SlightlyTriangularRectangle

@happypup70:

"No I am saying that attempts to limit the scope of art beyond it's intended and original meaning is by its very nature snobbish."

Please cite me a source on art's "intended and original meaning."

"Any act of willful creation is fundamentally an artistic process."

According to whom?

"Art is not limited by medium or by intent."

Citation needed.

"There is nothing wrong with saying that art is not a subjective thing that can have different meanings depending on the person"

Perhaps nothing would be wrong if you could provide a source proving art to be objective. Can you?

"Appreciating art is subjective, but art itself is not."

I sure would appreciate a source.

"You asked whether it matters if video games are art or not, no, it doesn't."

If it does not matter, why apply a subjective label, which, even at its best, seeks to restrict?

"However you think it does."

I do not. Whether something is or is not art has nothing to do with whether the process of calling something "art" is lazy.

"That by calling something art you limit what it can be."

I re-quote a point I made in an earlier post for emphasis: "At its worst, "art" is used as a term, a label, that restricts. I argue that video games need not be classified as art, as such a classification is meaningless. Video games hold their value not through labels but through the active enjoyment people receive while playing them. That enjoyment is--and should be--separate from some subjective term."

People get far too caught up on using "art" as a pinnacle term, the ultimate standard toward which all creative work should strive. If you look at Vinny's article, which, again, my original post was directed at, Vinny appears to use "art" in such a way. He states that all video games are art and, then, proceeds to call Gone Home "good" art upon the basis that it "succeeds." And how according to Vinny does Gone Home succeed? He writes that it "has a strong message and narrative and marries that to its gameplay." None of that, however, has anything to do with art. A video game need not be art in order to have a strong message/narrative and compelling gameplay. Furthermore, Vinny's decision to use "art" is especially unusual given that he begins his list by writing, "As communities continue to debate, and fail to define, what a game is or is not The Stanley Parable and I joined hands and drove off the cliff." Such a statement, to me, suggests that Vinny has moved beyond labels such as "art" and has sought appreciation of video games through enjoyment.

If you want to think of video games as art, then fine. Just be aware that in doing so, you are thinking lazily by using the trite standard that is "art." Take a look at the following two hypothetical descriptions of a video game:

1) "That video game is great. It truly is art."

2) "That video game is great. It has an interesting story, which, at the same time, is not forced on the player; it has deep RPG mechanics, which help complement the action-based portions of the game; and its difficulty level is structured in such a way that while the player is severely challenged, he is at the same time consistently rewarded.

I cannot speak for anyone else, but I think it quite clear which of the previous two statements holds more value. Some would perhaps argue that the two choices could be combined, that a game could be thought of as art, as in description 1, and still be described in detail, as in description 2. In response, I argue that in such a combination, art, at its best, is a superfluous term, because it provides nothing of value to either the description of the game or the game itself. At its worst, as mentioned before, "art" becomes a restricting label.

I do not care whether people choose to see video games as art. I would, however, like to see people move beyond the notion that video games somehow are enhanced when prescribed the label of "art," or, even worse, somehow need to be art.

"Art is only bound by our own limitations on creativity and imagination."

Source?

"You would define video games so that they are not art, not define art so it doesn't include video games, which only works to limit what video games can be."

I would like to respond to this point, but I do not understand what you are trying to say.

My original post was focused specifically on video games that are made for profit. Looking back at it, I perhaps should have better worded my initial premise.

Can video games that are distributed for free be considered art? Perhaps. You of course have to take into account some tricky variables, such as whether a person/development studio created a free video game for indirect profit. That is, he/they created the game in order to build support for future marketed products. But beyond such variables, I would say that freely distributed video games can be considered art when driven by creative expression. Yet, again, as I have posted previously in these comments, I think that calling video games "art" is lazy and unnecessary. Games can be explored and evaluated much better when not stuck behind the inherently troubled banner that is "art."

And you did not answer my question of whether you would enjoy your favorite game more if a group of random people came together and agreed that it was art.

@josephknows:

"And to say that people should stop trying to find meaning in things including video games is utterly laughable."

I did not say people should stop doing such. In fact, I wrote, "Finding meaning within something that is liked is fine." That seems fairly explicit to me.

"Also saying that attaching meanings to things that aren't "meant by the creator" is dangerous is such a narrow-minded perspective of criticism. Ignoring authorial intent (aka formalism) is just as valid a way of approaching games criticism."

Not only do you misunderstand my argument, you flat out misrepresent it. I do not know whom you are quoting, but I certainly did not write "meant by the creator." And my point has nothing to do with the intentions of the author. My point is this: when attempting to find meaning in an object, it is usually a good idea to start by evaluating the object in its natural form in order to understand that which is native to the object. Or, put in simpler terms, it is a good idea to look "within" the object. Through the process of looking at what is natural to an object, a person may discover subtleties that would otherwise go unnoticed. A particular phrasing within a story may stand out; a brush stroke within a painting, catch the eye; a quick gesture within a movie, reveal the body's form. However, when you attempt to "add" your own meaning to an object, you risk seeing something that is not there. You may lose yourself in symbols, perhaps falsely seeing that particular phrasing as emblematic of some deeper meaning, or that brush stroke as representative of the painter's emotion, or that quick gesture as testament to the human body's ability when placed under stress to contort itself in such a way that betrays the inner workings of the human mind and thus in doing so reveals the true functioning of the human spirit so as to convey to everyone that the gesturer wishes to have his opinions heard emphatically beyond all hopes and dreams for all eternity from the moment the gesture is made until the moment time ceases to exist, and thereafter.

Do be careful when attempting to add meaning to that which you have not created. You may very well find yourself completely misrepresenting the words of others ...

"Is it really so bad that some people weigh other games more because it moved them beyond simple pleasure and/or made them think? It's a reality that can't be denied."

No, and that is exactly my point. People should seek enjoyment in video games through enjoyment itself. Whether someone enjoys a game because they find it emotionally moving or because they want action and adventure does not matter. Attempting to classify video games as "art," however, or by using any other restricting label, does matter, as it prevents video games from reaching their full potential, that of something entirely free from restrictions, bound not by convention nor mandates, but only by the imagination.

I know not why I choose to respond to these posts, when it is clear that those to whom I am responding will distort my arguments. But I suppose I shall continue to do so, if only for amusement.

Do you not see the fallacy of these two statements you have made? You are suggesting that an objective definition of art may be given, yet, at the same time, you are calling others "snobbish" for forming their own definitions about art. Are not you then "snobbish" for arguing that there is an "only valid definition of art"? As I mentioned before, art is subjective. Suggesting that one person's definition of art is to be used with authority over all others is pointless. People will choose to believe what they want about art. In my mind, my definition of art is correct. Yet I am not suggesting that Vinny, whom my original post was directed at, is wrong in forming his own opinions about art. I was, and am, questioning why it should matter whether games are art--a question that no one has attempted to answer yet.

When you attempt to define something with a label ("art" in this instance), you attempt to relegate it to a category. Its very existence becomes bound to the mandates of the category. It can no longer exist on its own, can no longer be viewed in its own right. Calling video games art, regardless of whether they actually are, suffocates the potential for video games to mean different things to different people. After all, if a video game is viewed as art, then it has to abide by the standards of art, and cannot contain personal meaning that runs counter to the standards under which it is held.

Thank you for telling me that my subjective opinion is wrong. I fail, though, to see why I would have to dismiss love, hate, and curiosity. All three are natural human emotions and quite important to the creative process. Money, though--money is not at all natural. It is an artificial symbol upon which many have collectively placed value.

As for "nothing" being art, I did not say that. Perhaps you are? It seems that you are on the path to forming your own definition of art. That is good. Move beyond what self-appointed authorities tell you, and find value in your own judgments.

@sydlanel:

"People want to add meaning to the things they like"

Finding meaning within something that is liked is fine. Attempting to add, or impose, meaning onto something is dangerous, as it risks distorting the original creation and often ties the creation's meaning to symbols.

"every object can be considered a product or art depending on how the audience receives it beyond the creators' intentions"

I disagree. Unless the artist (one not driven by money) wishes to incorporate the audience, his work is solely a product of his creative mind alone, and is not concerned with outside reception.

"In the real world, monetary compensation doesn't define how much art a product is."

Cite your source for this statement, please. You cannot, can you? Art is subjective. It cannot be chiefly agreed upon. At its worst, "art" is used as a term, a label, that restricts. I argue that video games need not be classified as art, as such a classification is meaningless. Video games hold their value not through labels but through the active enjoyment people receive while playing them. That enjoyment is--and should be--separate from some subjective term.

"Any unwanted creative distortion makes art less art, but some of the best known works of art in history have been created with a degree of distortion."

Art is an absolute state. It either is or is not. If something is compromised to the point that it becomes "less art," it ceases to be art. Money compromises.

"Clearly movies, and books are considered art"

Considered art by whom? By you? By me? By some self-appointed organization that seeks to tell others what they should value?

"[Books and movies] are fully tied to commercial viability, even in the most artistically based projects ... It is only natural for a creator to want to secure the possibility of creating more creations."

I, as an artist, wish to create a painting of a rectangle. I know that triangles sell the most. My final product becomes that of a slightly triangular rectangle. Have I realized my original creative desire?

"the creator hopes that the product OR art will resonate with as large an audience as possible."

Then the creator is not an artist. True art is not concerned with audience reception; it is solely the will of the author's uncorrupted creative mind made physical.

"You seem to have a very wanton definition of product, which comes from the latin 'to bring forth' which simply refers to creating or modify an existing object for its human use."

I am a simple man. I speak only English. I deemed GiantBomb's readers intelligent enough to pair "product" with "profit" given the context of my post. Forgive me my flagrant barbarization of the much-nuanced--yet somehow oh-so-rigid--English language.

"You are just compartmentalising because of some cultural prejudice and conceptual misunderstanding."

I find your concluding statement a trifle humorous given that my original post (and this one, too) was based on the subjective, relativistic nature of defining art. That you would accuse me of "misunderstanding" an entirely subjective concept only bespeaks your own failings.

I'm finished. There's a whole lot of subjectivity for you to browse your way through. As you do, please try to focus more on my larger point that video games need not be bound by some subjective label.

And what would the paintings look like if those people were not constrained by money? What if they had the freedom truly to create what they wanted, without fear of failing to market their wares. Even the promise of patronage without any strings attached instills some fear within the mind of the would-be artist, fear that the final product may not meet the desires of the beneficiary; thus the creativity of the work is compromised. True art cannot be compromised. It is not beholden to the dollar. It is not bound to the desires of anyone but the artist . It is, in its simplest form, the purest expression of creativity. And pure creativity cannot exist alongside that which corrupts.

Many worthy men have wasted time attempting to create a definition for art, while challenging others to defend theirs, perhaps surely as I do now. I seek merely to demonstrate that we--our friends, family, town, city, nation, race--will never agree upon a single definition for art. The best alternative is simply not to care. I ask you, why should it matter whether video games are art? Would your favorite video game appeal to you more if a bunch of random people convened, discussed, and suddenly declared that the game was to take upon itself the label of "art"? Play video games because you enjoy them, not because you need a subjective label to govern them.

Celebrated by whom? By you, or by others who tell you that the work should be celebrated?

Yes, that is my argument.

I'll never buy into the argument that games are art. Video games are products, whether sold by small studios or corporations, meant primarily--and often solely--for profit. Because Call of Duty exists merely for profit, it cannot be art. And, likewise, because games such as Gone Home wouldn't exist if not for the primary purpose of profit, they too cannot be art.

That is, of course, all dependent upon whether you share my definition of art, that that which is monetarily driven cannot be art.

More importantly, though, it troubles me that the question of whether games are art even has to come up. Vinny, I think you had the right idea when you described yourself having fun with The Stanley Parable because you enjoyed it, not because you engaged in some deep philosophical question of whether the game was actually a game, art, or whatever. Why does it seem more and more often these days that video games have to have meaning in order to have value? Is it so hard for people to seek enjoyment in something merely for the sake of enjoyment alone? My theory is thus: As people who frequently play video games grow older, they seek to add meaning to those games in order to validate what has occupied a large portion of their lives, in order not to feel as though time has been wasted.

I personally feel that time is more wasted spent on trying to elevate video games to a status they need not occupy. But, who knows, maybe I am wrong; maybe a few thousand years from now, when the human race no longer exists, space aliens will look back at our civilization and thank their gods that glorious art such as Gone Home was preserved. Or perhaps in a few years, Gone Home, like so many other games before it, will be forgotten, and we will all move onto the next big thing.

I had the opposite reaction to Fire Emblem. Both Enemy Unknown and Awakening were the first games I played in their corresponding series, and while I very much enjoyed EU, I couldn't stand Awakening.

EU's combat was tense, strategic, and challenging without feeling drawn out. Awakening, however, combined all the bad elements of JRPGs into a portable, strategic form. The story was nonsensical; the characters, annoying and poorly written. Even the combat didn't seem that noteworthy; it was difficult at the beginning of the game but eventually became much easier after the characters leveled up and obtained better equipment (EU, regardless of levels/equipment, was always challenging--especially on Classic Ironman).

As for you not caring about units in EU, I think that is directly a result of save abuse. In my opinion, EU is best played without ever reloading, whether that means playing on Ironman or conditioning yourself not to reload on regular mode after missions go poorly. When you are three-fourths of the way through EU on Classic Ironman, with no hope of training up a new recruit, you certainly care when the sniper who has been supporting your team throughout the entire game is killed. Conversely, I disliked the characters in Awakening so much that I did not care what happened to them. New units were given out so much in the game that if one character died, my opinion was along the lines of, "Oh well, one annoying character down; might as well use another."

I am curious to hear what exactly appealed to you about Awakening's gameplay/story, aside from attachment to units, that made you appreciate the game enough to include it on your list. I wish I could have had the same experience with the game, but after having heard from many that the game was unparalleled in the strategy genre, I was disappointed.