Why Video Games Aren't Art

Defining art is hard? Damn right it is, and you failed to do that or in turn explain why games AREN'T. That last part is... are you saying a work of art is greater than the sum of its parts? I agree. Your point is.... what?

"Have you ever been in a museum and stared at a painting before? If the answer is yes than it wasn't a painting. You were staring at the wall next to it or something" -- That has to be one of the WORST quotes I have EVER heard in relation to art. Who are you to tell people how they interpret art?

Look I'm sure you're first year art theory class an uni has been really eye-opening, but this is incoherent and pretentious.

As a music player (rather than a musician) I find that this isn't just a games thing. People who study any kind of art theory often miss the creative part of the doing.

ur not art nerd lol

Especially if you shart against a canvas. Knowing "art" I am sure someone has already done that, but I am not willing to google it.

Hmmm, no I don't think so.

Remember, kids, you only need one letter to make art fart!

Some motherfucker has pissed in a bottle with a Christian cross in it and called it art. Oh, and it won awards. Is that close enough?

Remember: all art comes from the anus.

Well I took PHIL 100 so this is all moot because we are inside an evil demons computer.

where in the definition of 'art' does it say that it has to be eternal?

Arguing about opinions of opinions is pretty opinionated

@mikey87144: I once saw a female student put her used tampon into a pot, pissed in it and poured it over herself while screaming. This was done in the auditorium of an artschool and she got an A.

That was considered art.

So drugs?

@guynamedbilly: What is drugs? Is it art?

this

@nekroskop: You just don't get it, maaaaaaaaan!

I read this about five times before deciding this thread was full of shit.

First issue: what? I have stared at paintings before. What the shit are you talking about?

Second issue: Paintings are typically in galleries, not museums.

THEN I kept reading and now I'm pretty sure you're just trolling. You may have achieved the absolute dumbest thread I've seen on GiantBomb. Good job.

You call that writing?

My kid could make that!

Why Video Games aren't Videos (Blog)

You can't even get them on VHS, man.

@serker: Was your post art until you clicked post?

To be fair I was an arts student... and I think this blog post is a load of wank.

@canteu: Sometimes.

While I personally don't consider Videos Games art I found your argument, or lack there of, so pretentious that I just want to disagree with you on principle.

"The art is not what's created it is the creation" What does that even mean? It makes no sense.

@supercycle: He means the art is the process of creation, not the end result. The chase, not the catch.

@a_talking_donkey: Then why didn't he just say that? He really needs an editor.

I still just want to disagree with him.

Art is what you make it, not what it is. That pretty much sums up how I feel about this discussion.

"Have you ever been in a museum and stared at a painting before? If the answer is yes than it wasn't a painting. You were staring at the wall next to it or something."

Wow... just wow... You blew my mind. I MUST have been looking at the wall... Fuck me.

I think the OP is saying video games aren't art because art doesn't exist in a physical sense, that objects traditionally haled as works of art are the abandoned aftermaths of the artistic process, which the OP implies is true art because art only exists in the abstract and existential struggles of the human condition as we try to convey, define, or understand something that is perhaps beyond thought by giving it a physical manifestation in order to better appraise it. Art is a state of mind, and that's why the artist and viewer are both and neither because art cannot exist with only one or the other. In order words, art is people.

I guess that's... a way of looking at it.

Or, maybe I'm just reading it completely wrong, and my inner pretentious prick just decided to make a forum post.

There are far better ways to say this, and as an artist, posts like this somewhat embarrass me. You don't need to talk down to people; just explain it as best you can.

Yes, some colored dye mixed with adhesive and purposefully placed on a surface(aka. a painting) isn't art. Raw 1s and 0s in a computer are not art. Thus, a physical painting or videogame are not art. Yet, people give things meaning, and when we perceive intentional creation in something, we can see "art" in that act of creation. No object or act is inherently art, but we still see art in some things, like paintings, music, or videogames. Art is the meaning, not the physical thing you've given meaning.

If the object itself is what is valued most, it's likely design, but if the creation and meaning behind the object is what is valued most, it's likely art. Since videogames are still valued in many different ways by different people, it's perfectly understandable that some may consider them art and some may not.

No, you seem to get it. Art is a cultural construct important to how human beings see the world and themselves. It's just a part of dealing with being a creature with consciousness and thought.

Can someone tell me if art is a videogame?

It is, and you won.

@joeyravn: http://www.sophiehoulden.com/can-art-be-games/

Is this a Sander Cohen roleplay?

I didn't say I didn't want to hear from them. I read the whole thing it just didn't make sense and most arguments from art students don't make sense. Saying that the product itself is not art and that the real art is just the effort it took to build it is ridiculous.

@jazgalaxy: I think they'd like to hear from anyone with a better grasp of essay or debate. He presents a proposition and then hides his logic and evidence behind conspicuous verbiage, leaving it to be explained by better communicators.

Ultimately his point is that games are not art, they are merely works of art, products of an artistic process. This explanation didn't require prose as purple as 'you were looking at a wall next to a painting' or all that nonsense about the 'Undead'. It's not a difficult or controversial opinion unless you phrase it as confrontational and opaque as the OP chose.

Read my latest book, "Why Tigers are not Cats : The Use of Sophistry to Prove Obvious Truths as Falsehoods"

Art is subjective. And your post is overly pompous and way to bombastic. You wouldn't convince me of your "theory" even if you wrote a thesis based on it, though your welcome to believe it yourself. Add the fact that you haven't replied to a single post in this topic, which tend to mean that the poster wanted to say something controversial, but not discuss it. The pussy way.

NO OP, YOU'RE NOT ART!

Art is art and games are games. Different things. Why is it so difficult for some people to see that? I think it has to do with the fact that most of us don't have a clue anymore what art is, or our relationship with arts is minimal. A big number of artists have worked in the Buckingham Palace, painters, sculptors, architects and others, but that doesn't make Buckingham Palace a work of art, but a building. A nice building, but building. The same goes for games. No matter how artistic one game might be, it's still a game and its purpose of existence is to be played.

This is essentially what's wrong with this post and an effective summary of the philosophy, put more eloquently than I managed. Thanks, brode.

Art is subjective. I think games are art, thus they are. You don't, thus they aren't. Have a nice day.

didnt think thisd get responses :X

i guess the point i was trying to make is participating in works of art doesn't make you an artist. there's no painting, game, song, etc. that can magically make someone else into an artist or inspire you to create, because to participate in a work of art is to literally be distracted from making something yourself.. thats why i used words like false prophecy and undead and yada yada. At the end of the day I'd rather nobody view things I've made, and instead just make something themselves, but that burden is on each individual, and the artist can't help them.

In the same way though it's everyone's right to take credit for every piece of artwork ever made, just as a shared human achievement, but not to take the end result as the reason the painter painted something, or the game designer designed something. I think what can come out of art is beautiful and wonderful and can resonate emotionally, but sometimes it can seem like the greatest paintings inspire inaction instead of action ("I could never paint THAT") when the point is to just create, and appreciate everything you make for what it is.

and for the record, i don't draw things with my own poop. I poop, but i never draw with the poop.

My natural reaction when given that proposition is to say that because (supposedly) videogames offer the most potential for play and interaction, they are the most art, because the viewing process is itself an act of creation connected to but not beholden to the process of the work's author.

But although I might see that as valid, it already rests on a bunch of really shaky concepts. The most obvious is the statement that spectating or consuming artworks is of any importance, but probably more contentiously (because I think subjectivity is a fairly entrenched concept at this point) I think it relies on an a priori acceptance of Heidegger's assertion that Art has a seperate existence from its physical reality.

The OPs opinion rests on a bunch of fairly contentious opinions. I think the first one that stuck out to me was that all painters would claim their work was representative of a story.

I am art

That's funny, I just saw that Van Gogh at the National Gallery earlier today.

I like turtles

I think the art student hate in here is a bit needless, but I disagree completely with the opening post. The reason that a lot of these discussions end up being entirely fruitless is that often nobody ever defines what "art" is, and so nobody ends up talking about the same thing or being entirely sure what they're talking about. That definition has to be the jumping-off point for your argument, and it is not valid to say that what makes something art is the "indescribable". You can't base an argument around something that you admit you can't actually explain. Beyond that I think your post uses a narrow understanding of the process, intentions, and motivations in art, makes arbitrary assessments of things with no real logic to back them up, and uses language that is often unclear. The things you're saying sound very eloquent, but they do not make up an objective assessment or comparison of either art or video games.