Gaming as an art form

[Omni]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
I don't. Because what they do isn't art. It's math, at best.

I'm sure what Miyamoto does is very far from the "math" part of making games.

Actually, his role in the game-making process (actually designing the game) is the most artsy part of all.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by OmniGear
I'm sure what Miyamoto does is very far from the "math" part of making games.

Actually, his role in the game-making process (actually designing the game) is the most artsy part of all.

Which means he has no hard input into the game. The best he does is tell someone else how or what to do...still not an artist. Dictator, sure. But not an artist. If Vangoh told me what he wanted to paint, but I was the one painting it, who would the artist be?

[epmode]

so architects can't be artists?

[Omni]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
If Vangoh told me what he wanted to paint, but I was the one painting it, who would the artist be?

I think that's an unfair analogy. If you paint a picture you're obviously an artist. Programmers wish the same can be said of their craft, however.

Thinking up a game that's feasible with current hardware restrictions is something that requires a certain amount of creative genius, (many would find it easy to argue the fact that Miyamoto is a genius) while programming that game based on what someone else tells you is something completely different, something far from art. Your analogy paints a completely different picture, though.

So while Miyamoto may not be considered an artist, he's certainly closer to one than the guy programming the game.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by OmniGear
So while Miyamoto may not be considered an artist, he's certainly closer to one than the guy programming the game.

I agree, though the point is nominally important. Being "closer" to being called an artist from the next guy still doesn't make you an artist.

Originally posted by epmode
so architects can't be artists?

Can they? Sure! But not all are. Saying "I'm an architect, therefore I must also be an artist," is a fallacious statement.

Some architects are artists, but being an architect doesn't make one an artist, nor is architecture an artform.

[Omni]

Originally posted by Captain Vegetable
I agree, though the point is nominally important. Being "closer" to being called an artist from the next guy still doesn't make you an artist.

It's a step in the right direction.

As was said earlier in the thread though, processes that go into making a game can be considered art, but that does not automatically make the finished product art. The same goes for many other things as well.

In this respect, I think Miyamoto, and anyone else who designs games, are artists. Games, however, aren't necessarily art.

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by OmniGear
In this respect, I think Miyamoto, and anyone else who designs games, are artists. Games, however, aren't necessarily art.

Ah! Alright. I see where you're coming from now. Though I disagree, I think what you've said is entirely correct.

[Click_Stick]

What isn't art in some way?

[Captain Vegetable]

Originally posted by Click_Stick
What isn't art in some way?

Very many things.

[gamevet]

Music is art, storytelling is a form of art, as well as drawings and animation. All are important aspects to what makes a game what it is, an artistic interpretation of all those involved, to make the final product.


Games are as much art, as is film making. No one person is responsible for the final product, but in the directors hands, a film/game can either be great, or miss the target all together.