I must admit I've never actually thought about this topic at all. It's never occurred to me that games may or may not be considered art.
Maybe it's because video games are full of art. A lot of games have storylines, and almost every game has graphics and sound of some sort. Tales of Monkey Island even has choreography!
So right now, I'm starting to think of games as perhaps an "art gallery" rather than art itself. But I suppose it's still debatable whether an art container is art itself.
But haydenwce27 has a good point about films; they're usually thought of as art even though technically that's what their made of. Personally, I think the reason I have always considered film to be an art form is because that's all it is.
Who is using this definition? Anywhere? Specifically, colloquially. I'd like to know. I believe we all understand that we are talking about:
I am. That's who. When you ignore that definition its easy to continue this argument. But once you acknowledge this definition you have to come to terms with the fact that Ebert's argument becomes null and void, and that would make you wrong.
It has been awhile since I messed with "Cloud", so I may be wrong with this, but I'm pretty sure it's not a game by Ebert's own definition. A game has objectives, Cloud does not. Cloud is an interactive art piece, which is entirely different from a game.
Flower is not art. Flower tasks the player with obtaining pedals to advance. The process of collecting things is not art, and the need to collect a certain number, the competition to obtain them? This is not art. It is a collect the dots game with many artistic elements contained within.
That's funny. I think I was playing Cloud. On my computer. With my keyboard. I guess that must not have been a game then. I must have been staring and drooling, because of my short attention span, at a damn bloody painting. I didn't know you could play a painting. Could it have been, GASP, that Cloud was an ART...GAME? A game that IS a piece of art? Oh but you couldn't possibly admit that, NOOOO. You don't even know what you're talking about. And you refuse to accept any other points, no matter what they're saying. You ignore them and attack them at their basest level while ignoring the point. If you were right that would be a different matter, but you aren't.
Does anyone really care whether one person considers a piece art or not. Every definition of art is fairly vague, thus it is entirely subjective whether one considers something art or not.
Everything is art, art is everything, art is nothing, some things are art and others are not. None of those statements are intrinsically wrong, art is what is perceived by the observer, user, etc.
Secret Fawful is using "art" in a way that I almost never see used in modern, colloquial English. If anything, he's using one that is uncommon, especially in discussions of this variety, and it comes off as being somewhat pedantic. Same with "game", where "anything I happen to be capable of interacting with without express purpose other than to use idle time" is a game. Many people consider "toys" and "games" to be separate thanks to the idea that games have rules and objectives.
art1
• noun 1 the expression of creative skill through a visual medium such as painting or sculpture. 2 the product of such a process; paintings, drawings, and sculpture collectively. 3 (the arts) the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, and drama. 4 (arts) subjects of study primarily concerned with human culture (as contrasted with scientific or technical subjects). 5 a skill: the art of conversation.
... What about a painting? It's not art! It's something (a blank canvas) that art is added to.
It's a bit silly, I mean, art is always expressed through a medium and has a container most of the time.
No, that's silly. The painting is art, the canvas is not. I'm saying that games are not art, because they are(by definition) a set of rules and objectives. Anything else is not part of "the game", they are elements that you can separate and call art without a game even being there. A game is more like a canvas than a painting.
Painting itself can be considered a system as well. It requires many components such as lighting, composition, color, anatomy, etc. to make it work. Without one of these, the piece won't function.
That's just the medium of art, not the expression behind it. Because the expression of games is not only subjective but completely transformative to individual play styles Pac-Man could be the deepest game in history to one person and Braid is just a Mario clone.
Everything has to operate under rules, those rules are not the art itself. The rules that the art forms are more akin to a science.
Marble is a natural rock. It has nothing to do with this discussion. Building materials had to be mined or made, therefore they are works made by artists of their craft. Techniques are part of the art. Paper had to be made, by skilled craftsmen as well.
Apparently everything is art, because the act of creating something requires the ability to move one's body in a way that takes skill, including this sentence.
Which is closer to describing a game?
Art:Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.
Social Science: The term behavioral sciences encompasses all the disciplines that explore the activities of and interactions among organisms in the natural world.
Secret Fawful is using "art" in a way that I almost never see used in modern, colloquial English. If anything, he's using one that is uncommon, especially in discussions of this variety, and it comes off as being somewhat pedantic.
Well you just saw it used so start acknowledging it, no matter how grudgingly or "pedantic".
A light bulb could count as art under this definition.
No the light bulb is the work. The creation or workmanship of it is the art. Take a look at a light bulb sometime, and the intricate qualities of it. You'll find that it's actually quite beautiful to the eyes.
That's just the medium of art, not the expression behind it. Because the expression of games is not only subjective but completely transformative to individual play styles Pac-Man could be the deepest game in history to one person and Braid is just a Mario clone.
It could be. Then again, aren't all paintings and works of art objective. Isn't one persons impression of Mona Lisa different from anothers?
Everything has to operate under rules, those rules are not the art itself. The rules that the art forms are more akin to a science.
Then painting is no longer an art by this logic, but is a science.
Apparently everything is art, because the act of creating something requires the ability to move one's body in a way that takes skill, including this sentence.
One could say that proper language and grammar skills could be considered an art.
Which is closer to describing a game?
Art:Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.
Social Science: The term behavioral sciences encompasses all the disciplines that explore the activities of and interactions among organisms in the natural world.
For me, art. Art is also, once again, defined as skilled workmanship, or a craft or trade using principles or methods. Both definitions are closer to game design than social science. However a game is a work, not the art itself.
@Rather Dashing
I think it's an interesting line to draw where interactivity is just interactivity and not somehow a game as well, thinking of driving a car right now.
Objectives and rules can be art simply by the defintion of art itself.
Can a mathematical expression or a formula be art? Yes they can, i would say e=mc^2 for instance qualifies due to it's simplicity and relevance.
Can a pack of rules be art? Of course, there might be some clever and stellar balanced rules which enable an extremely entertaining game.
I think you can see the whole package as well as you can pick out certain aspects of a game and both, the complete game as well as certain aspects out of it can be art, just like with a film or any other medium.
I was suggesting more than once that you think more about the term art, not because i wanted to insult you but because i have the feeling that you're using it in a too narrowed way.
However, as much as we'd like to call programming an art it is not. Programming is a science with predictable outcomes and repeatable results, even if sometimes games don't perform as expected and have bugs or exploits. Programming is a science with rules and terms that must be understood into order to make a functional program. If you ignore these rules the program doesn't work.
But isn't applying paint to a canvas a science? Sure, it's not as advanced and has less restrictions, but it also has a right and a wrong, such as pushing the brush into the canvas but without dipping it in paint first is wrong. The programming isn't art, it's science, but just because science is needed in the process doesn't mean that the finished work isn't a work of art.
Though your post made me realize that I'm only arguing here not because I want video games to be considered art, but because I don't want it to be seen as a lesser medium than others. I also realize that it doesn't matter whether you think it is art or not, it's still pretty much the perfect medium of storytelling an expression of ideas, and it's still enjoyable.
Well you just saw it used so start acknowledging it, no matter how grudgingly or "pedantic".
The point is, "Processes people use to make things" is not a common usage of the word, and using it here is like demanding that "gay" refer exclusively to jovial people. Words by themselves don't just matter, context is sort of a thing too.
No, that's silly. The painting is art, the canvas is not. I'm saying that games are not art, because they are(by definition) a set of rules and objectives. Anything else is not part of "the game", they are elements that you can separate and call art without a game even being there. A game is more like a canvas than a painting.
But taking a specific game, like S&M 3, can you play it if you remove all the artistic elements? I don't think so.
I'm just saying that if, because it has elements that are not art, a game can't be art, then a marble sculpture, since it has marble (which you said isn't art), isn't art either. And a painting, which is made of a canvas and paint, neither element being art, isn't art either.
See what I mean? Just because it has rules doesn't prevent it from being art any more than having paint and a canvas prevents a painting from being art. You can't say "it has some elements that aren't art so it's not art".
You say these elements are what defines a game, but I say a painting is equally defined by being paint on canvas, and a sculpture is equally defined by being sculpted in something hard. So I still fail to see your point. What defines them decides of the medium, not on whether it's art or not.
The point is, "Processes people use to make things" is not a common usage of the word, and using it here is like demanding that "gay" refer exclusively to jovial people. Words by themselves don't just matter, context is sort of a thing too.
You ignored context before I came into this topic or conversation. You have no room to talk about that. I'm willing to acknowledge that games may not apply under one form of context, but you have to be willing to acknowledge that it does ABSOLUTELY apply under another context. Wait, what am I saying! Games are the work. It's the workmanship that is the art.
But isn't applying paint to a canvas a science? Sure, it's not as advanced and has less restrictions, but it also has a right and a wrong, such as pushing the brush into the canvas but without dipping it in paint first is wrong. The programming isn't art, it's science, but just because science is needed in the process doesn't mean that the finished work isn't a work of art.
Though your post made me realize that I'm only arguing here not because I want video games to be considered art, but because I don't want it to be seen as a lesser medium than others. I also realize that it doesn't matter whether you think it is art or not, it's still pretty much the perfect medium of storytelling an expression of ideas.
I really wanted to split this up into different sections so I could discuss them individually, but your point is both succinct and pretty well thought out. However, I will have to debate one point. The reason that programming isn't considered an art and painting is largely is due to the fact that programming is 100% repeatable and the only thing that separates the best programmers in the world from someone with no computer ability is knowledge.
That's not to say that art doesn't require knowledge but it is one of the mediums in which two people can create the same thing and have it look different. While two programmers might not create the same kind of program, if they both fill the same function the differences are of interest only to programmers.
You can split hairs and say that two art pieces, such as reproductions of great works, can look exactly the same and the differences are only made clear to artists but that sort of misses the point. If a programmer sets out to exactly recreate someone's code he can do so perfectly if he just reads their code and types it in. If you give the same code to me and tell me to type it in I can remake the best programs in the world.
Since knowledge is the barrier between the greatest programmers and some random guy skill is the split between the greatest artist and Roger Ebert, I would suggest that programming is a knowledge based science. It is repeatable, understandable, and logical. Art tends not to be.
Of your point of us wanting games to be considered art, I certainly am not trying to diminish their impact. Games can be one of the most individualistic forms of entertainment and no two people will have the same thoughts as they play through a game. Some people enjoy watching Let's Plays for this exact reason. They get the chance to hear another person's thought process or verbalized thoughts as they play (sometimes).
I think the elements of a game should be considered art but the design portion is more a process of knowledge based execution than an art. I love making games but I don't pretend to be making art, more of a toy maker than an artist. The games are meant to be picked up and enjoyed than deeply considered for their reflection of the human psyche.
But taking a specific game, like S&M 3, can you play it if you remove all the artistic elements?
Actually yes you could. Take out all the art, the story, and the humor and you would have a floating dot collecting shapes or pieces. Basically, Sam and Max would then devolve into a point and click version of Adventure for the Atari 2600. You would move your dot on the screen to other shapes and when you click on certain dots they would enter a menu. You could then use them to solve puzzles such as a square shaped hole needing a square shaped key.
Would that be the same game? Not even close. But you would have the same gameplay, it would simply cease to be enjoyable. The program could still function without anything but placeholder art (shapes to represent characters and items) and the gameplay would actually remain unchanged.
Can you do this with art? Not really. If you take apart the specific elements of a musical piece you have sounds with no impact. A game with purely placeholder art can still convey proof of concept in some games and these have been used to get game projects started. But if you take a piece of art down to the paints and use that as proof of concept of painting you haven't done anything except invented paint... again.
Games don't need to have art in them to be games, but they need art in them to have impact.
Actually yes you could. Take out all the art, the story, and the humor and you would have a floating dot collecting shapes or pieces. Basically, Sam and Max would then devolve into a point and click version of Adventure for the Atari 2600. You would move your dot on the screen to other shapes and when you click on certain dots they would enter a menu. You could then use them to solve puzzles such as a square shaped hole needing a square shaped key.
Would that be the same game? Not even close. But you would have the same gameplay, it would simply cease to be enjoyable. The program could still function without anything but placeholder art (shapes to represent characters and items) and the gameplay would actually remain unchanged.
Can you do this with art? Not really. If you take apart the specific elements of a musical piece you have sounds with no impact. A game with purely placeholder art can still convey proof of concept in some games and these have been used to get game projects started. But if you take a piece of art down to the paints and use that as proof of concept of painting you haven't done anything except invented paint... again.
Games don't need to have art in them to be games, but they need art in them to have impact.
But taking a specific game, like S&M 3, can you play it if you remove all the artistic elements? I don't think so.
I'm just saying that if, because it has elements that are not art, a game can't be art, then a marble sculpture, since it has marble (which you said isn't art), isn't art either. And a painting, which is made of a canvas and paint, neither element being art, isn't art either.
See what I mean? Just because it has rules doesn't prevent it from being art any more than having paint and a canvas prevents a painting from being art. You can't say "it has some elements that aren't art so it's not art".
You say these elements are what defines a game, but I say a painting is equally defined by being paint on canvas, and a sculpture is equally defined by being sculpted in something hard. So I still fail to see your point. What defines them decides of the medium, not on whether it's art or not.
I think the difference in our viewpoints here is pretty clear to map out: You're putting the "rules and objectives" as just an equal aspect of the game, whereas I'm using it as the definition(correct me if I'm wrong here). Paintings and sculptures are created on top of materials, yes, but those materials by themselves are not considered art.
I cannot consider games a separate art, much the same way I couldn't consider film a separate art from writing if raw text scrolled along the screen. If it was just written words on screen, it would be just another way to display writing, not an art in its own right. If the rules and objectives that separate games from other media are not art, then games themselves are not art, but merely another means to show the same arts we already have.
You ignored context before I came into this topic or conversation. You have no room to talk about that. I'm willing to acknowledge that games may not apply under one form of context, but you have to be willing to acknowledge that it does ABSOLUTELY apply under another context. Wait, what am I saying! Games are the work. It's the workmanship that is the art.
Fine then. Games are a Work of Art under the same definition that allows "installing drywall" to be an art.
Surely the design of the video game is art - sometimes good art, often bad art - and the video game itself is the medium. What you then do with the art when it's in your possession is up to you but it doesn't stop it from being something that someone (or rather some people) has/have uniquely designed and created.
Fine then. Games are a Work of Art under the same definition that allows "installing drywall" to be an art.
And yet no matter how you so weakly tried to insult my point and intelligence here, not to mention the integrity of the medium as a work of art, you still know deep down that games have much more worth, meaning, and expression in them than drywall. Unless it's E.T. or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in which case I'd rather spend five hours staring at drywall.
And yet no matter how you so weakly tried to insult my point and intelligence here, not to mention the integrity of the medium as an art
I'm sorry, but installing drywall is an art. Look in the dictionary if you don't believe me, after all. The installed drywall is a work of art. I can't insult the integrity of the word "art" when drywall fits nicely in the given definition.
you still know deep down that games have much more worth, meaning, and expression in them than drywall. Unless it's E.T. or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in which case I'd rather spend five hours staring at drywall.
I'm pretty sure we weren't talking about that definition of "art". I'm pretty sure we were talking about whether or not skilled people happen to make games with techniques, because that's the context that you said I was ignoring, that's the context you've been attempting to shoehorn into the conversation, despite its irrelevance.
No, I don't think that games mean more than drywall. The other art forms applied to games can and do, certainly, but there's nothing special about the actual games.
I think the difference in our viewpoints here is pretty clear to map out: You're putting the "rules and objectives" as just an equal aspect of the game, whereas I'm using it as the definition(correct me if I'm wrong here).
I actually see that it's the definition, but I feel that some acknowledged types of art have such definitions. A sculpture is also made with stuff that isn't art, for instance.
I also think you're not very consistent. You defined clouds as "not a game, but interactive art". However, you seem to think movies are art, and adventure games are definitely interactive movies. So how aren't they "interactive art", too?
It just seems that if a game starts fitting your definition of art, you just take it out the "game" category. Which doesn't seem fair.
Adventure games aren't "won" or "lost" as much as they are completed, in the same way you finish a book or movie. It's a way of telling a story, using game as a medium rather than a book, film or graphic novel (or something else).
I'm not saying I'm 100% sure whether games can be considered art or not, I simply disagree with your reason why they can't.
I might have misinterpreted what you said though. Feel free to correct me.
I'm sorry, but installing drywall is an art. Look in the dictionary if you don't believe me, after all. The installed drywall is a work of art. I can't insult the integrity of the word "art" when drywall fits nicely in the given definition.
It was the way you said it I was referring to and you damn well know it, sir. It was that snarky sarcastic tone which you're continuing to use now.
I'm pretty sure we weren't talking about that definition of "art". I'm pretty sure we were talking about whether or not skilled people happen to make games with techniques, because that's the context that you said I was ignoring, that's the context you've been attempting to shoehorn into the conversation, despite its irrelevance.
No, I don't think that games mean more than drywall. The other art forms applied to games can and do, certainly, but there's nothing special about the actual games.
It's a context which is completely relevant no matter how much you want to ignore it because it invalidates your points and you know it, and insulting the point and my addition to the topic isn't going to change its relevancy no matter how much you damn well say it does, sir. You're right. Without every single component that makes up the games, they aren't anything special. Mostly because they don't exist without those components, but what am I doing here. Silly me, always trying to be RELEVANT. Oh ho ho ho, what a bastard I am. Oh ho ho ho. How dare I. OH HO HO HO. HILARIOUS OF ME. What a card I am with my "shoehorning things" and whatnot. Oh ho ho ho.
Actually that can be generated by a computer too. Since I've claimed (possibly erroneously, I'll leave that for programmers to ponder) that programming is a science, not an art, the use of placeholder graphics does eliminate the impact of a game's story but doesn't change the gameplay.
And Guitars, it depends on which aspect of the design you mean. Game mechanics aren't really the arrangement of art pieces, they are completely independent of them. The more vital part of a game is the systems created to hold up the story, such as in Sam & Max 3, when you have to arrange the Your Momma insults to that Sam sets them up and Max finishes them you could remove the writing and the voice dialogue and have a system where you match numbers together and have the same system.
In the Simon Says QTE events in games, the art can almost completely be removed and have the exact same gameplay, which is one of the reasons why it isn't considered a fun aspect of gameplay but gets used so often. It is simple to program and gives the game makers the ability to show the player the story without having to worry about the player's actions interrupting them.
Game design doesn't require art but instead a knowledge of how to create challenges for the player to overcome. The art for a game is rarely created to first in the game's creation, instead the game is designed and prototyped to give examples of play. Both of these require some knowledge of game mechanics and no knowledge of art. Art can be left completely separate from design and programming.
Though admittedly, when the artists aren't given any level of impact in the game's creation the game does suffer from it.
Actually that can be generated by a computer too. Since I've claimed (possibly erroneously, I'll leave that for programmers to ponder) that programming is a science, not an art, the use of placeholder graphics does eliminate the impact of a game's story but doesn't change the gameplay.
That requires a person behind it though. That computer can't draw that dot without a person to tell it to draw that dot. Which is no different than a person using a pencil to draw a dot, and placing it in the game. It just skips steps.
That requires a person behind it though. That computer can't draw that dot without a person to tell it to draw that dot. Which is no different than a person using a pencil to draw a dot, and placing it in the game. It just skips steps.
.
Put that in an art gallery and make sure I get full credit for it. It is an original.
Just because a person does something doesn't make it noteworthy. I can walk to the store, I can buy sliced meat, I can buy bread, I can buy cheese. Heck, I can even skip using a shopping cart and stack these items on top of one another, that takes some level of skill.
Further, I can take those same objects and arrange them into a tasty object commonly called a sandwich. A completely unique piece due to the way I cut the cheese and which slices of bread I choose to put together.
Then I can take bites out of the sandwich in a unique way to create the impression of my teeth in the bread, meat, and cheese. This cannot be reproduced by anyone else and even I would have difficulty making two bites look the same.
Do you see the difference between a mundane action and creating art? Just because I can make the computer draw a dot, though code or by using the mouse, it doesn't mean I'm an artist. I could arrange the dots to convey a message or a picture, but if the picture doesn't mean anything it isn't art.
Art doesn't just have to be deliberate, it has to actually mean something beyond the object itself. If you consider any skilled action art, than everyone is an artist and no particular art is worthy of note. A comedian (can't remember who) said that "If I can do it, it ain't art".
While comedy can be considered an art, the joke really meant that the mundane isn't art. Much like walking isn't a sport, a sandwich or a dot are not art.
Hassat: By removing the story you do rob the player of their reward for completing the puzzles, but you can substitute a reward that isn't really as good and requires no writing or art: Points. If you collect all the objects and bring them to the right locations you get points for doing so. There, same gameplay and the same mechanics but a completely different experience for the lack of art.
Basically, the art of a game makes it engaging but the mechanics are the system by which you measure your success in the game. No other medium measures success, which is why I think games can't really be considered art.
.
Put that in an art gallery and make sure I get full credit for it. It is an original.
Just because a person does something doesn't make it noteworthy. I can walk to the store, I can buy sliced meat, I can buy bread, I can buy cheese. Heck, I can even skip using a shopping cart and stack these items on top of one another, that takes some level of skill.
Further, I can take those same objects and arrange them into a tasty object commonly called a sandwich. A completely unique piece due to the way I cut the cheese and which slices of bread I choose to put together.
Then I can take bites out of the sandwich in a unique way to create the impression of my teeth in the bread, meat, and cheese. This cannot be reproduced by anyone else and even I would have difficulty making two bites look the same.
Do you see the difference between a mundane action and creating art? Just because I can make the computer draw a dot, though code or by using the mouse, it doesn't mean I'm an artist. I could arrange the dots to convey a message or a picture, but if the picture doesn't mean anything it isn't art.
Art doesn't just have to be deliberate, it has to actually mean something beyond the object itself. If you consider any skilled action art, than everyone is an artist and no particular art is worthy of note. A comedian (can't remember who) said that "If I can do it, it ain't art".
While comedy can be considered an art, the joke really meant that the mundane isn't art. Much like walking isn't a sport, a sandwich or a dot are not art.
Oh, I wasn't passing off a dot as art. Although, who is to say a dot isn't a work of art? Not me. However, I was continuing on avistew's point that without all of the works of art within the game that comprise it, the game can not function. And now I'm tired, and it's 6 AM, and I've said my peace, and I'm afraid it's just come down to picking apart one another's posts, which is never good wholesome discussion (I'm looking at you Rather Dashing, and now I'm not looking at you because doing that before bed is the most unwise course of action I've ever heard [just kidding]), and nobody is going to be able to do jack to change my mind because I'm 100% sure of what I'm saying being correct.
Thanks for the interesting points though, guys, I was actually pretty interested in this discussion and what you all were saying, oh silly me, that is until I found out I was shoehorning my way in. Oh ho ho ho silly me. Oh ho ho ho what a bastard I am.
[whistle]
Oh...
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!
I actually see that it's the definition, but I feel that some acknowledged types of art have such definitions. A sculpture is also made with stuff that isn't art, for instance.
We're going in semantic circles with this one, I think we need to find another way to explain our ideas.
I also think you're not very consistent. You defined clouds as "not a game, but interactive art". However, you seem to think movies are art, and adventure games are definitely interactive movies. So how aren't they "interactive art", too?
It just seems that if a game starts fitting your definition of art, you just take it out the "game" category. Which doesn't seem fair.p/quote]
Not at all.
I'm guessing you never played "Cloud", but it's essentially a software toy mechanics-wise. You just sort of float around messing with clouds. There is no objective or goal, so it's not a game. And down to the basic mechanical workings of the thing, it is an art piece.
Adventure games aren't "won" or "lost" as much as they are completed
Well, LucasArts and Telltale games, anyway. Sierra and Infocom(for example) had points and death screens.
in the same way you finish a book or movie. It's a way of telling a story, using game as a medium rather than a book, film or graphic novel (or something else).
...
I might have misinterpreted what you said though. Feel free to correct me.
I don't see a game as being distinctly different from an art perspective, though. How is a story told where you also solve puzzles different from a film where you do not do this thing? The puzzle is a challenge to the player, but it's not a work of art, is it? Because the puzzles are what change it from being a film done in sprite art to being a game, and it is by the merits of a game that it should be judged as "art", shouldn't it?
For example, if I set a steady film camera at the back of a play or musical, and let it record the musical as though you were a person sitting in the audience, would that be a separate piece of art from the musical? Now, if you inherently USED the camera, with cinematography and editing and special effects, THEN it is a different, separate, valid form of art that spawns the cinema.
It's a context which is completely relevant no matter how much you want to ignore it because it invalidates your points and you know it, and insulting the point and my addition to the topic isn't going to change its relevancy no matter how much you damn well say it does, sir.
In your profile, you say you have "been an artist since you were five". That is a very vague thing to say, Fawful. Since an artist is a person that does something with skill and technique, you could be doing just about anything.
When someone says "games are not art", they are not saying "games are not things that are made by skilled people". It's obvious from the context. You can go ahead and say that games are the Work of an Art under the definition you posit, but it doesn't carry any weight to it because you're saying that an art is every single profession from the guy behind the fast food counter to your accountant.
You're right. Without every single component that makes up the games, they aren't anything special. Mostly because they don't exist without those components, but what am I doing here. Silly me, always trying to be RELEVANT. Oh ho ho ho, what a bastard I am. Oh ho ho ho. How dare I. OH HO HO HO. HILARIOUS OF ME. What a card I am with my "shoehorning things" and whatnot. Oh ho ho ho.
You know, for a person that is against a sarcastic tone, you're not very good at avoiding it yourself. But okay. I'll play ball.
Is Pong art? I really doubt that it is. It is just two rectangles and a square. These rectangles and squares operate under certain rules. This is the "game".
Now, let's say I added graphics. Okay, graphic design is an art. Let's say I add a story. Okay, writing is an art. Lets say I add a sweeping orchestral soundtrack, changing camera angles, and maybe even deep and emotional themes.
Is there creative work there? Yes. But nothing about it is specific to games, it's just kind of dropped on top of Pong. There's nothing special about it creatively that can't be done in another medium.
Please excuse my use of the word "art" in an apparently unacceptable way.
I'm not thinking about it too deeply (that would make my head hurt), but I think the imagination and creation behind a game is an art, therefore making the game art too.
We're going in semantic circles with this one, I think we need to find another way to explain our ideas.
I'm going to try one more time to explain what I mean there
Sculpture is three-dimensional artwork created by shaping or combining hard materials, typically stone such as marble, metal, glass, or wood, or plastic materials such as clay, textiles, polymers and softer metals.
A sculpture made, say, out of wood, is still wood. But the wood is a material. Although the fact that it's made of wood is a defining feature for it to be a sculpture (since if it was painted on a canvas rather than made out of wood it wouldn't be a sculpture anymore), it doesn't prevent it from being art. You can't take the "art" part of the sculpture independently from the "wood" part without it ceasing to be a sculpture.
As such, the wood, which in itself isn't art, is still part of the definition of this sculpture.
In an adventure game, the puzzles are part of what makes it a game. And if you consider they're not art, that doesn't mean the whole game isn't art. Sure, it NEEDS to have that non-artistic component in it to be called a game, but the sculpture needed a non-artistic component in it to be called a sculpture, too.
I'm guessing you never played "Cloud", but it's essentially a software toy mechanics-wise. You just sort of float around messing with clouds. There is no objective or goal, so it's not a game. And down to the basic mechanical workings of the thing, it is an art piece.
Ok, so your point is that games have goals, and therefore they're not art, right?
And by "goals", I mean, goals for the person who didn't create them. Since any piece of art of course has a goal from the artist's point of view.
I understand your point, but that's also why I think games can count as interactive art. The player becomes part of the art. It's art in context, if you will. Someone gave the example of a play drawing on the audience. You also have pop-up books that require the reader to do something. And I would say magic tricks can be art, for instance, and they definitely depend on other people.
You think Cloud isn't a game, but I'm sure any people disagree. And I know I've played games without focusing on counting points or anything, just for fun. I'm not saying these were art, I'm saying "games" don't necessarily require any goal other than entertaining you. Nor do they necessarily have an ending point, or a winner/loser.
It's just a very broad category, really. Just like art is. I'm pretty sure now that the two can overlap to some extent.
Maybe they're more distinct in your mind and mutually exclusive, so that if something is part of one category it seems to you that by definition it isn't part of the other, or something.
Well, LucasArts and Telltale games, anyway. Sierra and Infocom(for example) had points and death screens.
Well, I've never tried to argue that all games are art, nor do I think has anyone else. Just that some can be. Finding exceptions doesn't work in your favour, just the other way around. That is, since you are arguing that no games can be art, proving to you that a single game is art dismisses your argument. However, you can take ten thousand games and prove they're not art, that will never prove than none can ever be. So examples aren't going to help you much, you need to work with more general things.
And my point remains: do you think the telltale games can be qualified as interactive moves? And if so, is the "interactive" part enough to disqualify them as art, while you'd consider them art if they weren't interactive?
I don't see a game as being distinctly different from an art perspective, though. How is a story told where you also solve puzzles different from a film where you do not do this thing? The puzzle is a challenge to the player, but it's not a work of art, is it? Because the puzzles are what change it from being a film done in sprite art to being a game, and it is by the merits of a game that it should be judged as "art", shouldn't it?
But... adding one part that you think isn't art to lots of stuff that is makes it "non-art", to you?
The stories are games. They're not movies. It's not an existing movie that someone has taken and has added gameplay to. That's the whole thing, it was made that way.
I'm not arguing whether the puzzles themselves or the gameplay are art, just whether the game, taken in its entirety, can be considered art or not. The gameplay is the way the story has been chosen to be told. Just like a movie isn't a radio drama with pictures added to it, but something made completely differently to fit the medium, because the author decided to tell their story that way.
Or, for another example, the webcomics on Telltale, with the balloons appearing when you put your mouse. You could say it's not significantly different from having them there in the first place, yet it doesn't suddenly stop being art just because it's interactive.
When people started printing books, I fail to see how it made a significant difference, since the story was the same, except you had to read it and turn pages rather than listen to it.
The medium changed. And as a result, so did the possibilities, of course, although many books don't take advantage of it (for instance, you can use the fact that people aren't hearing the story to use a word that can be pronounced in two different ways without letting the reader know which you meant).
Being a game allows the story to be told differently, by giving the audience a role inside of it and making them feel more involved. Note that I'm still talking about adventure games here. In some cases, you can also use it to tell several simultaneous stories, showing the different possibilities depending on the character's choice (and if that prevents a story from being art, then this movie isn't art (and nether are the original plays).
I guess there's an easy way to say that a game doesn't qualify as art, though this is debatable, and that's to compare it to rap music.
Rap is one of the most controversial mediums of music, as well as a very polarizing one. Some people consider all rap garbage, most won't count it as music, and many say it takes no skill. Others find deeper meaning behind the lyrics, enjoy the beats for their feelings they convey, or attach themselves to the message an artist conveys.
Games are very controversial as well. Some parents want to ban them completely, new networks pander for ratings by doing "reports" on falsified research, and many claim it isn't art. Others find a meaning in creating the games, enjoy the experiences they have in completing the tasks, play for the story's sake, or just like the art. Which is really the splitting point.
Games generally are not created with a message and those that are generally poorly done or just have bad game play. Serious games are currently a new way for players to get bored doing something they normally enjoyed and even a strong message doesn't really carry the weight of the game being considered art. So why is that?
I ascribe this more to the idea that games aren't a good way to teach someone information, more that they give the person a system to learn. You could spend (and some have) years mastering a particular fighting game, honing your skills to the point of madness and air juggle bitches all night long in an arcade. But if a game tries to teach you information instead of giving you a system to learn, they are generally pretty dry games.
Am I saying that games can't impart information or can't have themes? No. I'm saying that a good game doesn't need to have either emotion or information to be considered a good game. A game can exist purely for entertainment's sake with no message, no story, and no art behind it save the most basic.
This implies that since games don't need these things and things which are considered art do, even music has to speak to us to have any meaning, art is not what they are. Games are just a way to entertain and give the player an escape, possibly while teaching them a system they can use in everyday life, like a way to count or type faster or even better hand to eye coordination to help them perform surgery better.
Hell, video games are what taught me how to dance by giving me the fast reflexes and sense of rhythm that DDR imparts on the more insanely nimble players. I still couldn't dance worth a damn until I actually learned how to move properly to the beat, but that just took visual referencing.
Games teach, entertain, and comfort but they do not have a deeper meaning. We give some games this deeper meaning but it is rarely the intent of anyone who isn't Hideo Kojima.
and nobody is going to be able to do jack to change my mind because I'm 100% sure of what I'm saying being correct.
Why discuss then? You're really just trying to speak your piece and then tell us not to talk. Doesn't give us much impetus to listen.
As I normally say when talking about video games, I could be wrong. I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.
Hassat: By removing the story you do rob the player of their reward for completing the puzzles, but you can substitute a reward that isn't really as good and requires no writing or art: Points. If you collect all the objects and bring them to the right locations you get points for doing so. There, same gameplay and the same mechanics but a completely different experience for the lack of art.
So... strip away all "art" from Sam&Max makes it... Pac-Man?
I'm guessing you never played "Cloud", but it's essentially a software toy mechanics-wise. You just sort of float around messing with clouds. There is no objective or goal, so it's not a game. And down to the basic mechanical workings of the thing, it is an art piece.
No goal, eh? So... The Sims is no game? SimCity is no game? Hell, World of Warcraft ain't even a game. WoW is art now?
When people started printing books, I fail to see how it made a significant difference, since the story was the same, except you had to read it and turn pages rather than listen to it.
Well, there are "choose your own adventure" books... I love those. I guess those can't be art either, because of the interactivity?
I'm amazed how Rather Dashing is still dancing around the obvious. I'm not sure if he really believes what he's saying or if it's more about winning a discussion. If it's the second i can recommend the art of the philosopher Schopenhauer: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunstgriffe (should be available in English as well). :O)
Am I saying that games can't impart information or can't have themes? No. I'm saying that a good game doesn't need to have either emotion or information to be considered a good game. A game can exist purely for entertainment's sake with no message, no story, and no art behind it save the most basic.
This implies that since games don't need these things and things which are considered art do, even music has to speak to us to have any meaning, art is not what they are. Games are just a way to entertain and give the player an escape, possibly while teaching them a system they can use in everyday life, like a way to count or type faster or even better hand to eye coordination to help them perform surgery better.
Okay, so basically your point is "since some games aren't art, no games can be art?"
"Games" is a broad category. Kinda like "books", which includes textbooks, biographies, sucky novels, etc, many of which would not be considered art. So because some books are definitely not art, and because nothing in a book requires it to share a message or story (you can very well have a blank book, or a notebook, or a book with nonsensical text. Or a completely pointless and uninteresting diary. I could go on.), no books can be art?
What defines a book? It used to be that it was made of paper and either contained words or was meant to contain them. But wait, there are picture books, too. So, it can contain pictures rather than words. Or nothing at all and be meant to contain them later.
But wait, now we have electronic books, which have the content but no paper.
It seems like it's such a broad category that we can't really put t all in the same basket, right? There are books that are physical but without contents, and books that have content but no physical form.
Either way, the art is never the book. Okay, almost never, some books are crafter in a beautiful way, but most of the time, when a book is art (and a lot of them aren't) what matters is the story, and in most cases, that story doesn't even need to be written. It can be read to you by a friend or a famous person (audio book). It can also be translated, so in a way the individual words don't matter that much, either, although I'll agree that any translation is a new work and not 100% like the original.
So what part of the book is art? The story, or rather, the way it's told. That's the artsy part. That what makes literature one type of art.
Books are art, but nothing that is specific to books is art in itself. Nothing. Not the pages, not the cover, not the words, not the ink, not the data or the sound of the voice who reads them. It's the whole that's art.
So no, I don't think you can take games and say "what makes them games isn't art so games aren't art". What makes a book isn't art either and yet books can be art.
Comments
Maybe it's because video games are full of art. A lot of games have storylines, and almost every game has graphics and sound of some sort. Tales of Monkey Island even has choreography!
So right now, I'm starting to think of games as perhaps an "art gallery" rather than art itself. But I suppose it's still debatable whether an art container is art itself.
But haydenwce27 has a good point about films; they're usually thought of as art even though technically that's what their made of. Personally, I think the reason I have always considered film to be an art form is because that's all it is.
That's funny. I think I was playing Cloud. On my computer. With my keyboard. I guess that must not have been a game then. I must have been staring and drooling, because of my short attention span, at a damn bloody painting. I didn't know you could play a painting. Could it have been, GASP, that Cloud was an ART...GAME? A game that IS a piece of art? Oh but you couldn't possibly admit that, NOOOO. You don't even know what you're talking about. And you refuse to accept any other points, no matter what they're saying. You ignore them and attack them at their basest level while ignoring the point. If you were right that would be a different matter, but you aren't.
Everything is art, art is everything, art is nothing, some things are art and others are not. None of those statements are intrinsically wrong, art is what is perceived by the observer, user, etc.
No, that's silly. The painting is art, the canvas is not. I'm saying that games are not art, because they are(by definition) a set of rules and objectives. Anything else is not part of "the game", they are elements that you can separate and call art without a game even being there. A game is more like a canvas than a painting.
A light bulb could count as art under this definition.
That's just the medium of art, not the expression behind it. Because the expression of games is not only subjective but completely transformative to individual play styles Pac-Man could be the deepest game in history to one person and Braid is just a Mario clone.
Everything has to operate under rules, those rules are not the art itself. The rules that the art forms are more akin to a science.
Apparently everything is art, because the act of creating something requires the ability to move one's body in a way that takes skill, including this sentence.
Which is closer to describing a game?
Art:Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions.
Social Science: The term behavioral sciences encompasses all the disciplines that explore the activities of and interactions among organisms in the natural world.
No the light bulb is the work. The creation or workmanship of it is the art. Take a look at a light bulb sometime, and the intricate qualities of it. You'll find that it's actually quite beautiful to the eyes.
It could be. Then again, aren't all paintings and works of art objective. Isn't one persons impression of Mona Lisa different from anothers?
Then painting is no longer an art by this logic, but is a science.
One could say that proper language and grammar skills could be considered an art.
For me, art. Art is also, once again, defined as skilled workmanship, or a craft or trade using principles or methods. Both definitions are closer to game design than social science. However a game is a work, not the art itself.
I think it's an interesting line to draw where interactivity is just interactivity and not somehow a game as well, thinking of driving a car right now.
Objectives and rules can be art simply by the defintion of art itself.
Can a mathematical expression or a formula be art? Yes they can, i would say e=mc^2 for instance qualifies due to it's simplicity and relevance.
Can a pack of rules be art? Of course, there might be some clever and stellar balanced rules which enable an extremely entertaining game.
I think you can see the whole package as well as you can pick out certain aspects of a game and both, the complete game as well as certain aspects out of it can be art, just like with a film or any other medium.
I was suggesting more than once that you think more about the term art, not because i wanted to insult you but because i have the feeling that you're using it in a too narrowed way.
But isn't applying paint to a canvas a science? Sure, it's not as advanced and has less restrictions, but it also has a right and a wrong, such as pushing the brush into the canvas but without dipping it in paint first is wrong. The programming isn't art, it's science, but just because science is needed in the process doesn't mean that the finished work isn't a work of art.
Though your post made me realize that I'm only arguing here not because I want video games to be considered art, but because I don't want it to be seen as a lesser medium than others. I also realize that it doesn't matter whether you think it is art or not, it's still pretty much the perfect medium of storytelling an expression of ideas, and it's still enjoyable.
But taking a specific game, like S&M 3, can you play it if you remove all the artistic elements? I don't think so.
I'm just saying that if, because it has elements that are not art, a game can't be art, then a marble sculpture, since it has marble (which you said isn't art), isn't art either. And a painting, which is made of a canvas and paint, neither element being art, isn't art either.
See what I mean? Just because it has rules doesn't prevent it from being art any more than having paint and a canvas prevents a painting from being art. You can't say "it has some elements that aren't art so it's not art".
You say these elements are what defines a game, but I say a painting is equally defined by being paint on canvas, and a sculpture is equally defined by being sculpted in something hard. So I still fail to see your point. What defines them decides of the medium, not on whether it's art or not.
You ignored context before I came into this topic or conversation. You have no room to talk about that. I'm willing to acknowledge that games may not apply under one form of context, but you have to be willing to acknowledge that it does ABSOLUTELY apply under another context. Wait, what am I saying! Games are the work. It's the workmanship that is the art.
I also edited my above post to address Roivas.
I really wanted to split this up into different sections so I could discuss them individually, but your point is both succinct and pretty well thought out. However, I will have to debate one point. The reason that programming isn't considered an art and painting is largely is due to the fact that programming is 100% repeatable and the only thing that separates the best programmers in the world from someone with no computer ability is knowledge.
That's not to say that art doesn't require knowledge but it is one of the mediums in which two people can create the same thing and have it look different. While two programmers might not create the same kind of program, if they both fill the same function the differences are of interest only to programmers.
You can split hairs and say that two art pieces, such as reproductions of great works, can look exactly the same and the differences are only made clear to artists but that sort of misses the point. If a programmer sets out to exactly recreate someone's code he can do so perfectly if he just reads their code and types it in. If you give the same code to me and tell me to type it in I can remake the best programs in the world.
Since knowledge is the barrier between the greatest programmers and some random guy skill is the split between the greatest artist and Roger Ebert, I would suggest that programming is a knowledge based science. It is repeatable, understandable, and logical. Art tends not to be.
Of your point of us wanting games to be considered art, I certainly am not trying to diminish their impact. Games can be one of the most individualistic forms of entertainment and no two people will have the same thoughts as they play through a game. Some people enjoy watching Let's Plays for this exact reason. They get the chance to hear another person's thought process or verbalized thoughts as they play (sometimes).
I think the elements of a game should be considered art but the design portion is more a process of knowledge based execution than an art. I love making games but I don't pretend to be making art, more of a toy maker than an artist. The games are meant to be picked up and enjoyed than deeply considered for their reflection of the human psyche.
Actually yes you could. Take out all the art, the story, and the humor and you would have a floating dot collecting shapes or pieces. Basically, Sam and Max would then devolve into a point and click version of Adventure for the Atari 2600. You would move your dot on the screen to other shapes and when you click on certain dots they would enter a menu. You could then use them to solve puzzles such as a square shaped hole needing a square shaped key.
Would that be the same game? Not even close. But you would have the same gameplay, it would simply cease to be enjoyable. The program could still function without anything but placeholder art (shapes to represent characters and items) and the gameplay would actually remain unchanged.
Can you do this with art? Not really. If you take apart the specific elements of a musical piece you have sounds with no impact. A game with purely placeholder art can still convey proof of concept in some games and these have been used to get game projects started. But if you take a piece of art down to the paints and use that as proof of concept of painting you haven't done anything except invented paint... again.
Games don't need to have art in them to be games, but they need art in them to have impact.
A dot has to be drawn.
I cannot consider games a separate art, much the same way I couldn't consider film a separate art from writing if raw text scrolled along the screen. If it was just written words on screen, it would be just another way to display writing, not an art in its own right. If the rules and objectives that separate games from other media are not art, then games themselves are not art, but merely another means to show the same arts we already have.
Fine then. Games are a Work of Art under the same definition that allows "installing drywall" to be an art.
And yet no matter how you so weakly tried to insult my point and intelligence here, not to mention the integrity of the medium as a work of art, you still know deep down that games have much more worth, meaning, and expression in them than drywall. Unless it's E.T. or Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, in which case I'd rather spend five hours staring at drywall.
I'm pretty sure we weren't talking about that definition of "art". I'm pretty sure we were talking about whether or not skilled people happen to make games with techniques, because that's the context that you said I was ignoring, that's the context you've been attempting to shoehorn into the conversation, despite its irrelevance.
No, I don't think that games mean more than drywall. The other art forms applied to games can and do, certainly, but there's nothing special about the actual games.
I actually see that it's the definition, but I feel that some acknowledged types of art have such definitions. A sculpture is also made with stuff that isn't art, for instance.
I also think you're not very consistent. You defined clouds as "not a game, but interactive art". However, you seem to think movies are art, and adventure games are definitely interactive movies. So how aren't they "interactive art", too?
It just seems that if a game starts fitting your definition of art, you just take it out the "game" category. Which doesn't seem fair.
Adventure games aren't "won" or "lost" as much as they are completed, in the same way you finish a book or movie. It's a way of telling a story, using game as a medium rather than a book, film or graphic novel (or something else).
I'm not saying I'm 100% sure whether games can be considered art or not, I simply disagree with your reason why they can't.
I might have misinterpreted what you said though. Feel free to correct me.
It's a context which is completely relevant no matter how much you want to ignore it because it invalidates your points and you know it, and insulting the point and my addition to the topic isn't going to change its relevancy no matter how much you damn well say it does, sir. You're right. Without every single component that makes up the games, they aren't anything special. Mostly because they don't exist without those components, but what am I doing here. Silly me, always trying to be RELEVANT. Oh ho ho ho, what a bastard I am. Oh ho ho ho. How dare I. OH HO HO HO. HILARIOUS OF ME. What a card I am with my "shoehorning things" and whatnot. Oh ho ho ho.
Actually that can be generated by a computer too. Since I've claimed (possibly erroneously, I'll leave that for programmers to ponder) that programming is a science, not an art, the use of placeholder graphics does eliminate the impact of a game's story but doesn't change the gameplay.
And Guitars, it depends on which aspect of the design you mean. Game mechanics aren't really the arrangement of art pieces, they are completely independent of them. The more vital part of a game is the systems created to hold up the story, such as in Sam & Max 3, when you have to arrange the Your Momma insults to that Sam sets them up and Max finishes them you could remove the writing and the voice dialogue and have a system where you match numbers together and have the same system.
In the Simon Says QTE events in games, the art can almost completely be removed and have the exact same gameplay, which is one of the reasons why it isn't considered a fun aspect of gameplay but gets used so often. It is simple to program and gives the game makers the ability to show the player the story without having to worry about the player's actions interrupting them.
Game design doesn't require art but instead a knowledge of how to create challenges for the player to overcome. The art for a game is rarely created to first in the game's creation, instead the game is designed and prototyped to give examples of play. Both of these require some knowledge of game mechanics and no knowledge of art. Art can be left completely separate from design and programming.
Though admittedly, when the artists aren't given any level of impact in the game's creation the game does suffer from it.
Then what the hell is there for the dot to do?
.
Put that in an art gallery and make sure I get full credit for it. It is an original.
Just because a person does something doesn't make it noteworthy. I can walk to the store, I can buy sliced meat, I can buy bread, I can buy cheese. Heck, I can even skip using a shopping cart and stack these items on top of one another, that takes some level of skill.
Further, I can take those same objects and arrange them into a tasty object commonly called a sandwich. A completely unique piece due to the way I cut the cheese and which slices of bread I choose to put together.
Then I can take bites out of the sandwich in a unique way to create the impression of my teeth in the bread, meat, and cheese. This cannot be reproduced by anyone else and even I would have difficulty making two bites look the same.
Do you see the difference between a mundane action and creating art? Just because I can make the computer draw a dot, though code or by using the mouse, it doesn't mean I'm an artist. I could arrange the dots to convey a message or a picture, but if the picture doesn't mean anything it isn't art.
Art doesn't just have to be deliberate, it has to actually mean something beyond the object itself. If you consider any skilled action art, than everyone is an artist and no particular art is worthy of note. A comedian (can't remember who) said that "If I can do it, it ain't art".
While comedy can be considered an art, the joke really meant that the mundane isn't art. Much like walking isn't a sport, a sandwich or a dot are not art.
Hassat: By removing the story you do rob the player of their reward for completing the puzzles, but you can substitute a reward that isn't really as good and requires no writing or art: Points. If you collect all the objects and bring them to the right locations you get points for doing so. There, same gameplay and the same mechanics but a completely different experience for the lack of art.
Basically, the art of a game makes it engaging but the mechanics are the system by which you measure your success in the game. No other medium measures success, which is why I think games can't really be considered art.
Oh, I wasn't passing off a dot as art. Although, who is to say a dot isn't a work of art? Not me. However, I was continuing on avistew's point that without all of the works of art within the game that comprise it, the game can not function. And now I'm tired, and it's 6 AM, and I've said my peace, and I'm afraid it's just come down to picking apart one another's posts, which is never good wholesome discussion (I'm looking at you Rather Dashing, and now I'm not looking at you because doing that before bed is the most unwise course of action I've ever heard [just kidding]), and nobody is going to be able to do jack to change my mind because I'm 100% sure of what I'm saying being correct.
Thanks for the interesting points though, guys, I was actually pretty interested in this discussion and what you all were saying, oh silly me, that is until I found out I was shoehorning my way in. Oh ho ho ho silly me. Oh ho ho ho what a bastard I am.
[whistle]
Oh...
And I've kept yelling since I first commenced it,
I'm against it!
Compare rockstar's physics engine to valve's source engine and see if they are not different in the way they are programmed.
I'm going to try one more time to explain what I mean there
A sculpture made, say, out of wood, is still wood. But the wood is a material. Although the fact that it's made of wood is a defining feature for it to be a sculpture (since if it was painted on a canvas rather than made out of wood it wouldn't be a sculpture anymore), it doesn't prevent it from being art. You can't take the "art" part of the sculpture independently from the "wood" part without it ceasing to be a sculpture.
As such, the wood, which in itself isn't art, is still part of the definition of this sculpture.
In an adventure game, the puzzles are part of what makes it a game. And if you consider they're not art, that doesn't mean the whole game isn't art. Sure, it NEEDS to have that non-artistic component in it to be called a game, but the sculpture needed a non-artistic component in it to be called a sculpture, too.
I hope my point is a bit clearer.
Ok, so your point is that games have goals, and therefore they're not art, right?
And by "goals", I mean, goals for the person who didn't create them. Since any piece of art of course has a goal from the artist's point of view.
I understand your point, but that's also why I think games can count as interactive art. The player becomes part of the art. It's art in context, if you will. Someone gave the example of a play drawing on the audience. You also have pop-up books that require the reader to do something. And I would say magic tricks can be art, for instance, and they definitely depend on other people.
You think Cloud isn't a game, but I'm sure any people disagree. And I know I've played games without focusing on counting points or anything, just for fun. I'm not saying these were art, I'm saying "games" don't necessarily require any goal other than entertaining you. Nor do they necessarily have an ending point, or a winner/loser.
It's just a very broad category, really. Just like art is. I'm pretty sure now that the two can overlap to some extent.
Maybe they're more distinct in your mind and mutually exclusive, so that if something is part of one category it seems to you that by definition it isn't part of the other, or something.
Well, I've never tried to argue that all games are art, nor do I think has anyone else. Just that some can be. Finding exceptions doesn't work in your favour, just the other way around. That is, since you are arguing that no games can be art, proving to you that a single game is art dismisses your argument. However, you can take ten thousand games and prove they're not art, that will never prove than none can ever be. So examples aren't going to help you much, you need to work with more general things.
And my point remains: do you think the telltale games can be qualified as interactive moves? And if so, is the "interactive" part enough to disqualify them as art, while you'd consider them art if they weren't interactive?
But... adding one part that you think isn't art to lots of stuff that is makes it "non-art", to you?
The stories are games. They're not movies. It's not an existing movie that someone has taken and has added gameplay to. That's the whole thing, it was made that way.
I'm not arguing whether the puzzles themselves or the gameplay are art, just whether the game, taken in its entirety, can be considered art or not. The gameplay is the way the story has been chosen to be told. Just like a movie isn't a radio drama with pictures added to it, but something made completely differently to fit the medium, because the author decided to tell their story that way.
Or, for another example, the webcomics on Telltale, with the balloons appearing when you put your mouse. You could say it's not significantly different from having them there in the first place, yet it doesn't suddenly stop being art just because it's interactive.
When people started printing books, I fail to see how it made a significant difference, since the story was the same, except you had to read it and turn pages rather than listen to it.
The medium changed. And as a result, so did the possibilities, of course, although many books don't take advantage of it (for instance, you can use the fact that people aren't hearing the story to use a word that can be pronounced in two different ways without letting the reader know which you meant).
Being a game allows the story to be told differently, by giving the audience a role inside of it and making them feel more involved. Note that I'm still talking about adventure games here. In some cases, you can also use it to tell several simultaneous stories, showing the different possibilities depending on the character's choice (and if that prevents a story from being art, then this movie isn't art (and nether are the original plays).
Rap is one of the most controversial mediums of music, as well as a very polarizing one. Some people consider all rap garbage, most won't count it as music, and many say it takes no skill. Others find deeper meaning behind the lyrics, enjoy the beats for their feelings they convey, or attach themselves to the message an artist conveys.
Games are very controversial as well. Some parents want to ban them completely, new networks pander for ratings by doing "reports" on falsified research, and many claim it isn't art. Others find a meaning in creating the games, enjoy the experiences they have in completing the tasks, play for the story's sake, or just like the art. Which is really the splitting point.
Games generally are not created with a message and those that are generally poorly done or just have bad game play. Serious games are currently a new way for players to get bored doing something they normally enjoyed and even a strong message doesn't really carry the weight of the game being considered art. So why is that?
I ascribe this more to the idea that games aren't a good way to teach someone information, more that they give the person a system to learn. You could spend (and some have) years mastering a particular fighting game, honing your skills to the point of madness and air juggle bitches all night long in an arcade. But if a game tries to teach you information instead of giving you a system to learn, they are generally pretty dry games.
Am I saying that games can't impart information or can't have themes? No. I'm saying that a good game doesn't need to have either emotion or information to be considered a good game. A game can exist purely for entertainment's sake with no message, no story, and no art behind it save the most basic.
This implies that since games don't need these things and things which are considered art do, even music has to speak to us to have any meaning, art is not what they are. Games are just a way to entertain and give the player an escape, possibly while teaching them a system they can use in everyday life, like a way to count or type faster or even better hand to eye coordination to help them perform surgery better.
Hell, video games are what taught me how to dance by giving me the fast reflexes and sense of rhythm that DDR imparts on the more insanely nimble players. I still couldn't dance worth a damn until I actually learned how to move properly to the beat, but that just took visual referencing.
Games teach, entertain, and comfort but they do not have a deeper meaning. We give some games this deeper meaning but it is rarely the intent of anyone who isn't Hideo Kojima.
Why discuss then? You're really just trying to speak your piece and then tell us not to talk. Doesn't give us much impetus to listen.
As I normally say when talking about video games, I could be wrong. I'm just trying to explain why I think the way I do.
That's both disturbing and extremely hilarious.
I suggest you all take a look at this
Okay, so basically your point is "since some games aren't art, no games can be art?"
"Games" is a broad category. Kinda like "books", which includes textbooks, biographies, sucky novels, etc, many of which would not be considered art. So because some books are definitely not art, and because nothing in a book requires it to share a message or story (you can very well have a blank book, or a notebook, or a book with nonsensical text. Or a completely pointless and uninteresting diary. I could go on.), no books can be art?
What defines a book? It used to be that it was made of paper and either contained words or was meant to contain them. But wait, there are picture books, too. So, it can contain pictures rather than words. Or nothing at all and be meant to contain them later.
But wait, now we have electronic books, which have the content but no paper.
It seems like it's such a broad category that we can't really put t all in the same basket, right? There are books that are physical but without contents, and books that have content but no physical form.
Either way, the art is never the book. Okay, almost never, some books are crafter in a beautiful way, but most of the time, when a book is art (and a lot of them aren't) what matters is the story, and in most cases, that story doesn't even need to be written. It can be read to you by a friend or a famous person (audio book). It can also be translated, so in a way the individual words don't matter that much, either, although I'll agree that any translation is a new work and not 100% like the original.
So what part of the book is art? The story, or rather, the way it's told. That's the artsy part. That what makes literature one type of art.
Books are art, but nothing that is specific to books is art in itself. Nothing. Not the pages, not the cover, not the words, not the ink, not the data or the sound of the voice who reads them. It's the whole that's art.
So no, I don't think you can take games and say "what makes them games isn't art so games aren't art". What makes a book isn't art either and yet books can be art.