Well, first of all I would like to say that I am azeime and that my past topics have all been crappy and worthless. Therefore, I would like to prove myself worthy of being part of the game design world and these forums. There is a raging debate in the entertainment industries on whether or not games can be called art in a true sense. In a world where movies and food can be considered art, I think that games are more or less art. If we are going to consider movies art then shouldnt we consider cut-scenes in games art. It takes the same cinematic talent just on a smaller scale and some games such as FFXII make movies seem like meager acomplishments. Even in movies, atleast 20% give or take a few is Computer generated graphics. Also, I have yet to see a pure movie without any CG (computer generated) items make a scene on such a grand scale as Lord of The Rings has using Computer generated graphics. CG is used throught ingame cutscenes and are sometimes the ingame cutscenses are better than in movies. Games are currently what I consider a lesser art meaning that they have not yet reached the true art form state that paintings and drawings have. Humans have been painting for years and milleniums But the civilized world didnt truly "get" art untill about 2,000 years ago. Cave paintings are to the Mona Lisa as 16-bit Mario is to Okami. Games can not truly be considered art until they slow the feverish upgrading pace as Paintings did. CG and games are still being upgraded in quality and clearity. While paint and the materials used to make Drawings and Paintings have slowed or even stopped their pace of upgrading for years now. My final conclusion is that games are art BUT can not truly be considered so untill the materials and quality have stopped evolving. ( heh heh dawg now i can talk my street slang again by the way what do you think of my essay)

Games are art in every way. To defy everything you just said to the contrary: it does not matter how something looks. Art is art.

..... art is art but who decides what art is ... art is something the general public sees that evokes emotion and feelings. in regardes to game design as a field the GENERAL PUBLIC sees it as a little more that trivial entertainment. One senior developer said that one of the main reasons for this is the term Video games. The names sounds unsophistocated BUT thats a completly different arguement right there

Quote:

Original post by azeime ..... art is art but who decides what art is ...

And therein lies the problem with all the debates that we have on this topic. "Art" is a highly nebulous term that is always highly subjective. Every attempt I've seen to define it is highly vague and open to misinterpretation.

Personally I think games are suitable to making numerous pieces of commentry on society, philosophy, the human condition or any other topic that people frequently associate with "high art". But I also think the whole debate about what classifies as "art", usually done as an attempt to stand on some sort of cultural high ground to look down on other craft forms or to seek some sort of "approval' for what you are interested in, is a bit pointless. Work in what medium you like the best, I say.

Quote:

My final conclusion is that games are art BUT can not truly be considered so untill the materials and quality have stopped evolving.

Eh? Is literature less of an art form because of the recent introduction of the computer spellchecker? Is sculpture less of an art form because of modern use of electric grinders and welding equipment? Art has always incorporated new tools and methods throughout history.

Quote:

Original post by azeime If we are going to consider movies art then shouldnt we consider cut-scenes in games art.

Ah, but a cut-scene is not a game now, is it? Take the cutscene in isolation from it's parent game and we essentially have a short movie (which probably lacks context). Are you therefore claiming that games are an artform purely by virtue of containing another artform (movies)? What about games which don't have cutscenes?

I think that perhaps you've gone slightly off track with the link to movies. To me a game is art because it expresses some thought or emotion that the creator wished to portray and because it is able to provide some sort of meaning or invoke feelings in our audience, not simply because it includes movies or graphics or audio which took some given amount of talent or level of technology to achieve. The key thing is not neccesarily the quality of the presentation but that it effectively communicates it's message - and we can see in other artforms that sometimes something of questionable 'quality' (a lot of 'modern art' for instance) can still effectively communicate and be considered an artform.

Being taken seriously by the general public is a seperate issue that need not neccesarily involve a stablisation of technology or techniques but that I feel is more likely to come about through a broadening in both subject matter and accessibility.


You may be interested in Designers Notebook: Where's Our Merchant Ivory? and Revenge of the Highbrow Games (requires free registration), and Games Are Art.

Quote:

Original post by Trapper Zoid But I also think the whole debate about what classifies as "art", usually done as an attempt to stand on some sort of cultural high ground to look down on other craft forms or to seek some sort of "approval' for what you are interested in, is a bit pointless.

Give this man a cookie, that about sums things up perfectly. [smile]

While the art debate is a tired one, the question is important.

Entertainment and art are different. The difference is in how and why they are made. The only thing art really needs is the intentions of artistry.

To design a game for profit is one thing. That is entertainment. Good movies are the ones that have a meaning or a message. Some of my favorite paintings are ones hanging on my walls, and cost me upwards to 35 dollars.

Video Games are something that requires a handfull of people to develope. Because of this, it will be difficult for games to transcend entertainment and into the realm of art. Once entire groups of people have a hand in making a game for the sheer intention to inspire and interact with man kind is when it is art.

Put it this way: A man can make wooden chairs in two different ways. He can make a chair for sitting, or he can make a chair because it is an expression of himself. Several people have difficulty expressing themselves together, and so, games of artistry will rarely be funded by expression alone until we can find common grounds with eachother.

Game Design as an Art requires peace.
Playing games with others also requires an agreement of peace in order to enjoy the game. I'll agree the queen moves this way if you agree the queen moves this way. We may hate eachother, but we will agree to enjoy the game together.

Games are peace.

painting convey nothing to me. They are completely meaningless to me.
Has a game made you laugh? yes
Have you ever hated your enemy in a game? yes
Vengeance? yes
Feel connected to the character? yes

i think its pretty crazy to say that video games don't convey emotion.

They are interactive stories. Most art forms are stories in some form. Stories are definitely art otherwise books wouldn't be art.

could computer games be better at conveying stories/emotions? definitely.

Quote:

Original post by Kazgoroth Quote: Original post by azeime If we are going to consider movies art then shouldnt we consider cut-scenes in games art. Ah, but a cut-scene is not a game now, is it? Take the cutscene in isolation from it's parent game and we essentially have a short movie (which probably lacks context). Are you therefore claiming that games are an artform purely by virtue of containing another artform (movies)? What about games which don't have cutscenes? I think that perhaps you've gone slightly off track with the link to movies. To me a game is art because it expresses some thought or emotion that the creator wished to portray and because it is able to provide some sort of meaning or invoke feelings in our audience, not simply because it includes movies or graphics or audio which took some given amount of talent or level of technology to achieve. The key thing is not neccesarily the quality of the presentation but that it effectively communicates it's message - and we can see in other artforms that sometimes something of questionable 'quality' (a lot of 'modern art' for instance) can still effectively communicate and be considered an artform. Being taken seriously by the general public is a seperate issue that need not neccesarily involve a stablisation of technology or techniques but that I feel is more likely to come about through a broadening in both subject matter and accessibility. You may be interested in Designers Notebook: Where's Our Merchant Ivory? and Revenge of the Highbrow Games (requires free registration), and Games Are Art.

i said that earlier kinda sorta


trapper ziod:
Well , I think that literature has changed since the invention of spellcheck. Writing a book has more or less become eisyer but the literature ITSELF has not changed at all,the same genres are in place and they all have the same archeatypes still.


revira kid:

You know you have got a feeling from some kinda of photo (photography is widely accepted as art) or artwork whether it be sexaul or funny or even made you think its still. I believe that there is no solid or meaningful arguement about whether paintings invoke feelings.

kazgoroth:

I agree that games are art for that very reason but I also want to say that a game is the same a movie in the sense that the cutscenes and the overall picture is trying to portray something. Where would gaming be without cutscenes.... a whole bunch of Half-Life 2's where the guy is blabbering on and your looking for a way to get into the room he's in. Games would also be mindless and would invoke no other feelings other than beat your enemy. Think about old NES games without cutscenes and think of how the story gives way to the mindless gameplay. Cutscenes have changed the world of gaming altogether and make the story more "solid" than anything else.

Art exists everywhere. It depends on how you perceive it.