So are video games art?

[rockdude86]

art = expressing oneself in a touchable, seeable, do able, whatever way...

[Izuno]

Ah...I dated an artist for almost a year. I was exposed to many forms of art and met many artists and went to art opening. I kinda hate art now, at least the art scene, but I do appreciate art like Zuniga, Elizabeth Fischer and other stuff (mostly through seeing their work on walls of my parents house).

Generally speaking, people only consider something art for selfish reasons. Let me break it down by scenarios.

1. You are not an artist and you don't really follow the art world. Are video games art to you? It's probably not going to matter. You're not going to think that much or care about it.

2. You are a "traditionally trained artist" who paints or sculpts or something. Are video games art to you? YES if the following is true: the art you do is struggling to be recognized because it is sort of "out there" and not traditional. For selfish reasons, you will believe video games are art because by popularizing their acceptance, you might also convince people to accept your work as art.

2-again. You are a "traditionally trained artist" who paints or sculpts or something. Are video games art to you? NO if the following is true: you feel that video games are somehow competing against the acceptance of your art. Many many artsist feel this way. They feel that if video games become "art" then it takes overall mindshare away from their art.

3. You are a consumer/collect of art with deep knowledge but not an "artist" in any sense of the word. Are video games art to you? Probably not. If somehow their acceptance as art hurt the value of your collection, you'd for sure think they're not art. If you had stock in Nintendo and suddenly art galleries started selling Nintendo related paintings etc. and Nintendo shot up in value because of it (crazy stupid example here) then sure you'd switch stories and say "video games are art", even though that doesn't exactly relate to the act of playing games.

4. You work in the video game industry as an "Artist". More than likely what you do is art. Whether it is 2D or 3D, you make stuff that looks like stuff that goes into video games. The cooler the design or more realistic, the better, in general. It takes years of training, lots of hardwork and talent to get these jobs and produce the required output.

But does it matter if your work is considered "art" or not? It only matters if there is some kind of threat to your livelihood. For example, suppose a proposed anti-video game law threatens to limit sales of your game. If the counter arguement is that games should be protected as "art", then you will probably go around saying "yeah what I do is art."

My opinion: Video games in themselves are not art in the same way most movies and TV are not art. Video games are entertainment. Right now they are tests of reflexes, logical thinking (like solving puzzles) and understanding of programmer/designer intentions. They are damn fun and often stir our imagination the films often do. But most games have very little spiritual impact the way "fine art" often does. Art is often considered something to meditate with. You look at a still life or a statue and it just sits there, persistant and unchanging. By meditating on it, you are forced to deal with your own issues and concerns, and perhaps gain a new perspective to allow you to change your life in big or small ways.

Video games are interactive. You aren't there to stare and appreciate a game, you are there to play it and solve it and interact with other people and have fun.

Are there video games that can stir emotion and make you think long after you play it? Of course. Most of us have played great games that has us think about them when we're not playing them the way we think about movies. But rarely do video games have messages that "high concept" films have like recent movies "Crash" or "Brokeback Mountain" blah blah blah.

So where am I going with this? As with almost all human debates, the core issue is who gets what. There is no inherent measure of whether something is art. It is only art if we say it is. So video games will be debated as art or not soley because the people debating have something at stake which is usually money, respect, credibility or etc, but ultimately that translates into money in the long run.

It's all about money.

[Gaz]

I wouldn't call games art, but the content of games IS art. Put simply games contain art.

Games are more a compilation of art, and a load of code.

Game content is made by artists, environment artists, character artists and texture artists to name a few.

Thats my view anyway

[Kosmo]

I don't know if it is me splitting hair or everybody else over generalizing things, but everyone speak game graphics as "art" by default.

I don't consider myself as an artist, I make graphics for various medias like ad agencies and sometimes dabble with game graphics. Do I consider everything that is graphical as art in games? No I don't, do I consider some graphics in games to be art, yes I do.

Why is this? Well, it's simple, even if I worked at a game developer as a graphic designer (or artist as some of you like to say) many of my work would be "children of labor", just something I HAD to whip up, because the boss said so. But then there are the things that I put love in to them, things that I look forward to do, something that speaks to me and it is something unique. A character model is a good example of this.

It's like when artists used to have appretices who mixed paint and made canvases, some even painted the backgrounds for the master to paint a portrait on. But is the background itself art? I don't consider it to be, it's turns in to art when the portrait itself is painted on it.

I would be rather arrogant bastard to call myself an artist if I worked at game developer, since not EVERYTHING I make is something unique and magnificent centerpiece.

[seppe]

I think the design is a bit arty, but not real art like paintings, photography etc etc.

http://www.deviantart.com

You got some really nice 3DSmax/photoshop art there.

[RD]

agree with izuno

[Taylor]

Don’t be fooled by Kojima, this is probably an elaborate, over the top plot twist of some kind. Don't worry, you won't understand until he explains, and even then you'll have no idea what the hell is going on.

[dissonance]

Put simply games contain art.

Mmm, nice. I agree.

[cdxx]

there's plenty of art in games but I wouldn't go as far as saying they're art in themselves. more of entertainment like movies i say.

[ginsengavenger]

Games can be compelling but they are not art. In fact I feel it's disingenuous even to label all game artists as "artists" but it's the easiest term to describe them so it has stuck.

"Art" is a term that is thrown around cheaply and loosely. I don't have a good definition of art. It's easy to develop a definition that easily encompasses games. But games are toys. Toys are crafted and there is nothing wrong with taking great pride in oneself for being a skilled craftsman.

There are sometimes games which evoke something deep inside me, games which in their total vision and execution are so cohesive and gripping and subtle that I will say they border on art.

[Skjalg]

there's plenty of art in games but I wouldn't go as far as saying they're art in themselves. more of entertainment like movies i say.

Well, movies are art too...

Just because you enjoy it, doesnt make it not-art.

[Kosmo]

The whole meaning of art has suffered greatly in the last 100 years, and ultimately art became means to do money, it became a job just like any job. But we have also at the same time broadened it vastly, now we have not only artists but designers and such who use the "art" for other purposes, like entertainment and merketting.

So I don't think that you can count out movies and games in modern day art just because they are entertainment, they are as much art as the "real" art, because most of the time it is done for amusement and it's sole purpose today is to entertain, also the art has become more common, these days you don't have to be a king or count to own art.

But each to it's own I guess, people value stupid things. As I put more value on a good movie than I put on some abstract painting that is elitist and expensive just because what? The person who did it is somehow so special? Better than me? In what way is he so much better than me or anyone just because he painted a painting? Did the painting cure cancer?

[OrnateBaboon]

Art lacks a modern satisfactory definition, which is why it is very difficult to even properly talk about it. For me, art is such a vague term, that it is impossible to distinguish between that which is art, and that which is not.

[Sa74n]

it's not how you name it, it's the result that counts. i think its a craft but to get the best results you still need a little talent. and if you have talent some people might think of your stuff as art.

it's all about the fun you have doing it.

[mikezilla]

I think art has and will always have a very simple definition. If the person creating it says "this is art" than it is. It is no one's right but the artist to give or take that away.

So when people who make or work on games deem their creation art, it sure is.