Are Games Art?

cosgrove80

I haven't read through every page of this thread so it may have been discussed but are there other ways around releasing it?

Would it possible for Rockstar / Take Two to sell it privately? Put it on sale on their website and distribute it that way?

Could they declare it as art, which I've never seen censored (I'm probably very wrong here though) hold exhibitions and sell €60 programmes that have "interactive samples" of the work?

Likewize could they sell €70 t-shirts on their site and give people a "free gift"?

All probably nonsense though, as Sony & Nintendo would have to greenlight any software capable of being played on their systems I'd imagine.

Beelzebub

cosgrove80 wrote:

I haven't read through every page of this thread so it may have been discussed but are there other ways around releasing it?

Would it possible for Rockstar / Take Two to sell it privately? Put it on sale on their website and distribute it that way?

Could they declare it as art, which I've never seen censored (I'm probably very wrong here though) hold exhibitions and sell €60 programmes that have "interactive samples" of the work?

Likewize could they sell €70 t-shirts on their site and give people a "free gift"?

All probably nonsense though, as Sony & Nintendo would have to greenlight any software capable of being played on their systems I'd imagine.

I believe that computer games are an art form. And so that this censorship is a represson of creative expression.

They should (have)make(made) a PC(Personal Computer, not Politically Correct!) version available for download.

Dont be at yourself

Oh come on, is Mahunt really art?

monument

Oh, come on, is half of art really art?...

Simply put, art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Even with out story, the coding and visuals of computer games could be compared to much of what is now art.

Dont be at yourself

It's not the skill or effort that creates something that makes it art - it's what that something says to the viewer/player/listener/doer that defines if it is art or not, in my view.

I reckon videogames can be art - Killer 7, Rez and Okami all make brave cases for that. I wouldn't say stuff like Manhunt, Mortal Kombat or Soldier of Fortune is though.

(anyway, getting very off topic here!)

Ciaran500

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art
"Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind"

monument

flogen

monument wrote:

Oh, come on, is half of art really art?...

Simply put, art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Even with out story, the coding and visuals of computer games could be compared to much of what is now art.

Can it?

I have a problem with people calling things art just because they were created by someone.

A lot of work probably went into finding the best structure, materials and design for a toilet roll, but that doesn't make it art.

Sure, it's objective, but that doesn't mean it's a free for all.

Beelzebub

NekkidBibleMan wrote:

It's not the skill or effort that creates something that makes it art - it's what that something says to the viewer/player/listener/doer that defines if it is art or not, in my view.

I reckon videogames can be art - Killer 7, Rez and Okami all make brave cases for that. I wouldn't say stuff like Manhunt, Mortal Kombat or Soldier of Fortune is though.

(anyway, getting very off topic here!)

I think that many artists would disagree with you there. Performance artists for example whose skill and effort actually constitutes the major part of the art itself.


Video games are an art form.
There is bad art and good art, just as there are bad video games and good video games.

Saruman

I never played manhunt. Would never have played manhunt2 as im not into consoles... however now that its banned i seriously want to have a go
Obviously banning it was the perfect solution to stop people playing violent games!
Sure banning certain movies like the excorcist (not sure if it was banned) worked a charm.. no one wanted to watch that movie.....

Beelzebub

Latest news I think:

http://gamehail.com/rss_news.xml

They had pushed out the release date out 'til September 1.

Looks like they are gong to have to 'butcher' it. :eek::mad:

thelordofcheese

The heartless cynic in me reckons that rockstar knew it'd get banned in it's current form, and sent it on anyway, knowing that the controversy would help sell the "cut" version they'd eventually release.

Beelzebub

thelordofcheese wrote:

The heartless cynic in me reckons that rockstar knew it'd get banned in it's current form, and sent it on anyway, knowing that the controversy would help sell the "cut" version they'd eventually release.

I believe there is an element of truth in what you say.
Whether it will sell in vast numbers remains to be seen.
And they have rekindled interest in the original game as well.

monument

I think what art is and if the game could be called art is very much so on topic.

flogen wrote:

I have a problem with people calling things art just because they were created by someone.

That's not what I'm getting at.

Traditionally, art was art when, for example, somebody drew, painted, or sculpted, and then a selected group of people called it 'art' or not on a matter of taste.

This expanded with the arrival (as such) of modern art. More and more people now differer and still do according to taste of what art is.

Strangely I've never been to the modern art museum here in Dublin and I've been living around the corner for months (ok, close to a year), but in New York, LA, and San Francisco the modern art museum include things that are classed as art by these respected institution, but many in the art world and out will differ.

This goes back to my comment that art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

One man's art is another man's rubbish, or should I say one man's rubbish is now another's art. And the same goes for what's in a lot of museums.

Back to the game, I'm not saying it is art, I'm saying it could be, I'm saying some people could hold it as art to one degree or another.

Fans of gore and blood could, if they were allowed to see it, hold the game as one of the best examples of forms of art in their vision of what is art.

It's still down to what each person thinks as art. Some still think it is still limited to drawings, paintings, and sculptures. Some think drawings are a lesser form, while others think sharks cut in half, iPods, or scrap stuck together at roundabouts as art. Some class film and music as art, most are very selective on this (again down to taste).

As posted above, Wikipedia says "Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind", then the selection of what is art is very much so down to taste, it's personal, and it's not something everybody will ever agree on.

flogen wrote:

A lot of work probably went into finding the best structure, materials and design for a toilet roll, but that doesn't make it art.

Sounds like you have not been to many modern art museums

flogen

monument wrote:

As posted above, Wikipedia says "Art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind", then the selection of what is art is very much so down to taste, it's personal, and it's not something everybody will ever agree on.

(firstly, yes, people will never agree on what is and isn't art)

But that quote proves my point - it's such a wishy-washy and vague definition and can apply to anything manmade. Everything has the ability to stimulate at least one sense, from the texture of something to its smell, so technically speaking that makes it art.

Air freshener is art.
Lynx is art.
Dove body wash is art.
My iPod is art.
My lamp is art.

I think that kind of definition just cheapens everything.

I also feel that using something's supposed artistic credentials as a justification for its existance is the laziest argument possible - it works on the assumption that art, by definition, is above reproach and side-steps any real reason.

Why did you cut a cow in half and put it in formaldehyde? Well, because it's art, stupid.

Why should this game have been made and released? Well, because it's art, stupid.

Dont be at yourself

Split from Manhunt thread

monument

flogen wrote:

Air freshener is art.
Lynx is art.
Dove body wash is art.
My iPod is art.
My lamp is art.

As I said a trip to the Museum of Modern Art in New York may shock many people.

While I would only stand by that definition as a part of my overall post and point, your lamp could well be art, and the design of iPods has been highly praised.

flogen wrote:

I think that kind of definition just cheapens everything.

No, not at all.

It removes the elite and allow the individual to chose what is 'good' or 'bad'.

flogen wrote:

it works on the assumption that art, by definition, is above reproach and side-steps any real reason.

The protecting to one extent or anther of art, or less subjectively 'creative works', the freedom to view, enjoy, use or even consume such works, as well as the protection of comment, "free speech" etc, are supposedly nearly a corner stone of the western world.

flogen

monument wrote:

As I said a trip to the Museum of Modern Art in New York may shock many people.

Probably not - some of the better known modern art has been pretty bizarre, like Tracey Emin's My Bed.

While I would only stand by that definition as a part of my overall post and point, your lamp could well be art, and the design of iPods has been highly praised.

Trust me, whatever about iPods, my lamp isn't art.
But what about air fresheners, soaps and deodorant etc.?

No, not at all.

It removes the elite and allow the individual to chose what is 'good' or 'bad'.

Something can be good without being art - something can be bad whilst being art. Elitism has no bearing on what an individual may chose to like or dislike.

The protecting to one extent or anther of art, or less subjectively 'creative works', the freedom to view, enjoy, use or even consume such works, as well as the protection of comment, "free speech" etc, are supposedly nearly a corner stone of the western world.

What has free speech got to do with games being art or not?
Besides, something that is universally accepted as art doesn't have any more freedom of expression than an episode of Eastenders and that virtue alone doesn't justify its existence.

monument

flogen wrote:

Probably not - some of the better known modern art has been pretty bizarre, like Tracey Emin's My Bed.

Bizarre stuff is one thing, another side is the inclusion of things like household products/tools.

flogen wrote:

Trust me, whatever about iPods, my lamp isn't art.
But what about air fresheners, soaps and deodorant etc.?

In design wise maybe, and maybe the actual deodorant is performance art

As I said I wouldn't use Wiki's definition outside of the context of my much larger post.

flogen wrote:

Something can be good without being art - something can be bad whilst being art. Elitism has no bearing on what an individual may chose to like or dislike.

But elitism has throughout the years been responsible for classing things as 'art' or not. At first it was in part due to getting pissed off with the the old art elitism that modern art grew apart as its own movement as such.

flogen wrote:

What has free speech got to do with games being art or not?
Besides, something that is universally accepted as art doesn't have any more freedom of expression than an episode of Eastenders and that virtue alone doesn't justify its existence.

By the looks of it the film censor's office would think it has a lot to do with it, because MH2 has "no context" it is seen as a lower form of a creative work. This kind of elitism is quite alike art and film elitism of today and in the past.

While I personally have no desire (other then maybe a journalist one now) to play MH or MH2, I think it's a matter of taste and it's dangerous for the state to rule on matters of taste.

flogen

monument wrote:

In design wise maybe, and maybe the actual deodorant is performance art

As I said I wouldn't use Wiki's definition outside of the context of my much larger post.

OK - but we are using that definition in this discussion, aren't we?

But elitism has throughout the years been responsible for classing things as 'art' or not. At first it was in part due to getting pissed off with the the old art elitism that modern art grew apart as its own movement as such.

From what I understand (and I'm far from an expert), modern art actually grew out of a desire to put the message and emotion of a piece above the accuracy of the item it is trying to depict.

Elitism still dictates what gets treated as art in museums, collections etc., including modern art. That problem isn't solved by having a flakey definition that allows just about anything to be deemed as art.

By the looks of it the film censor's office would think it has a lot to do with it, because MH2 has "no context" it is seen as a lower form of a creative work. This kind of elitism is quite alike art and film elitism of today and in the past.

The censor said Manhunt 2's violence had no context within the game and was as such unjustifiable, not that the game itself had no context within art, or the wider world. He certainly made no reference to Manhunt 2 being a lower form of creative work, he obviously just decided it was an offensive work.
There's no connection between the definition of art and free speech other than your right to claim video games as art, and my right to disagree.

While I personally have no desire (other then maybe a journalist one now) to play MH or MH2, I think it's a matter of taste and it's dangerous for the state to rule on matters of taste.

But the state can ban something, be it art or otherwise - the state's place in deciding what people can and cannot do/see/say has nothing to do with this discussion over whether video games are art or not.

monument

flogen wrote:

OK - but we are using that definition in this discussion, aren't we?

It's been tossed around, but I would not say it was the holy grail or anything.

flogen wrote:

Elitism still dictates what gets treated as art in museums, collections etc., including modern art. That problem isn't solved by having a flakey definition that allows just about anything to be deemed as art.

But modern art allows for just about everything to be deemed as art, and it is and has deeming just about anything and everything as art.

flogen wrote:

The censor said Manhunt 2's violence had no context within the game and was as such unjustifiable, not that the game itself had no context within art, or the wider world.

Here the censor is acting as the elite, why should a creative work have to meet the requirements or justifications of the elite?

flogen wrote:

He certainly made no reference to Manhunt 2 being a lower form of creative work, he obviously just decided it was an offensive work.

In outlining there is "no context" to the work and banning it, it is deeming its supply unjustifiably. That pretty much denounces it as lower to me. But there is more to back the fact that there is a 'higher' and 'lower' form of thinking...

flogen wrote:

But the state can ban something, be it art or otherwise - the state's place in deciding what people can and cannot do/see/say has nothing to do with this discussion over whether video games are art or not.

But to say this thread is simply about if games can be art is untrue, this topic is set in the wider debate linked to the ban.

The Irish Film Censor has a number of time claimed they have moved away from a ‘gatekeeper’ role...

"IFCO has experienced a radical modernising overhaul in recent years as it moves from its earlier ‘gatekeeper’ role to become an agency that classifies on an age-related basis, a consumer advice oriented organisation that aims to inform the public and parents, rather than to restrict information, and to encourage the intelligent enjoyment of film by the most avid cinema-going nation in Europe".

...the ban flies in the face of such a statement.

It very much so looks like this video games are to this censor what some films were to the "earlier ‘gatekeeper’" censors.

Linking this back to if they look a pone things differently as if they are to them higher forms of creative work or not, all you have to do it look at subjective wording such as "intelligent enjoyment", and "no context"

A "arty" film with loads of sex is more likely to get a rating uncut then a non-arty film - so I can't see how you can trying claim 'art' or what they think as higher forms of creative work does not affect their work.

flogen

monument wrote:

It's been tossed around, but I would not say it was the holy grail or anything.

Right, but it's a definition that you used in your original argument, so you either agree with it or you don't.

But modern art allows for just about everything to be deemed as art, and it is and has deeming just about anything and everything as art.

Not any more than "traditional" art does - basically anyone can claim that what they've made is art, modern or otherwise, but that doesn't make them right.

I've seen plenty of stuff in the Tate Modern that I don't think is art - people are free to say that it is, but I don't agree. I also don't agree that games are by definition art either.

Here the censor is acting as the elite, why should a creative work have to meet the requirements or justifications of the elite?

I disagree - I don't think he's acting as the elite at all. He's not saying that this isn't meaningful enough to be made public, he's saying that it's, in his opinion, too dangerous to be made public.

His actions are no more elitist than the ones that ban other things under the auspice of "public protection".

In outlining there is "no context" to the work and banning it, it is deeming its supply unjustifiably. That pretty much denounces it as lower to me. But there is more to back the fact that there is a 'higher' and 'lower' form of thinking...

As I said, the context quote was in relation to the violence within the work, not the work itself.
Your conclusion suggests that IFCO grants certificates based on how illiectual they are, which it doesn't. Do you think IFCO thinks GTA3 is a 'higher' form of thinking than Manhunt 2? No, it just doesn't think it's as violent.
If IFCO's criteria was based on how worthy and 'high' a piece of work is, we wouldn't have had Freddy Got Fingered and American Pie released in Ireland either.

But to say this thread is simply about if games can be art is untrue, this topic is set in the wider debate linked to the ban.

This discussion was split from the one about the game ban and is titled 'Are Games Art?' - it's a seperate discussion and the claim that something is artistic doesn't (or at least shouldn't) impact on its cert rating anyway.

The Irish Film Censor has a number of time claimed they have moved away from a ‘gatekeeper’ role...



...the ban flies in the face of such a statement.

I agree - but that's not what we're discussing here.

It very much so looks like this video games are to this censor what some films were to the "earlier ‘gatekeeper’" censors.

Perhaps. What's that got to do with games being art?

Linking this back to if they look a pone things differently as if they are to them higher forms of creative work or not, all you have to do it look at subjective wording such as "intelligent enjoyment", and "no context"

Where was the term 'intelligent enjoyment' by IFCO?
You're quoting the 'no context' thing, kind of ironically, out of context.
The exact quote is "IFCO recognizes that in certain films, DVDs and video games, strong graphic violence may be a justifiable element within the overall context of the work. However, in the case of Manhunt 2, IFCO believes that there is no such context".

The operative factor here is "within the overall context of the work", not that the work itself has no context in society.

A "arty" film with loads of sex is more likely to get a rating uncut then a non-arty film - so I can't see how you can trying claim 'art' or what they think as higher forms of creative work does not affect their work.

How do you come to that conclusion? While the few films banned in recent years by IFCO have been porno, for the most part most get through with 18 certs, just like 9 Songs.
Under Irish law, anything that's legal to do Ireland is legal to be shown in porn, and most porn films legally available in Ireland go a lot further than the sex scenes in 9 Songs. It being called artistic by its director doesn't even factor into it.

monument

flogen wrote:

Right, but it's a definition that you used in your original argument, so you either agree with it or you don't.
...

Simply put, art, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

That's my original argument.

I then used Wiki's definition as one part of a sentence in a much larger thread. I don't have to either agree with it or not, I simply don't see the world in such black and white terms - I partly agree with it.

My original argument saying is in the eye of the beholder looks to be quite like what you think of art.

flogen wrote:

I disagree - I don't think he's acting as the elite at all. He's not saying that this isn't meaningful enough to be made public, he's saying that it's, in his opinion, too dangerous to be made public.

He is saying there is no context for a central part of the game, I'd very much equate that with him saying there it is not meaningful enough.

He is saying without this context it is apprently too dangerous.

flogen wrote:

His actions are no more elitist than the ones that ban other things under the auspice of "public protection".

And they would also often be elitist.

flogen wrote:

As I said, the context quote was in relation to the violence within the work, not the work itself....

....The operative factor here is "within the overall context of the work", not that the work itself has no context in society.

The violence is so central to the work is not its self with out it.

flogen wrote:

If IFCO's criteria was based on how worthy and 'high' a piece of work is, we wouldn't have had Freddy Got Fingered and American Pie released in Ireland either.

The IFCO rated American Pie quite high compared to many countries, the UK gave it 15 while we marked it up at 18.

flogen wrote:

This discussion was split from the one about the game ban and is titled 'Are Games Art?' - it's a seperate discussion and the claim that something is artistic doesn't (or at least shouldn't) impact on its cert rating anyway.

It has with films.

With "context" or story, films/games with a lot of violence/sex/etc are deemed by the censor to be of greater value, so it does impact on the rating.

flogen wrote:

Where was the term 'intelligent enjoyment' by IFCO?
You're quoting the 'no context' thing, kind of ironically, out of context....

The bit about 'intelligent enjoyment' is from one of their general statments... can I not quote their general statements of operation when they are go against such statments?

flogen

monument wrote:

That's my original argument.

I then used Wiki's definition as one part of a sentence in a much larger thread. I don't have to either agree with it or not, I simply don't see the world in such black and white terms - I partly agree with it.

My original argument saying is in the eye of the beholder looks to be quite like what you think of art.

You used the wiki definition to expand on your own opinion.
I agreed that art is subjective, but disagree with anyone that says that art is something made by people to stimulate the senses. I assumed by your use of that quote as an extension of your own argument, you agreed with it. It looks like I was mistaken.

He is saying there is no context for a central part of the game, I'd very much equate that with him saying there it is not meaningful enough.

He is saying without this context it is apprently too dangerous.

And defining the medium of games as art would make him find that context or find it less dangerous?

And they would also often be elitist.

They might be ignorant, but they're not elitist.

The IFCO rated American Pie quite high compared to many countries, the UK gave it 15 while we marked it up at 18.

And you think that decision was based on the intelligence of the film rather than the content?

It has with films.

With "context" or story, films/games with a lot of violence/sex/etc are deemed by the censor to be of greater value, so it does impact on the rating.

Films like...?

And something can have a context and story and still be completely lacking in artistic quality - I don't believe that a film is given more lee-way because it's seen as arty.

The bit about 'intelligent enjoyment' is from one of their general statments... can I not quote their general statements of operation when they are go against such statments?

of course you can, I was asking where it came from.

Again - you're quoting out of context. They're description of 'intelligent enjoyment' isn't about only allowing content the censor deems intelligent, it's about allowing people to make informed decisions about what they watch by giving as much information about a film/game's content to the public as is possible.

Kold

flogen wrote:

Can it?

I have a problem with people calling things art just because they were created by someone.

A lot of work probably went into finding the best structure, materials and design for a toilet roll, but that doesn't make it art.

Sure, it's objective, but that doesn't mean it's a free for all.

Art is the pinnacle of craft.

What makes art is an artist. If you believe what you do is art then noone can say anything else.

I believe some games constitute art, I've been as lost in Twilight Princess as much as any painting. Especially in the world design aspect. However, with the amount of contributors in games these days and the goal still being to make money first and foremost, it's a pretty cheap art.

@OP: Art has always been censored.