Video games are/aren't art, DISCUSS!

[DraQ]

Art isn't interactive.

Since when is this a definition of art?

I don't really care if it's an accepted definition. It was axiomatic for thousands of years until people wanted to legitimize video games by calling them art.

Funny how art being noninteractive* coincided with there being no feasible means of making it interactive.


It's almost as if there is some deep truth in there, but what might it be?

*) Assuming those definitions of interactivity art hasn't fit since times immemorial.

 

[Butter]

Art isn't interactive.

Since when is this a definition of art?

I don't really care if it's an accepted definition. It was axiomatic for thousands of years until people wanted to legitimize video games by calling them art.

Funny how art being noninteractive* coincided with there being no feasible means of making it interactive.


It's almost as if there is some deep truth in there, but what might it be?

*) Assuming those definitions of interactivity art hasn't fit since times immemorial.

Of course there existed the means to create interactive art. Authors could deliberately omit the endings of their books and allow the readers to write their own. Nobody did this though, because it's retarded and cheapens the artistic expression.

 

[Maxwell's Demon]

It makes no sense to argue that art cannot be interactive. All works of art require an audience to experience/interpret the work, even if the audience consists solely of the creator himself.

 

[Humanophage]

I am not sure it would be a good thing for games to be classified as a type of art, especially not in North America and Western Europe. It seems the term is mostly about social status. Anything that is classified as art will be assailed by university programmes, government programmes, museums, art students (especially from low-tier universities who are not bright enough for more established media), parasitic high-status critics (as opposed to the rightfully low status of game critics now), etc. And we know who holds the whip hand in all these institutions. It leads to hipster games that do not appreciate gameplay and complexity, but want to bring in some auteur with a worthless message or fancy atmosphere that coheres with the above programmes (e.g., domestic violence is horrible, war is really awful, childhood is so magical, nostalgia is very deep).

It would be better if games occupy the same niche as documentaries or history books. If you want an artsy documentary that poses as high art (something like Lektionen in Finsternis), go for it, but that is incidental and doesn't make it a good informative documentary. Making a good documentary and the information it contains might be more difficult and valuable than the art component. A contemplative artsy "historiosophy" book in the style of Antonin Artaud or Merezhkovsky would be interesting as art, but unexciting and lame as a history book. The corresponding content in a game is actually more edifying than it being regarded as art - e.g., there is nothing especially aesthetic about Victoria 2, but it is a more intellectual and profound affair than some game with an experimental "thought-provoking" style that would get various awards.

 

[luj1]

Drawing, painting, sculpting, composing, etc., is art.

Video games incorporate 2D drawings, 3D-sculpted objects, music, sounds, etc. - therefore they are art (a pan-art form).

There is good and poor art, but that is another matter.

 

[DraQ]

Art isn't interactive.

Since when is this a definition of art?

I don't really care if it's an accepted definition. It was axiomatic for thousands of years until people wanted to legitimize video games by calling them art.

Funny how art being noninteractive* coincided with there being no feasible means of making it interactive.


It's almost as if there is some deep truth in there, but what might it be?

*) Assuming those definitions of interactivity art hasn't fit since times immemorial.

Of course there existed the means to create interactive art. Authors could deliberately omit the endings of their books and allow the readers to write their own. Nobody did this though, because it's retarded and cheapens the artistic expression.

You mean like in every open ended book ever written?

 

[DJOGamer PT]

This must be 5th thread about this fucking topic in the space of a year

real question people are asking is whether video games provide anything that is meaningful or profound. The answer is no, they don't.

By this reasoning then 99.9% of books, films, music, paintings and etc. aren't art either

In fact by that logic only history books and specially philosophical works can be considered true art.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Prolefeed.

 

[Manjuice Nutella]

Art isn't interactive. Games are interactive. Hideo Kojima games blur the line.

*laughs in Deadly Premonition*

 

[Tehdagah]

Of course they are art, look a Tetris. Can you remake Tetris in any other media?

 

[Derringer]

Video games are a product, the act of fucking producing them is considered an art, stop spouting marxist garbage. Trash is trash, quality products are quality products.

 

[Gerrard]

Should've locked this thread immediately.

 

[oneself]

If it were art, it would've been called video art, not game.

 

[Lyric Suite]

By this reasoning then 99.9% of books, films, music, paintings and etc. aren't art either

Well, they aren't, not if by art we mean art with a capital "A" (high art, call it what you want), which is precisely what we are talking about. You are literally just playing semantics here.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

By this reasoning then 99.9% of books, films, music, paintings and etc. aren't art either

Well, they aren't, not if by art we mean art with a capital "A" (high art, call it what you want), which is precisely what we are talking about. You are literally just playing semantics here.

You didn't answer to my 2nd observation

If only "meaningful" and "profound" works can be considered "Art" then even those 0.1% pale in comparasion to a good philosophical work or history book
Even though the authors of such texts most of the times just create them for academic/educational purposes

Shit my father once delivered me a profound and meaningful speech, that means he's an artist as well

Hell you write insightful stuff all time. Je suppose que tu es un artiste

 

[HansDampf]

Can board games be art?

 

[Machocruz]

Art as a term too broad to make a definitive claim as to whether games are or not. They can be according to one culture's or epoch's definition but not another's. E.g. there is an ancient definition of 'art' that refers to skillful technique. Video games or an exquisitely crafted chess set could fall under that definition. In some cultures, preparing food a certain way is an art.

Whether a work is high or low is also subjective to a culture. Asia could not give a fuck what Europe considered the most worthy subjects, and vice versa. In one country it's landscape painting, another, historical paintings.

Personally I don't believe in a profound art work. The profundity is in life, reality. The work is a projection of that of reality which the artist can discern, it being a greater or lesser work largely due to his powers of observation, understanding, communication, technique, etc. "Stand humble before nature" is a common artist's refrain.

If video games don't receive the same cultural regard as other media, it's because they are overwhelmingly juvenile in subject matter, not because they are or are not art. The same might be said of film today, but it has always been like this for video games. They've always been mostly the equivalent of after school cartoons.

 

[ADL]

Can board games be art?

The Pathologic board game definitely is.

 

[Lyric Suite]

If only "meaningful" and "profound" works can be considered "Art" then even those 0.1% pale in comparasion to a good philosophical work or history book

Except this argument is based on a fallacy of your own making, that art cannot communicate meaning like a work of philosophy can, least of all an "history" book (what meaning is supposed to be there again?).

That you don't know that the true purpose of art is to be didactic in nature can only mean you never learned to appreciate great art, and i can only presume the same applies to anyone who thinks video games even remotely compare.

 

[DJOGamer PT]

that art cannot communicate meaning like a work of philosophy can

I am not saying those 0.1% can't communicate meaning but that the philosophy book can communicate those profound ideas more efficiently and in greater detail

the true purpose of art is to be didactic in nature

But again we can go back to that point I made about my father's speech
It was didactic in nature so he's definitely an artist and his sermon a great work of art

Your posts are also didactic
You an artist man!

Shit, medicine books also deal in profound and meaningful knowledge and they're educational


See where we can go with this...

I would say that a synthesis between yours and specially Machocruz definition would be best way to judge what constitutes good art or not

Art should first be a work/discipline of great skill and beauty, and the depth and truthfulness of it's message/meaning as the second quality
High Art being something that is excellent at both

 

[Nifft Batuff]

Videogames arrived when art has been already dead for almost a century. So the discussion about "can videogames be art ?" is pointless.

 

[Jigby]

Let us consult icycalm's expertise. https://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games.html
Anybody remembers this?

 

[Clockwork Knight]

They won't be art until Gamers (with a capital G) stop asking the people who fawn over some dead guy's doodles for permission to join their club that lets literally anyone in as long as they demonstrate a vestige of a spine.