81 réponses à ce sujet

[The Heretic of Time]

mickey111 wrote...

spirosz wrote...

DinoSteve wrote...

Games are PRODUCT nothing more or nothing less.

So wrong. 

aThey just have a very long way to go before reaching the quality standards of books and film.

Says who?

What makes you think books and film are anything better than games?

If anything, I think the games we see being released lately are way better and way more creative than the popular movies we see being released lately. It's as if the film idustry isn't even trying anymore. Especially the special-effects department in the film industry is totally cutting corners lately. I've seen films being made 10 years ago with better special-effects than the films I saw last year. It's a f*cking shame.

Hollywood is become nothing but a shadow of it former self, and it's very clear to me that they're just rushing one film after another to earn quick cash. They're not even trying anymore. 

So don't you dare tell me that movies have higher quality standard than games, or that somehow movies are art, but games are merely products, because that's the biggest bullcrap I've ever heard.

[spirosz]

To me personally, art is a form of expression on a canvas, now the canvas can be anything, from an actual canvas, to an instrument, to technology... like how game developers create their game, it's just a different form of expression.

Anyway, these arguments never lead anywhere.

Might as well flip a toilet upside down and call it art.

Oh wait.

[Nordicus]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

An interesting fact to point out though, is that there is a specific, very small and obsecure sub-genre of video-games called "art games". I suppose art games can be considered art. Theyr'e called art games after all. They're specifically made with the sole purpose to be pieces of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game

Quite right, and there's also the widely used term "art film"

Do either of these mediums need the term art in a sub-genre to be art?

Modifié par Nordicus, 09 avril 2013 - 01:26 .

[spirosz]

Nordicus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

An interesting fact to point out though, is that there is a specific, very small and obsecure sub-genre of video-games called "art games". I suppose art games can be considered art. Theyr'e called art games after all. They're specifically made with the sole purpose to be pieces of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game

Quite right, and there's also the widely used term "art film"

Do either of these mediums need the term art in a sub-genre to be art?

Nope. 

[Cutlass Jack]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Yes they're art and artists work on each and every one. This is fact, not opinion. Whether or not its good art is where opinions come into play. You aren't required to like something for it to be art.

Yes, artists work on games, to create game art. But that doesn't make the game itself art. Not necessarily.

There is a distinction between 'game art' and 'art games'.

Game Art = the graphics, animation and music in games.

Art Games = a small collection of (indie) games specifically made with the sole purpose to be pieces of art.

These are distinctions you put in your own head and not at all relevant to the actual definition of art.

Games are creative works. All of them.

[M Hedonist]

They aren't an acknowledged form of art and it will take a long time until that will change. I blame the video game journalism industry for that.

[dreamgazer]

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Hollywood is become nothing but a shadow of it former self, and it's very clear to me that they're just rushing one film after another to earn quick cash. They're not even trying anymore. 

So don't you dare tell me that movies have higher quality standard than games, or that somehow movies are art, but games are merely products, because that's the biggest bullcrap I've ever heard.

While I support the general crux of your position, I wouldn't use the high-gross "products" coming out of Hollywood as some black-and-white gauge of the industry's quality.  Films, like games, have their examples of both spectacle products and artistic creations that generate ticket sales, and examples of both have existed since the birth of cinema. Nowadays, those products' marketing campaigns just speak a hell of a lot louder.

Also, the generalization that Hollywood isn't "even trying anymore" really isn't accurate, either.  The fact that junk-food cinema greatly outweighs the productions of substance, unfortunately, is accurate, but the same can be said for the music and game industries, too. Saturation is a hell of a thing; you just have to dig through the crowd-pleasing crap to find the gems, and accept the fact that there are fast-food products out there for the masses. 

[dreamgazer]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Are video games art? Sure, why not? People put artistic effort into them, so there you go.

This is the simplest, most accurate summation of the argument.

[dreamgazer]

spirosz wrote...

Nordicus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

An interesting fact to point out though, is that there is a specific, very small and obsecure sub-genre of video-games called "art games". I suppose art games can be considered art. Theyr'e called art games after all. They're specifically made with the sole purpose to be pieces of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game

Quite right, and there's also the widely used term "art film"

Do either of these mediums need the term art in a sub-genre to be art?

Nope. 

(thumbs up)

[Kaiser Arian XVII]

CrustyBot wrote...

The only people who really care if games are art are the ones who are insecure about their hobby. The ones who flock to any old game that attempts to be "artistic" in order to make themselves look mature and intelligent.

see: childish butthurt over Roger Ebert's (RIP) article.

Alternatively see: "I am not wasting my life writing video game reviews for doritos catering to an audience that cares only about the numerical score at the end. No! Vidya gaems are art!"

When I look at a game, I don't ask "is this game art?", I ask "is this game fun?"

I Agree. I was cautious with my previous post to avoid stormsh*t.

Video games are filled with minor (not essential) artistic pieces, but as a whole it's not art.

Some said that it's vague and we can't define art. So let's kill it!
Just back to 19th century when there was no movies as Art.
We have 6 (or 7!) kinds of art.
End of Line. 

[dreamgazer]

CrustyBot wrote...

The only people who really care if games are art are the ones who are insecure about their hobby. The ones who flock to any old game that attempts to be "artistic" in order to make themselves look mature and intelligent.

What's wrong with just addressing and discussing the idea of it being an artistic medium?  I'm not insecure in the slightest with having games as my hobby, but I do like to discuss how it's used beyond the confines of disposable entertainment---and how the creators are taking a different medium and trying to convey something on another level.

[Wulfram]

I don't think games are art, games are tests of skill. They may use art, but they're not works of art. But I don't know if "video games" are necessarily primarily games.

Bioware's games i think are somewhere between the story being a vehicle for the game, and the game being a vehicle for the story

Modifié par Wulfram, 09 avril 2013 - 03:16 .

[The Heretic of Time]

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

Cutlass Jack wrote...

Yes they're art and artists work on each and every one. This is fact, not opinion. Whether or not its good art is where opinions come into play. You aren't required to like something for it to be art.

Yes, artists work on games, to create game art. But that doesn't make the game itself art. Not necessarily.

There is a distinction between 'game art' and 'art games'.

Game Art = the graphics, animation and music in games.

Art Games = a small collection of (indie) games specifically made with the sole purpose to be pieces of art.

These are distinctions you put in your own head and not at all relevant to the actual definition of art.

Games are creative works. All of them.

Haha, no, these are disctinictions widely accepted by the game industry and most game developers.

Sure, not EVERYONE agrees, but I'm pretty sure this is a disctinction that is accepted by most game developers. You can find plenty of articles on this subject, and there is even a Wikipedia page on both "game art" and "art games" and it clearly explains the distinction.

And yes, games are creatives works, in a sense that it contains lots of creativity and art, e.g. game art. But that doesn't necessarily mean the game itself is a piece of art in itself.

Yes, all games CONTAIN art (game art), but whether all games ARE pieces of art (art games) is highly debatable.

[The Heretic of Time]

spirosz wrote...

Nordicus wrote...

Heretic_Hanar wrote...

An interesting fact to point out though, is that there is a specific, very small and obsecure sub-genre of video-games called "art games". I suppose art games can be considered art. Theyr'e called art games after all. They're specifically made with the sole purpose to be pieces of art.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_game

Quite right, and there's also the widely used term "art film"

Do either of these mediums need the term art in a sub-genre to be art?

Nope. 

Yes, I think so.

Whether big multi-million blockbuster Hollywood productions are pieces of art is highly debatable and I think we can only judge that on a film by film basis, we can't just simply say that ALL Hollywood blockbuster films are art, or ALL Hollywood blockbusters films AREN'T art.

But with movies that are labeled as "art films" the intention is clear. Those movies are made with the sole purpose ot be art. Whether those movies are art is undebatable, they are, period.


And that's the point I tried to make when I brought "art games" up. Whether all games ARE art is debatable, but whether games CAN BE art is undebatable. The "art games" sub-genre prove without a doubt that games indeed CAN be art.

[bmwcrazy]

Anything can be art.

If you think it's art, it's art.

[A Crusty Knight Of Colour]

dreamgazer wrote...

CrustyBot wrote...

The only people who really care if games are art are the ones who are insecure about their hobby. The ones who flock to any old game that attempts to be "artistic" in order to make themselves look mature and intelligent.

What's wrong with just addressing and discussing the idea of it being an artistic medium?  I'm not insecure in the slightest with having games as my hobby, but I do like to discuss how it's used beyond the confines of disposable entertainment---and how the creators are taking a different medium and trying to convey something on another level.

Within the context of AAA games, the business practices in that environment and the sales targets of each game made, it is every bit a mass marketed, mass consumed, piece of disposable entertainment. Each and every one. Without exception. Big deal. That doesn't mean that there is no value in them.

If a game can engage the player on a thematic level in a way without being a pale imitation of film, literature or other mediums, that just means that video game writers and designers are delivering quality storytelling or are conveying greater meaning using techniques and concepts that are inherent to video gaming.

i.e good writing/design that makes use of the strength of the medium: interaction.

Why is there a need to classify it as "Art" and elevate it to some imaginary pedestal?

One of the most recognised works of "Art" of the modern era is a Can of Soup.

Do we really look forward to the day that video games will finally have the recognition it deserves and can be called the artistic equal to the Campbell's Soup on sale at the supermarket?

"Art" is so ill-defined and subjective to the point where the entire discussion becomes moot. The "is it Art" comes across as pretentious nonsense to me because the rationale for it seems to be "Art" = Good/Legitimate/Adult/Mature, if games = "Art" in mainstream thinking, then games = Good/Legitimate/Adult/Mature. All the while missing the point that "Art" has no intrinsic positive or negative value. It just is.

But like you say, this might not be aimed at you in particular. So apologies if they are not. My comments are aimed at the people who write "Bioshock: Infinite is vidya gaemings Citizen Kane" or take that kind of comparison seriously and consider it important. It reeks of insecurity.

Modifié par CrustyBot, 09 avril 2013 - 04:23 .

[Some Geth]

Games can tell stories and move a person just as easily as any movie or book. They can look as impressive and beautiful as any painting or sketch.

Games are art.

Sure, every person playing a game will come away with a slightly different experience, and not every game has the same goal or wants to do the same thing, but... isn't that how it is with most art?

Not all games are art. The same way not all sculptures or movies are. Sometimes they're just commercial product with little love, or complete crap. But usually, there's an artist there trying their best under constraints to do something they're passionate about, regardless of the final product or how many people see it.

You can make the argument that Mega Man is not equal to Madden NFL is not equal to Tetris is not equal to Journey is not equal to Final Fantasy 12 is not equal to Call of Duty. And thats true. But Citizen Kane isn't Casablanca isn't Wayne's World isn't Princess Mononoke isn't Legend of the Overfiend which isn't the Matrix. Art varies from product to product.

The only reason its any debate at all is because the medium is still so relatively new. But they're absolutely art.

[bmwcrazy]

EntropicAngel wrote...

See, this is the mindset that I hate. It implies a world with no boundaries, where anything means what you want it to mean. It's not only narcissistic, but counter-productive.

Not talking about you, but the mindset in general. I suspect you're trolling a bit (as you tend to do).

How is it trolling, narcissistic or counter-productive? Ironically, I find your post to be the most counter-productive out of all.

If you can interpret something as art, it is art. 

[Ridwan]

I'm a bit on the fence on this. I kinda view games as interactive software toys meant for entertainment. To say games are art, then why aren't people claiming that bejeweled or spider solitaire is art?

[TheClonesLegacy]

1.Depends
2.No