Support NeoGAF

[Airola]

It’s both product and art. Also it’s silly to split these into two things. The art world is all about selling products. Look at Jeff Koons.

it was over a hundred years ago that DuChamp proved literally anything can be art all it needs is context

silly this is even a conversation anymore. a toilet can be art.

Nah, I don't think he proved everything can be art, but actually questioned if everything can be art. The toilet thing was a protest. In my opinion by letting him make his protest in the context of art he proved that art is for the most part dead or at the very least reduced into meaningless nonsense. And I think Andy Warhol did the same thing too. While both were artists and made art, they also were commentators of art and some of their works were intended to be only comments about art.

 

[Clear]

"Art" shouldn't be considered such a big thing. Its just an intent, an approach to a creating a work.

Sometimes a thing gets made to just distract and entertain, other times its made to communicate a message or a feeling that the creative lead needs to express because its important to them.

 

[MrS]

Both. You have your John Wicks and you have your Schindler's Lists.

 

[StormCell]

I have to stop just short of calling any game a piece of 'art.' Some in the industry are in it to create art, though, and that's no different than me taking photos with my phone while someone else employs $2000 in equipment to take artistic photos. Theirs is clearly art.

Just the same, I would look at a creation such as Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island and really fascinate on the art direction and composition of this game. It is truly ageless. It's just as fascinating today as it was in the 1990's! Surely, this is art if video games are art! However, the artists are in the business of making toys. They don't see it as art. Are toys art? Some toys are very detailed and artistic. They can be pieces of art. It's a blurry line.

In general, I would dismiss most assertions that a game is art. There are rare exceptions where a game, which is comprised of art, is itself a piece of art as a whole. It's a rare thing.

 

[Scotty W]

This thread and question are impossible.

There are people saying that art is such a subjective word that area rugs and tupperwear containers-anything- can be considered art. But if you stretch the word so far, the word ‘art’ becomes meaningless. Does it matter that just like the stitching pattern on my t-shirt, games are art? No one cares.

I think the question ‘are games art?’ really wants to know if games are art the way that Shakespeare, Mozart and Da Vinci are art.

No one is denying that games do not contain art. But this does not seem enough to make them art. If it did, then my apartment, with its books, printout of Hokusai’s Wave on the fridge and Atheist’s Element’s album would be art.

The basic problem is that the central experience of playing a game seems to be a different thing than looking at a painting. A game seems to offer 3 possibilities for depth; an expanding skill ceiling, endless play, an expanding awareness of areas to be explored to improve one’s ability.

Great art, in my experience is not about the skill and ability of the interpreter. It is about offering the interpreter the experience of infinite depth. To use a metaphor, art is 3 dimensional, games are 2 dimensional.

Having said that, there are problems with my theory.

Another big problem is that asking this question is unlikely to get you reasonable answers, but dogmatizing by nerds who want to justify their hobby.

 

[StormCell]

This thread and question are impossible.

There are people saying that art is such a subjective word that area rugs and tupperwear containers-anything- can be considered art. But if you stretch the word so far, the word ‘art’ becomes meaningless. Does it matter that just like the stitching pattern on my t-shirt, games are art? No one cares.

I think the question ‘are games art?’ really wants to know if games are art the way that Shakespeare, Mozart and Da Vinci are art.

No one is denying that games do not contain art. But this does not seem enough to make them art. If it did, then my apartment, with its books, printout of Hokusai’s Wave on the fridge and Atheist’s Element’s album would be art.

The basic problem is that the central experience of playing a game seems to be a different thing than looking at a painting. A game seems to offer 3 possibilities for depth; an expanding skill ceiling, endless play, an expanding awareness of areas to be explored to improve one’s ability.

Great art, in my experience is not about the skill and ability of the interpreter. It is about offering the interpreter the experience of infinite depth. To use a metaphor, art is 3 dimensional, games are 2 dimensional.

Having said that, there are problems with my theory.

Another big problem is that asking this question is unlikely to get you reasonable answers, but dogmatizing by nerds who want to justify their hobby.

I hope this doesn't seem too out of left field, but reading your post reminds me of that new age art that you now see on most university campuses or at office complexes. You know, the objects/statues that are often just shapes and tentacles that bear no resemblance to anything but are considered art. That's what I think of when I think of dogmatic art!

 

[#Phonepunk#]

Art exists to be consumed

most of the people who have a problem putting games alogg side art doesn’t seem to actually know anything about fine art

the fine art world has accepted literally any object placed in an art gallery as art for over 100 years now. Look up Duchamp. I’ll wait.

so literally anything can be art. Including games. In fact games have been featured in legit art galleries like MOMA and PSOne for several decades at this point. So this question is extremely out of date.

If you can’t accept this and you think games don’t hold up next to Picasso or whatever then you have an outdated view of art. Outdated by like 100 years. You literally don’t know what you are talking about.

 

[Fbh]

Both I guess.

Though honestly I never understood why this is such a big debate only regarding games when the same arguments about them not being art apply to the vast majority of movies and books too.

 

[Vawn]

After being forced to go to an art museum, I'm not convinced art is art.

 

[StormCell]

Art exists to be consumed

most of the people who have a problem putting games alogg side art doesn’t seem to actually know anything about fine art

the fine art world has accepted literally any object placed in an art gallery as art for over 100 years now. Look up Duchamp. I’ll wait.

so literally anything can be art. Including games. In fact games have been featured in legit art galleries like MOMA and PSOne for several decades at this point. So this question is extremely out of date.

If you can’t accept this and you think games don’t hold up next to Picasso or whatever then you have an outdated view of art. Outdated by like 100 years. You literally don’t know what you are talking about.

But art is the one area where everyone is right. Is it not in the eye of the beholder? We all know art when we see it. This idea that anything is art is irrational but at the same time also rational. That's because it's up to the viewer to decide. One guy's Picasso is someone other guy's 4-year-old's scribbling with a crayon. But true art, that is fine art requires a following of viewers who marvel at its designs and meaning. Not just anything becomes art and has people lining up to gaze at it.

That's why in rare circumstances a video game is art, imho, but in most cases video games are just run-of-the-mill but certainly do contain lots of art (someone conceptualized the character details, someone composed the beautiful soundtrack), but the whole package may not carry the same level of thought, depth, or perception.

I'm not attacking the medium. I just think that most art falls short of being inspiring or provoking. Those artists had better have other jobs that pay reasonably well.

 

[hemo memo]

I don’t think the Mona Lisa painting would score 90+ on Metacritic.

 

[Vawn]

I don’t think the Mona Lisa painting would score 90+ on Metacritic.

TLOU2 > Mona Lisa

 

[Enjay]

The cringe tag is suspiciously missing.

 

[hemo memo]

TLOU2 > Mona Lisa

No forced LGBTQ+ representation. 3/10.

 

[Vawn]

No forced LGBTQ+ representation. 3/10.

What? Mona is butch as hell.

 

[carlosrox]

Clearly art as numerous facets of art go into making said piece of art but not all games are equal.

Tony Hawk and FIFA are not equal to Dead Space, Silent Hill, Zelda, etc.





I always find it to be such an obvious answer.

Many artists work on a thing, it's art. Simple as that.



Fuck the snobbery that says games are any less.

 

[Airola]

Here's a controversial take:
Mona Lisa isn't art. It's a well made portrait painting.

 

[hemo memo]

What? Mona is butch as hell.

She’s not Abby.

 

[Vawn]

She’s not Abby.

I like Abby. She's absurdly strong, but she's pretty normal otherwise and one of the few heterosexual characters.

 

[MP!]

The answer like most things is somewhere in the middle...
They're meant for entertainment... but that doesn't mean you can't occasionally go... "HUH... that moved me a bit"

 

[HerjansEagleFeeder]

Lots of people are confusing art with something that, maybe among other professionals, artists have worked on. FYI I don't claim to have the "correct" definition of what art is. I don't think there is one. But if you want to convince people of your particular viewpoint, you got to give sound arguments for your thesis. Imho videogames are products to be consumed for your entertainment. They can contain traces of art, but they themselves aren't art like a Picasso or a Rembrandt is.

 

[Keihart]

The cringe tag is suspiciously missing.

how about you read more than the tittle of the thread...right, it's too cringy to try that hard.

 

[Yoboman]

Name any art that hasn't been consumed as a product

 

[01011001]

Art is such a vague term it literally has no real meaning. therefore this whole "is it art" debate is absolutely useless.
the word lost all meaning when people started to consider stuff art that is as ridiculous as a banana taped to a wall.

so, in short: Art has no meaning, there fore who the fuck cares.

 

[Andodalf]

Both

 

[Scotty W]

I hope this doesn't seem too out of left field, but reading your post reminds me of that new age art that you now see on most university campuses or at office complexes. You know, the objects/statues that are often just shapes and tentacles that bear no resemblance to anything but are considered art. That's what I think of when I think of dogmatic art!

The thought occurs to me that perhaps these new forms of art are also secretly attempts to degenerate high art: Look, La Pieta is the same sort of thing as this pile of bricks!

 

[Vaelka]

Who gives a shit other than stupid people who like to smell their own farts?

Edit: Look at what people call art, people tape bananas to walls and call it art.
So yeah, who cares?
The term '' art '' is so extremely meaningless in the end and doesn't really matter other than to make people feel like things are more important than they really are.

 

[Rest]

Games are games. Poker isn't art, football isn't art, golf isn't art. They're games.

 

[The Fartist]

football isn't art

I beg to differ.

P.S. I'm not a Gooner.

 

[nikolino840]

Games are art same way comic books and movies are, bunch of different artist come together to work on one big project.

Not all comics and books are art

 

[Chromata]

Games being art is pretty much a foregone conclusion, I don't think that's even really a question anymore (not that it was even a good question to begin with).

Games are also products, so I'd say it's both. They can be tailored to your individual experience, but only if the creator allows it.

 

[Tiamat2san]

There’s no option for both?
Because I think art is consumable.

 

[Qudrat Rabbi]

Games are the most complicated form of art in my opinion. They have it all and cherry on top is interactivity.

 

[Bolivar687]

Hideo Kojima said games are not art because they are made from and for market considerations. I think this is probably true for most titles but some, even with the biggest of budgets and expectations, do transition over to art.

 

[The Fartist]

Hideo Kojima said games are not art

 

[The_Mike]

I'd say both.

Art: walking simulators like Death Stranding, The Order etc
Consumed: games that requires to be played.

 

[Happosai]

So what do you think?
i know there are people that sits in both ends. Some people see games as something to be consumed and tailored to the player tastes, but there are also people that think that games are something to be experienced as is, in the way the developer delivered at the moment of release.

You can see this clearly from people wanting to adjust every little thing in a game to fit their personal tastes (like trainers or mods on PC sometimes) or people wanting the OG experience like playing on a SNES games on a CRT with original hardware.

They need to be both. Sit arcade games...there was great art to be seen in the relay numerous Namco games. However, from arcade, pong, or present -- the goal has been to market a product for all (including non-gamers). I recall everyone played arcade machines and I still see many more who do the same. Nintendo seemed to garner non-gamers to join in with the whole set-up of the Wii. Sony, Microsoft, and even Sega (in the past) seemed to avert attention more toward gamers. The art I feel reached it's apex with the 7th-gen and has remained more-or-less for the past 11-odd years. I get they're higher fps and pushing the limits...but to me the aesthetic of seeing something genuinely new is gone.