Videogames as art?

Quote:

---

Everything isn't art. I personally believe that the inspiration, NOT the final product, or the quality determine the degree to which something is art.

---

The inspiration, the intent, the original idea-

It's nothing without following through and creating something wonderful. I can sit here and have a brilliant idea, but if I never do anything about it, only I'll ever experience it. And as much fun as it is amusing yourself, at some point you'll want to create something that amuses others as well. There's nothing better than creating something and having others enjoy it just as much as you do, perhaps more. Finding people who are on the same page in terms of the "art" they like is rough.
So I'd argue that the final product is quite important- if you can create something that even comes close to your original thought/insiration you're doing pretty well.
In terms of games, they can become art in mnay different ways. Most games I'd class as art have a solid vision of the experience they want to create, and follow through to the very last second without faltering. This is why the process, and then the end result are vital. There's nothing worse than something that could have been amazing but for some small (or large) but obvious flaw. Games that have solid style, art direction and gameplay through and through are art. The more I play games (and watch movies, listen to music, watch cartoons, look at drawings) the more I realize there's no reason to settle for less than perfect. You can find perfection, and lots of it if you look hard enough. And much of it takes some time to find.
Art can be perfect in different ways too- some rough sketch scribbled on a Denny's placemat can easily be a million times better than some shit drawing Photoshopped into oblivion by some fourteen year old with too many computer programs. A punk rock song that sounds like it was recorded from across the room into a shitty four track has the potential to be better than anything in the top 100. Medium, polish, and production values don't count for anything. If the people who created the "art" can do what they're doing well, have unique ideas and are genuinely interested in what they're creating it's going to be good.

I'm really trying to sound like a big art fag here huh? Oh well. Too late now.

The problem here is that people are trying to pick out what aspect of a game makes it 'art'...the gameplay, the graphics, the story, etc. The answer is- there's not any 'one' thing that makes it art- it's the combination of every aspect, the total being greater then the sum of its parts. Can you have a game without graphics? Not really. Even if it's the most butt-ulgy graphics around, someone had to design them. A game is a piece of art because every aspect comes together and forms a cohesive experience. Depending on the game, certain aspects can be less or more important, but as long as the developer is conveying something, it can be considered art. Though I have to agree, the gameplay is first and foremost the most important aspect...

But really, can one truly define "art"? Art comes from the soul, and cannot be so easily pidgeonholed into a simple classification. Of course, people who find garbage on the street and present that as representing a piece of "art" are assholes ("this broken chair I found represents the state of deacy in men's souls...gimmie $10,000 for it!!"), but otherwise who's to say?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dolemite
I suppose I should have better explained my view. If you still have a problem with my view on art, then maybe I don't have a narrow view, perhaps you do.

---

That was much better. I'm in total agreement.

I'd categorize every game ever programmed as art - some games (Rez, Ico, Silent Hill, the original RE) are more "artsy" than others. Just as there's a lot of really bad art hanging in galleries, there are many horrible games.

I think the effect is the important thing. It's very possible for someone to have a soul-moving experience by a "bad" game - it depends on your perception.

I think the important thing is the more gameplayers who have a profound experience, the more powerful the artistic elements of the game. This is true for all forms of art, in fact.

Profound = an emotional experience beyond the superficial. Note that profound does NOT equal positive. There are people who hated and felt manipulated by Ico, but they still consider it art - they just didn't "agree" with it.

The cool thing to me is that as technology progresses, programmers can infuse their games with art more easily.

One big factor to consider is with art is whether or not it has meaning. For instance, art can be a movie, but not all movies are art. In a writing class I took, we were forced not to just write a standard story but to write a story that had a point and that changed the main character somehow.

Most games don't do anything like this. As far as feeling go with paintings, they do do similar things, but they do them more in an action movie type way than in anything really artistic. Sadly, most artistic games of today (IMO) are the ones with tons of cut scenes that focus on story more than anything. Can the industry push the idea of games as art forward? Until the focus on profit is gone, not likely.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AFX


That was much better. I'm in total agreement.

---

Word up, homie.

Miyagi say:
"Art no come from here" (points to biceps)
"or here" (points to head)
"Art come only from here" (points to heart)

Art is not a modernist concept. It is a post-modernist concept. Everything is art to a degree.

My point is this: Cash runs (you know which games are cash runs) are a very small part art. Games that go beyond that and clearly become more than a product to be sold are more art. Thats it, thats all I'm saying.

And as for the final product having to do with whether somethins is art, thats bull. If I have a vision and try to create for the sake of my vision and it comes out like shit, the bad quality and poor follow through don't make it less artistic, that makes the artistic qualities less discernable.

Lastly, art is an action, a process, not a thing. The painting isn't art, but it IS the final product of the actual art: the painting. The programming, play tweaking, designing, storyboarding, 2D and 3D graphics producing, those are the art, the game is just the final product...

I madea reply to this topic yesterday, but then I lost
it. . .x_X . . .anyways

Quote:

---

But really, can one truly define "art"? Art comes from the soul, and cannot be so easily pidgeonholed into a simple classification.

---

Certainly, without a definition, art can be anything, which makes it useless as a general classifier. If anything,it means creating a definition may take a bit more work than other words. like "dog".

Quote:

---

Everything is art to a degree.

---

no. if you're attaching art to inspiration, or intent, then everything is not art to a degree. Things that were not created "intentionally"( a property of sentience) are not art. Nature is not always art. You can call it beautiful if you like, which serves a similar purpose, but it is not art.

As I said in my previous post, no relative values for art. If you're attaching it to someone's inspiration, or intent, then you can look at something and think it is art, that exists with no artistic inspiration or intent having a role in its creation, and be wrong.

If you are saying artistic values are relative, then you are saying that nothing is genuinely artistic. Things have a form to them. I can look at that form, and determine it beautiful, or despicable, or whatever term I like, but what I determine will not be true. It will not be beautiful on my whim. The only truth is the form that I am attaching these relative judgements to.

Pong can be art, based on the intentions of the creator, whether you see anything artistic in it or not is irrelevant. It is not based on your view as an observer whether something is art or not. The same goes for Solitaire. You must first understand what went into its creation, and see how well it is represented in the game itself. When considering "Games" as art, we are not limiting it to only video games.



I'm also going to agree with Cigsthecat, as I said in my previous post, the artistic value of something is based on how well the creation matches the creators intent. If It does not match my intent, then it is an artistic failure, if it does, then it is a success, but it is not merely the vision, nor is it merely the practice, the vision and practice are done with the intention of creating a final product, and that product is a culmination of them.

Anyone can have a vision. whether it is an artistic vision(loosely. . .one done for the sake of itself) or not. From each vision can come an infinite amount of possible creations, of an infinite amount of quality, and if we are to judge this vision, it will be done seperate from the actual finished piece. You can then determine that the vision is artistic. However, that has nothing to do with the creation. And as I said earlier, the artistic value of the creation is based on how accurately it represents the vision of the creator.

What if the art is an action? Like performance art. There is no final product but the action.

I'm not saying that something can be art without a final product, but I am saying that it has more to do with whether something IS art when we discuss the intent and the actions used to create it.

PS: I agree I'm wrong about the everything is art to a degree thing, I meant more along the lines of 'many things are art to a degree'... I don't think the sun is art, but a spoon may be.