Video games are art. It was granted the status months ago while Roger Ebert ate his hat.

For every Shadow of the colossus there are 3 EDF and lolipop chainsaws
So yeah we are more art than Hollywood that is for certain.

These conversations annoy me for several reasons.
 
1) Most people initiating the conversations and participating in the conversations are not artists, have not studied art, and outside of the realm of bolstering the "games are art" cause, don't care about art one iota.
 
2) as much as one might claim video games are art, they are also very much a business. And, nearly every decision made when making a mainstream video game is made so that it can make more dollars. Not so it can be "more artistic".
 
3) the debate is usually a coverup for the writers actual statement, which is "Video games mean a lot to me emotionally. People don't respect the fact that video games mean a lot to me emotionally. People respect art emotionally. Therefore I am going to say video games are art so that people will respect my emotional involvement in video games.
 
4) People who get wrapped up in this debate somehow don't know that actual fine art gets a lot less respect than they somehow think it does.

For every good rpg there's activision removing more dedicated servers or adding cash stores directly attached to auction house NPCs because nobody is in the business of making art/games anymore right guys? Support your titles like Shadows of the Damned, and from Dust.

Games have already been presented in art galleries in some cases.  Off the top of my head I think the Source mod 'Dear Esther' has been ....................[dammit, I actually can't remember and more specific games right now - you'll just have to take my word for it that I've heard of games being shown in art galleries on at least 4 occasions over the last couple of years].
 
You refer to stagnation in creativity in the industry and I guess you're saying that of the big releases but I think you could look at today's gaming scene and see more creativity than at many times in gaming's history.  The greater accessibility of the creative tools and the greater ease with which distribution and publicity can be received for smaller projects means among particularly the independent community the current status seems to be a buzzing hive of activity.  There's still an awful lot of people just staying within genre conventions and more people need to try to break the mould but it's happening here and there.

Games have already been presented in art galleries in some cases.  Off the top of my head I think the Source mod 'Dear Esther' has been ....................[dammit, I actually can't remember and more specific games right now - you'll just have to take my word for it that I've heard of games being shown in art galleries on at least 4 occasions over the last couple of years].  You refer to stagnation in creativity in the industry and I guess you're saying that of the big releases but I think you could look at today's gaming scene and see more creativity than at many times in gaming's history.  The greater accessibility of the creative tools and the greater ease with which distribution and publicity can be received for smaller projects means among particularly the independent community the current status seems to be a buzzing hive of activity.  There's still an awful lot of people just staying within genre conventions and more people need to try to break the mould but it's happening here and there.

You can't just run into any game and call it art. I could take a piss on a piece of paper and call it art, and sure, there would probably be a couple of retards who'd agree, but the vast majority of games aren't art, they are just entertainment. Same thing goes for movies. So, no, i don't agree that video games should be put into art galleries mainly because video games are supposed to be played and enjoyed. Paintings are displayed in galleries because all you can do with them is watch them. I'd just rather enjoy the "art" of games from my home.

These conversations annoy me for several reasons.  1) Most people initiating the conversations and participating in the conversations are not artists, have not studied art, and outside of the realm of bolstering the "games are art" cause, don't care about art one iota.  2) as much as one might claim video games are art, they are also very much a business. And, nearly every decision made when making a mainstream video game is made so that it can make more dollars. Not so it can be "more artistic".  3) the debate is usually a coverup for the writers actual statement, which is "Video games mean a lot to me emotionally. People don't respect the fact that video games mean a lot to me emotionally. People respect art emotionally. Therefore I am going to say video games are art so that people will respect my emotional involvement in video games.  4) People who get wrapped up in this debate somehow don't know that actual fine art gets a lot less respect than they somehow think it does.

You can't just run into any game and call it art. I could take a piss on a piece of paper and call it art, and sure, there would probably be a couple of retards who'd agree, but the vast majority of games aren't art, they are just entertainment. Same thing goes for movies. So, no, i don't agree that video games should be put into art galleries mainly because video games are supposed to be played and enjoyed. Paintings are displayed in galleries because all you can do with them is watch them. I'd just rather enjoy the "art" of games from my home.

This again....... *yawn, arty-smarty who really cares?

                      Too many developers rely on genre to solve their problems. The language of interaction and choice has been suspended by the conventions of genre - the shooter, the rpg, the platformer etc. How is game design meant to change, and how are gamers meant to change, if they keep experiencing the same thing all the time? The answer is simple from a design perspective: don't rely on genre anymore. Use rules, restraints, choices, and play to create new, compelling narratives. The language of interaction can stand on its own. You don't need a gun all the time.   
 
 3.) Change the approach to design  Innovation will only come if designers are bold enough to create their own personal language using interaction, time, visuals, and  sound. I think it must become personal and individual for the creativity to come. Working in large teams tends to stifile personal vision.                        

               

I think there's a lot of people who desperately want games to be art so they can justify their strong feelings about them. I don't really see any interactive medium holding up as an art form, especially one that evolves so quickly that many "pieces" can become nearly unplayable in a relatively short period of time.

Okay, so perhaps it's just me but a lot of this blog doesn't make sense to me. You use phrases which I just can't decipher but perhaps you can clear up some of this stuff. Maybe I'm just being dumb but I'm not sure what you mean by any of the following quotes: 

• "my perspective is from the medium and language (Play, Interaction, Rules etc.) itself, not necessarily what the majority of developers are doing with it"
• "Players are evolving their consciousness when they play a game, or experience any art"
• "The language of interaction and choice has been suspended by the conventions of genre"
• "Spiritually, games are art. But culturally they are not."
• "Innovation will only come if designers are bold enough to create their own personal language using interaction, time, visuals, and  sound"
• "There could be many different contexts of course. Art contexts offer a very broad audience though"

• "I really think Games should be presented in Art contexts such as galleries and as public art"

• "The language of interaction can stand on its own"

• "It's not just the market though, or the audience. It's also the developers"

• "When you play games... you're affirming your own identity through the choices you make."

• "if some  designers could present small computer games then the medium would slowly become to be accepted as art and so then I believe that is where the creativity truly begins"

• "I think it must become personal and individual for the creativity to come. Working in large teams tends to stifile personal vision. 

Just enjoy the games.

These conversations annoy me for several reasons.  1) Most people initiating the conversations and participating in the conversations are not artists, have not studied art, and outside of the realm of bolstering the "games are art" cause, don't care about art one iota.  2) as much as one might claim video games are art, they are also very much a business. And, nearly every decision made when making a mainstream video game is made so that it can make more dollars. Not so it can be "more artistic".  3) the debate is usually a coverup for the writers actual statement, which is "Video games mean a lot to me emotionally. People don't respect the fact that video games mean a lot to me emotionally. People respect art emotionally. Therefore I am going to say video games are art so that people will respect my emotional involvement in video games.  4) People who get wrapped up in this debate somehow don't know that actual fine art gets a lot less respect than they somehow think it does.

This again....... *yawn, arty-smarty who really cares?

@just_nonplussed said:

@Astras said:

This again....... *yawn, arty-smarty who really cares?

You are a large part of exactly why I don't regularly visit video game-related sites anymore. Thanks though, for proving my point about general gamer ignorance and apathy.

As another member of the general gaming public I can say that occasionally I'm annoyed by the "games as art" discussions. It seems that it comes up constantly and everyone on a forum complains about Ebert and blows each other over how great Braid and Flower were. It was an interesting discussion the first time but now that there's at least one wall text blog post about it per month I'm getting pretty tired of it.

GameStop is just an annoying museum gift shop ya know.

Video games should be presented as entertainment. If you want to look at them as art that's fine because you know, they are like, totally an art form as well man.

Not another one of these threads...

Why I Don't Give a Fuck About Games as Art
 
1. Busy playin games  
2. 

Okay, so perhaps it's just me but a lot of this blog doesn't make sense to me. You use phrases which I just can't decipher but perhaps you can clear up some of this stuff. Maybe I'm just being dumb but I'm not sure what you mean by any of the following quotes: 

• "my perspective is from the medium and language (Play, Interaction, Rules etc.) itself, not necessarily what the majority of developers are doing with it"
• "Players are evolving their consciousness when they play a game, or experience any art"
• "The language of interaction and choice has been suspended by the conventions of genre"
• "Spiritually, games are art. But culturally they are not."
• "Innovation will only come if designers are bold enough to create their own personal language using interaction, time, visuals, and  sound"
• "There could be many different contexts of course. Art contexts offer a very broad audience though"

Onto the parts I do get though: 
 
 


1. The medium has a semi-autonomous 'life' of its own, in its components, regardless of the designer. This is the medium in itself. When things are created, you still have the creator and then the created. What I'm saying is that any game, or creation has a life of its own. I don't mean that its sentient; what I mean is that it always has a potential state. For example, when you look at a building it is outside of you, and conforms to rules of architecture. Anyway, mediums have lives of their own. All art does. I'm sorry if you don't understand. I'm not trying to be cryptic or anything. It makes perfect sense to me. 
 
2. Everything we do affects our mind and our behaviour. Even little things in our everyday lives. That's consciousness changing. It's the same when you watch a powerfully emotional film or play a video game. The unconcious mind is affected and changed by forms, signs, and structures found in life, and art. Basically, things affect us. Even if they are small. 
 
3. This is similar to music. Music is just sound, but many genres of music have been created. In recent times though, artists have been experimenting simply with the quality and texture of sound and what it produces, rather than simply trying to make a song. Same applies to games.     

4. In modern culture and society, games are games and art is art. Socially this is a reality. Each has their specific physical locations. However, games are still an artform regardless of where you put it. 
 
5. Following point 3, freedom of expression can be easier if you don't have to adhere to the conventions of a particular genre. Though I guess sometimes it helps to borrow from genre to get a good grounding or structure.
 
6. The internet; flash games, freeware... etc. offers another open platform. 
 
 
'I really think Games should be presented in Art contexts such as galleries and as public art"I think there's some room for this idea but it's certainly not suitable for all games and it's certainly never going to be as wide-spread as it is for paintings. The reason that art galleries are so prevalent is that someone can't just put up a hundred paintings in their house and admire them. With movies, books and games this isn't a problem though, in fact the environment you'd get in your own living room is far more optimal for playing many games than that of a crowded public place. ' 
 
 
I guess there are those practicalties. But to me it is more about the quality and the experience of particular games than a mass of them.

@just_nonplussed said:

@Astras said:

This again....... *yawn, arty-smarty who really cares?

You are a large part of exactly why I don't regularly visit video game-related sites anymore. Thanks though, for proving my point about general gamer ignorance and apathy.

As another member of the general gaming public I can say that occasionally I'm annoyed by the "games as art" discussions. It seems that it comes up constantly and everyone on a forum complains about Ebert and blows each other over how great Braid and Flower were. It was an interesting discussion the first time but now that there's at least one wall text blog post about it per month I'm getting pretty tired of it.

@Astras said:

This again....... *yawn, arty-smarty who really cares?

You are a large part of exactly why I don't regularly visit video game-related sites anymore. Thanks though, for proving my point about general gamer ignorance and apathy.  

okey reason why I dont see games as art is.

1. games are designed so your dopamine receptors or other pleasure parts of the brain stimulate, it is the same stimuli as gambling(for the brain).

2. a painting will never go too far unlike video games when it comes to violence, blood n gore, sexuality, etc. Because it is all about what the painter is feeling not what the audiene is feeling. The only limitation for the painter is his morale, not "what will sell" view.

3. story's are very often just crap, while there are just crap films. but video games kinda takes the cake on that one. because we stop playing the video games because it has bad mechanics or gamebreaking bugs n glitches not because the story is so shity, if we would stop playing games because the story was pure crap then most people would have stoped within act2 or 3 on gears of war2. there are more examples of crapy storys but I really dont want to make a list about it.

4. Video games should be looked upon as games like poker and risk, dnd, warhammer, etc.

Btw i dont look films as an art form.

As someone who studies an art form, games are art but a rising form of art.

Something I realized while trying to think of games as art is that art is REALLY boring and really pointless. Maybe games and movies shouldn't try to be art because then they just become really lame.

Something I realized while trying to think of games as art is that art is REALLY boring and really pointless. Maybe games and movies shouldn't try to be art because then they just become really lame.

okey reason why I dont see games as art is.

1. games are designed so your dopamine receptors or other pleasure parts of the brain stimulate, it is the same stimuli as gambling(for the brain).

2. a painting will never go too far unlike video games when it comes to violence, blood n gore, sexuality, etc. Because it is all about what the painter is feeling not what the audiene is feeling. The only limitation for the painter is his morale, not "what will sell" view.

3. story's are very often just crap, while there are just crap films. but video games kinda takes the cake on that one. because we stop playing the video games because it has bad mechanics or gamebreaking bugs n glitches not because the story is so shity, if we would stop playing games because the story was pure crap then most people would have stoped within act2 or 3 on gears of war2. there are more examples of crapy storys but I really dont want to make a list about it.

4. Video games should be looked upon as games like poker and risk, dnd, warhammer, etc.

Btw i dont look films as an art form.

@JazGalaxy: Have you seen Exit Through the Gift Shop?

The "art world" really doesn't get to own the word art anymore, pretty much for the same reason that the world's museums refuse to return priceless artifacts to Eqypt.

@JazGalaxy: Have you seen Exit Through the Gift Shop?

The "art world" really doesn't get to own the word art anymore, pretty much for the same reason that the world's museums refuse to return priceless artifacts to Eqypt.