Support NeoGAF

[dreamlongdead]

Never was art.

This statement is true for 99% of games. I honestly do not care how other people view games.

The interactive nature of games makes them the most interesting form of entertainment for me.

 

[OnPoint]

Some games are services. Some games are art. Why do they have to be one or the other?

 

[DayEnder]

Look to indies. Transistor, Ori and the Blind Forest, Journey. The art is still there, it's just separate from the summer blockbusters.

I agree with all of this, but would add in Everybody's Gone to the Rapture as a fairly recent example too. That soundtrack (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=geAnnlZMngI spoilers in the form of screenshots), story, and visuals really make it something special.

 

[Tenebrous]

The term "art" is thrown around way to easily in my opinion. Videogames are nothing more than storytelling. In a number of cases, done in an artistic manner. But the medium itself as art? Not even close.

Music is an art. Artwork & animation is an art. Storytelling is an art. Throw all those together with some player interaction (which some art does) & I've no idea how the end result can't be art.

But honestly, whether it's art to another person doesn't affect me in the slightest. I still love games for what they are to me, and that won't change.

 

[Clear]

Always was art, and always will be.

Anyone who disagrees want to explain how game making can not be art when its multi-disciplinary requirements incorporate multiple classical art-forms?

 

[SiegfriedFM]

Can't forget about that great independently created piece of art published by Microsoft Studios!

Michelangelo didn't paint the Sixtine Chapel for fun.

 

[petethepanda]

Something can be both a product and art. The Force Awakens is art, and it's also the single most product-y thing in existence.

If anything, with the tools to make games becoming cheaper and more accessible and the increased focus on smaller/indie titles in recent years, gaming is closer to being considered art than it's ever been.

 

[Live Free or Die]

Never was art.

Bingo.

 

[Finale Fireworker]

I really wish I could get in on this right now. But I only have a minute.

Based on the things you proposed, my answer is no, games are not slipping. There has always been a divide: some games are just toys or entertainment and some games have artistic value and can be called art.

Microtransactions aren't hurting art or narrative games because they're not in any of them. There are lousy movies too, filled with product placement and woodenly acted characters as thin as rice paper, but they have no impact on the meaningful movies.

Meaningful games will always be made and they will always be outnumbered by attempts at pure entertainment. This is the case with every media industry. But when these industries turn up something meaningful, it remains so in spite of its outlier status.

Overall, I would say that AAA games are closer to art than they've ever been, with some actually succeeding. A lot changed after BioShock, which finally tipped the scale, I think, of what AAA games could try to do. That's we we get games like Red Dead Redemption and Last of Us.

Games are only getting better.

 

[Crayon]

When it comes to art at a price, the art is in the parts that the purchaser did not ask for or expect to find.

So if a game is really good but is precisely, exactly, what everyone expected it to be then it is not art.

But if you play as fucking raiden for most the game. That's art.

 

[Dangansona]

Some games are services. Some games are art. Why do they have to be one or the other?

Also should clarify in the OP, but I'm mostly trying to talk about games that aren't clearly from the beginning "services" like MP based titles or mobile cash grabs. I'm certainly glad the former of those two exist even if they don't fall under the nebulous art umbrella.

 

[The Orz]

That's completely irrelevant. Just because people can't "agree" on what is and isn't art when it comes to video games (or any medium on that matter) doesn't disqualify the fact that many games have artistic qualities that people enjoy. "Good art" is basically subjective, but any creation that is made with an artistic vision by an or several creators is considered art in some way or form.

I don't believe it is. My point was that no one seems to be able to agree on what defines "artistic qualities," not what is good and what is bad. That makes it very difficult to take gaming as an art form seriously.

I'm not arguing that game--something that is created--cannot be art. I'm arguing that the general public doesn't and can't see games as works of art because we--those that are heavily invested in gaming--can't define them as such.

Games are a unique medium and feature unique qualities, just like film, comics, and literature. We should focus on defining and highlighting those qualities. Then we'll have something to work with.

 

[Paracelsus]

For the sake of discussion can you at least provide some reasoning behind your opinion?

I'll open the proverbial can of worms: have you noticed how the argument always comes up with the so-called non-games, whose more accurate definition would be visual novels or interactive tech demos?

Why is never a fighting game, or a western role playing game, or an adventure game beyond "omg pastel grafix" or a survival horror regarded as art? What is the point, is it about pushing for games as art or pretend they're art so we can have a bunch of compelling words on a screen with some graphics added?

The question itself is flawed, almost as flawed as the "But is it literature?" argument. Art can't be ahistorical and/or purely essential.

Let me pull this up again:

So basically "let's try hard and pretend toys are ma700re to push for emoshions and pheelings".

They're games, toys, like Lego. They're meant to be played, and there is intermissions.

Inter, in between you and the game. This feels like a repeat of that "who are you to say our games are not games" thread.

 

[Reebot]

They are now and always have been primarily toys. But things are getting worse; we now see movements actively raging against any kind of artistic assessment.

Think about gamer gate, think about all the hate poured every single video that dares to critique something other than "does this video game please me."

Even on Neogaf, the single most talked about aspect of a game - often the only talked about aspect - is "am I having fun?"

That's how you talk about a toy. Not art.

 

[JordanN]

Bingo.

Man, these comments make me sad.

If you like games, it should be in your interest to view them as art. As I said on the last page, it's similar to protecting human history or free speech.

 

[Clefargle]

Still art, always has been. Always will be

 

[Dangansona]

I really wish I could get in on this right now. But I only have a minute.

Based on the things you proposed, my answer is no, games are not slipping. There has always been a divide: some games are just toys or entertainment and some games have artistic value and can be called art.

Microtransactions aren't hurting art or narrative games because they're not in any of them. There are lousy movies too, filled with product placement and woodenly acted characters as thin as rice paper, but they have no impact on the meaningful movies.

Meaningful games will always be made and they will always be outnumbered by attempts at pure entertainment. This is the case with every media industry. But when these industries turn up something meaningful, it remains so in spite of its outlier status.

Overall, I would say that AAA games are closer to art than they've ever been, with some actually succeeding. A lot changed after BioShock, which finally tipped the scale, I think, of what AAA games could try to do. That's we we get games like Red Dead Redemption and Last of Us.

Games are only getting better.

I think they are sneaking into some of the artsy games, but I agree with your post!

I still fear for the preservation aspect of games though.

 

[Nev]

Never was art.

For you. Shadow of the Colossus is one of the best art pieces of the last decade for me.

 

[ViolentP]

Music is an art. Artwork & animation is an art. Storytelling is an art. Throw all those together with some player interaction (which some art does) & I've no idea how the end result can't be art.

But honestly, whether it's art to another person doesn't affect me in the slightest. I still love games for what they are to me, and that won't change.

But not all music is art. Same with artwork, animation, and storytelling. That is where I draw my defining line. Art to me isn't an umbrella term for creative output. Art to me is about perception. What I find to be art may be garbage to the man next to me, and that's fine. That is the beauty of art. You get to decide what it is. But to generalize the term is to take away the thing most beautiful about it.

That's me though.

 

[pizzacat]

The last boss of mgs4 is the best art

 

[a very cute dog]

I'll open the proverbial can of worms: have you noticed how the argument always comes up with the so-called non-games, whose more accurate definition would be visual novels or interactive tech demos?

Why is never a fighting game, or a western role playing game, or an adventure game beyond "omg pastel grafix" or a survival horror regarded as art? What is the point, is it about pushing for games as art or pretend they're art so we can have a bunch of compelling words on a screen with some graphics added?

I'm not quite sure how to approach your post. Are you saying that, due to discussion of visual novels/walking simulators/whatever at the expense of other genres, arguments about the artistic value of the medium are invalid or pointless...? If that's the case, I don't agree, because there has been plenty of discussion about games that aren't overtly striving to be artistic.

 

[TheGreatDirector]

Considering Bloodborne, Life is Strange, and Undertale came out this year I would say no.

 

[entremet]

Um isn't the opposite happening as indie proliferate?

Games are more artsy than ever.

And yes, games are art.

 

[DayEnder]

Still art, always has been. Always will be

Indeed, it can and often is a combination of multiple artistic methods/media.

"1. 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."

There are examples of paintings, songs, books, and movies that wouldn't (and possibly shouldn't) be called art as well (bad in the eyes/to the ears of some). Art is subjective to the viewer.

 

[Mman235]

Why is never a fighting game, or a western role playing game, or an adventure game beyond "omg pastel grafix" or a survival horror regarded as art? What is the point, is it about pushing for games as art or pretend they're art so we can have a bunch of compelling words on a screen with some graphics added?

They are? I mean I agree that the mainstream definitions of what classes games as "art" is mostly shallow and limited and rooted in standards for other mediums that don't even really apply in many cases, but that doesn't mean there aren't plenty of people willing to analyse how games that focus on challenging interaction can be art. Nevermind that trying to separate aesthetic aspects and interaction is a lost cause.

 

[RelentlessRolento]

Not at all.

If you are looking at most mainstream titles being released I can see how it looks less like an art form.

Spend some time in the experimental realm of indie releases, read some killscreen, spend time following indie devs on Twitter, and find legitimate artists who use gaming and software as a tool for creating art and there you go... Not dying at al.

 

[Tenebrous]

But not all music is art. Same with artwork, animation, and storytelling. That is where I draw my defining line. Art to me isn't an umbrella term for creative output. Art to me is about perception. What I find to be art may be garbage to the man next to me, and that's fine. That is the beauty of art. You get to decide what it is. But to generalize the term is to take away the thing most beautiful about it.

That's me though.

I see what you're saying, but I prefer to say "that's art, but I don't like it... I like this art, though!"

 

[YoYo Switch]

what status?

art is art bro, nothing changes that

 

[a very cute dog]

I think they are sneaking into some of the artsy games, but I agree with your post!

I still fear for the preservation aspect of games though.

I think that's the most salient point of your original post... it's a very uncertain future for games preservation, even in the face of GOG/remasters/etc.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Games are still art. Maybe there's a wider divide between high and low art, but they're still art.

 

[Ulldog]

Bloodborne is art, Candy Crush isn't. It's not really possible to generalize.

 

[CHC]

But that's why it's so important it's called art.

If you see art as an expression of humanity, then it's something you also want to protect or put special interest on. Similar to freedom of speech.

I don't really see the connection. It's not like anyone with real clout is fighting to prevent games from being made - there are vastly more games today that express some kind of vision than ever before, if that's what you're looking for.

I think the whole discussion about if games are art is just insecure and sophomoric. That sounds terribly pretentious but really, if you're secure in your own tastes, it doesn't matter how games are viewed by "the masses."

Games are a bit like hip hop in this sense. Some of it is genius and deeply emotional, some of it is entertaining trash, some is just awful. A lot of people dismiss hip hop as not being art, others argue that it is, in the end it doesn't matter. It's its own thing and to millions of fans, it has merit. That is what is important.

 

[Krejlooc]

Cool.

I still don't think it's art.

Well that's some damn fine arguing you've done

 

[Solemn_In_Berlin]

So basically "let's try hard and pretend toys are ma700re to push for emoshions and pheelings".

1. Ah, but you just missed the whole point of criticism.

2. It's easy to say that when you regard the medium (or any medium, for that matter) as a homogeneous entity. Just because games are for fun, it doesn't mean that they're absolutely and definitively divorced from being anything else.

3. It's not about putting games on a pedestal (or anything for that matter). It's simply about celebrating them as a hobby, as a lifestyle, and/or as a culture. I mean, it's 2015. We should already be past the ideological endeavor to ontologize a construct that's historically-determined.

 

[GrotesqueBeauty]

The best metric for telling whether a game is art or not is whether I personally enjoy it.

 

[AcademicSaucer]

Are all movies art ?

 

[John Rabbit]

But not all music is art. Same with artwork, animation, and storytelling. That is where I draw my defining line. Art to me isn't an umbrella term for creative output. Art to me is about perception. What I find to be art may be garbage to the man next to me, and that's fine. That is the beauty of art. You get to decide what it is. But to generalize the term is to take away the thing most beautiful about it.

That's me though.

art isn't a value on a continuum, it's a concept. bad art is still art. art you don't like, or find offensive, or distateful, etc. is still art.

 

[ShockingAlberto]

...it's not a Little Miss Springfield sash

you can't lose it for unbecoming behavior

 

[ViolentP]

I see what you're saying, but I prefer to say "that's art, but I don't like it... I like this art, though!"

I respect that decision.

art isn't a value on a continuum, it's a concept. bad art is still art. art you don't like, or find offensive, or distateful, etc. is still art.

When everything is art, nothing is art. Hence for my purposes on this planet, I will be selective.

 

[John Rabbit]

When everything is art, nothing is art. Hence for my purposes on this planet, I will be selective.

this isn't at all what i said, but okay, as long you own your myopia.

 

[soulassssns]

Never was art.

How so?

 

[IvorB]

Technically.

Language is a flowing thing, living almost. A dictionary just provides arbitrary definitions. It doesn't dictate how language is used however.

It's not really an arbitrary definition, it's the actual definition. If the definition evolves then they will update it in the dictionary.

 

[Dangansona]

It's not really an arbitrary definition, it's the actual definition. If the definition evolves then they will update it in the dictionary.

Dictionary patches?

 

[Bedameister]

No it's the other way around

 

[ViolentP]

this isn't at all what i said, but okay, as long you own your myopia.

No need to get testy. You're saying that just because I don't like it, it doesn't mean it's not art. Your statement wasn't difficult to grasp. But then I ask, who decides what is no longer art? A man screaming obscenities out of a car window can be viewed as art. By your thinking, they would be right regardless of my perception of the action.

 

[Henkka]

Are all movies art ?

Yes.

The Room is art and The Last of Us isn't, because reasons

 

[John Rabbit]

No need to get testy. You're saying that just because I don't like it, it doesn't mean it's not art. Your statement wasn't difficult to grasp. But then I ask, who decides what is no longer art? A man screaming obscenities out of a car window can be viewed as art. By your thinking, they would be right regardless of my perception of the action.

i'm not testy, i just find your perspective narrow and limiting. understanding what "is" and "isn't" art to me isn't really that difficult, but it has nothing to do with my own personal, subjective, feelings about the thing.

and yes, you're right, a man screaming obscenities out of a car window CAN be viewed as art. the possibility exists.

 

[SMattera]

Some games are services. Some games are art. Why do they have to be one or the other?

Why can't they both?

Why does it have to be a never-changing product to be art?

There's performance art. Concerts. Plays. Musicals. Opera. The monks that shape colored rice grains into complex patterns before intentionally destroying it.

I think the obsession with finished products you can "collect" is unhealthy. Gaming is an experience. It's something you participate it. That's how it differs from other mediums. It's not something you hang on a wall and stare at for 500 years.

 

[Wensih]

This is something that has bothered me for a long time. I think there are several developments in this industry in the last two console generations that are sliding games closer to the product/service side of things rather than pieces of art.

1. There was a thread not too long ago about the intrusiveness of shop messages in games breaking immersion (if someone can find it for me I will link to it). This is I think the largest problem games face right now in this regard. I'm not advocating the removal of DLC or micro-transactions (although I would be thrilled if we could say goodbye to the latter), but I think all promotion of it should be relegated to a tab on the main menu or better yet handled under the game's page on the hardware's OS (for example, when you scroll down on a game on PS4). There shouldn't be shopping cart images on the products of in-game vendors in single-player games.

2. The reliance of patches nowadays is another disturbing trend, as we are moving away from the idea of a finished creation. This point will get the most flak, and I understand because a lot of times I love patches (can't wait to get home in a few weeks and play Hockey in Rocket League), but I love how most of the time when Nintendo puts out a game it is a fully functional and complete vision of what they wanted to create. I guess more than anything I think the game should feel complete when it releases, with patches and DLC being minor improvements or wholly new content.

For both of the above points, I think the Mona Lisa.jpg with the piece of art being broken down into DLC or patches is a bit ridiculous, but I absolutely see where it is coming from.

3. On a personal level, I think that the fever for the "digital future" is also a frightening. Some gamers want to get rid of physical versions of games completely, yet every other type of media can still be sold in some physical form. Other than the fact that I think the physicality of a record and it's cover or a hardback book gives an extra feeling of craftsmanship by an author or group of artists, we as a culture need to preserve our art and I'm sorry but pretty much the only people who seem to give a crap about that is the emulation scene. Games can and have already been pulled from digital stores, and servers shut down. The ideal solution would be for both physical and digital to stick around and for preservation efforts to be stepped up in both areas.

And this is a side note, but it scares me that in a decade or two no one will be able to see the beautiful world crafted in Final Fantasy XIV.

Are there any I missed? These often come to me one at a time when reading other threads on NeoGAF and I felt like now I finally had the time to write down my thoughts even though I don't remember all of the examples that struck me. I wonder how many people on here agree.

I wish I had more time to articulate all of this but I am on vacation and will get bad looks if I stay on this computer right now writing an essay. TLDR; A few business practices like shipping broken games, micro-transactions, and the shift to digital games are diminishing games' position as pieces of art.



This is more what I was interested in. At some point I wanted to add a disclaimer that I don't want a discussion here if games are art, rather for those who believe they are to express if they feel like developments in the industry are hindering the artists ability to create a work of art.

I think you have three really big discussion coalescing into this very large question of whether electronic interactive systems are a good medium for expression. The three points that I see in your original topic are:

1. The Purpose and Meaning of Commercial Art
2. Finality of Art
3. Physicality of Art

All good topics and extremely interesting, but I think it's hard to have a discussions of all three at once.

Which would you like to talk about first?

 

[byropoint]

Not all games are art I think, but no doubt some of them are, for me at least. The medium itself as an artform is very young, in experimental stage and not taken seriously yet, but I think there's a lot of potential.