Are Video Games Art?

[Asknoone]

Read that Solaris?

 

[Solaris]

Um, Art (capital a) does not define itself. People define Art. By deciding they like it. The idea that art can somehow exist objectively, distinct from human opinion of it is absurd. Any art fancier who purports to appreciate the work of every person who has ever been recognised as a great Artist - just because 'b-b-b-but it's Art!' - and appreciate it all equally, is a fraud and a charlatan and a bounder and a cad, also rapscallion.

The amount of pretentiousness in this thread would be funny if it wasn't so irritating.

I agree, everyone agrees with that.
But some people like to place more value on art than just whatever somebody defines it as.

You cannot prove anything is art, but intelligent and well informed and interested people can discuss it, of course one of them is free to be a dickhead and say 'Super mario is art becuase I think it is' but frankly that's not interesting, anyone who isn't going to use reasoning and perhaps provide insight that somebody else might not have seen isn't really worth debating with.

 

[CptStern]

Um, Art (capital a) does not define itself. People define Art. By deciding they like it.

not true ..art is not about personal tastes, it's not about something being attractive ..if that were true abstraction wouldnt exist and Francis bacon wouldnt be celebrated today ..Art is not about slavishly representing what the eye sees (a photo can do that much more effectively) ..it more about the minds eye

The idea that art can somehow exist objectively, distinct from human opinion of it is absurd.

there's opinion and then there's informed opinion ..someone who collects Velvet Elvis paintings could hardly be trusted to make a judgement on a picasso or whatever ..it's more than likely he has no insight into the particular style ..I mean what will he comment on? the pretty colours?

Any art fancier who purports to appreciate the work of every great artist ever, because it's Art, and appreciate it all equally, is a fraud and a charlatan and a bounder and a cad, also rapscallion.

I may not like Michael jackson but I can recognise that at one point in time he was a musical genius ..so too with lovers of art ..surely people have preferences and may like one style over another but what you're describing is actually very rare: bourgiousie nouvelle riche trying to sound sophisticated nothing more

The amount of pretentiousness in this thread would be funny if it wasn't so irritating.

i'm assuming you mean me ..I assure it has nothing to do with pertentiousness ..would you fault an architect for talking about his profession?

why would anyone in their right mind hold a layman's opinion on the same level as the professional? if a layman tried to pass off his theories on say quantum physics in a roomfull of scientists we would rightfully laugh at his pathetic attempts ..why is it any different for artists? do we lend weight to the credibility of creationists because they sound like pseudo scientists? no we redicule them for being stupid enough to challenge fact with stupidity ..why is art in any way different?

 

[Vegeta897]

This thread is retarded.

Stern stop comparing art to science and hard facts.

Solaris stop failing to disprove the fellow who went to that game studio by simply saying "no" without any explanation.

Vegeta stop entering this thread.

 

[CptStern]

This thread is retarded.

Stern stop comparing art to science and hard facts.

prove me wrong and I'll stop

Vegeta stop entering this thread.

agreed :E

 

[Vegeta897]

prove me wrong and I'll stop

Comparing the ways of art and the ways of science+physics is just ridiculous. You can't introduce a comparison and then say prove me wrong. You have to prove the comparison works. Art is not about facts or logic.

agreed :E

No u

 

[CptStern]

Comparing the ways of art and the ways of science+physics is just ridiculous. You can't introduce a comparison and then say prove me wrong. You have to prove the comparison works. Art is not about facts or logic.

yes it is about facts and logic; just because you cant understand that doesnt make it so .. and the comparison stands because it was an analogy; at no time did I apply scientific principles to prove my point as you suggest

 

[Vegeta897]

yes it is about facts and logic;

Only pixel art.

just because you cant understand that doesnt make it so ..

Ouch. That hurts.

and the comparison stands because it was an analogy;

I know what a bloody analogy is. I'm saying the two things aren't suitable for an analogy in the way you did, as you know I said art is not logical or scientific. So you can't say "I'm a professional at art and therefor anything you do is instantly worse and uncredible." Because that's what you just said in your analogy.

at no time did I apply scientific principles to prove my point as you suggest

Err, I didn't suggest that at all. You seem to be the one blurring the concepts themselves. Though in an argument, I think logic does apply. Not with the subject matter itself, but when you prove a point things are usually logical Otherwise you sound like a silly billy.

 

[CptStern]

Only pixel art.

nope ..the minds eye uses logic ..art is the extention of the minds eye therefore it is indeed logical ..it's not like they pull justification out of the thin air

"hmm this painting looks like it's a commentary on war ...I'll name it Guernica, boy arent I clever?!!!"

Ouch. That hurts.

it wasnt meant to ..I said it matter of factly

I know what a bloody analogy is. I'm saying the two things aren't suitable for an analogy in the way you did, as you know I said art is not logical or scientific.

and I argued it ..I provided examples ..you must then come up with your own reasoning as to why it's not or concede the point

Err, I didn't suggest that at all. You seem to be the one blurring the concepts themselves. Though in an argument, I think logic does apply. Not with the subject matter itself, but when you prove a point things are usually logical Otherwise you sound like a silly billy.

but you did when you suggested logic doesnt play a part ..logic is a scientific principle. Art uses logic to justify it's own existence ..without logic it's just a pretty picture with no meaning

 

[Vegeta897]

If art were logical then there would be such a thing as the "perfect painting"

And there isn't.

So pee and poop.

And if you are true, let's take this back to videogames. Are they logical and scientific? Yes, developers do everything for a reason and toward a specific experience for the user. Just look at what the bloke who went to the game studio said. Or listen to the commentary on Episode 1. Or be a game designer.

 

[CptStern]

what does perfection have to do with logic? they still come to their justification through a mental thought process: logic

 

[Vegeta897]

Logic is about math. Logic is not personal. Something makes sense or it doesn't. If art has logic, you could theoretically develop a "scale" for rating certain aspects of the piece. Just like you could develop scales for science things, like you say. So if one could "rate" art, since it is 100% logical, then one could achieve a "perfect" painting, highest possible "score".

Or forget the scales, just do comparison to other art. If this aspect of piece A is better than the same aspect of piece B, it is "better". If all aspects of a piece are better than all aspects of all other pieces, it is the "best" art.

This sounds ridiculous for a reason. It's the point you made and as you can see it fails.

 

[Crushenator 500]

William Bouguereau, a fantastic piece of artwork in any language, and just that. No commentary on the history of man, no crazy cubist masterpiece, just a damn fine figurative piece. So what would you call it?

"art" instead of "Art"?

What about this Sargent piece?

"art" again, with no deep meaning?


Here's something you might find interesting also, a letter from picasso

Picasso had talent, as he demonstrated in his youth, but in the end, he openly admitted that he was a con man. He laughed about how he deceived everyone, and benefited from the pretentious, pseudo intellectuals that made him a very rich man.

Here, in Picasso's own words, his confession:

"When I was young, like all the young, art, great art, was my religion; but with the years, I came to see that art, as it was understood until 1800; was henceforth finished, on its last legs, doomed, and that so called artistic activity with all its abundance is only the many formed manifestation of its agony. Men are detached from and more and more disinterested in painting, sculpture and poetry; appearances to the contrary, men today have put their hearts into everything else; the machine, scientific discoveries, wealth, the domination of natural forces and immense territories. We no longer feel art as a vital need, as a spiritual necessity, as was the case in centuries past.

Many of us continue to be artists and to be occupied with art for reasons which have little in common with true art, but rather through a spirit of imitation, through nostalgia for tradition, through mere inertia, through love of ostentation, of prodigality, of intellectual curiosity, through fashion or through calculation. They live still through force of habit and snobbery in a recent past, but the great majority in all places no longer have any sincere passion for art, which they consider at most as a diversion, a hobby and a decoration. Little by little, new generations with a predilection for mechanics and sports, more sincere, more cynical and brutal, will leave art to the museums and libraries as an incomprehensible and useless relic of the past.

From the moment that art is no longer the sustenance that nourishes the best, the artist may exteriorize his talent in all sorts of experiments with new formulas, in endless caprices and fancy, in all the expedients of intellectual charlatanism. In the arts, people no longer seek consolation, nor exaltation. But the refined, the rich, the indolent, distillers of quintessence seek the new, the unusual, the original, the extravagant, the shocking. And I, since cubism and beyond, I have satisfied these gentlemen and these critics with all the various whims which have entered my head, and the less they understood them, the more they admired. By amusing myself at these games, at all these tomfooleries, at all these brain-busters, riddles and arabesques, I became famous quite rapidly. And celebrity means for a painter: sales increment, money, wealth.

Today, as you know, I am famous and very rich. But when completely alone with myself, I haven't the nerve to consider myself an artist in the great and ancient sense of the word. There have been great painters like Giotto, Titian, Rembrandt and Goya. I am only a public entertainer who has understood his time. This is a bitter confession, mine, more painful indeed than it may seem, but it has the merit of being sincere."

 

[CptStern]

Logic is about math. Logic is not personal. Something makes sense or it doesn't. If art has logic, you could theoretically develop a "scale" for rating certain aspects of the piece. Just like you could develop scales for science things, like you say. So if one could "rate" art, since it is 100% logical, then one could achieve a "perfect" painting, highest possible "score".

Or forget the scales, just do comparison to other art. If this aspect of piece A is better than the same aspect of piece B, it is "better". If all aspects of a piece are better than all aspects of all other pieces, it is the "best" art.

This sounds ridiculous for a reason. It's the point you made and as you can see it fails.

nope, not all logic is strictly mathematical

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic#Philosophical_logic

philisophical principles of logic still apply to art


and you can apply mathematical principles to Art; some artists use scientic principles in creating abstraction ..escher instantly comes to mind

 

[CptStern]

William Bouguereau, a fantastic piece of artwork in any language, and just that. No commentary on the history of man, no crazy cubist masterpiece, just a damn fine figurative piece. So what would you call it?

"art" instead of "Art"?

What about this Sargent piece?

<snip>

"art" again, with no deep meaning?

i've already explained this ..it wasnt up until the last century that higher concepts became synonomous with Art ..coincidentily with the advent of photography ...why pay an artist to paint a portrait (before the invention of the camera even the poor could afford their portrait in oils as painters were seen as craftsmen) ..they're celebrated for their technical skill not for the themes that run throughout their work ...oh and the overwhelming majority of paintings in existance today were commissioned by someone ..the artists themselves rarely painted for themselves


and picasso seems to be talking about his particular skill ..during his blue period (when he drew realistically) he was a mediocre portrait artist at best ..it wasnt until he started delving into various forms of abstraction that he became well regarded in art circles. And you cant blame him from creating art for his public ...i mean at some point he has to feed himself ...in every single artists lifetime there comes some point where they must submit to the will of others in order to sustain themselves ...man cannot live on painted still life alone

 

[Crushenator 500]

i've already explained this ..it wasnt up until the last century that higher concepts became synonomous with Art ..coincidentily with the advent of photography ...why pay an artist to paint a portrait (before the invention of the camera even the poor could afford their portrait in oils as painters were seen as craftsmen) ..they're celebrated for their technical skill not for the themes that run throughout their work ...oh and the overwhelming majority of paintings in existance today were commissioned by someone ..the artists themselves rarely painted for themselves

So you refuse to see that Bouguereau or Sargent piece as high art, completely ignoring skill, technique, and understanding of their sitter? And this is because they were craftsmen and not "Artists", a simple linguistic difference?

 

[Vegeta897]

*tags Crush*

I've got a lan party to get to.

 

[Crushenator 500]

*tags Crush*

I've got a lan party to get to.

I wont be here much longer, I have a showing of 300 to catch

 

[CptStern]

So you refuse to see that Bouguereau or Sargent piece as high art, completely ignoring skill, technique, and understanding of their sitter? And this is because they were craftsmen and not "Artists", a simple linguistic difference?

I never said those particular artists are not artists ..I consider myself an artist despite never having exhibited in a gallery. What I am saying is that those particular pieces are more along the lines of craft ..highly skilled technique and artistic talent however with no meaning behind it besides the obvious ...again it's the deeper meaning behind the work that makes it Art, not the skill involved ...look anyone can take a dump on canvas and call it art ..but it doesnt make it so, there no thought processes behind there is no raison d??tre besides as a money making venture

 

[Crushenator 500]

One may argue that there's more thought and care behind such a stunningly beatifull, technically brilliant piece such as a Bouguereau, than there is of a piece such as cubist picasso.

Going back to the concept art thing, the thought needed to create some of the characters and worlds in those pieces may also take a higher level of thinking than in a regular piece of "art", as you explained it

 

[Space Farm]

and one more thing, concept art and illustration is most definitely art. The only difference between fine art and illustration is the artist's willingness to bullshit and very little else.

I personally am a digital artist and recently did a two year course in fine arts. You couldn't be more right about this.

May I remind everyone that Art isn't just about paintings and it doesn't have to be in a museum to be considered Art. Art is not limited to one particular medium. Film is Art, music is Art and certain games can be considered as Art too and if you don't agree with it your just bullshitting yourself. This thread could go on forever but here are two quotes that pretty much answer the OP's question:

There is no general agreed-upon definition of art, since defining the boundaries of "art" is subjective, but the impetus for art is often called human creativity.

Video games and role-playing games are both fields where some recent critics have asserted that they do count as art, and some have asserted that they do not.

All this arguing is just everyone's individual opinion. This'll just keep on going on and on and on...

 

[Flyingdebris]

I have in fact been to many art museums. The works of the old masters while certainly exceptional are not more or less legitimate as art as say, Sid Mead's designs for Blade Runner or Giger's design for the Alien. The only difference between the work of the old masters and the work of today is time and perspective. As for what i said about bullshittting, don't tell me its not true, because i've seen it practiced a lot. I've seen way too many pretentious hacks try to pass off crappy art skills as having meanings when they probably made it up later. Granted there are fine art works that are indeed quite legitimate in their ability to stir emotion and convey an idea, but to say that they are a more legitimitate art form i feel is a big mistake.

As for Doom 3, i brought it up because i'm giving it another play through. And i'll say it very much deserves to be considered art. Not particularly deep art, but from beginning to end it tries to carry a consistant aesthetic and a cohesive design. It tries to convey to you the impression fear and/or action.

Halflife 2 for example tries to make you feel the emotions of a man who's been forced along a path not of his choosing.

If it is crafted by someone's imagination and is designed to make you feel an emotion, combination of emotions, or skillfully convey an idea, then it is art. The quality may vary greatly, but it IS art.

 

[99.vikram]

Then please tell me what you are doing in a thread about art if you 'don't like' one of the greatest artists of all time.

I dont want to insult all HL2.netters, so just see the attachment to find out what I think of you.

I have a high opinion of most artists, esp. Rembrandt, I just think Picasso's style was a regressive fad.
And Stern, I can't believe you would put Picasso's work over true classics that have stood the test of time...a fine philosopher he may be, but he isn't in the league of the pre-Impressionist masters.

...

<3

 

[Laivasse]

Damn, take a day's break and you need an electron microscope to be able to find a space to jump back in on the debate.

There's a lot of talk about the distinction between art and 'High Art', but what everyone seems to gloss over is that much of what people here class as High Art was not recognised for its importance or quality until a long time after it was produced. Flyingdebris' point about time and perspective were bang on.

Video games are currently very unlikely to be classed as high art because of the infancy of the medium which means that:
1) technological limitations can flaw the message/the creative expression of the developers
2) gaming hasn't been around long enough for enough people who value it to reach maturity and speak with authority about the artistic quality of gaming.

The fact that noone recognises gaming as a medium of 'High Art' at the moment is a red herring, because gaming hasn't yet had the opportunity to undergo the process of becoming acknowledged as 'proper'. Therefore the opinion that gaming can't be truly great art 'because there is High Art and there is art' is completely irrelevant. Maybe there aren't many games that offer 'social commentary' atm, but I'll be f*cked if I limit my definition of good art to just 'has to have social commentary' (although a lot of great art does). But I can toss out about all the social commentary I need to get through life in a few (swear-)words tbh. The truly visionary thing is to be able to recognise genius of expression where noone else does, not parrot 10,000 other people who talk about the suffering of the proletariat while looking at some bland centuries-old painting.


@Stern - I wasn't talking about just you with the pretentiousness comment, but you're really getting there with some of the things you've said.

You can try to talk about art in terms of layman and professional, or art as some kind of objective force divorced from human taste, but as Vegeta said, that would make it theoretically possible to have the perfect painting. Likewise you should be theoretically able to create a machine that would tell you how good any given piece of art would be.

Yes, humans can appreciate stuff logically through the mind's eye but fortunately every mind's eye is at least slightly different, and that is why people create such a distinction between subjective opinion and objective fact - and also between art and science.

To me, art is just any work of 'creative expression'. That's it. How highly I rate it is based on how much it resonates with my own feelings, knowledge and experiences; on the insight it provides; on how it compels me to think or feel a certain way. 'High Art' might overlap with art I consider to be good, but as a category of art to me it is less interesting.

I interpret High Art to be 'creative expression' that has at some point by relative consensus opinion been deemed to be important to the human race as a whole, or as granting unique insight into the human experience. However, importance to the human race is not necessarily the same as importance to me as an individual; I don't consider every unique insight particularly worthwhile or valuable; and most importantly I disagree with majority opinion too all too often. As such, I think this distinction between art and High Art is a bit of a bogus one that should not be overemphasised.

YES, it would be nice to have some games accepted as 'High Art', but the fact that they do not currently get that recognition is not a particularly significant fact, nor is it a reflection of any lack of artistic potential in video games. In 50 years there could well be lots of people looking back and saying 'such-and-such game provided amazing insight into the human experience - what a masterpiece'. I won't list here any games that I think could be candidates because people will just be like 'pshaw! taht game is ghey!', and I've already said that contemporary opinion doesn't have to figure in

Apologies for haphazard use of semi-colonic annihilation.

 

[Tagaziel]

Yes, without a doubt.

Art is not science and cannot be defined. Matters are made worse by the extreme subjectivity of it's perception.

 

[<RJMC>]

honestly this whole discution is squizing my brain

I allways hav heard that something artistic is something that remarks emotions and stuff like that,so lets say a videogmaes whit some good storyline can be considered art? well as I hav see maybe not for thousands of reasons explained here that end up confusing me
and this confusion can be considered art? if I put this whole thread in a museum it will be considered art cuz it show confusion?

I love the movie forrest gump cuz it hav a very emotive story and stuff but sure is not art,then what is art? well from what I see is something that some "elitist" as some people said comprend,so that means that since I am not one of those elitist them I can speak shit?

this whole thing depress me,is that art too?or should I write it Art?

 

[Laivasse]

@RJMC

Judging by the way things are currently done in the art world, this thread is not a work of art because there is no single artist who has made it. You could perhaps consider the posts within this thread as works of art on an individual basis, but if you tried to submit this thread to a museum, people would probably ask 'who made it??'

However if CptStern came forward an d said 'HAHAHAHA! this is exactly what I expected to happen! You are all brushstrokes in my work of art' - or maybe if he said 'what a masterpiece my thread is! I made it and look at the insight it provides into the human psyche!' - then he would maybe have a greater chance at having this thread recognised as a work of art in a museum or gallery (although it would have to be a quite crap gallery, no offense cptstern).

For some reason, the way art has developed dictates that there almost always has to be a single person who can claim credit for it. The only exception I can see to this trend is in cinema, where films are occasionally recognised by people as works of art despite being collaborative efforts between the director, producer, crew, cast, etc. However even this isn't much of an exception if you look closely - how many films have people cited as great art? People tend to say 'Citizen Kane' and then trail off into mumbling. Most 'arthouse' cinema is the worst shit you can ever have defile your eyes. People don't like to cite music as 'high art' either, unless maybe it classical music composed by a single person. I don't really know or care why this is, since I didn't make these rules and they don't interest me.

Conclusion: the rules that have grown up around art don't make much sense and maybe they shouldn't be there. Your opinion is as valid as anyone else's so don't worry about it (btw I am drunk soz lol).

 

[<RJMC>]

so one thing that define art is that is made by one person?

so if I write a crazy story it hav "more chances" of being considered art that a story written by more persons?

I always hav heard that "the art is defined by the eye who see it"
so is all about personal preference?

 

[Laivasse]

so one thing that define art is that is made by one person?

so if I write a crazy story it hav "more chances" of being considered art that a story written by more persons?

I always hav heard that "the art is defined by the eye who see it"
so is all about personal preference?

The answer to all that is: it depends who you ask. And no matter who you ask, they will pretend that their opinion is the definitive one.
>.>
<.<

 

[Bad^Hat]

So then the real meaning of art is just as an excuse to sound smart and/or important?

 

[<RJMC>]

So then the real meaning of art is just as an excuse to sound smart and/or important?

yeah thats my point
whats the real meaning of art?or it dont hav a meaning after all?

 

[Jintor]

Convey feelings without the person's physical presence?

-_-

> >

...is propaganda art?

 

[<RJMC>]

after read a bit of what stern said

something is considered Art if it hav a meaning/purpose?

for example a movie about war that shows the horror of war is more art that a action movie like die hard?

 

[99.vikram]

Art is something that forces the audience along the artist's train of thought, IMO, to feel the same emotions (s)he does.

I feel Calvin and Hobbes and Dilbert are as "High" as any art in the past century, but that's not saying much really.

 

[Qonfused]

Art is whatever anyone wants to be art. Everything is art. Therefore nothing is art.