Games as art

[SkunkyBeaumont]

That's only true if you approach life from a certain philosophy. For example, Marxist philosophy claims that everything humans do is inherently political. I'm sure there are other philosophies that are similar. But as someone who is studying art, that is a load of crap, to be perfectly honest. Most art is just pretty pictures.

 

[raveci]

You have to ask the authors first. Can it be art if the author doesn't see it as such? And if they do who are we to say that it isn't? Due to technological advancement games have become a medium that can contain various form of art: digital art(hm...) and animation, 3D modeling and animation, voice acting, music, writing etc. These are undoubtedly art forms that are continuations of the classics (drawing, painting, scultpure, theatre, music, writing etc) and people who work on these are people who study the classics and strive to bring them to the new medium - they can rightfully claim authorship of this new art. There is however another technical aspect and a group of people who work on it, engineers, who would rather call themselves scientists who discover new inventions rather than creating art. This is a continuation of classical sciences, that were never concidered an art form. And then there is the nebulous notion of the game, something we like to play, that someone (or many) had surely came up with, but we still wouldn't usually call art. Is chess art? Is baseball art?

Are video games art? I would say no. It's a medium that allows for articstic expression, but technically and in its most distinguishing features it is not itself art. The speration of its artistic, scientific and nebulous aspects is actually very distinct from the point of view of the creators, and the confusing unification is only an illusion created by the current state of the industry that wants to present these works as distinct products to be sold on markets. While this illusion exists and dominates, both the art form and the science will not be able to fully realize itself, we will not know the names of great artists and scientists as we gloss over their names in credits and commit to memory only the companies and their products.

 

[SkunkyBeaumont]

You have to ask the authors first. Can it be art if the author doesn't see it as such? And if they do who are we to say that it isn't? Due to technological advancement games have become a medium that can contain various form of art: digital art(hm...) and animation, 3D modeling and animation, voice acting, music, writing etc. These are undoubtedly art forms that are continuations of the classics (drawing, painting, scultpure, theatre, music, writing etc) and people who work on these are people who study the classics and strive to bring them to the new medium - they can rightfully claim authorship of this new art. There is however another technical aspect and a group of people who work on it, engineers, who would rather call themselves scientists who discover new inventions rather than creating art. This is a continuation of classical sciences, that were never concidered an art form. And then there is the nebulous notion of the game, something we like to play, that someone (or many) had surely came up with, but we still wouldn't usually call art. Is chess art? Is baseball art?

Are video games art? I would say no. It's a medium that allows for articstic expression, but technically and in its most distinguishing features it is not itself art. The speration of its artistic, scientific and nebulous aspects is actually very distinct from the point of view of the creators, and the confusing unification is only an illusion created by the current state of the industry that wants to present these works as distinct products to be sold on markets. While this illusion exists and dominates, both the art form and the science will not be able to fully realize itself, we will not know the names of great artists and scientists as we gloss over their names in credits and commit to memory only the companies and their products.

I believe "Death of the Author" can be in effect at some times, and a lot of times meaning is meant to be subjective, or people might take meaning from something that was never intended.

 

[tropicalavera]

You have to ask the authors first. Can it be art if the author doesn't see it as such? And if they do who are we to say that it isn't? Due to technological advancement games have become a medium that can contain various form of art: digital art(hm...) and animation, 3D modeling and animation, voice acting, music, writing etc. These are undoubtedly art forms that are continuations of the classics (drawing, painting, scultpure, theatre, music, writing etc) and people who work on these are people who study the classics and strive to bring them to the new medium - they can rightfully claim authorship of this new art. There is however another technical aspect and a group of people who work on it, engineers, who would rather call themselves scientists who discover new inventions rather than creating art. This is a continuation of classical sciences, that were never concidered an art form. And then there is the nebulous notion of the game, something we like to play, that someone (or many) had surely came up with, but we still wouldn't usually call art. Is chess art? Is baseball art?

Are video games art? I would say no. It's a medium that allows for articstic expression, but technically and in its most distinguishing features it is not itself art. The speration of its artistic, scientific and nebulous aspects is actually very distinct from the point of view of the creators, and the confusing unification is only an illusion created by the current state of the industry that wants to present these works as distinct products to be sold on markets. While this illusion exists and dominates, both the art form and the science will not be able to fully realize itself, we will not know the names of great artists and scientists as we gloss over their names in credits and commit to memory only the companies and their products.

ok ok ok - but what IF (and this is a wildly new concept so bear with me) the author was DEAD??

 

[Strategist]

I think a lot of people following Karl's philosophy also miss his point.

I do believe that it's not this way but the other way around: everything isn't inherently political yet politics are touching every subjects.

Very much true. It could be said that the subjects one decides to paint is shaped by one's position in society and that is decided by the political structure of the country. But the essence of art speaks to humans in a way that transcends political barriers and situations. If you've made effective art it transcends generations. That's why we can appreciate art made in antiquity even in modern times.

 

[SkunkyBeaumont]

ok ok ok - but what IF (and this is a wildly new concept so bear with me) the author was DEAD??

Like actually dead, or "Death of the Author"?

 

[Ikagura]

Art is also about feelings.

Feelings is a really subjective matter but I would say that some video games gave me feelings ergo it can be art.

Of course, this is a trick question because not everyone have the same sensibilities, some may feel about a really minimalist abstract painting whereas someone else may be apathetic when looking at The Creation of Man or any other famous piece of art.

I cannot tell examples but I really felt something when I played Rez for the first time (synesthesia is really a powerful thing) as well as when I finished the first Metal Slug

Spoiler

with its down to Earth ending, showing all fallen soldiers you've killed.

Like actually dead, or "Death of the Author"?

I find the concept interesting, should art be considered with or without the author's personal life and experience? This is something I'm thinking about each time I see something.

 

[Ezaelius]

Are video games art? I would say no. It's a medium that allows for articstic expression, but technically and in its most distinguishing features it is not itself art. The speration of its artistic, scientific and nebulous aspects is actually very distinct from the point of view of the creators, and the confusing unification is only an illusion created by the current state of the industry that wants to present these works as distinct products to be sold on markets. While this illusion exists and dominates, both the art form and the science will not be able to fully realize itself, we will not know the names of great artists and scientists as we gloss over their names in credits and commit to memory only the companies and their products.

Is a cathedral not a piece of art, because most people only remember the name of the main architects and the people funding it ? Did books stop being art when Guttenberg came up with the printing press, making books reproducible in large quantities ?

I believe the question " is X art ?" to be useless. It is always a mask for another question, or an entrenched opinion.

Hell, it's almost like the question itself is art

 

[tropicalavera]

You have to ask the authors first. Can it be art if the author doesn't see it as such? And if they do who are we to say that it isn't? Due to technological advancement games have become a medium that can contain various form of art: digital art(hm...) and animation, 3D modeling and animation, voice acting, music, writing etc. These are undoubtedly art forms that are continuations of the classics (drawing, painting, scultpure, theatre, music, writing etc) and people who work on these are people who study the classics and strive to bring them to the new medium - they can rightfully claim authorship of this new art. There is however another technical aspect and a group of people who work on it, engineers, who would rather call themselves scientists who discover new inventions rather than creating art. This is a continuation of classical sciences, that were never concidered an art form. And then there is the nebulous notion of the game, something we like to play, that someone (or many) had surely came up with, but we still wouldn't usually call art. Is chess art? Is baseball art?

Are video games art? I would say no. It's a medium that allows for articstic expression, but technically and in its most distinguishing features it is not itself art. The speration of its artistic, scientific and nebulous aspects is actually very distinct from the point of view of the creators, and the confusing unification is only an illusion created by the current state of the industry that wants to present these works as distinct products to be sold on markets. While this illusion exists and dominates, both the art form and the science will not be able to fully realize itself, we will not know the names of great artists and scientists as we gloss over their names in credits and commit to memory only the companies and their products.

Also, I think it's a bit dubious to lump videogames in with traditional games - although this gets at one of the biggest problems with this entire debate, which is that nobody can agree on a definition for videogame (let alone game or play) OR art. There's also little incentive for those in the 'game ARE art' to get involved - we simply engage with videogames as art and nobody seems to mind? (frankly, I have always thought the burden of proof in this debate lies on the '*blank* is NOT art' crowd...) I think this is why the discussion is only had on weird cesspit gaming forums and not, for example, in serious game studies academia or games journalism.

 

[SkunkyBeaumont]

 

[Gorse]

weird cesspit gaming forums

Admins, can we make this the official RGT slogan? Please?

 

[tropicalavera]

Like actually dead, or "Death of the Author"?

Both. I'm such a staunch Barthe-ite that I will hunt down and slay every author alive today.

 

[Ikagura]

Is a cathedral not a piece of art, because most people only remember the name of the main architects and the people funding it ? Did books stop being art when Guttenberg came up with the printing press, making books reproducible in large quantities ?

I believe the question " is X art ?" to be useless. It is always a mask for another question, or an entrenched opinion.

Hell, it's almost like the question itself is art

Some consider that photography isn't art because you don't create the picture by yourself but with a device.

Some considered that comics cannot be art because they were too simple compared to books.


My only issue is when some games are trying too hard to justify themselves as art just to make the medium more legitimate than a simple hobby or toy.

 

[SkunkyBeaumont]

Some consider that photography isn't art because you don't create the picture by yourself but with a device.

Some considered that comics cannot be art because they were too simple compared to books.


My only issue is when some games are trying too hard to justify themselves as art just to make the medium more legitimate than a simple hobby or toy.

 

[Ikagura]

View attachment 9494

I was thinking of David Cage because at least MGS games are still good infiltration ones.

 

[SkunkyBeaumont]

I had Kojima already...
hold on....

Voudrais-tu souffler des pets avec moi ?

 

[raveci]

There are plenty of people who are alive that you could "ask". Most engineers will not call their work (and the work of their past and present peers that they derive from) art, most sculptors would, and this was such for far longer than video games existed. If you find beauty and inspiration in something that doesn't by itself make it art, such definition would render the word meaningless and I don't think these people and their opinions on what they author are meaningless.

 

[Ikagura]

There are plenty of people who are alive that you could "ask". Most engineers will not call their work (and the work of their past and present peers that they derive from) art, most sculptors would, and this was such for far longer than video games existed.

Some people also are too humble to call themselves artists.

If you find beauty and inspiration in something that doesn't by itself make it art, such definition would render the word meaningless and I don't think these people and their opinions on what they author are meaningless.

I don't fully get what you mean.

 

[Strategist]

There are plenty of people who are alive that you could "ask". Most engineers will not call their work (and the work of their past and present peers that they derive from) art, most sculptors would, and this was such for far longer than video games existed. If you find beauty and inspiration in something that doesn't by itself make it art, such definition would render the word meaningless and I don't think these people and their opinions on what they author are meaningless.

An engineer can definitively work on something with artistic intent, like the foundation to an architectural marvel or make sure that the architectural marvel has sound construction. So the work itself is not art, but it contributes to an artistic message. Same with a potter making a cup. A cup has a function as a vessel for drinks but it can also have an artistic intent.

 

[raveci]

Some people also are too humble to call themselves artists.

They would talk of the activity in general and of the peers they derive from, no need to take things so literally. "Yes this is art, but I'm not good enough to do it properly" is still a yes.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 5:00 PM

I don't fully get what you mean.

That was a response to the "death of author" as "author's opinion does not matter", instead of literally they are dead we can't ask them. I think the opinion of authors of the work matter the most.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 5:19 PM

An engineer can definitively work on something with artistic intent, like the foundation to an architectural marvel or make sure that the architectural marvel has sound construction. So the work itself is not art, but it contributes to an artistic message. Same with a potter making a cup. A cup has a function as a vessel for drinks but it can also have an artistic intent.

The engineer's work would still be entirely distinct from that art though. Making a foundation that can hold an artwork is not work with artistic intent, what kind of word twister is that? The artistic work of an engineer would be if they somehow decided to express their own personal creativity within the foundation, but I'm sure even they themselves would admit that they were not being an engineer in that particular instance, not to mention the industry standard rules and regulations that would restrict them severely. Like a mechanic can make some crazy contraption in their garage and express their creativity, but they would not consider that a noteworthy work in their discipline, and even if they come up with something unique in the process, their ultimate goal would be to formalize it as an invention, make it fit in the standards of their peers, make it reproducible, make it universally useful, trivialize it to the point of removing any trace of mystery or individuality, that is what they strive to achieve and what makes their work valuable in their field, which is not artistic.

 

[tropicalavera]

There are plenty of people who are alive that you could "ask". Most engineers will not call their work (and the work of their past and present peers that they derive from) art, most sculptors would, and this was such for far longer than video games existed. If you find beauty and inspiration in something that doesn't by itself make it art, such definition would render the word meaningless and I don't think these people and their opinions on what they author are meaningless.

The idea of a craft being synonymous with 'art', that good craftsmanship is 'artful' is not a wild concept. Maybe most engineers you know wouldn't consider their work to be art - but what about gardeners? Is there an art to city planning? To archery? To motorcycle maintanence? This seems to be far removed from any discussion of videogames being an artistic medium, though.

They would talk of the activity in general and of the peers they derive from, no need to take things so literally. "Yes this is art, but I'm not good enough to do it properly" is still a yes.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 5:00 PM

That was a response to the "death of author" as "author's opinion does not matter", instead of literally they are dead we can't ask them. I think the opinion of authors of the work matter the most.

But what if the author actually is dead? If you find a painting in a dumpster and have absolutely no idea who created it; why they created it; how they created it - are you not capable of discerning its art-ness? If you read Don Quixote and know nothing of Cervantes and his life does that affect the text's ability to be a work of art?

 

[Yousef]

This is one of these arguments where I’d like to know the intent before hearing the actual arguments. Logical arguments should stand by their own merit but it would be a waste of time to listen to someone who’s only actually interested in being a contrarian.
Games are art
That part on its own isn’t sophisticated. Only the explanation is.
I’m not sure what we actually gain from denying it’s art. If anything, it seems to actually slow down the debate rather than progressing it. Makes it loop around itself because we just go yuh uh nuh uh until both parties stop engaging with nothing gained.

 

[Strategist]

The engineer's work would still be entirely distinct from that art though. Making a foundation that can hold an artwork is not work with artistic intent, what kind of word twister is that? The artistic work of an engineer would be if they somehow decided to express their own personal creativity within the foundation, but I'm sure even they themselves would admit that they were not being an engineer in that particular instance, not to mention the industry standard rules and regulations that would restrict them severely. Like a mechanic can make some crazy contraption in their garage and express their creativity, but they would not consider that a noteworthy work in their discipline, and even if they come up with something unique in the process, their ultimate goal would be to formalize it as an invention, make it fit in the standards of their peers, make it reproducible, make it universally useful, trivialize it to the point of removing any trace of mystery or individuality, that is what they strive to achieve and what makes their work valuable in their field, which is not artistic.

Do you deny an object can both have a function and have artistic intent? As soon as a cupmaker takes a functional cup and puts a decoration on it, it stops being merely functional and crosses over to the realm of art.

 

[raveci]

Do you deny an object can both have a function and have artistic intent? As soon as a cupmaker takes a functional cup and puts a decoration on it, it stops being merely functional and crosses over to the realm of art.

I pointed out that it has both in my original reply. The decoration will be the artwork, not the cup. The cup would be the medium, that makes it possible. So I would not go about sayng that cutlery is art, even if someone might choose that as a medium. The actual art form would probably be either sculpture or drawing or what have you. It's not that easy to come up with a new art form.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 5:58 PM

craft being synonymous with 'art'

that's an archaic meaning, and while it can be used in that way to be fancy, that's not what most people mean these days when are trying to be clear and genuine

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 6:06 PM

But what if the author actually is dead?

You can extrapolate and make reasonable assumtions. The world is build on reasonable assumtions. Or ask other people who do similar work and are alive, they would be better equiped to do it. In the end that doesn't really matter cause there are plenty of living authors, or authors who left records of their opinions, and no-one is so original as to be entirely distincs and sperate form everybody else, if they were, you wouldn't even recognize what you found in that dumpster.

 

[tropicalavera]

I pointed out that it has both in my original reply. The decoration will be the artwork, not the cup. The cup would be the medium, that makes it possible. So I would not go about sayng that cutlery is art, even if someone might choose that as a medium. The actual art form would probably be either sculpture or drawing or what have you. It's not that easy to come up with a new art form.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 5:58 PM

that's an archaic meaning, and while it can be used in that way to be fancy, that's not what most people mean these days when are trying to be clear and genuine

This separation of medium and product feels unclear and ingenuine. I might be misinterpreting you (and for that I must apologise) but following this logic suggests that, for example, an opera could not be considered 'art' - only medium? Like decoration on a cup, art can be found in the composition of its music; the language of its lyrics; its stage direction; acting; vocal performances; costuming; make-up - but not in the opera as an entity of its own - not in the medium? the sum of its parts? the gesamtkunstwerk?