Are Video Games Art ?

[ciro64]

Videogame are more interesting to me when they are reinterpreting reality in an abstract but readable way. That's why N64 aesthetic is my favorite, alongside a few SNES titles.

Also I hate this notion that games are only art when they are graphically advanced or push your heartstrings. If you ask me, this is art:

 

[jiyuuboyetsvi]

100%

View attachment 65258

 

[FloreyEXE]

Do you all Consider Video Games a piece of Art that deserves Respect or do you see them just as a piece of entertainment that can be replaced and ''Improved at will'' .And do you see Remakes/Remasters as Respectful or Disrespectful to said Art ?

they're a creative form of hand crafted human artistic expression, so yeah I don't see why they wouldn't be considered an art form, remakes and remaster honestly it depends on what you consider respectful.
remasters tend to be more faithful but remakes are kind of a "what if" thing where the game is remade with current hardware, i think most remakes out there tend to be respectful to the source materiel, but the ones that go "oh this THE DEFINITIVE version" tend to miss the point, since the original game still has its charm and reasons to make someone wanna experience it

 

[Esidemoken]

Yes, they are art, as for Remakes I think that as long as they are faithful to the original work they are still a good tribute as in the case of the Remake of the first Resident Evil.

 

[Fray Guillermo]

Yes, and no. Depends on the developer's purpose for the game.

+1

And in the end it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some games I look at them as just entertainment and some others not. Would one say FIFA and Fortnite are art or just plain consumer products? (I'm not giving an answer, just throwing out the thought)

Although it's interesting how, in contrast, regarding music and cinema, if one asks if those mediums are inherently art, most people would say yes, whereas videogames always spark up the debate

 

[Bonkers225]

+1

And in the end it's all in the eye of the beholder. Some games I look at them as just entertainment and some others not. Would one say FIFA and Fortnite are art or just plain consumer products? (I'm not giving an answer, just throwing out the thought)

Although it's interesting how, in contrast, regarding music and cinema, if one asks if those mediums are inherently art, most people would say yes, whereas videogames always spark up the debate

Nobody is ever going to convince me Mortal Kombat Annihilation was art.

 

[Johnathan Smikey]

It's like movies. They can be either art or pure entertainment. Maybe both. It depends.

 

[loneWolf991]

Yeah, they can evoke emotions in you and can be open to interpretation. The fact they're interactive also gives them more depth than any other medium could hope to have.

 

[Poltergeist]

Video games are not just art, but the ultimate art, where everything is combined and intertwined together to produce a coherent and pleasures experience!

 

[Zooey]

Telling the truth is art because video games are part of the 14th art.

1st Art: The Architecture
2nd Art: The Poetry/Literature
3rd Art: The Dance
4th Art: The Music
5th Art: The Painting
6th Art: The Sculpture
7th Art: The Cinematography
8th Art: The Photography
9th Art: The Comic/Manga
10th Art: The Kitchen/Gastronomy
11th Art: The Graphic Design
12th Art: The Television
13th Art: The Advertising
14th Art: The Video Games
15th Art: The Tattoos
16th Art: The Origami

I would argue that Photography isn't art (nor is origami). Its a technical skill rather than a artistic skill. Art is the selective recreation of reality, based on an artists value judgements. The first part is really important, "selective recreation of reality", photography doesnt fulfill this, as its not a recreation of reality, it IS reality. Then there's origami, which doesn't communicate anything about human existence, nor does it communicate anything about an artists sense of life, and to me anyways, is a craft skill.

Technical skill - photography, 3D printing, animation, 3D modelling (not exactly art)
Craft skill - origami, weaving, pottery, leatherworking, weaving, etc (not exactly art)
Artistic skill - painting, music, sculpture, etc. (this is art)

Games would fall into Artistic + Technical (overlap). Creating games is a Technical skill because it is trainable, involves tools, and software, but its also a Artistic skill because it involves a selective recreation of reality based on the artists value judgements (more so when its a game that communicates man's existence and sense of life, sorry Pong and Super Mario).

TLDR: Just because something looks pretty, and gets hanged on a wall, doesnt always mean its art.

 

[TotzOnGaming]

Depends on the intention and how one sees it. To each their own.

 

[ciro64]

I would argue that Photography isn't art (nor is origami). Its a technical skill rather than a artistic skill. Art is the selective recreation of reality, based on an artists value judgements. The first part is really important, "selective recreation of reality", photography doesnt fulfill this, as its not a recreation of reality, it IS reality.

I somewhat disagree. It is in fact reality, but figuring out good angles and good lightning conditions do overlap with the subject of art. The conditions which the picture were taken is a result of the decisions and feelings from the of the photographer too, and they can extract further poetic meaning from that picture or the place they took it.

Same thing with Origami. It may be a crafting skill, but figuring out how to make it appealing in a way humans relate to can be quite artistic.

I was going to bring up how engineering a house is purely technical, but I quickly realized even that can be artistic. Many houses designs look lifeless these days but with considerate thoughts and effort you can design a house with personality that brings good feelings to you.

Hell, I'm a hobbyist game programmer and I consider programming to be art. Simply because it's fascinating and having endless possibilities gives you room to be expressive. Even on something purely technical.

Maybe I'm pushing the definition too far, but I do believe the full extent of what is art goes beyond the practical definition that we usually attribute it to.

 

[Nelson2001]

I would argue that Photography isn't art (nor is origami). Its a technical skill rather than a artistic skill. Art is the selective recreation of reality, based on an artists value judgements. The first part is really important, "selective recreation of reality", photography doesnt fulfill this, as its not a recreation of reality, it IS reality. Then there's origami, which doesn't communicate anything about human existence, nor does it communicate anything about an artists sense of life, and to me anyways, is a craft skill.

Technical skill - photography, 3D printing, animation, 3D modelling (not exactly art)
Craft skill - origami, weaving, pottery, leatherworking, weaving, etc (not exactly art)
Artistic skill - painting, music, sculpture, etc. (this is art)

Games would fall into Artistic + Technical (overlap). Creating games is a Technical skill because it is trainable, involves tools, and software, but its also a Artistic skill because it involves a selective recreation of reality based on the artists value judgements (more so when its a game that communicates man's existence and sense of life, sorry Pong and Super Mario).

TLDR: Just because something looks pretty, and gets hanged on a wall, doesnt always mean its art.

I Understand You Zooey.

 

[Evaccaneer Doom]

I swear someone asked a question like this before but imma pull up some art in the form of a monologue that totally wasn’t a result of being salty the game was shit:

 

[Boog111]

I believe it is art. Game designers put their time, thought, and vision into games. There are different art styles and there can be well thought out stories in games. It's no different than anything a painter, sculptor, author, etc. would create.

 

[Zooey]

I somewhat disagree. It is in fact reality, but figuring out good angles and good lightning conditions do overlap with the subject of art. The conditions which the picture were taken is a result of the decisions and feelings from the of the photographer too, and they can extract further poetic meaning from that picture or the place they took it.

Same thing with Origami. It may be a crafting skill, but figuring out how to make it appealing in a way humans relate to can be quite artistic.

I was going to bring up how engineering a house is purely technical, but I quickly realized even that can be artistic. Many houses designs look lifeless these days but with considerate thoughts and effort you can design a house with personality that brings good feelings to you.

Hell, I'm a hobbyist game programmer and I consider programming to be art. Simply because it's fascinating and having endless possibilities gives you room to be expressive. Even on something purely technical.

Maybe I'm pushing the definition too far, but I do believe the full extent of what is art goes beyond the practical definition that we usually attribute it to.

Again though, its a technical skill, as photography involves lenses, lighting, film used, etc. Lighting in a photograph, is much different than lighting in a painting, as the lighting in a photograph is created by the lightbulbs used, their placement, reflectors, and diffusion panels, whereas in a painting its created by the artist's recreation of lighting.

Recreating reality is much different than showing reality as it is.

Origami can be very appealing, so can tilework, carpet weaving, etc, but not everything that looks appealing or pleasant is art. Generally speaking, Origami doesnt communicate anything about our existence, or what the artist values in life. Take for example, "Laocoön and His Sons", this sculpture conveys: heroism, suffering, and helplessness:

Origami doesn't convey any deep meaning about existence, or values held by the artist. A crane made by me doesnt impart anything personal to my existence. It might look pleasant, but its trained steps, devoid of any artistic expression by the artist.

 

[ciro64]

I swear someone asked a question like this before but imma pull up some art in the form of a monologue that totally wasn’t a result of being salty the game was shit:
View attachment 65321

Counter argument:

Disclaimer: I haven't played this game for myself, just trying to make some interesting conversation. I try to take things in good faith at first so I count for the possibility that in your pic the dev was being rather impulsively than fully maturing his thoughts.

 

[Mini_Man.XW]

imo yeah

 

[psvitaforever]

 

[Tr4sh_Kun]

Yes, and no. Depends on the developer's purpose for the game.

This.
Most games are developed as simple entertainment products but there are many that can be considered works of art.

But personally I don't think videogames will ever be considered art until the "gamers" (i'm using it as a derrogatory term) accept the fact that if you want to consider something as art then they must let videogames be analyzed like any other artistic medium, countless times I've seen gamers jumping to say that videogames are basically the adult equivalent of jiggling your keys in front of a baby so they stop being annoying when someone tries to analyze games in a deeper way than just a review

 

[Sinmenon]

Like any movie, book, or even artwork, some works can be made for the purpose of creation itself, transmitting an emotion or a feeling, and causing a reaction in the audience; which is art. But some work are created for the only purpose of generating capital, which can be slop.

Besides, art and capitalism aren't mutually exclusive. For example, Leonardo da Vinci was a keen businessman who also did all sorts of commissions; Johannes Vermeer, famous for "Girl with a Pearl Earring" and "The Milkmaid" among others, was an art dealer. When I did game design, we had Business 101 and the lecturer told us that, as much as we want to keep doing what we love....We might actually do a few cash cows to finance the projects we do want to work in. Not many people go into making a game for the sole purpose of making bank...But paying the bills is nice.

Now for remakes...Depends on the remakes. Some are cash grabs, like the gazillion versions of Skyrim or The Last of Us. But some can be art or at least respectful of the original version. For example, Dark Souls.
Let's give a few movie examples, as movies are often considered "art": the famous "The Thing" from 1982 is a remake of a 1951 movie called "The Thing from Another World". Scarface, another famous movie classic from 1983, is a remake of a 1932 film. 2007's 3:10 to Yuma is a remake of a 1957 one.

tl;dr : games can be art, but also disposable slop like any other media we consider art nowadays

 

[Zooey]

This.
Most games are developed as simple entertainment products but there are many that can be considered works of art.

Agreed, most, but not all. For example i wouldnt consider Sudoku games on the PSP to be art, or at least, not in the same realm as RDR2 or Cyberpunk.

 

[AntonioDP]

I don't think they can be art. Don't get me wrong: it's not that I consider them to be inferior than other human artifacts, it's just that they do something different. Aristotle made a relevant distinction between primary arts and secondary ones, and that distinction can be seen in, for example, eroticism and pornography: the first one implies contemplation, while the second one... Well, you now what happens: it makes you want to participate. And that applies to videogames: they don't favour contemplation nor any inner exploration: we lost ourselves inside them, and they take control.

I know this can be seen as a mere elucubration, moreover when videogames could be consider the ultimate Gesamtkunstwerk...

 

[zilbert25]

Of course they are art and take a great deal of effort.

 

[freebie#47]

You don't have to considered it ART, but the governments do. It is protect under the copyright act.