Quote:

Original post by Kaze 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.

You need to read better books :)

Actually I have probably played a couple of Japanese console RPGs that had storylines better than most of the books I usually read, so maybe I should read better books too.

Any product that creates an emotional response in its viewer / user is art. Thats why art is in the eye of the beholder. Video game media creates some of the strongest emotional responses of any media, even the earliest games like pac-man.

Quote:

Original post by lucky_monkey Play Seiklus.

Ok... that was tremendous fun.
At first i was put off by the fact that it was made with one of those "kits"

but still, loads of fun. Exploration. Collect stuff. No death. Lots of environments.
The music gets irritating though.

Is it yours?

Quote:

Original post by Madster Is it yours?

Nope.

hey, some great replies!

yeah I definetly agree with everyone here, I think it really is pretty stupid that people still have these negative biases. Just because something doesnt fit their arcetype doesnt mean it cant be right....just as my prof said that hip hop and tatooing weren't art either. The problem is that people seem to be stuck up on their opinions and wont seem to change them. What happened to open mindedness!!!!
hey I hate hip hop too, but that doesnt mean it cant be an art.

which brings me to a new point. I began talking to my father about this, and he basically shared the same opinion as my proffessor. GAMES ARE TOYS!!!!, toys cannot be art!....wth!..I think the days where a game can be "clearly" defined as a toy are over. Its quite an ambiguous statement especially with games pushing to become more "cinematic" (for better or worse) and with almost every game now a days having a story...even if it is a bad one. See, the way I look at it is that games are a new way for us to experience a story. It breaks up the linearity of a film, has the length and depth of a novel, but because of its interactivity, it allows so much more immersion. And that immersion lets you feel things that you couldnt feel before. And isnt art all about feeling?

It seems a lot of people still hold their negative biases about games, which really is a shame. When I tell people I want to pursue a career in the industry I get strange looks, at least! a lot of times people tell me im stupid, and that its a ridiculous career. Apparently its time to "grow up" and stop playing with "toys". It can get discouraging, but Ive set my mind on it, and I dont care what others think. Although gaming is a big business and has become more socially acceptable than before, apparently it still isnt fully socially acceptable yet. Hopefully one day, with our generation as parents things will change. But who knows maybe when I'm a parent I'll be just as ignorant.

Then again, if games are one day appreciated as art, will all games be appreciated as art. Even the ones out now. That should give my prof something to think about. :P

Don't prove anyone wrong.
Just do it. If they don't get it, its their loss. You'll be doing what you like.

And open mindedness stops around age 50. Its a sad unavoidable biological fact.

Quote:

Original post by Madster And open mindedness stops around age 50. Its a sad unavoidable biological fact.

I'm gonna try to prove you wrong (you'll have to wait about 30 years though [grin])...

Quote:

Original post by Landi 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.

That is a horrible definition of art, and one that should be fairly easy to discredit with examples of celebrated art which do not fit his narrow definition.

That said, he may not consider those counter examples as 'art' even though many other people do. It's a rather subjective thing.

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.

This is a slightly stronger argument, but not good enough to rule out all games as art. I'd argue that while many games, books and movies may be written for the sole purpose of commercialism, this is not necessarily the case for all. Many are primarily works of expression, which would qualify them as art.

In any case, it seems rather backward to define art by the intentions of the creator. Does the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel not qualify because Michelangelo was paid to paint it?

Quote:

anyway im rambling, guys tell me what you think, can games be considered art or not?

I think they could be, but I think it will always be difficult to recognize.

With the majority of 'art', the viewer can simply look at it/listen to it and enjoy it, and take the time to appreciate whatever message it's creator was trying to express. That message is there every time you view it and it's the same every time. With a game it is important that the player's choices have a significant impact, and it has some level of gameplay. Without the gameplay, people will not want to play the whole game and thus miss out on whatever message the game is trying to express. With the gameplay, people may well be too caught up in having fun to even notice that there is a message in there.

Finally - although your professor may have a rather weird view of what does and does not constitute art, if you want good grades in this class I'd recommend against the 'proving him wrong' course of action. There are times when getting good grades is more about jumping through hoops than actually being right, and this sadly sounds like it might be one of them.

I'm of the opinion that games are not art, a game can contain art and present it to the user, but that doesn't make the game itself art anymore then an aesthetically appealing skin make windows media player art.

I think it has to do with how you interact with the medium. You watch a movie, read a book, admire a painting, but you play a game. Take the Mona Lisa which is art. Now if you include the way its hung, the wall its hung on, and specific way to view it, is all that combined art? Or is the painting still the only part of the package that is art?

Quote:

Original post by TechnoGoth I'm of the opinion that games are not art, a game can contain art and present it to the user, but that doesn't make the game itself art anymore then an aesthetically appealing skin make windows media player art. I think it has to do with how you interact with the medium. You watch a movie, read a book, admire a painting, but you play a game. Take the Mona Lisa which is art. Now if you include the way its hung, the wall its hung on, and specific way to view it, is all that combined art? Or is the painting still the only part of the package that is art?

I don't think interactivity has anything to do with deciding whether a creative expression is art or not. What about this?

Anyway, back to the point. Consider:
Windows Media Player is a presentation engine for art (movies / music / images).
It is not art itself, as its focus is function over form. We have a minimum of interaction with it, usually just sitting back and letting it present stuff to us.
A game engine is a presentation engine for art (movies / music / images / 3d models / creative writing (spoken/textual) ).
It is not art either, as its focus is, again, function over form. We have a large amount of interaction with it though...

The game itself is a composite of both art and presentation method, just like the Mona Lisa.

In some games the main focus is to uncover more art by completing tasks, and (possibly) to affect the art -- and what art is uncovered -- by making decisions. These games can be seen as artwork where the end-user (sometimes) has a modicum of control over composition while experiencing the artwork (like playing music, but to a lesser degree).


p.s. This argument doesn't cover all games. This doesn't mean that these other games aren't art...