Are video games art?

[Traitorfish]

Is it a form of creative expression? Then yes. Medium is as irrelevant as content.

"Art" is one of these odds terms that is simultaneously used as a value judgement and an objective descriptor, rendering it almost entirely useless. As we already have words like "good" for the former, I tend to prefer a definition that fulfils the demands of the latter.

Anyway, in regards to all this Ebert stuff, Tycho put it best...

There are many, many replies to Roger Ebert's reeking ejaculate, from measured Judo-inspired reversals of momentum to primal shrieks which communicate rage in a harrowing, proto-linguistic state. Thatgamecompany's Kellee Santiago chose to respond to him, which gave the whole thing a kind of symmetry, seeing as it was her TED speech that drove that wretched, ancient warlock into his original spasm.

That was very polite of her, behaving as though she were one side of a conversation. For what it's worth. Which isn't much, honestly, because this weren't never a dialogue. He is not talking to you, he is just talking. And he's arguing

1. in bad faith,
2. in an internally contradictory way,
3. with nebulously defined terms,

so there's nothing here to discuss. You can if you want to, and people certainly do, but there's no profit in it. Nobody's going to hold their blade aloft at the end of this thing and found a kingdom. It's just something to fill the hours.

Also, do we win something if we defeat him? Does he drop a good helm? Because I can't for the life of me figure out why we give a **** what that creature says. He doesn't operate under some divine shroud that lets him determine what is or is not valid culture. He cannot rob you, retroactively, of wholly valid experiences; he cannot transform them into worthless things.

He's simply a man determined to be on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the human drive to create, and dreadfully so; a monument to the same generational bull*** that says because something has not been, it must not and could never be.

(CW)TB out.

 

[aelf]

"Art" is one of these odds terms that is simultaneously used as a value judgement and an objective descriptor, rendering it almost entirely useless. As we already have words like "good" for the former, I tend to prefer a definition that fulfils the demands of the latter.

I don't know. It's not like he claims that games are qualitatively lacking because they aren't art, though he might be insinuating it. In fact, he does say that games lose nothing for not being artistic. Different purpose, different descriptor, I'd say.

 

[Traitorfish]

I don't know. It's not like he claims that games are qualitatively lacking because they aren't art, though he might be insinuating it. In fact, he does say that games lose nothing for not being artistic. Different purpose, different descriptor, I'd say.

Well, I was referring to the more general usage, although Ebert's doesn't really appear to be anything more than a somewhat guarded form of it. He certainly doesn't condescend to offering us a particularly concise description of his understanding of the concept.

 

[aelf]

Well, I was referring to the more general usage, although Ebert's doesn't really appear to be anything more than a somewhat guarded form of it. He certainly doesn't condescend to offering us a particularly concise description of his understanding of the concept.

No, he doesn't, but I tried to 'help him out a little'. It is a contentious subject, and I think no one can or should pretend it isn't. But, come on, all the defensive reaction that the article has prompted isn't exactly weighty stuff either. I like games, but I don't see why it matters. And few people if any have bothered to reply in some way other than by calling Ebert a jerkoff snob.

 

[Juicy]

Just as the title says.
Roger Ebert certainly doesn't think so:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html
But Adam Sessler does:
http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/7...x-Adam-vs-Ebert---Can-Video-Games-be-Art.html

Where do you stand? Are all games art, or just certain ones?

Well enertainment is art. And video games are enertainment. So yes. Video games are art!

 

[Traitorfish]

No, he doesn't, but I tried to 'help him out a little'. It is a contentious subject, and I think no one can or should pretend it isn't. But, come on, all the defensive reaction that the article has prompted isn't exactly weighty stuff either. I like games, but I don't see why it matters. And few people if any have bothered to reply in some way other than by calling Ebert a jerkoff snob.

All true, but his argument is still founded in mist. If he fails to offer a halfway concise understanding of "art", then he is no position to dictate it to others, however earnestly he suggests his aloofness.

Of course, as Tycho says, there is no gain in engaging with his argument on this matter. Honestly, given the insubstantiality of his argument- which, on reflection, never seems to rise much beyond "I don't like that, it's dumb"- it's almost impossible to do so, which may be why so many of the attempts made are even flimsier than the original.

 

[Japanrocks12]

I just realized that the thread title is "Are video games art?" I think that this question, as stated, doesn't really have an answer. What has a definite answer of yes, however, is the question "Can video games be considered art?" There is no more or less reason to automatically consider every new video game as a work of art than it is to do the same with every new summer movie or erotic painting.

 

[Millman]

Does it matter if they're an art? Trying to impress a fan-base is no hobby of mine.

 

[Traitorfish]

Does it matter if they're an art? Trying to impress a fan-base is no hobby of mine.

If one chooses to use a practical definition of art then, yes, it's a question of some worth. It allows one to better understand the nature of the medium and it's relationship with other media.
It's only because the common definition, and that apparently used by Ebert, amounts to little more than cultural weenie-wagging that it appears useless.

 

[aelf]

It's only because the common definition, and that apparently used by Ebert, amounts to little more than cultural weenie-wagging that it appears useless.

But what would we do without someone to talk about useless things?

At least it beats tabloid gossip.

 

[warpus]

A video game CAN be art.

 

[aelf]

Skimmed through this thread again while doing some research on Ebert. On the question of whether video game is art, I'm now of the opinion that it's a moot point because what constitutes art is determined by purely by convention. We understand that something is art before we justify why we think so. So, yes, I've practically flipped over, and the whole debate about whether video games constitute art is waged by two sides who don't see the ground on which they're standing - Ebert is a bit of a snob, but those who are so keen on conferring the status of art to video games are not much less misguided.

To both I have this to say: Yeah, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.

 

[Truthy]

Bioshock and Oblivion are art.

 

[aelf]

Who cares?

 

[GenMarshall]

I use Garry's Mod as a base for my 3D works (Mainly posing ragdolls and props from various games), so yes Video games can be an art.

 

[Tahuti]

Many video games are art, but not by definition. Chess isn't art, though certain Chess sets might be considered such due to their fine crafting. Likewise, video games aren't art by definition, but a video game that features intracate storylines and/or designs that makes you think is. For example, I don't think PacMan would be art but the Fallout series definitely would.

 

[carmen510]

Planescape: Torment.

That is all.

 

[SerriaFox]

Are video games art?

YES

Are they "good" art?

Well that depends on the Game

 

[jtb1127]

I think they can be so long as there is not DLC.

 

[aelf]

Woo, that's a new definition: Art can't have downloadable content. I say art can't have so many dorks playing it.