hey everyone, I know that games being argued as an art form is a tired old forum topic that I'm sure has been discussed here a million times, but I'd like to give it another go anyway.... I've recently been assigned a project in one of my classes, that makes us research an interactive art form an make a web site about it. However, I (and many others) became dissapointed when my professor ruled out games as an art form. so naturally being an aspiring dsigner, and an avid at these forums and others, took up the task of challenging him on it... it his in his opinion (and it seems many others as well) that games are not art because they are toys. hear me out here.....he said that man is different from the animal kingdom because we have established tools. This is true to a large extent (sure it can be argued...but its basically excepted) he then said that humans create things more than tools. Basically he divided our technology, our creations into three categories...tools, toys, art. if it is not a tool, if it is not a toy....THEN and only then it becomes an art. so games are toys. the "academics" argued that because a game is created for competitive purposes (it is also created as mainstream commercialism, but by this definition, movies, books and music are not art as well. So let us examine the medium in itself for now) it is not art, because interactive art is created for the reason of being an expression of the artist alone. So if it has another purpose it is a game therefore not an art...I believe that the problem lies more in the definition of game rather than art. The best, or most contextual definition of a game from the dictionary is thus :"An active interest or pursuit, especially one involving competitive engagement or adherence to rules" great!....so where is the book that says that cant be art? In my belief, (stay with me its almost done :P) a game is a way of letting you experience something, narrative or otherwise, but letting you interact and enjoy it in a new way. But that doesnt stop it from being a social commentary, letting you feel a specific emotion, be intelligent and provocative, or let you in on a moral or important theme. Many of the things art is acredited for. Again Im not saying all games are art, but that some could be. as my professor pointed out, art and tools are different: if you had a beautiful dish, that was made 2000 years ago for some king, and was jewel encrusted and whatnot, if that dish was made for eating its not art, its a asthetically pleasing tool. However take that, frame it, and put it into context and it becomes art. Like saying a painting can be art but painting my house is not art..or a film can be art, but my homevideo of my birthday is not art. These things we accept, so why is it that a "game" has to be a game and cant be art at the same time? I could make a table for "art" not practical purposes, everyone could love it, but a 100 years later, when im dead, some guy could be like hey that would look great in my kitchen, and all of a sudden it becomes a tool. the question is does something lose its art value with time? does it gain it? Does the public need to recognise it first...THEN it becomes an art? If so then perhaps we are still to early to get games realized as art. movies werent considered art till the 40's, especially citizen kane pushing the forefront...maybe games just needs there Citizen Kane? maybe im a fool...competition makes games a toy, not an art, but maybe not.... anyway im rambling, guys tell me what you think, can games be considered art or not?

Pfft. Art and tools are not mutually exclusive. If they were, nobody would made a big deal about picking out china patterns or house paint colors, or care what their clothes looked like. Art is that which is created to appeal to the aesthetic senses of some audience, whether that audience is the artist or a mass market. Games absolutely are art in that they are designed to be entertaining, just like a novel is.

Sounds like he's quibbling over symantics, art like many things is in the eye of the beholder. I mean really, some guy can give himself a paint enema and crap on a canvas and call it "art" (and people have), portraying a compelling story through text or rendered environment with animated sprites and textures could hardly be considered less of an art form.

Quote:

Original post by sunandshadow Pfft. Art and tools are not mutually exclusive.

Agreed! Just look at Apple products!

this is what bothers me: the "i define the world" attitude. who is your professor (or any of us) to say that this is art and this isnt, and then try to make people live by that? my advice: accept that games are not art in the context of his class, but if you think that they are, great. dont be so worried about how he thinks or trying to change his viewpoint; you probably wont win.

Quote:

the "academics" argued that because a game is created for competitive purposes (it is also created as mainstream commercialism, but by this definition, movies, books and music are not art as well. So let us examine the medium in itself for now) it is not art, because interactive art is created for the reason of being an expression of the artist alone. So if it has another purpose it is a game therefore not an art...I believe that the problem lies more in the definition of game rather than art. If it is not a tool, if it is not a toy....THEN and only then it becomes an art. so games are toys.

following the above logic:
A scavenger hunt could turn anything into a toy..... What about the people still using the item, does they suddenly consider the item to be a toy?
A video of game play is art.... unless you are using it to sell the game, in which case it is a tool.
Using the Mona Lisa to cover a hole in the wall makes it a tool (keeps out the cold).... But what if you don't know about the hole? That just means that it is much better at being a tool than artwork.
Any broken tool becomes art since it is no longer useful..... Anyone here consider the dump a piece of art?

Quote:

Original post by Kars following the above logic: A scavenger hunt could turn anything into a toy..... What about the people still using the item, does they suddenly consider the item to be a toy?

Touche. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and one man's trash is another man's treasure.

And there's another saying that goes "Ideas don't die, only the people that defend them" or something along those lines.
So how does it apply? well, these people went trough Pong. Breakout. Pacman. While they can be looked as art by us for their historical value, they looked really crummy and weren't inspiring in the least, only competitive. I promise you, one or two generations more, and games will gain acceptance as an art.

And in the meanwhile, if someone points at Quake III and asks "you call that art?" you can point them at the gonad gigantographies in my college (ugh) and ask them the same thing. Someone definitely said yes.

And i'm not bashing Quake III, its tremendously fun. Just like gonads.

So, here's your list of inspiring games. You say we don't have them yet? BAH! they just didn't sell enough for you to know them. Add your art-worthy games below =) [Disclaimer: you might know all of them. They don't.]

-The Neverhood (clay! Jazz! wicked!)
-Grim Fandango (wicked setting, art deco)
-Beyond Good and Evil (stylish looks, pretty sunsets, good story with a message)
-Prince of Persia: Sands of time (Moody, great architecture)
-Rez (abstract gaming piece? i'd frame it)

Play Seiklus.

many games like final fantasy(infact most japanes rpg's) have a story line as good as most of the books I read, beatifull art and animation with theather like character devlopment so if they arnt art what is.

your professor has probably never played a video game in his life. And if he has, he hasn't played a good one. I'd like him to come to my school and try to make that case, he wouldn't last 5 minutes.