.. it just shows how weak it is. I don’t answer redundant questions and I don’t need your validation of my integrity as a reward for doing so.

Art has a definition. We disagree on that definition. I say a visual artist, and a martial artist are both artists. I don’t know how you can twist that so only one is an artist but that’s on you. I thought you would be able to understand that all definitions of art (past and present) tie together.



snyps said:
JWeinCom said:

I am calling you dishonest, because you have avoided answering very simple questions and to acknowledge virtually any points, as you have continued to do. Do you still talk in preshakespearean English? If someone asked you who your favorite artist is would you even consider naming a speedrunner under any realistic circumstance? These are simple questions, and the fact that you can't address them is telling and, yup, dishonest.

Yes, the common usage is what I said. Thank you for acknowledging that. If someone's using the common usage that would make sense in the context, and you counter by arguing that another usage would change the answer, you're just being obnoxiously pedantic. If someone faints and calls for a doctor, and you rush up saying "I have a PHD in Political Science" then you're being an asshole because that's clearly not what they meant. Likewise, if you promise your significant other that you'd take them to see some art over the weekend, and then show them a Mega Man 2 speedrun, you're also being an asshole, because that's not what any rational person would mean in that situation. 

And it is absolutely hilarious to have someone who won't acknowledge that words change over centuries telling me I am just ignoring facts. I legitimately laughed out loud, so thank you.

As for "cherrypicking" definitions, I'm confused how I could possibly do that. Weren't you arguing that there was only one usage for a word? Ands that the definitions for artist could be equated? And that definitions don't change? And we had to go to the original meaning? That's why I used the first part, because you were implying that was the true one and only usage. I was using your standard. So, then why would any meaning but the original meaning matter. Unless *gasp* words have multiple meanings, those meanings change over time, and the meanings we were discussing are not equal. Whaddayaknow.

Quite impressive. I might say that you are an artist at self owning. As for "admitting you're right" nope. By your definition it would be, but that is not what the OP seemed to be asking, nor what anyone who has ever asked that question meant. But using the "Because I said so" argument is a bold strategy. Maybe back it up with an actual argument about why your usage makes any sense in this context over the and I'll reconsider. 

So, let's review. If you're honest, then you can answer the questions. They're not hard I promise. Yes or no. 

Do words have multiple potential meanings and usages? 

Have those usages changed over time?

Is the common usage for artist the one that is given as the primary definition on the website you appealed to as an authority for the meaning of words?

By that definition would a gamer not qualify as an artist?

If the answers are yes, which they are if you're being honest, then that validates exactly what I've been saying. If you can't answer simple questions, that pretty much also validates what I've been saying. Fair is fair so I'll answer whatever questions you have. It's very easy when you have a reasonable and consistent position.

Calling people names like dishonest, obnoxious, etc etc (your list of name calling grows every post) doesn’t support your argument.. it just shows how weak it is. I don’t answer redundant questions and I don’t need your validation of my integrity as a reward for doing so.

Art has a definition. We disagree on that definition. I say a visual artist, and a martial artist are both artists. I don’t know how you can twist that so only one is an artist but that’s on you. I thought you would be able to understand that all definitions of art (past and present) tie together.


What shows how strong my argument is, is that you cannot answer simple questions that demonstrate the argument, or respond to or refute any point. Or acknowledge basic things like "Yeah, we don't all speak in fourteenth century English anymore". 

I can say visual artists and martial artists are not both artists based on the common usage of the word artist, because one is engaged in creative expression, and one is generally not. People have long distinguished aesthetic arts from functional arts, and the term artist is overwhelmingly more often used to refer to one engaged in aesthetic/fine arts. I asked you to explain why your usage was more appropriate for this conversation, but, crickets. And that usage does not make sense, because nobody has ever seriously asked "do games require skill to play" but have often asked "are games a worthwhile type of creative expression". 

Nobody called you obnoxious. I said your behavior was obnoxiously pedantic. Likewise, I did not call you dishonest, I said you were being dishonest (the difference is subtle but important), which you have just demonstrated again. Having an honest discussion does entail responding to points being made and answering basic questions. Which you refused to do even before, so let's not pretend it's because I insulted you. Cause that's... you know, dishonest. Remember when I said you'd feign indignation to avoid actually responding? XD It's like I have ESPN or something.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 16 June 2022

JWeinCom said:
snyps said:


What shows how strong my argument is, is that you cannot answer simple questions that demonstrate the argument, or respond to or refute any point. Or acknowledge basic things like "Yeah, we don't all speak in fourteenth century English anymore". 

Nobody called you obnoxious. I said your behavior was obnoxiously pedantic. Likewise, I did not call you dishonest, I said you were being dishonest (the difference is subtle but important), which you have just demonstrated again. Having an honest discussion does entail responding to points being made and answering basic questions. Which you refused to do even before, so let's not pretend it's because I insulted you. Cause that's... you know, dishonest. Remember when I said you'd feign indignation to avoid actually responding? XD It's like I have ESPN or something.

Our definitions of dishonest are different as well. Even our definitions of indignation don’t match up. You keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means. 



Around the Network
snyps said:
JWeinCom said:


What shows how strong my argument is, is that you cannot answer simple questions that demonstrate the argument, or respond to or refute any point. Or acknowledge basic things like "Yeah, we don't all speak in fourteenth century English anymore". 

Nobody called you obnoxious. I said your behavior was obnoxiously pedantic. Likewise, I did not call you dishonest, I said you were being dishonest (the difference is subtle but important), which you have just demonstrated again. Having an honest discussion does entail responding to points being made and answering basic questions. Which you refused to do even before, so let's not pretend it's because I insulted you. Cause that's... you know, dishonest. Remember when I said you'd feign indignation to avoid actually responding? XD It's like I have ESPN or something.

Our definitions of dishonest are different as well. Even our definitions of indignation don’t match up. You keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means. 

I better get a time machine to the 1300s to find out what they mean I guess. Acknowledge the points about the actual topic if you wish. No need to drag this further off topic. 


JWeinCom said:
snyps said:

Our definitions of dishonest are different as well. Even our definitions of indignation don’t match up. You keep using those words, I do not think it means what you think it means. 

I better get a time machine to the 1300s to find out what they mean I guess. Acknowledge the points about the actual topic if you wish. No need to drag this further off topic. 

I’m good, we have to be able to agree on definitions in order to have a conversation. Take care



JWeinCom said:

Good summary. But, again, I think the problem is in conflating the usages. You're using art in more the one way to get all aspects of a game in, and I think you should just be using one definition consistently to answer the question. And it should be the common "fine arts" definition, because that is pretty much what anyone means when they ask if games are art. Otherwise, it's basically an example of someone asking "Do games have worthwhile expressive value" and someone responding "well yeah, because they take skill". It's a non-sequitor.

And the question wouldn't make sense using art as "something requiring skill" because nobody has ever seriously questioned whether games take skill. That is implicit, and part of the reason why they call them games. Yet, throughout history people have every seldom ever called someone very skilled at a game an artist, except in a metaphorical sense. If you asked someone who their favorite artist was and they said Tom Brady, I'm pretty sure you'd be taken aback by that response. The simple fact is that we very rarely use artist to refer to a very skilled person, regardless of whether or not we could.

Of course there is that part about being more centered an using more sucint definitions, as you point we could focus on the "fine arts" and then again i would make a short anlysis about what points are present of fine art definitions, i think i will do it later, but let's not fool ourselves  part of what i pointed out have been the problems that have plagued the classifying of something as art and later as "fine art" for a long time now, and this not only applies to videogames:

"fine art is developed primarily for aesthetics or creative expression"

"The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline according to traditional Western European canons. Except in the case of architecture, where a practical utility was accepted, this definition originally excluded the "useful" applied or decorative arts, and the products of what were regarded as crafts. In contemporary practice, these distinctions and restrictions have become essentially meaningless, as the concept or intention of the artist is given primacy, regardless of the means through which this is expressed"

Who decided what passed as fine art? why did they gave a leeway to architecture? why exclude applied or decorative? when even since their conception nowadays people used the fine "pure art" products for other purposes, like the Sacred music, architecture, sculpture and painting produced during several centuries by church orders for spiritual or other purposes, and despite that still are considered on top of several fine art artistic expressions, same for others that were made to represent "things" in accordance with the desires of their contractors and still qualify as "fine art", why despite the decline of the concept of "fine art"  by specialist like George Kubler and others to around 1880-1900,  and by other scholars of art theory by about 1920-1930, there are still people that champion the use of "fine art" and also do it so selectively, while not recognizing the aesthetic intention of other expressions like photography, comic books(or as Will Eisner called it "sequential art"), or older ones like potery or clothing that not necessarily serve a utilitarian purpose, or not eurocentric ones like chinese caligraphy, the carvings/engravings several cultures of the world did,  traditional tatooings or piercings that in some cultures served tribal or ritualistic purposes , but now are done only for the "love to the art" and others.

I get your point, but that's why I say there are still lots to take in consideration and why i also think sometimes we should broaden the definitions or revise them to see if we aren't just being over restrictive to certain expressions while giving free pass to others.

Last edited by foxmccloud64 - on 17 July 2022

foxmccloud64 said:

JWeinCom said:

Good summary. But, again, I think the problem is in conflating the usages. You're using art in more the one way to get all aspects of a game in, and I think you should just be using one definition consistently to answer the question. And it should be the common "fine arts" definition, because that is pretty much what anyone means when they ask if games are art. Otherwise, it's basically an example of someone asking "Do games have worthwhile expressive value" and someone responding "well yeah, because they take skill". It's a non-sequitor.

And the question wouldn't make sense using art as "something requiring skill" because nobody has ever seriously questioned whether games take skill. That is implicit, and part of the reason why they call them games. Yet, throughout history people have every seldom ever called someone very skilled at a game an artist, except in a metaphorical sense. If you asked someone who their favorite artist was and they said Tom Brady, I'm pretty sure you'd be taken aback by that response. The simple fact is that we very rarely use artist to refer to a very skilled person, regardless of whether or not we could.

Of course there is that part about being more centered an using more sucint definitions, as you point we could focus on the "fine arts" and then again i would make a short anlysis about what points are present of fine art definitions, i think i will do it later, but let's not fool ourselves  part of what i pointed out have been the problems that have plagued the classifying of something as art and later as "fine art" for a long time now, and this not only applies to videogames:

"fine art is developed primarily for aesthetics or creative expression"

"The word "fine" does not so much denote the quality of the artwork in question, but the purity of the discipline according to traditional Western European canons. Except in the case of architecture, where a practical utility was accepted, this definition originally excluded the "useful" applied or decorative arts, and the products of what were regarded as crafts. In contemporary practice, these distinctions and restrictions have become essentially meaningless, as the concept or intention of the artist is given primacy, regardless of the means through which this is expressed"

Who decided what passed as fine art? why did they gave a leeway to architecture? why exclude applied or decorative? when even since their conception nowadays people used the fine "pure art" products for other purposes, like the Sacred music, architecture, sculpture and painting produced during several centuries by church orders for spiritual or other purposes, and despite that still are considered on top of several fine art artistic expressions, same for others that were made to represent "things" in accordance with the desires of their contractors and still qualify as "fine art", why despite the decline of the concept of "fine art"  by specialist like George Kubler and others to around 1880-1900,  and by other scholars of art theory by about 1920-1930, there are still people that champion the use of "fine art" and also do it so selectively, while not recognizing the aesthetic intention of other expressions like photography, comic books(or as Will Eisner called it "sequential art"), or older ones like potery or clothing that not necessarily serve a utilitarian purpose, or not eurocentric ones like chinese caligraphy, the carvings/engravings several cultures of the world did,  traditional tatooings of piercings that in some cultures served tribal or ritualistic purposes , but now are done only for the "love to the art" and others.

I get your point, but that's why I say there are still lots to take in consideration and why i also think sometimes we should broaden the definitions or revise them to see if we aren't just being over restrictive to certain expressions while giving free pass to others.

I don't necessarily subscribe to the definition of fine arts. I would include some things like comedy, comic books, wrestling, and etc in the category of art that are not traditionally included. But I do agree with the creative expression part. That is the key, and I'm pretty sure that's what 99.9% of people mean when they ask if videogames are art. I think the reason fine arts are defined as those that are purely aesthetic is to isolate that creative expression. 

Pretty much no art is ever purely produced for creative expression, but video games require functionality in a way that the other mediums really don't. Even architecture has less functionality required, because typically, based on my understanding, making a building that stands up is pretty simple and what the building looks like is then completely up to the architect. With games, you have to worry a lot about players being able to actually play it, and enjoy the gameplay systems, and I think with a lot of games that is more of a focus than telling a story or creating the visuals etc. I don't know if that disqualifies games as art, but it makes me question it with a lot of games. Like, Undertale I'm pretty comfortable in calling art, but Mario Kart I'm not so sure.



The problem with a broad definition of art is everything becomes art. When I do scanning electron microscopy of structures.... if I want it to look pleasing to the eye, suddenly my chemical analysis is art.....  

I still say games aren't art. The primary focus is playing not visual appeal.  Same with my SEM, primary isn't the visuals, but analysis.