Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Squees Lair. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Should Video Games Be Considered Art?; Debate about if video games should be art.
Topic Started: Aug 27 2013, 01:46 AM (551 Views)
Torabisu
Member Avatar

Should Video Games Be Considered Art?

I thought that after I flooded the comments section of the YouTube video above that maybe I should see what this community thinks. What are your thoughts.

Do you think video games should be considered art or not??? Why??? Why not???
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
ViperKang
Member Avatar

Well this is the definition of art I got from google.

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.

So looking at that definition I'd say vdeo gmes are most definitely art. Maybe not ALL of them but that falls into the subjectiveness of ALL art. A child plucking the strings of a guitar is not art. But someone who can really make a guitar sing is considered an artist performing his craftsmanship. So something mostly hated like Duke Nukem Forever may not be considered art but something done with care and love such as The Last of Us I believe can be considered art. It is in itself the expression of human creativeness and imagination and was produced to be visually stunning and emotionally touching. Does it hit those marks? For some people. Same as art. Some people look at the Sistine Chapel and see a magnificent work of art. Some people look at it and see an interesting ceiling.

So seeing as all art is subjective in the eyes of the person beholding it and since many people find video games both visually appealing and emotionally touching (for those games going for emotional punch) I'd say that for me, and honestly many other people, I think video games have come a long way and can officially be considered an art form and those studios that put their hearts and souls into making truly great games are artists in their own right.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
booker15366
Member Avatar

I'm gonna pull some Warhol here for this one. By the very fact that we're having a conversation about whether or not video games are art, they're art. In the same way that putting a soup can in an art display turns it into art, putting a video game on display as art makes it art. Art is not defined by anything it is, but by public opinion on it.

The real question should be "Are video games good art?"

In answer to this, I give the example of Thomas Was Alone as an argument that they are, and (in memory of Piph's departed Xbox) Duke Nukem Forever as an argument that they are not.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Torabisu
Member Avatar

ViperKang
 
Well this is the definition of art I got from google.

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.

So looking at that definition I'd say vdeo gmes are most definitely art. Maybe not ALL of them but that falls into the subjectiveness of ALL art. A child plucking the strings of a guitar is not art. But someone who can really make a guitar sing is considered an artist performing his craftsmanship. So something mostly hated like Duke Nukem Forever may not be considered art but something done with care and love such as The Last of Us I believe can be considered art. It is in itself the expression of human creativeness and imagination and was produced to be visually stunning and emotionally touching. Does it hit those marks? For some people. Same as art. Some people look at the Sistine Chapel and see a magnificent work of art. Some people look at it and see an interesting ceiling.

So seeing as all art is subjective in the eyes of the person beholding it and since many people find video games both visually appealing and emotionally touching (for those games going for emotional punch) I'd say that for me, and honestly many other people, I think video games have come a long way and can officially be considered an art form and those studios that put their hearts and souls into making truly great games are artists in their own right.


I agree with most of what you said but one thing and that is "A child plucking the strings of a guitar is not art. But someone who can really make a guitar sing is considered an artist performing his craftsmanship. So something mostly hated like Duke Nukem Forever may not be considered art but something done with care and love such as The Last of Us I believe can be considered art. " ~ ViperKang

I think that all video games are art because " 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. " ~ Google _ The word " Primarily " means " for the most part; mainly. " ~ Google _ That shows it is very common that art is intended to be appreciated by there beauty or emotional power but not always. For example a finger painting made by a 5 year old, it may not be appreciated that same as the Mona Lisa but it is still art because " The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. " ~ Google _ To me that is what determines if something is art. You may not enjoy a certain piece of art and say that its poor art but I think that to say something is not art is an subjective statement.



Booker15366
 
I'm gonna pull some Warhol here for this one. By the very fact that we're having a conversation about whether or not video games are art, they're art. In the same way that putting a soup can in an art display turns it into art, putting a video game on display as art makes it art. Art is not defined by anything it is, but by public opinion on it.

The real question should be "Are video games good art?"

In answer to this, I give the example of Thomas Was Alone as an argument that they are, and (in memory of Piph's departed Xbox) Duke Nukem Forever as an argument that they are not.


I dount think that putting something on display makes something into art. I will admit its very common for that to happen because people have to make a living but the only factor that determines if something is art I disagree for this example. A person is working on a painting that they have spent months on. The person finally finishes the painting and hings it on there wall so that person can view it at any time but to never meet the eye of the public. My point is that I think art should be determined by this part of definition " The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. " ~ Google. From what I can tell you understand the application part is something that can show if something is art but there is also expression.


Also another point that I thought of is that art may not be enjoyable to you or I but to say that a game like Duke Nukem Forever is not art is a subjective statement in my opinion because the value of art can vary with perspective. For me the drawings of the characters from My Little Pony I find to be worthless but the person next to me could think that they are a master piece. How popular an art piece may be does not determines if its art.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Penguins4Freedom
Member Avatar
The Lord of Misrule & The Abbot of Unreason
Torabisu
Aug 27 2013, 01:46 AM
Do you think video games should be considered art or not??? Why??? Why not???
Three question marks are the sign of a diseased mind. Just Saiyan :P

Yes, videogames are art. Not all videogames, some.

Games can be touching. Games can be though provoking. Games can satirise. Games can proselytise. Games can contemplate on the nature of life, the universe, everything even other games. Games can uniquely explore certain themes and aspects that other mediums cannot. Gaming has it's auteurs, it's writers, it's directors, it's voice actors. Gaming is versatile enough to be considered an art-form to be mastered.

But so what? What in fact does calling games art give us? A sense of legitimacy? A way to make us feel better about our passion when we're teabagging someones corpse or slapping an old women with a giant dildo? I don't see why so many people get themselves into a lather about it. Gaming isn't going to be accepted by the intellectual elite or the mainstream public the moment we can declare it to be officially art. You have to show them, you have to be persistent, you have to be mature and above all you have to wait.

And when we do finally get accepted, and people start mentioning Ueda, Chen and Inaba the same way they refer to Herzog, Capra or Bergman, what in fact has that changed? Because I doubt now that games are art that all the triple AAAs are gonna stop pulling the crap out of their own assholes for human consumption. What I mean is that there are still going to be the same problems in the industry as there were before. Hell with mainstream acceptance they'll probably get worse, not better.

But hell, acceptance is nice. And if we can make the world see games as something remarkable and not make my mum groan each time I bring the word up, then the whole of it has been worthwhile.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Torabisu
Member Avatar

Penguin4Freedom
 
Three question marks are the sign of a diseased mind. Just Saiyan :P


Its a bad habit of mine, originality it was an ideal of mine that three question marks meant that I cared, two slightly interested to know and one is being sarcastic or meant a joke. I abandoned the ideal but I kept the habit sadly. = p . Hopefully one day I'll abandon such habits but truth is than I might be less open as a person.



Penguin4Freedom
 
But so what? What in fact does calling games art give us? A sense of legitimacy? A way to make us feel better about our passion when we're teabagging someones corpse or slapping an old women with a giant dildo? I don't see why so many people get themselves into a lather about it. Gaming isn't going to be accepted by the intellectual elite or the mainstream public the moment we can declare it to be officially art. You have to show them, you have to be persistent, you have to be mature and above all you have to wait.


My reason is for the fun of a debate. " You have to show them, you have to be persistent, you have to be mature and above all you have to wait. " ~ Penguin4Freedom _ I like the sound of that. = D



Penguin4Freedom
 
And when we do finally get accepted, and people start mentioning Ueda, Chen and Inaba the same way they refer to Herzog, Capra or Bergman, what in fact has that changed? Because I doubt now that games are art that all the triple AAAs are gonna stop pulling the crap out of their own assholes for human consumption. What I mean is that there are still going to be the same problems in the industry as there were before. Hell with mainstream acceptance they'll probably get worse, not better.


There will always be problems with everything for if there was no problems than were would be all the fun? ^ v ^
Edited by Torabisu, Aug 27 2013, 07:27 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
PvtCryan502
Member Avatar
More than Just a Conjurer of Cheap Tricks
Well I think games can be pieces of art like jrpgs, but it depends on the game, and how good the reaction you get from it..... That and Duke nukem forever was a gigantic piece of crap
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Warden of Wisdom
Member Avatar
The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent. -Carl Sagan
Absolutely.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
Torabisu
Member Avatar

PvtVryan
 
Well I think games can be pieces of art like jrpgs, but it depends on the game, and how good the reaction you get from it..... That and Duke nukem forever was a gigantic piece of crap


I personal think that to determine if something is art is seeing if the object was created with creative skills or imagination for the intent of expression or application. What I'm saying it that to say Duke Nukem Forever is not art is a statement that's biased in my opinion. What you could say is that Duke Nukem Forever is crappy and not art in your opinion for these reasons. Then you'll list your reasons of why that would be a fact of truth in order to not be considered biased. But who knows maybe I'm the one who's biased. = p

I would say that Duke Nukem Forever is a crappy piece of art because of too many pointless, unfunny references that I seen within the game.
Edited by Torabisu, Aug 27 2013, 08:36 PM.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
booker15366
Member Avatar

Torabisu
Aug 27 2013, 04:33 PM
I dount think that putting something on display makes something into art. I will admit its very common for that to happen because people have to make a living but the only factor that determines if something is art I disagree for this example. A person is working on a painting that they have spent months on. The person finally finishes the painting and hings it on there wall so that person can view it at any time but to never meet the eye of the public. My point is that I think art should be determined by this part of definition " The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination. " ~ Google. From what I can tell you understand the application part is something that can show if something is art but there is also expression.
Well, all right, yeah, just displaying something doesn't make it art. That's absolutely true. I guess I didn't explain it well enough, but what I was trying to convey is that what makes something art depends only on whether or not people are willing to accept it as art. A soup can or a masterpiece, the important part is that people take it as art. Will video games be accepted? Who knows? I tend to think so, but I have no clue how long it'll take for society to accept.

I also have another point I'd like to add to this. The classical representation of art seems to be derived from the idea that art is simply what is accepted as art. Think about it, which artists do we know best? The ones which everybody already loves. We learn about artists society accepts and likes, so we regard them as a measurement to which we compare all other "art." So our interpretation of art is inherently skewed already by this. So, if you believe video games are art and want to have them accepted as such, you're going to need to wait on society to accept them.

Basically, I'm saying thinking of anything being "art or not art" is based on an idea which is completely tautological and self-serving. [Potentially controversial statement ahead!] Considering something creative to be "not art" because of its medium is an idea created by pretentious artists who don't want new creatives to put them out of a job.
Offline Profile Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Debate Section · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Theme Orbital by tiptopolive of Zathyus Network Resources.