So are video games art?

Someone once said that art is to create, and interactive is to make decisions, which in my opinion creates consequences, which makes my first statement valid. Games is creating, and thus is art.

I'd say it's a craft.

videogames are art just as much as movies are art.

yes

every single element that goes into a game is considered art. why as a whole would a game not be art? if anything a game is a culmination of art.

One must define first, what IS art, and then when the proper defining factors are clear, then we can say what is art.

What is art is individual, everything is art, thusly, nothing is art, art is all.

Quote from Kosmo

One must define first, what IS art, and then when the proper defining factors are clear, then we can say what is art.What is art is individual, everything is art, thusly, nothing is art, art is all.

Uhuh

Quote from kleinluka

videogames are art just as much as movies are art.

Would you consider Chess or Monopoly art?

Because, the way I see it, videogames are just a set of rules varying in complexity.

They are experiences defined by that set of rules. I agree that some of the elements in a game could be considered art (soundtrack, aesthetics), but the whole "games as art form" movement seems a little pointless to me.

Quote from spartan

Would you consider Chess or Monopoly art?Because, the way I see it, videogames are just a set of rules varying in complexity.

They are experiences defined by that set of rules. I agree that some of the elements in a game could be considered art (soundtrack, aesthetics), but the whole "games as art form" movement seems a little pointless to me.

So you would say that a painting isn't art because it is painted on a surface? Surface which could be stone, wood or fabric, so is a wall art? Or pair of pants?

The rules are just part of a whole, just like in painting, the surface is meaningless when compared to the combination of surface, paint and the story that the painting is trying to tell. Maybe none of the parts itself can be considered art per se, but just like many great things, when combined, it's more than the sum of it's parts.

My point is that games are limited by their own rules.

Traditional media are representational, videogames are simulational. The player defines his/her own experience.

Maybe in the future the language of videogames will grow to the point where we can start effectively conveying ideas and feelings, and start being accepted as an art form. But, from my personal experience, no game has touched me the way some movies/music/paintings have done; and that's why I'm inclined to think of them as very pretty boardgames.

As I understand it, art is anything that evokes a strong reaction/emotion in the viewer. Games most certianly do that.

I could be all wrong, too.

Taking the most enjoyable movie I have seen in my life, and taking the most enjoyable experience with a game that I ever had, I would say that games take me deeper than movies.

Games are definedly an artform, yes, they serve different purpose from movies, poetry, paintings, but I wouldn't compare them all together anyway, a painting can never achieve what a movie can, but movie can't achieve what a poem can, and poem can never achieve what a game can.

It is interactive, and it has a set of rules (or boundaries if you will) but does it lessen the effort to made in the game? Does it lessen the artistic view of the developers? No.

The same boundaries and group effort can be found in movies and theater too, boundaries where they can't do everything imagination can, and there are different parts that make up the whole. So what I think is, that if you don't consider game to be art, then you are fool to consider any other modern media as an art.

Art in essence, is the appliance of human creativity, so technically speaking, games are art.

But IMHO it's a cheap form of art. All videogames have a price and are accesable for everyone. A Da Vinci painting or Mozart's 9th symphony have alot more going on.

But that's just my traditional 2 cents..

Quote from killertomato

But IMHO it's a cheap form of art. All videogames have a price and are accesable for everyone. A Da Vinci painting or Mozart's 9th symphony have alot more going on.

I'd say that over 90% art is done to be sold, and most are quite affordable, it's just less than 0.01% of art that becomes Mona Lisa or Beethoven's Eroica.

And there ARE games that are being made out of sheer love for gaming, most notably modding community for various games.

And to say that a work made on only one medium (e.g. painting or symphony) has more going on is rather strange, by what measure they have more going on than, say a game or a movie?

Kosmo is launched.

Quote from Kosmo

by what measure they have more going on than, say a game or a movie?

That's simple, Kosmo: it's more unique plus it is directly from the hand of the artist.

I'm not an expert art-fan but a 300 yr old painting says something about the culture the artist lived in, his thaughts and the way things were back then. It's also interesting to realize that the paint itself has been brought on the fabric 300 yrs ago by someone who lived right then.

Maybe that's the reason why there aren't any museums filled with videogames?

The answer to this thread is pretty simple. Why don't you go and ask some of the hundred thousands of artists currently working in the videogames industry if what they are doing is art. I'm sure they will gladly answer your question. :roll:

Well Klein, maybe you could shed some light on this subject?

Bitte?