Can A Video Game Be Art?

That's a paradox. On the one hand, you're claiming that too much allowance for interaction is exactly what stops a game from being art, and then in the same breath you're saying that games don't allow you enough interaction to be considered art. I don't think you can have it both ways. If you praise the Mona Lisa specifically for its minimal UI and lack of meaningful interactions, you can't then condemn a game for the same reason.

Modern artists would overwhelmingly disagree. Are you familiar with Duchamp's toilet? I'm pretty sure that if a famous modern artist presented the Mona Lisa with an Xbox controller taped to it, critics would laud it as a commentary on the shift in medium that today's generation obsesses over, or perhaps a critique of how technology has debased the classical beauty of the past. Either way, they'd all agree that it was art.

 

I'm curious as to why you need the recipient to be passive in order to experience art. There is no version of the definition of art that requires this.

What difference does that make? Cave paintings were (and still are) art as well. Why does age or the maturity of a medium have any impact on whether or not it should be considered art?

No more than if you were to remove the Mona Lisa from its current frame and hang it in your house. Its not quite the same, but its still art. Look at how many movies have been made based on stories from video games. Look at how many video games have been made based on movies and books.

Is the story of Blade Runner no longer art once it was written into a video game?

So now video games aren't interactive enough to be art? Is the Mona Lisa somehow intellectually challenging to you?

Once again, this is completely irrelevant, and you should really stop trying to use this as a parallel. We're not determining which games are "the best" and certainly not which games are real. The only thing that you could draw from this would be an argument as to whether or not human emotion is art; and that's a wholly different conversation.

Is the landscape art? Again, another debate altogether. I think you're blurring the divide between "pleasant" and "emotionally valuable".

Vehicles to arrive at what?

I would love to hear your definition of an artistic film, then your definition of a video game. Then I'd like you to compare the two. Perhaps you would notice how you're arguing in circles.

You seem to be adamant on proclaiming that games are not art, regardless of the fact that your arguments have been shown to be dramatically flawed. You've changed your definitions and arguments several times, and you're pulling completely unrelated and dissimilar situations as examples.

 

Lots of these arguments for why games aren't art could be applied to anything to say it's not art. Personally, I think the Mona Lisa is sort of a S***ty painting. I don't feel any emotion when I look at it; it's not interesting or intellectually stimulating. It's just some oil splattered on a piece of paper. It's shallow and pointless; just a trivial piece of entertainment for fans of bland looking women. I'm not ashamed to admit that Final Fantasy had far more emotional impact on me than the Mona Lisa ever did. And don't even get me started on the Venus de Milo. The devs clearly rushed that thing out the door before it was even finished. Probably were trying to sell the arms as DLC afterwards to make a quick buck.

 

Not what I said. Read again. I consider the player too passive. Yeah, games are 'interactive' to some degree, but not as intellectually, or even physically active as art is (that includes painting, dancing, and acting).

Because I don't consider most current games art. Why should every snapshot on facebook be considered art?

Save your red herrings and read what I said. It's about GAMES not being art because you just use other art to support it, as storyline or as minor reference. It makes no difference to the story, but the story doesn't make the game art. A film isn't necessarily art, even if it contains music and images, think of Documentaries or home videos.

Guess what, yeah. Why else would it still be in the news whenever some scientists have discovered a new layer of it...I think the closest we have on the game side is Arkham City easter eggs.

Then don't use it to claim that games were art.

obviously not, but expressing your pleasure through a painting of it is.

Already did all this throughout the threads and can't be bothered to repeat it.

Back it up. If I use different examples that's because of the ones I'm confronted with, see the dumb XBOX or the martial arts remark.

And I pity you, makeshiftwings.

 

Right, well.

I've lived a long time, and if there's one thing I and those older than me have observed is: with each passing generation, the weak among the new generation rise up and shout "this is art!". It has gotten so bad that virtually anyone can call themselves an artist or become famous. There is also great confusion among what people call art. I think they're confusing art with someone making something so random that it's the only thing that the dullard generation can feel anything from.

It was not always so. There was a time when art meant a skill the majority could only gasp at.

But each year that passes sees the barrier for "what is art" fall lower and lower, until even the most crass doodle or turd in a glass box is now called art. What next? I know, someone's toenail clippings on a wooden bench lit by a candle.

No, I'm drawing a line. To call something art, it needs to be done by ONE person, and it needs to be above and beyond what normal people can do. It needs to be nothing short of fantastic.

Games as art? games are made by large production teams. That means so far, I have yet to see a game be "art" as I logically define it.

Because if you do not agree with my definition then the only logical course of agreement you can take, is to accept that the barrier of art must fall each year.

I am not saying a game can't one day be art: I am saying that it will have to be borne from the will of one man or woman, and be truly astonishing for it. So far I haven't seen it happen.

Perhaps the real issues lie in the description of the subject. For example you could argue that a game is a work of art. But that game took 100 people to make. It's a work of art, it is polished, its fantastic in every respect. But it's not art itself. Using art as a catch all phrase for something different yet impressive, is the wrong word for it.

Because if you were to use it as a catch-all phrase, then the universe is art. Physics are art. Life itself... is art. There becomes no end to it. Thus the meaningless spiral to the bottom of what constitutes "art".

Thus the only logical and true answer for the OP's question is: No, games cannot be art. They can never be art. But they can be composed of many pieces of art. They can be a container of art.

For a game to be a singular defined term of similar expression, you would call it Brilliance, or perhaps another suitable term. Here are a few: Awesome, awe inspiring, brilliant, fantastic, genre-busting, genre-defining, pivotal moment or experience, emotional journey.

Many different far more accurate things that describe games. I for one will keep calling an impressive piece of artwork or sculpture by one person, depicting a subject as "art", and everything else by more accurate terms.

 

So you are over 94 years old, Hippo?

 

Problem here is with the definition of art. There are many.

Art can mean virtue; can be the manifestation of human activity in which one expresses a personal view, but in a selfless manner, that interprets what is real or imaginary, with material resources, language or by sound; it can mean the quality of doing something well or skillfully; it can mean that which is beautiful; it can even serve a purpose of decoration, in which the artistic object is not an independent work, but subject of its surroundings.

etc, etc, etc.

So it's not a surprise we see contradiction when we try to define whether something is art of not, as "art" is such a subjective word, that it's hard to define itself!

Having said that. My personal point of view, is that games can be art, independently of how much the art form have evolved to this day. Paintings, music, poetry, and all accepted art forms (to my understanding) are in fact art, independently of whether individual works exist or not. The essence of art doesn't wait for people to decide when to practice it, but it's actually people who must find the artistic essence in things.

Hence I strongly affirm game development is an art form. And what a player can experience, is a result gifted by the artists involved in the art piece, which is the game.

 

You don't consider most* games art, so you do consider some games art?

 

Hmm Hippo, I went to see Wicked in NYC..not done by one person, yet I see art there.

Makes me wonder if there are those who struggle with the term Artist?

Composers - All Genre's of music
Movie producers/Directors
Novelists
Painters
Photographers
Sculpters
Woodworker
Metalworker
Architect
Dancer
...So why would not a Programmer have the skill in his or her love or domain to create a masterpiece(s)? I certainly think many qualify, and who are we to judge or say what they do is not special?

That a layman not familiar with the skill required or see it, matters not.

 

My Art:

Enjoy!

art
[h=3]noun[/h]

• 1 [mass noun] 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:the art of the Renaissancegreat art is concerned with moral imperfectionsshe studied art in Paris
  
• works produced by human creative skill and imagination:his collection of modern art[as modifier]:an art critic
  
• creative activity resulting in the production of paintings, drawings, or sculpture:she’s good at art

• 2 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance:the visual arts[in singular]:the art of photography

• 3 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human creativity and social life, such as languages, literature, and history (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects):the belief that the arts and sciences were incompatiblethe Faculty of Arts

• 4a skill at doing a specified thing, typically one acquired through practice:the art of conversation

 

You guys are missing the real message of my post, which is why I'll repeat it here: all things are art, therefore the term no longer holds meaning. People have driven it down and applied it to too many things, and keep doing so.

So yeah, video games are art. My ass is art. It's all art.

Instead of using art for everything, try words like "masterpiece" as then it makes sense with an actual defined meaning that can't be applied to everything. Unless people will start doing that next. Oh look a turd in a cup. Utter masterpiece! Genius!

 

Lol, what? Why? Because I don't like a particular painting? I'm pretty sure 95% of the people who claim to think that painting is great are only saying it because Americans and Europeans are taught that it's the "best" painting in grade school.

 

From what I know of history, that's not really true. There were a ton of people creating books, paintings, sculptures, and music for centuries; it's just that a few became famous and a few did not. Quite a few that are famous now were actually considered S*** back while they were alive. Van Gogh's paintings were the "turd in a box" of their day, yet now people think they're masterpieces.

That would disqualify quite a few of the world's most famous art pieces. The Sistine Chapel, for example. Plenty of painters and sculptors had assistants. Most of the old paintings in museums today (like the aforementioned Mona Lisa) have been touched up and repaired many times by different people.

Plenty of games were made by one person. Minecraft is the most popular example.

I certainly hope it continues to! If we refused to let anything new be considered art, then art, music, and literature would have been stuck in the Renaissance forever. What a boring world that would be.

 

A: That pretty much means you just dismissed most dance, theatre, movies, books and music as not being art.
B: that is what makes good art. Bad art is still art.

Whether or not something is art is not really up for debate. Art can be pretty much anything anyone wants to call art. If it has even been on display in some sort of art gallery, it is, by definition, art. Especially if that museum is the Smithsonian. It may not be good art or you may not like it. But it is still art. You don't get to decide what other people consider art and if one person thinks something is art, it is art, if only to them.

 

http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters
"Are video games art? They sure are, but they are also design, and a design approach is what we chose for this new foray into this universe." Paola Antonelli

"So yeah, video games are art. My ass is art. It's all art." hippocoder

So hippocoder and the senior curator of the Moma do agree ! On the first part at least.

 

Even most attempted definitions of art contain words that are completely subjective. Like saying it must be "emotional" or "interesting" or even "good". What's emotionally captivating and brilliantly interesting to one person might be dull as dirt to another person. I'm sure there's someone out there to whom hippo's ass is, indeed, a masterpiece.

 

Ok, I'm headed out the door at the moment, and I'll address the rest of this later, but this? I needed to respond to this.

Hippo, this is possibly the dumbest comment I've read on these forums (and that's even alongside the nonsense that Word has been spewing). Do you have any idea how many people it took to build the Statue of Liberty? The Louvre? The Kremlin? The Pyramids of Giza or the Sphinx? Are you actually going to make the claim that these are not works of art because they weren't created by a single person?

Sorry, but that is ridiculous. The number of people it requires to create a piece of art has absolutely no relevance to the finished piece. None at all. I'm actually astounded that anyone would even try to make that claim...

 

False.

Just because art might not have the 'airy fairy' definition you alluded to, doesn't mean it has no value. That beautiful sunset for example is *not* art because it didn't involve human skill and imagination [my definition] even though it may be aesthetically pleasing.

If you wish to present the argument that art has some high ideals that gets eroded every generation... could you please establish when/where this revered usage of the word 'art' started?

 

Well, I can't say a lot about games I haven't played. So I don't.

I was more referring to the Venus, but the point of my comment is that games will always kill part of your imagination, unlike books or paintings or sculptures. Watching the Venus, or Mona Lisa, you can always use your brain and imagine what the women would have looked and talked and moved like if they stand next to you. This is true for comics and movies, too. A game already does this for you, so this is another thing they're lacking for me.

You're missing the point of what he said. Generation by generation continues to devalue what was once considered true art so it can use it as an academic status symbol, hence, the term is nearly worthless now unless you use it like me and naively think most people here would still follow that definition. The "art-parts" of the Statue of Liberty or the Louvre, the pyramids and the Sphinx were created by the architects, not by the people that carried stones, glass and steal from A to B to build it.

 

When and by who?

Then how does that invalidate a game created by many people? As long as there is a central vision.

 

Uh... I was kidding about the arms being DLC.

Also, it's weird to me that you can't tell what Angelina Jolie looks and sounds like while watching her in a movie, but the sights and sounds are just too real when you see the princess at the end of Super Mario Bros.

 

I bet you'll love rogue like ASCII games then. All imagination!

 

You'd have to wait for Hippo, since it was his comment, but I'd argue there is no real central vision that is directly put into practice because it would last a lifetime to do everything really the way you want it to be. Games are always a result of compromises.

read what Hippo said.

 

I think the real question shouldn't be if games can be art. It's obviously a simplified way of asking it, hence it can cause confusion.

What is "games"? Is it game development? Is it playing games? That isn't defined in the original question. But most importantly, "art" is not defined.
When Einstein was asked if he believed in god, once he asked "define me god".

Then the proper questions should be, for example: "Is game development an interesting art form?", and "Can gaming allow emotions worth experiencing?".

But really, if being able to develop a new world from thin air (an alternate reality even) -in which the viewer can experience something different- is not an interesting form of art, then how can we find anything an interesting art form? It's contradictory to what we accept to be real arts form today.
Granted developing a game is tedious/difficult, needs to evolve a lot, and most of the time a single man is not enough to cut it. Granted because of it, artistic interest usually doesn't occupy a big role in game dev, and it's almost exclusively commercial products, meant to satisfy the masses (the lowest common denominator).
But that is only circumstantial. Temporary circumstances does not affect the essence of game development as an art form.

 

What about film, theater and books? Once again, you're firing off some random, unfounded definition of art which isn't relevant to anyone's definition of "what art is".

First, ask me how many people designed my game.

Second, this doesn't change the fact that its an equally ridiculous statement. People collaborate in every medium of art, and still, the number of people involved in something has absolutely no bearing on whether or not its art. This has never made any difference... ever.

And "use it like you"? You've changed your definition of art multiple times in this one conversation. Every single time someone points out that your definition would still include video games, you throw in a new exception or change the definition entirely.

Clearly, you don't want games to be considered art, but you can't give any real reason why. This is really just whittling down to you saying, "Cuz I said so".

 

Clearly not, otherwise I wouldn't be able to write so much about it and dedicate a whole thread to find these reasons.

You've said this before, and I asked you to back it up. You still haven't. Art is a complicated subject, there are countless books about it. That I add something new to my definition throughout the thread doesn't take away from my argument. If you find contradictions, name them.

The point I and I think Hippo tried to make is that in games the individual creativity is surpressed (I called it a result of compromises, one hand doesn't really know what the other does) whereas classic art didn't have that problem. There's no such thing as a creative mastermind anymore. Hence many people feel like there's just "more of the same". Pyramids or great monuments have little in common with this because the slaves had no authority and couldn't decide where to put the stones.

 

That is actually correct. Something can be both "art" and "not art" at the same time, depending on who is observing it. That's the nature of art - it's a paradox. It's up to the individual to decide what is art. But Word isn't talking about art in general, but about "fine arts". Video games are pop art and Word and Hippo think pop art isn't art. So to them, it isn't.

There isn't a devaluation of art going on but only an increased exposure to different kinds of art that have already existed. People have always been flinging paint on a canvas and calling it art. The only difference is now, they can more easily find someone who agrees with them.

Art, like religion, can never be defined because it is a state of mind, not a thing.

 

And you ignored my statement about the number of people who designed my game. This is incredibly common in the indie world. Very rarely is there a collaboration in the design process. Development, sure, but the design is almost always the vision of a single individual.

However, again, I don't think that has a thing to do with whether or not its art.

 

because even then my other approach is still valid.

 

Ah yes; your ever-growing list of requirements for art.

This conversation is a pointless dead end, and has been talked to death. So you go be mentally challenged by a picture, and I'll continue working on my art.

 

Well, if that list is too much for you already...

 

Games can certainly be art. End of discussion.

 

Look at it this way.

If I can paint a canvas black and call it "Darkness", that is considered art (go figure).

And people are saying that games can't be? I'd say good that games are not art, if that is the standard of art these days.

 

No, nobody is denying that. This whole fight is about whether current games are already art. I think the discussion is necessary, but it would be more fruitful if it was about how games can be better so they are art for people that don't consider them to be it yet.

 

Ok, you guys heard it this guys opinion is the end all of everything... No TBH no one could care if you think they are or are not art so that is not the end of discussion.

 

http://ca.askmen.com/top_10/videogame/top-10-video-games-that-approach-art_10.html

http://pikigeek.com/2012/05/13/editorial-a-rebuttal-to-5-good-reasons-games-are-not-art/



The Last Supper (Leonardo da Vinci) took around 7 Years to complete went threw a few design phases and was helped by his assistants.

I Also would like to comment to what a few others have said, Art is made with only raw materials and ones hands which is clearly false: In that our minds as well as our tools are used . A Brush is a tool as a potters wheel is a tool, a man's hands are his tool's that helps shape the thing, perhaps this is still very unclear, anyway.

I to would like to see a frank discussion on how to portray games in meaningful artful manner than split hair on the definition' of what Art is or Isn't. A artist learn's his tool and learns techniques which they can employ to achieve a certain outcome.

 

The way I see it: the world's foremost authorities on what is or is not art have all agreed that games are art. The people who say it's not art are mostly the same people who claim that modern art isn't art, or that everything they don't like isn't art. If I'm going to trust someone else's opinion on what is or isn't art, I'll trust the curators of MOMA, the Smithsonian, and the Lourve over random angry internet dudes any day.

 

I think Art is something you can interpret. Something that doesnt have a specific meaning, but is something you can take from it. In that sense, i guess a game isnt art, you dont interpret a game, you play it. Usually it doesnt have multiple layers, like a song might.
But yes, i personally believe video games are art, in the same way that films are. If it comes down to the visuals, there are some games you cannot argue look beautiful and stunning. Some with such good stories they leave you wanting more, and leave it open to interpretation. Mostly it is something that someone has slaved over, and put passion and blood and sweat and tears into. Art is nothing more than that, a culmination of someones attempts to create a material object others may peruse. If its done to the best of someones abilities, and its crying with passion and love and attention, then it is art. Simple as, for me.

 

Actually, all of your first few posts were you saying solidly that games can not be art. It's only in the last two that you're saying that some games are but others aren't. I'm not sure how you think they could be "better" since your first reasons for not them not being art are:

- You can buy new games, new art can't be bought.
- People want to possess games, people don't want to possess art.
- People buy games as a status symbol, people don't buy art as a status symbol.
- Games involve your character possessing things, art can't involve characters possessing things.
- Games have parts you can win or lose, art can't have parts where you can win or lose.
- Shooters make people emotionless killers, art can't make you an emotionless killer.
- Games have an ending, art can't have an ending.
- Games have goals, art can't have goals.
- Games let you do concrete things, art can't let you do concrete things.

So, a "better" game would have to be a game that you can't buy, that no one wants, that has no parts where you can win or lose, never ends, has no goals, and doesn't let you accomplish anything concrete. That pretty much makes it impossible to have anything like a game. A "better" game would have to be a painting or book, apparently. One that you can't buy and that no one wants, of course.

Then of course there are all the impossible self-opposing goals you set:

- Games have too much interaction, art has to be non-interactive.
- Games have too little interaction, art has to be more interactive.
- Games have controllers and require physical interaction, art does not require physical interaction.
- Games are not physically interactive enough, art requires a lot of physical interaction.
- Games have achievements and secrets you can unlock, art can't have achievements and secrets you unlock.
- Games don't have enough achievements and secrets you can unlock, art has to have lots of secrets you can unlock.
- Games show too much and don't leave enough to the imagination, art has to show little and leave everything to the imagination.
- Games leave too much to the imagination and don't show enough, art has to show a lot and not just require you to imagine everything.

All of those pairs logically oppose one another, so it is literally impossible to create anything that satisfies that list. It also means all existing art (and actually all existing objects in the universe) are not art either.

 

not quite right, I said this with the other thread in mind, where I explained in a lengthy way why I don't view current games as art and what can be done to make better ones, which was, too, sort of derailed and turned into a discussion about whether that assumption is right or wrong to begin with.

I'll reply to your list tomorrow.

 

My belief is that Art has the power to move you. When you cry at books, or films, or else gasp and awe at paintings and gargantuan statues, that is art, that is arts effect.
Games do this. The beauty of gaming is that it is every art form combined into one. Painting a beautiful landscape, moving you with a potentially beautiful storyline, immersing you with solid characters. This makes it difficult to perceive, for sure.
Art is constant, it evolves, it never remains the same. And at some point someone might look back and create a timeline that would feature artwork from the Renaissance period, the cubist movement, etc, and then include video games as our generations artistic movement. Its a long shot, but certainly not impossible.
Art is not something you look at, that is limited to paintings, and films. Art is books, and music, above all art is what you feel. And if you feel passion when playing a game, then it is evocative, and it is similar to what anything poignant makes you feel. Then you have to believe it is art.

 

I think many people has given art quite a colloquial interpretation, which is "Art as those things that happen to be masterpieces". But not because is a wrong definition, but rather because they neglect all other meanings of the word.

And the question is "Can video games can be art?

This question is asked frequently, but sometimes I think it's not analysed properly, because both art and games are subjective words.

It's like asking "Can <subjective word> be <subjective word>?"
Ultimately, the answer to a question like this will tend to be "yes" because of such a wide range of interpretations.
...For example: "Can good things be old?" or "Can fear be entertaining?" or "Can a hero be immoral?", etc. How do you answer this? There a lot of "it depends" right? But since the question requires a single instance in which the case is true, then probability favors "yes" as an answer.

That's why if you're going to say "no, games can't be art", it's good to say where you are coming from. If you don't, from logical perspective you'd be plain wrong. Unless... of course you establishing first your personal interpretation for the question, rendering it no longer subjective to 3rd party interpretation, and then you'd be able to answer it correctly, and no one would be able to argue back.

 

Well, in THIS thread, you just said "games are not art" quite a few times and presented those things in that list which disqualify games merely for being games, meaning there is no way to make them "better", and your disqualification of them has nothing to do with their quality or artistry, they are simple definitional disqualifications that you are setting up. (I suspect post-argumentum as well, as I said... starting with the idea that you don't want games to be art, and then working backwards to try and create a definition of art that can somehow disqualify games without disqualifying all other forms of art).

I just went and read your other thread now. Even in your other thread, your arguments seem to be based on strict black and white definitions that have nothing to do with the quality or artistry behind a work, and most of which are false as well:

1) Games are not in the public discourse - This is laughable; the public discourse these days is DROWNING in talk of video games; they're a central part of today's culture. Far, far more than renaissance oil paintings and marble sculpture are. If you don't mean "public" discourse and you instead mean only the inner circles of fine arts, then you're still wrong, as all of the most elite art museums in the world have game-related exhibits.

2) Video games all look the same - Again, completely false and shows a lack of knowledge of what games are out there, while also being something that disqualifies vast amounts of art. Books look almost identical to each other; photography all looks like photography; dance all looks like people dancing.

3) No solo pieces of games in museums - Also false; there are quite a few museum-specific and one-off games that are only viewable within a particular space. And again, this disqualifies huge swaths of the arts: literature, music, film, etc.

4) There is no academic training in making games - Again, false, where do you live?!

5) People who like games are stupid, but people who like paintings are smart - False, offensive, AND self-defeating!

6) All video game characters are dicks - False, and again would disqualify tons of art... All of Shakespeare's plays are basically about people being total dicks to each other.

 

Word: Let's try this... you give me an example of something, in any medium, made in the last 5 years that you consider "art". I guarantee that I can use your own definitions from this and your other thread to "prove" it's not art. So far you've implied that you think the Mona Lisa is art, but despite that it fails all of your criteria for being art you seem to be giving it a pass because it's the grade school example of what art is. I think it will be easier to prove the failings of your attempted definition if we take an example that's not been drilled into every American child as the definition of art. Something more recent.

 

Before you list all the points of the other thread, really read it. Then you'd see that I have neither said

nor

,
nor simply that games aren't part of public discourse. These discourses just tend to revolve around the same two or three themes.

1) You don't get Shakespeare then, and 2) you didn't read the article. The point of the text is what I said here, too. You don't have real choices or can use your imagination when it could be relevant for the game.


-----------------

Now to the other list

Not what I'm saying, but a company produces them, not an art mentor with with some students. Profit is the main motivation if we talk about AAA games. These games have to be liked by a large audience, unlike art. This does not mean game fans are dumb.

This was about winning and scoring.

I didn't deny that people buy art as a status symbol, but the difference between this and games is that people buy games to compete online or tell their friends which level they reached.

right, because the stuff you need to collect distracts you from the art-part

yes

Wrong, and not what I said. But the traumatic antiwar game has yet to come.

not what I meant, read the context. this was about scoring again.

I thought it is quite evident that this wasn't what I meant, either. Art usually doesn't formulate it's aims as concrete as games do. You have to think more for yourself.

That's right to so some degree, how you do something is always up to you and games offer only limited choices. same as before.

You don't get it, art can be interactive without having to win it. You said it yourself. Games can be less interactive and still leave more room for one's imagination, like most art does.

Now where have I said that?

Right.

This was about abstract things you 'unlock' just by using your brain, not some S*** that is put on the street for you to pick up in GTA. Provoking insights instead of historic trivia or a photo of the devs, for example. Games are lacking a true double bottom.

That's right.

Uh, what? Nothing I said, as far as I can remember.

 

Justin Bieber and urinals count as art as well - do we really want to be in that kind of company?

 

It's weird that every time someone tells you what you said, you say you didn't say it. Thanks for pointing out that when you say, and I quote, "Video games aren't part of public discourse" it doesn't mean "Video games aren't part of public discourse" and that when you say, and I quote, "There seems to be next-to-no academic foundation" that it doesn't actually mean "There seems to be next-to-no academic foundation". Silly me for thinking words have meanings.

You can't just say "You didn't read my post" or "You didn't read the article" when people point out the dumb rules you're trying to establish. Yes, I read your post. Yes, I read the articles.

Except that's not at all what you said. You said that games are not art because you can buy them. And that the Sistine Chapel is art because you can't buy it. There was nothing at all about profit being the motivation of an artist; in fact you specifically said it had nothing to do with the intent of the artist and that merely the desire of the observer to buy something makes it stop being art. Remember your whole Goethe sidetrack?

No, it wasn't. It was again part of your attempt to restrcture Goethe's definition and your example was that people buy games as a status symbol.

Again, there was absolutely nothing about games being different because they have online multiplayer; your post was about how games are not art because people buy games as a status symbol. Which, by the way, is ridiculous.

You said "many people blame [shooters] for making people less emotional. I'm not saying they're responsible for someone getting nuts and running amok but clearly they're part of the problem." So you might not be saying a shooter alone can make you a psycho killer, but you do think that shooters are "part of the problem" in turning someone into a psycho killer.

No, you go back and read the context, you never mentioned scoring. Also, what is with you and scoring? I haven't played a game with a score since Donkey Kong. 95% of games these days do not have scores. Your implication that it's some kind of ultra-common theme makes me think you haven't played anything but arcade classics.

You claimed games were not art because they didn't give you enough choices. That's the direct opposite of saying they can be less interactive and leave more room for your imagination. You can't have both. "Winning" is completely separate and was not what you were talking about. You were specifically faulting games for not having enough choices and interactivity, right after saying that choices and interactivity make it not art.

"Yeah, games are 'interactive' to some degree, but not as intellectually, or even physically active as art is (that includes painting, dancing, and acting)."

But you have said that a game can NOT have anything that encourages you to want to complete a goal ("it distracts from the art"), so you would disqualify it if you had to put in any sort of effort to "find" a secret no matter what it is. You can't have a secret AND ensure that the player does not feel a "need" to explore like you condemn in games. Again, they are opposites.

This is inherent in your insisting that games have to have a ton more choices in every interaction and your condemnation of the visual aspects of every game ever made. You're demanding that games have interactivity that approaches simulated reality and saying that all current game art is inferior, yet not allowing for an observer to be satisfied with that by filling in the details with his imagination.

 

So let's stick then with the only two that you didn't deny that you said:

"Games involve your character possessing things, art can't involve characters possessing things."

"Games have parts you can win or lose, art can't have parts where you can win or lose."


So, in order to make games "better", in your opinion, the game can not include any sort of objects that the avatar can pick up, and it can't have any sort of winning or losing in any part of it. Even just with those, you are purposefully rigging it so that almost nothing game-like can qualify. Not allowing the character to pick up and use objects places huge limitations on what exactly you can do in any sort of virtual world. Not allowing the player to have any way of failing or succeeding at any task pretty much removes the possibility of any sort of "game" in the usual sense, and relegates you to an observer/conductor role rather than an actual "player". I certainly don't think this vision of a game is "better" than current games, and I don't think I would call whatever you made under these limitations a "game" at all.

 

Also, since you claim to actually want to see artistic games, yet you seem to have only ever found big publisher FPS's, might I suggest starting with wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game

Google might help too.

 

It's because you only cherry-pick the sentences that seem wrong to you and don't read the ones immediately after that, which served clarification. I immediately said after the thesis about public discourse that there is something like it, but it's always on the same topic. No academic foundation in the sense i described it? Yeah, I just need to look at this whole thread; where some dumbasses think they can overlord themselves over the Venus of Milo or da Vinci himself, or at so-called "game reviews" that mostly discuss technical stuff, or how much fun something is, rather than content.

Then I can still say you weren't able to get the point of it. Telling you to re-read is friendlier than saying "oh you're a hopeless case who'll never get it".

Oh, we should make a distinction here. This was again about the Sistine Chapel in comparison to profit-oriented games that have to gather a huge audience. The Sistine Chapel once was more than the tourist attraction it is today.

Good grief, you really want to 'win' this debate like a game, too, don't you? The whole purpose of bringing up Goethe was discussing how scoring and winning games takes away from it's potential to be art, so my last explanation was perfectly fine, too. The status symbol-thing is just the flipside of that.

smoke and mirrors distracting from what I have said

Yeah, but calling it part of the problem is different from calling it the main reason, and I didn't say violent movies or even images can't inspire things like that. You just made this up so it fits in your argument that I contradict myself.

scoring, getting to the next level, killing the target - whatever. different words for essentially the same thing.

And again you're missing the whole point of the thread. What I want games to be like versus how they currently are. Think.

I'd repeat that. Dancing is burning more calories than standing on a Wii console is. Still, you again made up the other quote, or misinterpreted it according to your needs. Where is it?

No, you can still have both, but I'm not sure why you're unable to imagine a game like that. Nobody says the player has to know it exists and also can't find something else just as well. It's not a secret anymore anyway as soon as the player thinks there's something to find.

Wow, way to totally misinterprete my intention. Why the hell do you think did I advocate paintings and imagination so much and talked about the limited options of games (obviously rhetoric question)? This was a recommendation to challenge the mind more than the fingers, it had absolutely nothing to do with simulated reality - quite the opposite actually (remember they all look the same to me, either hyperrealist or 'airbrush-stylized'.)