Site Theme...
Main FAQ [ baw] [ co / cog / jam / mtv / tek ] [ ck / coc / draw / writ ] [ pco / coq ] [ a / op / pkmn ] [ n ]
Traditional & Video Gaming

 Posting a reply to post #94157

File: 128503554489.jpg-(22.16KB, 341x400, beatnik+.jpg)
94157 No.94157
a sensible games as art article

Expand all images
Surprisingly not a trollpost.

I think games could more easily be considered art if developers and designers didn't almost constantly treat them as entertainment only. You have a few visionaries out there, but almost every game, even the good ones, are entertainment first, expression a distant second. It would really help if studios didn't fold to controversy so easily. I can't remember the name, but there was a game in development that told the true story of American soldiers in Iraq. Critics arose and, rather than explain how the game wasn't a trivialization of the lives of American heroes, they caved and canceled development. It's that kind of fear of controversy that just assures the other side of how right they are.

Gaming is what you think of it. Whether it's art or not is merely a persons view on the subject. Personally I don't view gaming as an art form, but a form of entertainment with possible artistic values.

> I don't view gaming as an art form
May I ask why not?


That sounds exactly like every artistic medium in existence, to be honest.


> entertainment first

See thing is: Entertainment is art.

You think I'm wrong? Tell me. Do you think people in Renaissance Europe had TV or movies to go to? Obviously not. They had plays sure, but they weren't always played with frequency and it's doubtful all peasants watched or were into them. Not to mention they were as much a social gathering than not. So how did they have recreation back in those times? Well another thing they had was public galleries. Yes it may seem "odd" that people would consider going to art galleries to look at pretty pictures and statues as "entertainment" but people still like to go to these galleries and look at them. So how can you really call it anything BUT "entertainment"?

So then, how did "entertainment" become "art"? Well obviously it's simply what people called it. It's not like it's hard to take something popular with people, something that can actually be sold for a good amount of profit and put it up for public or private use and then just spin it as something else to try and put an air of seriousness around it. It's like calling comic books "graphic novels". It doesn't change what it is, simply how people may perceive it.

File: 128504292256.jpg-(17.90KB, 354x308, derp.jpg)
>New Scientist


are you seriously hating on new scientist?

It was more or less outright taught to Art majors (at least where I went to school) in Philosophy of Art that the only factor that matters in deciding what's "Art" is what art critics define as art.

Which is why I find "drawfag" a more noble appellation than "artist." Doesn't have the baggage that "artist" does.

So as to video games being art, that depends entirely on art critics. And fuck art critics. Everything worthwhile about art can be found in one video game or another and everything noble about artists can be found among video game makers. Whether or not people want to call it art is irrelevant.

While I'm glad some of the people they interviewed actually thought about their answers this has to be one of the most loaded questions of the last decade. Seriously guys, what the hell would games gain or lose if by being considered art? What is so important about this topic that games need to be pursued and pushed towards being called art by all of society?

A combination of an annoyance at "regular" people just seeing them as toys and/or murder simulators and not wanting experiences like, say, Silent Hill or Rez to be just written off as just base entertainment.

File: 128506068760.jpg-(62.32KB, 306x266, Michel_Ancel.jpg)

>On March 13, 2006, [Michel Ancel], along with Shigeru Miyamoto and Frédérick Raynal, was knighted by the French Minister of Culture and Communication, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, a knight of arts and literature. It was the first time that video game developers were honored with this distinction.

In my country, it's official.

O wow.

I still think games like Heavy Rain or Indigo Prophecy are bad examples of the medium as art though. David Cage is an insult to anyone generally involved in this topic.

File: 128506587350.jpg-(140.02KB, 848x1007, a-mind-forever-voyaging(boxart)(front).jpg)
Infocom say yes.


File: 128507078482.jpg-(308.03KB, 1200x812, 1757739.jpg)
I'd say, since art is a subjective thing, then video games = art.

This is art to me.

But, I don't see it as a terribly honorific title.

>Opening picture is from those pretentious fucks at Tale of Tales

Sorry, I can't read this article, too busy boiling with neckbeardy rage. I'll be back when I calm down.

Doesn't the answer to this question always boil down to your personal definition of art?

That's all it should come down to, but........
It was called Six Days in Fallujah. Also, to be fair, games take a lot of money to make nowadays, and there's a considerable amount of pressure from publishers and the competition to rake in enough sales to stay in the game.

You know, I thought about this for a while and I can't think of a reason it's not. My insane hatred for the artfags of gaming just kinda blinded me for a while.

Never let the fans represent what they like.
It'll ruin everything for you.

Main FAQ [ baw] [ co / cog / jam / mtv / tek ] [ ck / coc / draw / writ ] [ pco / coq ] [ a / op / pkmn ] [ n ]
0.0080549716949463 (0.01 seconds )