Sign in to follow this  
DJMetal

Video Games as an Art

Recommended Posts

So, my friends, I have a question that has been bugging me lately. I strongly hold the belief that video games are (but maybe not always have been) an art form, and like any other art form, are getting really good at giving us messages, pushing the limits of the media on which they are displayed, telling a story, entertaining it's audience, and so on. But I get the feeling that not a lot of people in the general public would agree with me. The problem lies in the fact that video games are a very young art.

Like other forms of art, you have to look at a game ask "What is it this game is trying to do?" I strongly hold the opinion that a game's first (but not necessarily only) goal should be to be fun. After that, it can do anything. It can be fun and wacky, fun and serious, fun and post-modern, whatever. It can be fun and just have a great soundtrack! But the reason I start this thread is to see if people on here agree with me: That at least some video games (if not all) would fall into the "art" genre of things (remember, not every painting is a Picasso and not every movie is a Spielberg.) I think so.

DJ Metal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2nd' Atma.

We're creeping in on it, but there are more trends working against video games being art then there are things helping it out. This certainly isn't a black and white issue, but currently, games are mostly games, and not art.

Its on its way, but for the most part, games behave very, very awkwardly as an artform. I mean, whats a combo or an ammo count have to do with things? Codes? Unlockables?

Games are, like prior artforms, merely older forms meshed together with something new added in. Visual were merely colors we meshed together to form compositions wiht morem meaning than the base parts. Music was combining sounds tro give out more meaning than the base parts. Movies combine the two and moved them through a timeline. Video games are a movie with interaction, giving the audience a partial role as a creator in the art.

If your game has mostly cinematic cut scenes (like a JRPG) and some vaunted great story, but you can't get to it because you need to slug through dozens of hours of fodder enemies, why not just make it a movie or TV show? Game art is cumulative of all of its peices. But merely saying it looks or sounds good or has interesting plot alone doesn't win the fight for art.

The interactive element in the game should be a primary focus to the message and compoisition's aim. Gameplay is not there to be 'fun' or 'cool'. More guns and sweet new moves, are not required.

Defining ART.

First off, this debate is not about good art. My 7 yr old cousin's scribbles are art. I think we're trying to place games on a higher level then a child's scribble. We're asking if games are -good- art. Also, art doesn't need to be fun. Good art has a goal and a message. It says something. Sometimes it doesn't say much, but it says it well.

Now I've played most of the 'this is art!' kind of games, but but we're defaintely not there yet. Think of art as being something beyond mere entertainment, and realize that trying to pin the label of art on any current or incoming titles is like stopping halfway through a race, seeing the finish line, but deciding what we have is good enough. We've got some developers and bright minds that are working to bring us true video game art. Let's let them work and revist this later.

And one final thing: Most great art is transcendent of the medium. Great musical art or great visual art is recognizable and applies beyond boundaries. Try taking a video game that merely looks nice, or music that needs the game's context and play that for average non-gamer people. It won't work very well. If the music does interest them, then the music is good, but says nothing of the game in question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... you either think it is or it's not. Discussion about it never ends pretty. Sure I'll read a scholarly take on the issue every once in a while, but I really don't care (no offense) what regular old chumps think of games as art. Why? For some reason "games as art" discussions never stay civil. Also, it's like arguing in a neverending circle, which is just stupid.

It'll take a general scholarly concensus that games are art, and it will require 'gamer culture' (or whatever you want to call it) to silence itself and not be an immature 'voice' for the medium.

But really, if you can appreciate something for what it is, who the freakin' hell cares what other people view it as? View it how you want. One day in the future, your views will either be reinforced or shat upon. Until then, I'll be happy if I don't see another Gen Disc thread about it for at least another year or so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not quite sure where I stand on it, I tend to waver back and forth a bit.

giving us messages, pushing the limits of the media on which they are displayed, telling a story, entertaining it's audience, and so on.

I don't think these are the things that would really make a game art, but rather are just attempts by videogames to imitate other art forms (mainly film), and they usually come off as a bit amateurish in that regard, like they're being made by guys who wanted to do movies but didn't have what it takes (in fact, I think that's exactly how Ken Levine has described himself in an interview -- and I find that bit of self-deprecation far more respectable than the guys who genuinely believe their anime fanfiction-esque plots are literary masterpieces).

To me, if there's any "art" in videogames, it lies in the design of the elements which are unique to videogames themselves and not just "me too" borrowings from other art forms. Good level design, clever gameplay mechanics, the tricks and techniques used to overcome resolution and palette limitations to create effective visuals...

In fact, if there's one element of videogames which has achieved "art" status, it's the spritework. Pixel art has become a recognized artistic genre in its own right, originally derived from videogames but now taking on a life of its own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wrote a paper on video game music as art. I said that I generally believe that music contains a lot of artistic value but not all music should be considered art. The same goes for video games in general. I tend to believe that games like Madden '08 aren't art but games such as the Metal Gear Solid series are, for obvious reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Games are like music, art, film, books, and any other medium. You will always have the Art vs. Entertainment issue, even in games. With a game, you can go the route of most other games, and duplicate something that sold well (by accident or on purpose, whichever seems most fitting at the time), or you can do something unique for the sake of doing something unique.

Take something as mundane and terrible as The Sims. In essence, the first game was a postmodern masterpiece - This is your life, from third person prospective. You can be anyone you want, do anything you want, and become everything you aren't in reality. No one ever plays Sims to be something they aren't though, they always play themselves first, and try to become the closest thing to themselves they can. And in this game, in all your choices, you don't act.

Katamari Damacy is an ultra-modern surrealist work. The concept on its own is enough to merit this, but the stylistic aspects (all aspects of the game, actually) do things that no one else had done, in a way that couldn't be replicated.

Medal of Honor's got a powerful story to point out, as most war-art does. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that it's put in the realm of a FPS means nothing when you consider the point behind it.

In stark contrast, things like every Sim since, Halo, and most others are made only to sell, or because the designer thought it was cool.

So yes, video games are sometimes art.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd have to throw some objections to your samples. They are mostly peices that do push some boundaries, but are still primarily games.

I think this best can be summed up in doing a little search. Trying playing a game, not a video game, that is also considered a work of art. Its very hard to find. Nothing comes to mind.

I remember a famous arguement on this subject, where a man compared video games to their art counterparts in a simple Gymnastics vs. Ballet arguement. They both require great agility, years of training, and are not easy at all. However, one is a technical sport, each move is given points, things are ranked, and while a player slipping and falling may evoke emotion, that is not its aim. Meanwhile ballet, the recognized artform, they pursue intangibles, and while I probably couldn't watch an entire performance, it is the superior artform over gymnatics. It pursues the immeasurable and intangible human emotions, the course of events in art will shock and awe and the soul and engage the higher level thought that we as humans have.

Likewise, with the Sims, enjoying it and watching your people move around is like building an ant farm, or putting people in an oversized ant farm. Its a technical display, and while you may gain some emotional value from the experience it does not aim to give it to you. This can be applied to most Sim games, heck, Sim Ant and Sim Tower/City. Place building/furniture A here, result B. Place another A and get C.

Ruling "yes" is far too early, and if you're relying on story or gameplay, you're not asking the game's intent. A good story is merely history in progress. How many history books are considered art? (I can name one~) Good gameplay...life as it stands has good gamplay, many sports in reality have jsut good gameplay, and some hearwrenching games have been played, but they still aren't art, or 'good' art.

The game needs on some level to intend to be more than a game, a chain of mathematical forumlae. If you want games to be considered deep you have to look deep, and they almost always still come up lacking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I see your points, you must keep in mind that video games are not merely games. As soon as the graphic interface is available, it opens up new possibilities. Dancing, for example, wasn't originally intended as art. Various cultures use it for celebration, prayer, aiding harvest, courting, and a number of other things. From this base, it evolved to allow things like ballet, break dancing, the jazz styles, etc. Even acrobatics is considered dancing (I usher at a rental hall, I've seen 28 dance recitals this month. All of them either had acro classes or were first year schools).

With art the intent is almost always as important as the way it's done. While this isn't always true (Paradise Lost is supposed to be anti-Satan, but Satan is the most convincing, best written character in the whole era), it can usually show the merit of the work. This isn't to say that a game isn't art because it was made to sell a lot of copies, but most games this way (and other things of this nature besides games) will be purely entertainment, and have very little stand-alone artistic merit. Sometimes it happens by accident (Sims), sometimes it's a little of each (Metal Gear Solid).

Also, as per the Sims, what sets it apart from the others is the fact that it's in human context. Sure, you can step outside of yourself and be a helicopter, or an ant, or even God in the upcoming sim... but that's not something we couldn't already do with imagination (or drugs, in some cases). To watch a replica of one's own life goes beyond imagination, and beyond the realms of time and space in a sense. It could only exist in art, even if it is rich in mainstream success but terrible from a gaming aspect. This isn't a definition of art, but one very important facet of it.

There are actually quite a few history books that can be considered art, with the current state of literature (Creative Writing BA from CUNY with a focus in nonfiction, they drilled this into me). Aside from all literary memoirs, historic poems, and all Shakespeare (all rooted in history, technically, even though he took some artistic liberties when plagiarizing his contemporaries), you've also got things as blatantly artistic as MAUS and Persepolis.

Not all art is intended to be art. Sometimes it happens that way. One of the most paintings of the last hundred years is of a Cambell Soup can. Norman Rockwell did more advertisments than he did conceptual pieces (if memory serves). Sometimes it's a happy accident, the .00001 baby from the pill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Generally art is a (product of) human activity, made with the intention of stimulating the human senses as well as the human mind; by transmitting emotions and/or ideas.

Videogames are a product of human activity, and it's made with the intention of stimulating our vision, hearing and touch, as well as our mind. It transmits emotions and ideas.

It's art in its lowest definition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is art, and I don't understand why people need to equate art as something being 'classy' or snobbish. Most art movements came out of the desire to go beyond the classics and into new territory. To me, videogames are art the same way movies and television shows can be. Not all classical art are 'classy' either, so I don't understand the need to shoe-horn videogames into a single category like that.

What I find funny is that those who do create categories like that usually do that to demean videogaming or to categorize into something easy to understand. I fail to see a reason to do that either with classical art. It's all a big, stupid popularity contest in the end. If people in the future looks back on our videogames and calls it a high form of art, that's their choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Fine" or "classy" art is pretty much solely defined by just that, the upper class white societies. It doesn't neccessarily have anything to do with quality. Given enough time anything they pick up will become associated with them, like Jazz is nowadays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The usual distinction people start making is that games are a commercial art, not a fine art. Personally, I feel that people write off the value of commercial art too hastily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Video games are still games first and foremost in most cases. A graphical interface does not make Solitaire on my PC any more of an art peice than Solitaire played with real cards. Which equates a comparison to other sports, and racing games. Then war games.

As I said, calling one thing art or not means nothing if you have a loose definition of art. If you're trying to equate the best artistic video game to the best artistic books/movie/etc,, you're obviously going to be trying to find the best from each medium. Thats why the debate seems 'snobbish/classy'. You argue with the best evidence first in a debate. No one is going to say video games are art and bring Pong as their first example. That is why the debate seems to hinge on certain titles and criteria. We've all got our ideas on what constitues art.

But as pointed out, yes, we do need to be cautious between trying to narrow it down to classy/snobbish ideals or merely expand it accept every title as art.

Art and its quality should be defined by its individual purpose and method to achieve its own aim. The game should have a purpose or message (no it doesn't have to be a spiritually deep message, or anything super-important!) and it has to convey that. I'm sure this stands for all other art forms. And yes, sometimes a great message purposefully delivered in what appears to be a bad way may actually be the most effective venue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think its safe to say that games are an artform, and its becoming more accepted. Its an incredibly flexible one, which can combined all the main media types; images, video, sound, music and text; all into one package.

Also remember that no artform is without controversy; and games definitely fall into that category. While the controversy is often (arguably even mostly) misleading (*cough*Jack Thompson), it would have been no different from when, say, the first artistic nudes (NOT PORN, ART!!!) came out. People back then would often have been horrified, and many artists killed for heresy and such. These days, those works of art are now often highly regarded as great works of art.

Even though the example of the artistic nude is kind of extreme, games have had controversies, especially with regards to violence. But there are many games which, I believe, are beneficial to a person, both as a form of leisure and art. Games have the ability to challenge the audience in ways that music, video, poetry and every other expression of humanity cannot do alone. Sure, it can also do a lot of harm, and be incredibly degrading, but generally only in extreme cases. In the hands of a skilled person/s, the responses that a game can generate are worthy of making it an art form.

One other question we should ask; if games are an artform, then will we appreciate them like we do other works of art? Will there be a copy of Final Fantasy 7 hanging up next to the Mona Lisa? Or maybe Portal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video games are still games first and foremost in most cases. A graphical interface does not make Solitaire on my PC any more of an art peice than Solitaire played with real cards. Which equates a comparison to other sports, and racing games. Then war games.

As I said, calling one thing art or not means nothing if you have a loose definition of art. If you're trying to equate the best artistic video game to the best artistic books/movie/etc,, you're obviously going to be trying to find the best from each medium. Thats why the debate seems 'snobbish/classy'. You argue with the best evidence first in a debate. No one is going to say video games are art and bring Pong as their first example. That is why the debate seems to hinge on certain titles and criteria. We've all got our ideas on what constitutes art.

But as pointed out, yes, we do need to be cautious between trying to narrow it down to classy/snobbish ideals or merely expand it accept every title as art.

Art and its quality should be defined by its individual purpose and method to achieve its own aim. The game should have a purpose or message (no it doesn't have to be a spiritually deep message, or anything super-important!) and it has to convey that. I'm sure this stands for all other art forms. And yes, sometimes a great message purposefully delivered in what appears to be a bad way may actually be the most effective venue.

Well, let's look at the most basic forms for each genre then. Something as simple as comparing Dick & Jane books to Pong. Neither are art, though both are clumped into the same family as things that can be and/or are considered art. There's art in both, on the most basic level, but overall they aren't. Or a seven year old's portrait of their family, consisting of stick figures with a triangle to show Mommy's dress and another stick figure in the corner to show Daddy's mistress. It isn't actually art, the child's only actually recorded their family in graphic form, the same way someone could list all the members of the family and what they look like once they know how to write.

You're right that in most cases they are still games, but why can't games be art? Not all games (that's like saying all books, photographs, paintings, and songs are art, while Dan Brown, family photos, building projections, and Brittany Spears are definite examples otherwise). I'm not saying that all games are art, most are strictly entertainment. But there are some that seem to have branched out beyond it, rather than staying that way, and it isn't always intentional.

The Mona Lisa, for example, is just a portrait of someone Da Vinci wanted to paint. Most medieval art is religious in nature because that's who bankrolled them, rather than what they wanted to make. Again, Normal Rockwell. Rianna's video for that umbrella song. Sometimes attempts at entertainment turn out to be amazing works of art.

The definition of art is something that can be disputed forever, as it means something different to everyone. However, my handy copy of the Oxford Pocket American Dictionary of Current English has this to say:

art / aart / n

1. a human creative skill or its application.

b work exhibiting this

2. a the various branches of creative activity, eg, painting, music, writing, considered collectively.

b any one of these branches

3. creative activity, esp. painting and drawing, resulting in visual representation

4. human skill or workmanship as opposed to the work of nature.

5. a skill, aptitude, or knack.

6. those branches of learning (esp. languages, literature, and history) associated with creative skill as opposed to scientific, technical, or vocational skills.

By all definitions given except for numbers 5 and 6, video games and/or the playing of them fall under the category of "art." However, if you want to make the definition more loose by saying that it needs to say something, then we can debate this some more. Besides that, this isn't the be-all end-all argument, it's just voicing of opinions. I'm just curious now as to why it has to say something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One other question we should ask; if games are an artform, then will we appreciate them like we do other works of art? Will there be a copy of Final Fantasy 7 hanging up next to the Mona Lisa? Or maybe Portal?

The artful aspect of games should be the immersion in the purpose of the game. If the artist wanted to give people something, or show something, its within the experience. A a great video game should have its value in the journey, no matter how big or small. Thats not something you can merely put in a museum, kinda like a good book. We just acknowledge them.

The Hands;

I want games to be good/great art, I'm just not going to prematurely call it. Video games can be art. I want it. Though making a factual cut and dry dictionary reference doesn't clarify something that is immeasurable.

As to why art needs to say something? I'm not saying a guy sits down and creates something with a list of moving movements. Just look here at OC Remix, someone may just make a remix of a song, and they just make it for fun, applying their skills, but someone will come up and mention that the peices of the song came together to form a complete whole.

We're mistaken to believe creators know exactly what their creation will do. You may have a child and hope it plays baseball only to have it be a successful doctor. Your art peice may have been a fun experiment, but you didn't know how deeply it affected people. Sure, some artists know what they attempt to create, but how many sincere artists (myself one of them) of all the mediums availible try and try again to make great art, only to make something boring or mediocre? DaVinci may have not intended to create great art out of the Mona Lisa, but he knew the means to create it. Visual art had matured for centuries, he knew the basics of delivery, and while he didn't conciously attempt to make something grand, he did.

Art moves through the artist like a vessel, as some say~

Just like with games, many developers and creators -want- to create something meaningful, and many try to act on that, but we're still too early. I beleive we'll get there though, give a decade and I'm sure we'll al be able to ramble off a list of titles of games that are great art peices, without having to debate merit.

This is a topic I like to talk on a lot, and wouldn't mind looking at certain titles in closer depth, but from there it gets really relative per person, and you can't really convince someone there is or isn't greatness where they think they see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this question greatly depends on what you consider art. Like it was mentioned early video games are a from of art if you look at arts basic definition which is a form of creativity. It that sense video games certianly are art. However if you want to look at it from a classy or sophisticated view (fine art) maybe most video games don't fit into that category. However that would mean a lot of music and movies don't fit into that category eithier as many weren't made with the special purpose of moving you emotionally, stimulating your senses, or encouraging critical thinking. So to me it all depends on how you view art in general. Just my thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm surprised that I'm agreeing with some of the people in this thread.

I don't really think video games are art not because of anything intrinsically wrong with the media, but that no one has fulfilled a criteria that could define art.

If you want to say that art is a skill or virtuosity to create, the term doesn't really mean anything since you might as well just call it skill or virtuosity since it doesn't have all the other loaded implications the word "art" conveys.

If you want to say that art is purely subjective and that scribbling is the equivalent of Picasso, then art again loses any real meaning and is an approximate synonym of "thing". If anything is art, nothing is art.

Art is a form of communication that can only take place through the media the artists choose. Conversation or essays can substitute for art if the message is logical and sequitur. On the other hand, if the message is to replicate an experience of the artist, to portray an inscrutable aspect of the human psyche, or to communicate the reasoning of a value or belief through allegorical or analogous representation, art is created. As long as this line of communication is maintained, that is to say, that the (educated) society reading it can still understand the underlying meaning of what the work was meant to portray, it is objectively art. Even if the work was not initially intended by the artist to portray a specific response, the agreement that the work does indeed do so (through accepted literary criticism, etc), it is objectively art; for example, a person in a vegetative state who inadvertently gives the finger is still offensive out of context [that is only in response to those who insist on eliminating the artist when evaluating the art- if you want to include the artist in the equation, my argument only becomes stronger].

So what video game constitutes art? I honestly cannot think of a single one. This may be because I have not really ventured too far into artsy gaming, and there are people out there who seem vaguely to know what they're talking about who rant on about Beyond Good and Evil (which both impresses me and set off alarms by referencing Nietzsche in its title). To mainstream, faux art games like the Metal Gear Solid series or ICO, what exactly makes it art? For the former, hamhanded, cliched truism that were established sixty years ago by Satre or conspiracy theories? What exactly is being communicated there that requires the unique perspective of video games (besides the occasional neat moment where you have to use the second controller or Snake takes off his mask, which really amounts to cleverness and virtuosity of making video games, and not in consciously communicating a real message)? For the latter, I really don't know what the fuss was about to begin with, as it all seemed to ever boil down to a unique motif rather than a unique message, although if you want to debate me in saying that its specific flavor of alienation and hopelessness somehow differs from the general vague concept played at by a few million other songs/books/paintings/etc ever since dada was popular shortly after the first world war, I'm all ears.

That isn't to say ICO is dada, just that dada established any theme ICO has before the great depression.

Please name me any video game that has a unique message or even portrayal of that message for which I cannot immediately cite three wikipedia links to art that already portrayed the message more clearly. Messages that are emotional in nature are obviously under less strict guidelines since they are less defined.

Ok I will give a single example of video games in general that could be construed as art; the first KOTOR as a testament to the nature of free will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've got two flaws in there; why bother asking the question at all if everything is the same level of art? Certainly the word art should hold some value and not jsut be another term meaninging 'everything'.

And as I elaborated very few people know the exact purpose of their own creation. Most artists want to create great art, yet few are capable. We merely attempt to understand the medium in which we work, and try to find out how to increase our capabilities to convey what the artist intends. The message also doesn't have to be a snobbish high class thing as people keep trying to say. Good art says something, whether you want it to or not, and is not always intended by the artist. An artist is making an attempt, this is art, not a science.

I'm not trying to make video game art as something a class above, or fine art. I msotly want to avoid the all-or-nothing approach that seems popular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Video games are still games first and foremost in most cases. A graphical interface does not make Solitaire on my PC any more of an art peice than Solitaire played with real cards. Which equates a comparison to other sports, and racing games. Then war games.

As I said, calling one thing art or not means nothing if you have a loose definition of art. If you're trying to equate the best artistic video game to the best artistic books/movie/etc,, you're obviously going to be trying to find the best from each medium. Thats why the debate seems 'snobbish/classy'. You argue with the best evidence first in a debate. No one is going to say video games are art and bring Pong as their first example. That is why the debate seems to hinge on certain titles and criteria. We've all got our ideas on what constitues art.

Are you kidding me? Pong is the epitome of games as art due to its simplicity and the way it moved an entire generation of new gamers. I've seen game museums feature Pong pretty prominently. In classical art museums no less.

I agree that games does put forth the idea of having fun, being interactive, being 'sporty' with its competitive aspects (points systems, kill counts, race-finishes, etc). But objectively, it's no less an artform than most real sports, most physical activity of artistic expression such as some circus acts, or just about any human activity that can be judged according to their relevant aesthetics. Really, I don't think it's anything to do with 'loose definition of art'. There's nothing loose about it. There's the classical arts and there's the unconventional/interactive and other types of 'art' that goes beyond the strictly visual/physical art types. They're all just modality of creation. And if that includes sportsmen or people who excel in their craft or even an aesthetically pleasing building, they become something of an artform. A popular aesthetic feature that people come to admire. And that happens in videogames too, so I don't see why it has to be singled out as something that can't be an artform.

But as pointed out, yes, we do need to be cautious between trying to narrow it down to classy/snobbish ideals or merely expand it accept every title as art.

But just about everything can be classified as art as long as there's a specific aesthetic vision of what to appreciate about them. I don't see the need to be 'cautious' when it's just an ethereal ideal. Nobody is going to force museums to feature sports stars as height of artistic expression, though that kind of stuff has happened in the past. So what is the argument to be had there?

Art and its quality should be defined by its individual purpose and method to achieve its own aim. The game should have a purpose or message (no it doesn't have to be a spiritually deep message, or anything super-important!) and it has to convey that. I'm sure this stands for all other art forms. And yes, sometimes a great message purposefully delivered in what appears to be a bad way may actually be the most effective venue.

Okay. Since when was anything that was ever created and practiced by mankind not have their individual purpose and method to achieve their own aim?

If anything is art, nothing is art.

I have to disagree with that notion. Because when anything is viewed through a narrow scope enough to be considered to be a form of art, it comes under intense scrutiny and only the best examples typically are shown. Hell, even if it's to do with bad art, there's that certain scrutiny to them too. By that very mechanism of critiquing and presenting them, that idea that if anything is art, nothing is art just doesn't work. There is no such thing as an 'art museum of everything'. There's always a focus no matter how varying the topic is.

Even critiquing sports figures as art figures, people typically tend to not really figure into the idea that the entirety of people practicing such sport is 'artful' or in top of their aesthetic form. If you're talking Golf, you have Tiger Woods. If you have a singer, you have Elvis. There's always scrutiny no matter how vast one can make each medium seem by considering everything as art. Because they are not presented indiscriminately. Again, I wonder why I'm even bothering to point all that out because there are a lot of 'off-beat', artistic displays in several prestigious art museums in the last decade and that definitely does include videogames. It wasn't too long ago in human history where photographs weren't considered to be art, or that video or architecture could be considered art. And today, it constantly is.

Also to elaborate on why everything doesn't end up in museums is because it's simply not an appreciable aesthetic. You can have the best stroke to hammer down a nail in the world, but that doesn't mean anything artistic to the vast majority of people who can't appreciate it. With visual arts, it's very easy to appreciate in its simplicity. With games, it does take more of an effort to play and understand them, so obviously it's not going to be as an easy sell as traditional arts are. As for sports and other physical arts, I think one can see stuff like Hall of Fame and other sports-appreciation committees as a way of making them into an appreciable artform. The operative word being 'appreciable' since you are not going to have a museum on smashing a pancake with boots. Unless some crazy art curator is willing to take a quirky turn or something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you kidding me? Pong is the epitome of games as art due to its simplicity and the way it moved an entire generation of new gamers. I've seen game museums feature Pong pretty prominently. In classical art museums no less.

Epitome of games as an art? I think you need to differentiate an innovative gameplay concept, and an artform. If you're looking at Pong as an example of art in a more simplistic form, yeah, maybe. But I think its a bit far to say its the epitome of the idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this