Do you consider video games as art?

[Lancer]

What about the famous sculpture "fountain." This was of course nothing more than a toilet turned upside down and entered into an art exhibit. Many artists recognize it as a ground breaking piece, while many people find it to be a primary example of "dumb" art. If it was art, it definitely wasn't high quality, in that all of its ingredients were of low quality.  Also, can we not find art in those things that are of low quality, which then makes them art?

 

For example, Starship Troopers, most would agree, is a low quality movie.  However, a very strong argument can be made for its value as art, despite its quality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There is no point talking about "bad art."

Where's the fun in that? " .

Edited February 8, 2006 by Lancer

[Lancer]

Can art be created accidentally then? If I make a painting better than the Mona Lisa, but I create it by accidentally dropping a case full of paint on a canvas, is it still art. It's easy to say that I am not an artist because I couldn't do it again, but is the painting that resulted not still art?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There have been paintings done by unknown artists, that are still considered art and are even in today's museums. Art has nothing to do with "intent" of the creator, but rather, has a lot to do with the observer. If the observer sees extra meaning above and beyond what is obviously portrayed within the images depicted by the artist, then to the observor it is art.

[metadigital]

Sharship Troopers is a brilliant film.

[Lancer]

Sharship Troopers is a brilliant film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Albeit a little disgusting.. But I must admit I liked it.

[Gabrielle]

Sharship Troopers is a brilliant film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really.

[SteveThaiBinh]

Sharship Troopers is a brilliant film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is, and I think it represents one path for video games to become more 'respectable' or 'respected' as an art form - better writing and the tackling of more complex themes.

 

Yet the other path, greater interactivity, is potentially more exciting. Who knows what games will play like in ten years time?

[Gromnir]

two observations:

 

1) the "what is art?" crowd angers Gromnir to no end.

 

2) the fact that games development is in its infancy is hardly a valid excuse for lack of artistic merit.

 

Gromnir don't care what the hell you think is art, but if you cannot recognize art, and if you is not sure that such 'n such piece, movie, book is art, then we does not envy the paucity of your existence.

 

we ain't saying that there is some objective standard of art, but if you not got some standard of your own... if you lacks the capacity to be moved by tragedy or beauty as rendered on canvas or on celluloid, then you might as well be dead. if you lacks the convictions to declare what is and ain't art to you, then you is a coward... and might as well be dead.

 

as to the second point...

 

film, in its infancy, were probably MORE likely to approach beings art than what we sees today. in its infancy film were unbounded by expectations and preconceptions. audiences were willing to pay to see 45 seconds of film showing a a middle-aged okie woman washing her child. try that today and see what happens... no matter how sublime is the moment you captures on film.

 

as josh were pointing out in another thread, there is an accepted crpg narrative style... and in spite of the suggested youth of the medium, there has developed many such norms that has become so widely accepted as to be like unto rules.

 

 

HA! Good Fun!

[metadigital]

Sharship Troopers is a brilliant film.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not really.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Is too.

 

 

 

 

Infinity.

[Lancer]

Is three

[Lancer]

Strong words...ouch

 

As always, Gromnir has such a way with words that in and of itself is akin to art.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Lancer

[DGwar]

Video Games are an art form. I mean, come on. Freddy vs. Jason is considered art by the people.

[Joseph Bulock]

Just a quick point for Gromnir:

 

Early films were in no way free of preconceptions. People simply didn't know how to handle a moving picture, so the defaulted to established photographic standards. Thats why most early films are a static camera of a single scene. People just said, we now have "moving pictures," so lets place the camera like you would to take a picture, and make the subject do stuff.

 

No artistic expression has ever been free of preconception. Art is a product of culture, which is little more than a base of accepted preconceptions.

[Gromnir]

Just a quick point for Gromnir:

 

Early films were in no way free of preconceptions.  People simply didn't know how to handle a moving picture, so the defaulted to established photographic standards.  Thats why most early films are a static camera of a single scene.  People just said, we now have "moving pictures," so lets place the camera like you would to take a picture, and make the subject do stuff. 

 

No artistic expression has ever been free of preconception.  Art is a product of culture, which is little more than a base of accepted preconceptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

never claimed that early film were entirely free of the burden of the past... but folks were more willing to experiment. sure, their avenues and means were limited, but there were folks trying new stuff, and audiences were experimenting too.

 

films today is 1.5 to 2.5 hours long and tell stories using some relatively established narative styles. weren't so cut & dry in film's infancy.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[metadigital]

No artistic expression has ever been free of preconception.  Art is a product of culture, which is little more than a base of accepted preconceptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Early television was treated like "radio with pictures" by producers. Your point is specious.

 

Gromnir makes a valid point: Metropolis or The Great Dictator didn't even use sound, yet they are just as powerful as any modern day claimant for the crown of best film and example of art.

 

Chaplin could easily have blamed the studio environment for preventing him from creating his art, but he didn't.

[Joseph Bulock]

No artistic expression has ever been free of preconception.  Art is a product of culture, which is little more than a base of accepted preconceptions.

Early television was treated like "radio with pictures" by producers. Your point is specious.

 

Gromnir makes a valid point: Metropolis or The Great Dictator didn't even use sound, yet they are just as powerful as any modern day claimant for the crown of best film and example of art.

 

Chaplin could easily have blamed the studio environment for preventing him from creating his art, but he didn't.

 

 

Your point actually proves mine that early films were never made without preconceptions, similarly to early TV. It is impossible for human creation to occur without reflecting preconceptions that are a product of existence.

 

I also agree that Metropolis is an amazing film. That was in my original point. We have our exceptions currently, our Nosferatu's and Metropolis, but for the majority of out titles, we get "Electrocution of an Elephant" and "Women Undressing" over and over again. Maybe in fifty years we'll get our Wild Bunch and our Nights of Cabiria.

[metadigital]

Your point actually proves mine that early films were never made without preconceptions, similarly to early TV.  It is impossible for human creation to occur without reflecting preconceptions that are a product of existence. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Um, I'm not sure what preconceptions have to do with art ... maybe I'm missing something?

I also agree that Metropolis is an amazing film.  That was in my original point.  We have our exceptions currently, our Nosferatu's and Metropolis, but for the majority of out titles, we get "Electrocution of an Elephant" and "Women Undressing" over and over again.  Maybe in fifty years we'll get our Wild Bunch and our Nights of Cabiria.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are better placed than most to assist in bringing the dream to reality ... :D

[Blank]

i didn't read through the thread. i'm feeling noobish tonight.

 

anyway, all i have to say about this is that video games can be artistic, just like writing or the cinema can. not all writing is artistic, such as instruction manuals. but some writing is, like poetry. i believe the same goes for video-games. if somebody already said this, i apologise, but you aren't the first to think of it either...

[metadigital]

My instruction manuals are art.

[Yst]

Now NES manuals: those were art.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Yst

[Darque]

[@\NightandtheShape/@]

Why just good programming?

 

Is bad design no longer art?  Is bad writing no longer art?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

It's something tha only a coder would most likely understand. There can be certain parts of code in a game for example that are so clever, and work so beautifully that it can be appriciated as being art, because it's been constructed with such skill, and such imagination.

 

Yet the end user usually doesn't see this, and better still, the end user can't even tell that he's probably being tricked! As for that efficiant memory management algorithm, that works like magic, well nobody even notices.

[Azarkon]

If we adopt the preconceptions of early cinema as a continuation of existing mediums, might we not say the same for games?

 

"Epic story," "cinematic quality," "full motion video," "the fear in the orc's eyes," - Them are fighting words, at least to those over at the Codex. Seems to me modern gaming is as lost towards its aesthetic peculiarity as film was back in the days of moving-pictures and radio-with-images. Lacking a clear understanding of principle building blocks, the industry gravitates towards the poles it *does* understand: cinema and literature. No wonder reviews of stellar gameplay are reduced to well-worded opinions, while critics zero in on the literary qualities of PS:T as an unambiguous sign of the genre's approach to "high art." No offense to PS:T fans (for I also love the game), but I was much moreso "moved" in Starcraft and Everquest than I ever was in PS:T, though of course for different reasons.

 

The maturity of a genre may perhaps be measured by the independence of its aesthetic sensibility. But also, I think, the degree to which we can articulate why great games are "great" in a systematic manner. Criticism, it has often been said, is an afterthought: the branding of a work as "art" comes first - from gut feelings. To recognize games as "art," then, is as simple as recalling the instances whence you were struck with awe. To speak of it in concrete, convincing terms - a practice most game reviewers have yet to learn - is much more difficult, and mayhaps the sign of an art form's coming of age.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Azarkon

[CoM_Solaufein]

No artistic expression has ever been free of preconception.  Art is a product of culture, which is little more than a base of accepted preconceptions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Early television was treated like "radio with pictures" by producers. Your point is specious.

 

Gromnir makes a valid point: Metropolis or The Great Dictator didn't even use sound, yet they are just as powerful as any modern day claimant for the crown of best film and example of art.

 

Chaplin could easily have blamed the studio environment for preventing him from creating his art, but he didn't.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Metropolis is one of the great movies of the era and so is Nosferatu. Brilliant forms of art.

[CoM_Solaufein]

Is design an art? Yes.

Is art an art? Duh.

Is writing an art? Yes.

Is programing an art? Good programing is, yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes indeed those are correct, therefor a game is artwork.

[metadigital]

Why just good programming?

 

Is bad design no longer art?  Is bad writing no longer art?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's something tha only a coder would most likely understand. There can be certain parts of code in a game for example that are so clever, and work so beautifully that it can be appriciated as being art, because it's been constructed with such skill, and such imagination.

 

Yet the end user usually doesn't see this, and better still, the end user can't even tell that he's probably being tricked! As for that efficiant memory management algorithm, that works like magic, well nobody even notices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Using the same criteria (because I concur), there is art in science, too. Newton's equations have a beauty about them, for example, and I believe his Principia is yet another beautiful layer of abstraction on top of the science (I haven't read it in Latin, yet), thus:

For every action, there is an equal yet opposite reaction.

 

Poetry.

 

Einstein said (on his deathbed) "I am not smart. I just ask questions. ... I keep asking questions ... and when the answer is simple ... then that is God talking." And surely God is beauty is art.