Hello to all, Lovely spring here in Finland... I have stumbled upon this absurd idea too many times now to ignore it: They keep telling me that a game cannot be a piece of art or that a computer is not capable to contain art... These people who say like that must have a very different definition for "art" than I have... Maybe they define art as a fixed list of creations. Or maybe they are just plain stupid? Do they not see that a computer is just a tool, and it can be used to create a wide variety of things, among them the Art... ...In their small mind they must think that a book by a talented writer is just meaningless words when it is written with a computer - and it miraculously changes to Art when it is printed on "real" paper. Or maybe the books are not art anymore? Read and find yourself: http://stupidity.com/erasmus/eracont.htm -Osmo Suvisaari --- oh i dream of that lovely sunny morning when we are replaced by machine intelligence and ---

I just read an article about the designer of squaresoft''s Final Fantasy games. He got a prize about art. So there are people who think computer games are art.

Art has nothing to do with the mediam, whether it's physical or digital. Art it about originality and conveying ideas, opinions, thoughts, emotions, etc. The movie Toy Story was a work of art, in my opinion, not because it was digitally animated, but because of the level of detail. I have seen a few games that I would almost classify as art, Metal Gear Solid and Gran Turismo are some of them. But there are some games that I would not, like Final Fantasy 7 and Quake. Quake isn't necessarily a bad game, it's just not quite 'art'. As for FF7, I personally thought that ff8 had a better written story. That is personal opinion, though. What is considered art is very much about personal opinion. Van Gogh was never considered good until after he died.
Personally, I feel that if you use something like Paintshop or GIMP to easily draw a picture in 10 minutes that would take you years of practice and hours to draw by hand, that is not art. Short cuts can't be taken with art. But say you use a computer to make a new form of art, interactive art, something impossible to do without a computer. Then, it is just a matter of putting your thoughts, emotions, feelings, and soul into to it.
You really don't have to listen to the critics. Abstract artists like Salvador Dali, Vincent Van Gogh, or Andy Warhol would have never done what they did if they had listened to the classical critics. When creating a new artform, it is necessary to create a new culture at the same time. The classical ideas of art will not apply to any new form of art.
Pick up a copy of The story of painting by Sister Wendy Becket (yes, she's a nun). It is considered the formost authority on art for newbies. It's easy to read and understand. You should be able to find it at any book store.

"YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?" Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
"Who wants to live forever?" Queen
"Never trust a bald barber" me
B^)


Edited by - webspynner_99 on 4/14/00 8:50:52 AM

Though I''ve never played System Shock 2, you obviously got my point exactly. It doesn''t really matter what other people think, if the artist and the viewer thinks it''s art, then it''s art.

"YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?" Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
"Who wants to live forever?" Queen
"Never trust a bald barber" me
B^)

I don''t think all things meant to be entertaining can be considered art. My grandmothers soap operas are meant to entertain, but they are far from being artistic. Pornography entertains some, but it is far from art. Actually, the defenition of pornography used to be ''any form of media that holds no artistic or academic value'' (i.e. beer comercials, Punky Skunk). Though art is primarily entertaining, it also has other purposes: too inform, to evoke a emotional responce, to create a social change, or to celebrate something (like an historical figure, event, or place). Different forms of art have different purposes, murals tell a story and record history, statues portray aspects of people (emotion, strength, weakness), and many other things.
When it comes to games, it''s a little different. Obviously, all of them are meant to entertain. Some try to evoke an emotional responce (many of these have already been mentioned, we''ve done enough with the emotion factor in games). Many try to tell a story. It is the quality of this story that defines the quality of the art OF THIS CATEGORY, story telling games. Some games try to make you think of social issues (Metal Gear Solid with nuclear weapons comes to mind).
There are other criteria that define art that cannot be put into words. Pacman is almost art, maybe because it''s a classic, or perhaps it has some hidden meaning that we recognize subconciously. It''s that intangible that is important to art.
The quality of some games today tend to lead to debatabilty to their artistic value.
Read an art appreciation book, then you will understand.

"YOU APES WANNA LIVE FOREVER?" Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein
"Who wants to live forever?" Queen
"Never trust a bald barber" me
B^)