Are games art ?

Grumpypants

Artists don't pay tax here thats why Bertie doesnt pay tax on his earning from his book.

If games where considered the same all the developers could move here create a booming industry.

ghostchant

Grumpypants wrote: »

Artists don't pay tax here thats why Bertie doesnt pay tax on his earning from his book.

If games where considered the same all the developers could move here create a booming industry.

But almost everything can be considered art if you look at it the right way. cars, clothes, the Microsoft Windows GUI, etc. are all aesthetically pleasing to different people and might even be considered 'art' to them, should their developers/creators all avoid tax too? Personally think it would be better if the tax break was removed.

o1s1n

ghostchant wrote: »

Personally think it would be better if the tax break was removed.

It doesn't need to be removed, just managed fairly.

There are people who cream from that like Bertie, but I know a lot of struggling artists who can barely survive on what they make with the tax break. Galleries take a massive chunk out of their money too.

If they were paying tax on top of that a lot of them would just have to give up. This would have a negative impact on the culture and creativity of the country - which is why we have the tax break in the first place.

Magill

o1s1n wrote: »

Hey now, Pollocks paintings are cool! Not exactly worth $140million, but cool nonetheless. He gets too much flack from people. You should be linking things like this instead. Yes, it is exactly what it says on the tin.

Im sorry, i just don't see the point in that 'painting' He just through some paint on the thing ffs !!! I could do that.... not a bother... i could even cry and slap the paint on like some doped up hippie just too add some deeper meaning to it !

And yeah that tin is a more obvious argument....

I don't see what the difference is between



and

o1s1n

Magill wrote: »

Im sorry, i just don't see the point in that 'painting' He just through some paint on the thing ffs !!! I could do that.... not a bother... i could even cry and slap the paint on like some doped up hippie just too add some deeper meaning to it !

Ah, but you see he didn't just throw some paint on it. He got some crap and sealed it up in the tin, then created a label and THEN put some paint on it

You could probably do that too...but why the hell would you want to!?

D

Art is any deliberate thing that evokes an emotional response beyond its intrinsic value.

hooradiation

Magill wrote: »

I don't see what the difference is between



and

ones a painting, the other is a screenshot.


Or, one is where an artist tried to capture the beauty of nature for the sake of it the other is just the backdrop against which a game is played.

Grumpypants

hooradiation wrote: »

ones a painting, the other is a screenshot.


Or, one is where an artist tried to capture the beauty of nature for the sake of it the other is just the backdrop against which a game is played.

what if the first one was a back drop for a play?

o1s1n

Grumpypants wrote: »

what if the first one was a back drop for a play?

By his logic it would cease to be art and become a backdrop.

Aldebaran

hooradiation wrote: »

ones a painting, the other is a screenshot.


Or, one is where an artist tried to capture the beauty of nature for the sake of it the other is just the backdrop against which a game is played.

Or the other is just a backdrop against which a story is told. Games can tell stories just as well as literature, theatre, and films. They just tell them in different ways.

humanji

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Can't a game be made as a game and art? You've got stuff out there like the Mother/Earthbound series. They work excellently as JRPGs. However the creator shigesato itoi set out to illicit a very specific emotional response in the player by the end of the game and this was his goal which he succeeded in. And then you have stuff like LSD on the PS1 and Yume Nikki which don't even try to be games. People are think about games as art by their experiences with mainstream games. I wouldn't look at literature and look at the best sellers list or film and look at what's the biggest films in the box office to find something with artistic merit. And I certainly wouldn't look at the music charts for it either! It's the same with games.

The way I see it is art is created to be art. That's why it exists. Art can be a game or a film or a painting or a urinal on it's side. But it's principle reason for existence is to be art.

The problem with the question is that it's a generalisation. So in general terms, I label things by their primary purpose. You mention Shigesato Itoi setting out to illicit a specific emotional response from players. But was he making a game that illicits an emotional response, or did he decide he was creating something specifically to get that response? By that I mean did he start off making a game, or art? Because he's the one who dictates if it's art or not, not us.

There's also the use of the word "art" as a noun or a verb. Above, I use it as a noun. But I think some may be using it as a verb, ie to say a game is artistic, and reasoning this to mean that it's art. But if the creator didn't make it as art, who are we do decide it's something different? It's a blurry line that's hard to define without the creator's explicit explanation.

Retr0gamer

When he approached Nintendo with the idea for Mother it was because he thought videogame narratives were terrible but could be so much more. With Earthbound he used the game to get as a factor to illicit the emotion he wanted. With that game he set out to create the emotions you feel when youthful innocence is shattered and you realise that the world isn't a nice place. I believe styling the game after Dragon Quest which most japanese people remember playing from their youth was a big part of it although it's a shame there's so little information on it. It's hard to say really without interviewing him and asking him. All I can say is he's a clever guy and if you play the game it really does seem that the way the game plays and the crazy things that happen during it all filter into what you feel when you beat it. If you watch just the ending on yuotube it's not going to mean anything unless you've experienced the rest.

As for LSD and Yume Nikki there's really no argument. There's no win lose situation and the whole thing is about the experience.

ghostchant

Retr0gamer wrote: »

As for LSD and Yume Nikki there's really no argument. There's no win lose situation and the whole thing is about the experience.

Ah but is it a game then? I can buy language translation software and cooking guides for the DS but that doesn't make them games.

Retr0gamer

I think games can have far more than a win lose situation to define them. Look at Minecraft. Also what's to say thatart can't have a win lose situation as part of it.

o1s1n

ghostchant wrote: »

Ah but is it a game then? I can buy language translation software and cooking guides for the DS but that doesn't make them games.

You wander around LSD experiencing the enviornments you're in. But you still have to walk into items to trigger events/go to new enviornments.

It's not 100% a game in the traditional sense, but it's not a cooking guide either.

Retr0gamer

In other words pigeon holing stuff into genres and categories is stupid including pigeonholing stuff as art

humanji

Retr0gamer wrote: »

When he approached Nintendo with the idea for Mother it was because he thought videogame narratives were terrible but could be so much more. With Earthbound he used the game to get as a factor to illicit the emotion he wanted. With that game he set out to create the emotions you feel when youthful innocence is shattered and you realise that the world isn't a nice place. I believe styling the game after Dragon Quest which most japanese people remember playing from their youth was a big part of it although it's a shame there's so little information on it. It's hard to say really without interviewing him and asking him. All I can say is he's a clever guy and if you play the game it really does seem that the way the game plays and the crazy things that happen during it all filter into what you feel when you beat it. If you watch just the ending on yuotube it's not going to mean anything unless you've experienced the rest.

As for LSD and Yume Nikki there's really no argument. There's no win lose situation and the whole thing is about the experience.

Well, I haven't played any of the games you mentioned, but from your description it sounds like he created games that illicit emotions. That doesn't mean they aren't arty, just that they are games.

I think Johnny Ultimate nailed it when he said it's all "nitpicking semantics". It's just that to me, I view it as there's the nouns "game" and "art" and the adjectives "game/gamey" and "art/arty". So a game can be arty and art can be gamey. But they have an original purpose and that's what I'd class them as.

So in general something that is designed to be a game isn't art. It can be artistic and it can illicit all sorts of emotions and responses, but it was created as a game above all else. And something designed as art can be interactive and played with, but it was still created as art.

ghostchant

o1s1n wrote: »

You wander around LSD experiencing the enviornments you're in. But you still have to walk into items to trigger events/go to new enviornments.

It's not 100% a game in the traditional sense, but it's not a cooking guide either.

Sounds more like an art gallery or museum than a game :P I wasn't comparing it to a cooking guide, that was just an example that not everything released for a console is automatically a 'game'. I know everyone knows that but people tend to brush over the fact in debates like this.

There are a lot of artistic elements in games but I'm just not sure that's the same as art. I mean is an architect an artist? I would say no.

Also, am I the only one who looks at that RDR screenshot posted earlier and can only think about how much they want to shoot the duck?

Mr.Nice Guy

To me, art is a created piece of work which moves you in some profound way. I have most definitely felt this way about many games I've played and the characters and stories have been as rich and as vibrant as any I've seen in books, films or television. I would say games without a shadow of a doubt are art. The fond memories and experiences I've had from gaming have enriched my life and given me many great moments and I hope future generations will be able to enjoy and appreciate them as much as I have.

humanji

ghostchant wrote: »

Sounds more like an art gallery or museum than a game :P I wasn't comparing it to a cooking guide, that was just an example that not everything released for a console is automatically a 'game'. I know everyone knows that but people tend to brush over the fact in debates like this.

There are a lot of artistic elements in games but I'm just not sure that's the same as art. I mean is an architect an artist? I would say no.

What about Frank Lloyd Wright? He created art that was usable as buildings. This is kind of what I was getting at (but most likely explaining terribly). The main function of art is to be art, but it can have other uses. The urinal that was posted before is art. But a urinal in a bathroom is there to function as a urinal. You can still use the first one to piss into, but that's not why it's there.

ghostchant wrote: »

Also, am I the only one who looks at that RDR screenshot posted earlier and can only think about how much they want to shoot the duck?

And no. No you're not!

hooradiation

Grumpypants wrote: »

what if the first one was a back drop for a play?

Then it's a backdrop.
The play would be the primary focus of the audiences attention in that case, i should hope.

Jazzy

is this film art?


technically yes, but **** that - its a load of crap.
it just depends on how you use the term. when I talk about 'art' Im generally talking about something in a positive light. heck theres even a phrase - "a work of art" which is used to describe something as beautiful or brilliant, from a goal scored in a football match to someones verbal ability to express a point. If you talk about games being art, talk about the ones that actually are. Bioshock, Doom, Starcraft, Deus Ex, Half Life 2 and Super Metroid are ones that spring to mind for me. each one of those games has an element of brilliance about it which defines it as art (in the way I would speak about art). Halo, Gears of War, Call of Duty are just good games, much like The Book of Eli is just a good film... I wouldnt classify any of them as art as the way I view art is in how something excells, not how something is playable or watchable.
there is no way I would classify Plumbers Dont Wear Ties as art much in the same way I wouldnt classify Little Man in this category. They are simply things that exist, if an individual chooses to classify them as art then go right ahead, as what is art if its not personal?

Aldebaran

hooradiation wrote: »

Then it's a backdrop.
The play would be the primary focus of the audiences attention in that case, i should hope.

The backdrop and staging are as much a part of the play as anything else though.

richymcdermott

why i made this thread cause i read these from developers themselves

http://www.qj.net/ps3/news/fredrik-malmberg-games-are-art.html


http://www.qj.net/ps3/news/far-cry-2-dev-unimpressed-with-la-noire.html


http://www.destructoid.com/david-jaffe-criticizes-media-praise-for-art-games-196368.phtml


like i said above i don't believe games are art but one day they will be ,games ,like Braid, Sotc ,Ico Fahrenheit, heavy rain and recently la noire are all stepping stones on the possible future of it will happen.
Of course im wrong cause art is in the eye of the beholder and what makes art, ART * is it emotion

Why music is art cause it makes you feel rather joy , sadness it makes you feel. I get the same feeling when i write music or playing on my guitar.
same feeling i have towards movies like black swan for an example it overwhelms me with emotion.

i dont get that from games , maybe some of ye do when a character dies i have no emotion for a character cause ya dont feel the emotion in the persons death or anger or happiness.

the closest i felt sympathy for was the horse in shadow of the colossus , for a split second i felt an emotion thats a stepping stone on the posibility

thats what i think on the subject , there is no right answer just an interesting question left to be answered

Retr0gamer

You're probably just not playing the right games then if you want emotion. Sure there's cheap deaths to try an illicit emotion from the player that are really forced but but there's some that really do it well. As for the horse dying in SotC, that wasn't in there to feel sadness but to show how selfish the main character was and make the player feel alone and equally selfish. If you want to class art as something that can make the player feel overwhleming emotion then there's plenty of games out there that do that just don't expect them to be in the mainstream.

I guess what some people are arguing id that the core of the game can't be classified as art. However for art you have to take the piece as a whole. A painting isn't just what's depicted on the canvas. A sculpture is not just a piece of rock that has been well modelled. The mona lisa is more than a simple portrait. A film is more than the images that have been filmed. In the same way a game in not defined just because of the underlying core gameplay. It's a combination of everything including the story, writing, visuals, audio. It all has to be taken into account and looked upon as a whole.

You can't take say a play and not call it art my looking at it's individual pieces. It's not art becuase the script is simply writing on a piece of paper, the backdrops are just painted walls and the actors are simply saying their lines.

An unmade bed isn't just an unmade bed when presented as art.

You can't just say a game isn't art because it has the core mechanics of a game. You have to take into account the whole production.

Grumpypants

hooradiation wrote: »

Then it's a backdrop.
The play would be the primary focus of the audiences attention in that case, i should hope.

So its art until someone stands in front of it.

richymcdermott

Retr0gamer wrote: »

You're probably just not playing the right games then if you want emotion. Sure there's cheap deaths to try an illicit emotion from the player that are really forced but but there's some that really do it well. As for the horse dying in SotC, that wasn't in there to feel sadness but to show how selfish the main character was and make the player feel alone and equally selfish. If you want to class art as something that can make the player feel overwhleming emotion then there's plenty of games out there that do that just don't expect them to be in the mainstream.

I guess what some people are arguing id that the core of the game can't be classified as art. However for art you have to take the piece as a whole. A painting isn't just what's depicted on the canvas. A sculpture is not just a piece of rock that has been well modelled. The mona lisa is more than a simple portrait. A film is more than the images that have been filmed. In the same way a game in not defined just because of the underlying core gameplay. It's a combination of everything including the story, writing, visuals, audio. It all has to be taken into account and looked upon as a whole.

You can't take say a play and not call it art my looking at it's individual pieces. It's not art becuase the script is simply writing on a piece of paper, the backdrops are just painted walls and the actors are simply saying their lines.

An unmade bed isn't just an unmade bed when presented as art.

You can't just say a game isn't art because it has the core mechanics of a game. You have to take into account the whole production.

i do not take away one mans mind and idea to make a game meaningful , i do take into account of its story, art music emotion , i have played many games the more different than others so cant pass judgement on right games i have or not played , as i said some people may feel from a game others wont , i fall into the other category im not criticizing nor am i saying games will never become art im saying it will happen but not now.

sarumite

hooradiation wrote: »

Then it's a backdrop.
The play would be the primary focus of the audiences attention in that case, i should hope.

So its art, unless I take that piece of art and make it a backdrop in which case it is no longer art? Say I take a backdrop from a game, print it and put it in a frame and hang it from my wall, is it still a backdrop?

Retr0gamer

richymcdermott wrote: »

i do not take away one mans mind and idea to make a game meaningful , i do take into account of its story, art music emotion , i have played many games the more different than others so cant pass judgement on right games i have or not played , as i said some people may feel from a game others wont , i fall into the other category im not criticizing nor am i saying games will never become art im saying it will happen but not now.

Well it's more that I think there's very few games that can actually illicit an emotional response and they're not really in the public eye. I'd count SotC as one. Which proves you are emotionally dead inside (joke :P). I can get where you are coming from about not feeling anything in a game that tries to be emotional, I think a lot of games try to force emotion from the player cheaply, such as a cheap characters death like Aeris in FFVII.

richymcdermott

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Well it's more that I think there's very few games that can actually illicit an emotional response and they're not really in the public eye. I'd count SotC as one. Which proves you are emotionally dead inside (joke :P). I can get where you are coming from about not feeling anything in a game that tries to be emotional, I think a lot of games try to force emotion from the player cheaply, such as a cheap characters death like Aeris in FFVII.

your man at 1:40 mins describes it best


in the end its in the eyes of the beholder what is art or not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rNeuuUx-SQ