After posting a response to bja888's (or whatever his name is) post, I decided to start a new topic.

Do you consider video games an art?
Consider this question carefully...

I do not, personally. My reasons are quite simple. The video game itself (coding and so on) has not met any art status. People will argue that because it has pictures, stories, music, and so on, that it is an art. They are missing the point. Video game components are ART, yes, but they stick a different medium. Video games are a collaboration of all these mediums and throw in interactivity. So, for video games to TRULY be an art in themselves, they must present these collaborations in a variety of ways. I feel that the games themselves do not have a wide enough variety of messages and commentary. The story may, the art may, the music and so on, but video games as a whole are not an art.

A movie is just a bunch of images, music, spoken word, text, and plot stuck together...does that make it any less of an artform?

No, but movies have a myriad of subjects and commentaries. Such diversity that I feel video games lack.

Yes! There is a some art in video games. You notice it most in fighting games like Dead or Alive. Timing and style have a lot to do with how the game is played.

On the other hand, most shooting games lack that artistic touch. Halo is one that did a good job at showing some art.

any media that is made to entertian i believe is art.. so movies.. music.. and video games... yeah art

 Quote:Originally posted by ?any media that is made to entertian i believe is art.. so movies.. music.. and video games... yeah art


'actly!
I'm not sure on the definition, but isn't anykind of creative thinking made real art?

All in all, I think of video games as an artform... at least, now I do, since it's been brought up.
Why? Well, it is (sometimes) entertaining and they (sometimes) look good and sound good. The coding involved... I'm not sure if that is art, but it takes a heluva lot of time to do, and it is the key to the entertainment portion of the game.

Art isn't about entertainment; it's about expressing beauty or deeper aspect of reality.

Not all games are made in the spirit of being an "artwork", but others certainly do and it shows. If you look at games like Chrono Trigger/Cross and FF7, they definetly have a beauty and emotional quality to it. They are more touching than a lot of "art" these days. It doesn't even have to be an RPG; even games like Half-Life 2 have a real artistic quality to them. The moment the game starts you feel like you are part of a dreary and suppressed environment. There is even a book which documents the art of HL2.

But games don't have to be artistic. A game like Soldat is about more about entertainment than expression. I would not consider that art, but entertainment is good too.

What I hate though is contemporary art. Most of it takes no skill to do, and thier "meanings" are insincere. Who cares what it "really means". I can BS quality stuff off the top of my head extremely skillfully (great skill for essays). If they really meant something important to them, they would actually let it show through some effort. If thier goal is to express simplicity, it fails, becuase there is no complexity to contrast with it. Some of the more complex contemporary art I can appreciate, but that stuff is the minority in this overhyped art form. I would easily consider a game like Chrono Cross as greater art than half the contemporary "art" out in museums.

'Art' is a very ambiguous and relative term. I, personally, believe that everything is potentially an art. Every skill can be viewed as artistic, and every virtuoso an artist. A surgeon who has dedicated his life to the perfection of his technique and saves people from the brink of death can be called an artist. A general who masterfully employs an outnumbered force to obliterate the enemy can be called an artist. No one can really put a solid cap on what 'art' is for us all. Anything that inspires anyone or sparks in them a sense of elegance or skill is likely to be branded an art.

What I think your arguement is stemming from is the premise that art should be a presentable, permanent item - not an action. Example: Playing music is not an art, but the music itself (the item presented, and which never changes, no matter its audience) is. In the same vein, the story, graphics, music, and even programming in a game could be considered art, but the game itself, which is an interaction that differs with its user, is not. Is this correct?

 Quote:Originally posted by FamineNo, but movies have a myriad of subjects and commentaries. Such diversity that I feel video games lack.


Yup, you got me there. It's not like games have just as many genres as movies (RTS, FPS, RPG, simulation...), or even as many themes (Every major war and some invented ones, mythology, love, life, the mundane to the heroic...), or as deep of a plot (FF7, Silent Hill, Metal Gear...).

Oh wait, did I just disprove my point with a plethora of examples. I think so. :)

Metal Gear solid was a freaking work of art!! I haven't played any of the other Metal Gears since then but really nothing else matters :)

Video games as a whole are not art. There are, however, some games which excell both in plot and looks, thus creating a feeling somewhat similiar to listening to Beethoven or looking at a work of Rembrandt. A feeling that lasts for more than you play the game, like when you encounter something truly beautiful, you'll be under it's effect for quite some time. Such 'games' are Chrono Trigger, Seiken Densetsu, MGS and FF7.

 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah Quote:Originally posted by FamineNo, but movies have a myriad of subjects and commentaries. Such diversity that I feel video games lack.


Yup, you got me there. It's not like games have just as many genres as movies (RTS, FPS, RPG, simulation...), or even as many themes (Every major war and some invented ones, mythology, love, life, the mundane to the heroic...), or as deep of a plot (FF7, Silent Hill, Metal Gear...).

Oh wait, did I just disprove my point with a plethora of examples. I think so. :)


How can you disprove my damn opinion? Now we are just arguing semantics.

3 games? Thats a plethora?

4 "genres"?

Wow, it seems like video games have created an infinite and interactive medium. Especially since the plots of those games that present the themes ARE not video game art, they are "literature" (I use the term loosely). Once again, I agree the components are art, but not the game itself!

 Quote:
What I hate though is contemporary art. Most of it takes no skill to do, and thier "meanings" are insincere. Who cares what it "really means". I can BS quality stuff off the top of my head extremely skillfully (great skill for essays). If they really meant something important to them, they would actually let it show through some effort. If thier goal is to express simplicity, it fails, becuase there is no complexity to contrast with it. Some of the more complex contemporary art I can appreciate, but that stuff is the minority in this overhyped art form. I would easily consider a game like Chrono Cross as greater art than half the contemporary "art" out in museums.

I think your missing the whole point.

In my opinion, video games are art.

While some excel in it, and others fall behind, it is still artistic.

There's animating. There's drawing skins. There's creating interactivity. There's creating music to set the mood. There's creating an intersting story. There's adding cutscenes.

Now some games have all of those, and others only have a few. But either way it is still art (maybe [CENSORED]ty art, but nonetheless).

 Quote:Originally posted by Famine
How can you disprove my damn opinion? Now we are just arguing semantics.
No, we're arguing quantity. You're comparing your "myriad" of stories, etc. to my "plethora." As if just because movies are varied, that makes them more of an art form than games. But that's like saying that if all the paintings in the world could be contained in one room, they would no longer be considered art.

Just because something isn't varied, does not disqualify it as an art form.

 Quote:3 games? Thats a plethora?
Yes, it's a plethora if you realize that I don't have the time or the will to remember and list every game that I believe is an example of a unique piece of art so instead I provided you with three shining examples.

 Quote:4 "genres"?
For lack of a better word.

 Quote:Especially since the plots of those games that present the themes ARE not video game art, they are "literature" (I use the term loosely). Once again, I agree the components are art, but not the game itself!
Then you cannot consider movies to be art. I forbid you. :P

In any case, your whole argument has come to rest on the one point that video games are not art simply because they don't have the diversity that movies do. To me, that seems like really odd thinking -- that something a person creates may be beautiful and deep, but if it's unique it will never be considered art.

Movies are art, I do not speak of plot/visuals/sound and such, I mean it as A whole.


 Quote: that something a person creates may be beautiful and deep, but if it's unique it will never be considered art.

I don't think you quite fully understand my idea.

traditionally, art is open for personal interpretation. video games, for the most part, aren't. i don't consider video games art, but i think elements in video games can be considered art, as has been said a billion times already.

but i'd rather just agree with TFS and cuddle with him on a cramped bus.

 Quote:Originally posted by FamineI don't think you quite fully understand my idea.


I probably don't. I think this is where we might have gone wrong: "No, but movies have a myriad of subjects and commentaries. Such diversity that I feel video games lack." So what were you really trying to say?

Edit: Tee hee, I love you people and your arguments. Thank you for making my day, Famine. <3

 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah Quote:Originally posted by FamineI don't think you quite fully understand my idea.


I probably don't. I think this is where we might have gone wrong: "No, but movies have a myriad of subjects and commentaries. Such diversity that I feel video games lack." So what were you really trying to say?




That movies, not plot, not sound, not visuals...MOVIES are put together such that they have such a vast array of UNIQUE ideas.

To make myself a bit more clear, I would have to say it is technically art. Though, I don't recognize it as such.

 Quote:Edit: Tee hee, I love you people and your arguments. Thank you for making my day, Famine. <3

Hard to tell, but is this sarcasm or not? My first impressions are of sarcasm, but before I comment on this, I want to be completely sure.

Famine's avatar is art.

 Quote:Originally posted by SwarmerFamine's avatar is art.


Indeed.

Twenty more points if you can name the artist.

FAMINE

 Quote:Originally posted by n00bfacetraditionally, art is open for personal interpretation. video games, for the most part, aren't. i don't consider video games art, but i think elements in video games can be considered art, as has been said a billion times already.

but i'd rather just agree with TFS and cuddle with him on a cramped bus.



ALL of JSRF is art :(

So in conclusion...
Some of us think that since the user requires interaction with the subject it is not art even though all the elements (minus the user) are art.
While others enjoy the game and what it brings. Thus not hung up on the fact that they have to actually do something to enjoy then entire work.

That is a pretty shoddy conclusion.

That is a great conclusion. There's just no final conclusive statement.

 Quote:Originally posted by FamineTo make myself a bit more clear, I would have to say it is technically art. Though, I don't recognize it as such.

Works for me, that's all I needed to hear.

 Quote:Originally posted by Famine Quote:Originally posted by VijchtiDoodahEdit: Tee hee, I love you people and your arguments. Thank you for making my day, Famine. <3

Hard to tell, but is this sarcasm or not? My first impressions are of sarcasm, but before I comment on this, I want to be completely sure.


Nope, I actually enjoy arguing with people.

 Quote: Quote:Originally posted by Famine Quote:Originally posted by VijchtiDoodahEdit: Tee hee, I love you people and your arguments. Thank you for making my day, Famine. <3

Hard to tell, but is this sarcasm or not? My first impressions are of sarcasm, but before I comment on this, I want to be completely sure.


Nope, I actually enjoy arguing with people.


I was confused because I could see how the view could differ. Thanks for clearing it up, I too like a good argument.


 Quote:Originally posted by Vijchtidoodah Quote:Originally posted by FamineTo make myself a bit more clear, I would have to say it is technically art. Though, I don't recognize it as such.

Works for me, that's all I needed to hear.


Now ya ruined it!


 Quote:Reply with Quote
That is a great conclusion. There's just no final conclusive statement.

I don't like conclusions that leave out entire opinions.

 Quote:Originally posted by Famine
 Quote:Reply with Quote
That is a great conclusion. There's just no final conclusive statement.

I don't like conclusions that leave out entire opinions.


I am prepared to append!

My opinion was that they are technically art, as a whole, but I do not recognize them for their lack of expression.

*looks up from a bag of chips*
*reads entire topic*
*desperatly tries to fit in*
Indeed.

 Quote:Originally posted by a-4-year-old*looks up from a bag of chips*
*reads entire topic*
*desperatly tries to fit in*
Indeed.


Mission: FAILED