Video games can never be art.

playing a sport is an art.. definitely.. as are war and happiness (imo).

well a good footbal player is like a good drummer, he learned it for himself cause he likes to play it, art??? i dunno, there's a need for a "producer" and a "receiver" in the definition of art???

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:36 PM, Root5 said:

I'd call the save-state bending in the ekt forum music.

Did someone make tracks like that one General Banter post showing the weird sounds that came out of the game? If so, can you link me to that EKT thread -- I can't find it! I would love to hear an album's worth of that. ^_^

As for the question of why it matters whether video games are art: I don't know, but I think the place to look for the answer is our practices regarding each -- What do we do with art? How do we enjoy it, how do we respond to it, how to we demonstrate and respond to its value or its role in our lives? Is this the same as for video games? I think the question whether VGs are art is one that matters to anyone who thinks that the kinds of things we do with and in response to art should be things we do with and in response to video games.

I probably wouldn't use the word art to describe them, although I don't think they definitely aren't. It's just a confusing and generally unhelpful way of talking.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:09 PM, Root5 said:

I probably wouldn't use the word art to describe them, although I don't think they definitely aren't. It's just a confusing and generally unhelpful way of talking.

offtopic: have you ever seen rush live???

i noticed you didn't have any friends on your profile so i added you

I haven't seen rush live, no.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:15 PM, Root5 said:

I haven't seen rush live, no.

will you live with that???

video games are kitsch

*started 8 more pages of discussion*

Also, I think we need to disambiguate two different senses in which people are using 'art' ITT:

sense 1: 'art' as in 'the art of French cooking' -- this sense refers to a highly refined skill, perhaps born of talent along with diligence, something that not everyone can achieve. That has nothing to do with the sense in which Ebert asks if video games are 'art.' Thus,

sense 2: 'art' as in the kind of thing sorted into distinct media or genres, individuated in terms of 'works,' discussed in aesthetic philosophy, art history and criticism, displayed in museums, reproduced in print, bought and sold at auctions.

You can tell these are distinct senses by trying to substitute the various paraphrases I have offered above.

So, for example, it makes sense to say that someone's baked good is 'artful.' If we substitute a paraphrase from the 'sense 1' list above, we get a meaningful sentence, e.g., 'someone's baked good is skillful (demonstrates skill).' But if we substitute a paraphrase from the 'sense 2' list, we don't get a meaningful sentence, e.g., 'someone's baked good is the kind of thing subject to art history and criticism.'

There are two different senses of 'art,' and the sense at issue here is sense 2, not sense 1.

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:33 PM, mafted said:

Music is any arrangement of sounds used as expression, basically. So, pretty much anything goes.

 

But, it's interesting to see Ebert suggest movies (like those of Kubrick) because games are much like movies now, just more interactive. He made a huge jump from Picasso to Kubrick, in terms of mediums. Games would fall in between traditional art forms and movies, I would think.

it was me that brought up picasso and kubrick, not ebert. i was wondering if there are games that exist that can affect the player on an emotional level in the same way that these two artists can through their work..

Duck Hunt

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:20 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:33 PM, mafted said:

Music is any arrangement of sounds used as expression, basically. So, pretty much anything goes.

 

But, it's interesting to see Ebert suggest movies (like those of Kubrick) because games are much like movies now, just more interactive. He made a huge jump from Picasso to Kubrick, in terms of mediums. Games would fall in between traditional art forms and movies, I would think.

 

it was me that brought up picasso and kubrick, not ebert. i was wondering if there are games that exist that can affect the player on an emotional level in the same way that these two artists can through their work..

yes there are, show those "art pieces" that you're talking about to a videogame freak and then put him playing god of war, he'll definetly be more thrilled with the game! might not be exactly like that but you see what i mean...

i know lots of people who don't like kubrik, and enjoy videogames very much

yes of course it's art

Seriously what the fuck is wrong with people? Why do people poop their pants over what is and isnt art? It doesn't change anything anyway. The game is still the game no matter what you call it.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:20 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:33 PM, mafted said:

Music is any arrangement of sounds used as expression, basically. So, pretty much anything goes.

 

But, it's interesting to see Ebert suggest movies (like those of Kubrick) because games are much like movies now, just more interactive. He made a huge jump from Picasso to Kubrick, in terms of mediums. Games would fall in between traditional art forms and movies, I would think.

 

it was me that brought up picasso and kubrick, not ebert. i was wondering if there are games that exist that can affect the player on an emotional level in the same way that these two artists can through their work..

For me, Bioshock and Bioshock 2 was a huge emotional thing. That whole game-- the relationship between Delta and Eleanor, the 'moral choices' posed throughout the game, actually did bring up matters of right and wrong, life and death, and the consequences of my actions.

I couldn't bring myself to harvest a Little Sister in either Bioshock game-- it just felt wrong and depraved to do so. I watched videos of harvesting on Youtube and honestly felt a little disturbed by the whole thing, the way the girls swatted the Main character's hand away as he prepared to do it, yelling 'no! no!' That genuinely affected me.

So, if something affecting me emotionally or making me stop and think about life would constitute art, then yeah, video games are art.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:17 PM, encey said:

Also, I think we need to disambiguate two different senses in which people are using 'art' ITT:

 

sense 1: 'art' as in 'the art of French cooking' -- this sense refers to a highly refined skill, perhaps born of talent along with diligence, something that not everyone can achieve. That has nothing to do with the sense in which Ebert asks if video games are 'art.' Thus,

 

sense 2: 'art' as in the kind of thing sorted into distinct media or genres, individuated in terms of 'works,' discussed in aesthetic philosophy, art history and criticism, displayed in museums, reproduced in print, bought and sold at auctions.

 

You can tell these are distinct senses by trying to substitute the various paraphrases I have offered above.

 

So, for example, it makes sense to say that someone's baked good is 'artful.' If we substitute a paraphrase from the 'sense 1' list above, we get a meaningful sentence, e.g., 'someone's baked good is skillful (demonstrates skill).' But if we substitute a paraphrase from the 'sense 2' list, we don't get a meaningful sentence, e.g., 'someone's baked good is the kind of thing subject to art history and criticism.'

 

There are two different senses of 'art,' and the sense at issue here is sense 2, not sense 1.

That's exactly what it is.. Sense 2 is just 100% bullshit.

meaning you dont agree with how he defined sense 2?

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:48 PM, Z_B_Z said:

meaning you dont agree with how he defined sense 2?

no no.. i just don't agree with that perspective.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:33 PM, Sprigg said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:20 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:33 PM, mafted said:

Music is any arrangement of sounds used as expression, basically. So, pretty much anything goes.

 

But, it's interesting to see Ebert suggest movies (like those of Kubrick) because games are much like movies now, just more interactive. He made a huge jump from Picasso to Kubrick, in terms of mediums. Games would fall in between traditional art forms and movies, I would think.

 

it was me that brought up picasso and kubrick, not ebert. i was wondering if there are games that exist that can affect the player on an emotional level in the same way that these two artists can through their work..

 

For me, Bioshock and Bioshock 2 was a huge emotional thing. That whole game-- the relationship between Delta and Eleanor, the 'moral choices' posed throughout the game, actually did bring up matters of right and wrong, life and death, and the consequences of my actions.

I couldn't bring myself to harvest a Little Sister in either Bioshock game-- it just felt wrong and depraved to do so. I watched videos of harvesting on Youtube and honestly felt a little disturbed by the whole thing, the way the girls swatted the Main character's hand away as he prepared to do it, yelling 'no! no!' That genuinely affected me.

 

 

So, if something affecting me emotionally or making me stop and think about life would constitute art, then yeah, video games are art.

fair enough.

im still leaning towards video games not being art but man this thread is making me want to play video games.

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:33 PM, Sprigg said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:20 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:33 PM, mafted said:

Music is any arrangement of sounds used as expression, basically. So, pretty much anything goes.

 

But, it's interesting to see Ebert suggest movies (like those of Kubrick) because games are much like movies now, just more interactive. He made a huge jump from Picasso to Kubrick, in terms of mediums. Games would fall in between traditional art forms and movies, I would think.

 

it was me that brought up picasso and kubrick, not ebert. i was wondering if there are games that exist that can affect the player on an emotional level in the same way that these two artists can through their work..

 

For me, Bioshock and Bioshock 2 was a huge emotional thing. That whole game-- the relationship between Delta and Eleanor, the 'moral choices' posed throughout the game, actually did bring up matters of right and wrong, life and death, and the consequences of my actions.

I couldn't bring myself to harvest a Little Sister in either Bioshock game-- it just felt wrong and depraved to do so. I watched videos of harvesting on Youtube and honestly felt a little disturbed by the whole thing, the way the girls swatted the Main character's hand away as he prepared to do it, yelling 'no! no!' That genuinely affected me.

 

 

So, if something affecting me emotionally or making me stop and think about life would constitute art, then yeah, video games are art.

Sometimes my friends affect me emotionally. Does that make them art?

the fucking news 4 christ sake, they're not art

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:53 PM, Root5 said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:33 PM, Sprigg said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 6:20 PM, Z_B_Z said:

  On 4/20/2010 at 5:33 PM, mafted said:

Music is any arrangement of sounds used as expression, basically. So, pretty much anything goes.

 

But, it's interesting to see Ebert suggest movies (like those of Kubrick) because games are much like movies now, just more interactive. He made a huge jump from Picasso to Kubrick, in terms of mediums. Games would fall in between traditional art forms and movies, I would think.

 

it was me that brought up picasso and kubrick, not ebert. i was wondering if there are games that exist that can affect the player on an emotional level in the same way that these two artists can through their work..

 

For me, Bioshock and Bioshock 2 was a huge emotional thing. That whole game-- the relationship between Delta and Eleanor, the 'moral choices' posed throughout the game, actually did bring up matters of right and wrong, life and death, and the consequences of my actions.

I couldn't bring myself to harvest a Little Sister in either Bioshock game-- it just felt wrong and depraved to do so. I watched videos of harvesting on Youtube and honestly felt a little disturbed by the whole thing, the way the girls swatted the Main character's hand away as he prepared to do it, yelling 'no! no!' That genuinely affected me.

 

 

So, if something affecting me emotionally or making me stop and think about life would constitute art, then yeah, video games are art.

 

Sometimes my friends affect me emotionally. Does that make them art?

only if your friends look like this

this is such an insanely subjective issue and it isn't even worth the effort defining what is art and what isn't anymore in the 21st century. It's short-sighted and naive to dismiss a whole culture as being "not art", just like people who say shit like "autechre isn't music".

what's worth talking about is how good or cutting edge or new something is, not "whether or not it is art". And just like any other medium that took a lot of time to be accepted into critics circles as being "art" like film or whatever, video games will probably reach that point too. I'd that say video games are more a form of art than the games ebert was talking about that aren't art (like sports) because they're based on content and media... someone has to create them, and they're pushing boundaries. You maybe could argue that the athletes who push their physical limits are exercising "art" in a way, but again... it's pretty subjective. I love Ebert, but fuck that post.

Anyway, I guess I sort of broke my own rule about not trying to define art with the above paragraph, but damn, the definition of what qualifies for art and what doesn't is such a generational, subjective thing

also, +1 for games - Ebert says Braid isn't art because its prose is "as good as a fortune cookie". Braid's art isn't in its writing, but in the mind-blowing way the game uses game mechanics as a storytelling device. For anyone who likes games and hasn't played Braid yet, you should take a look and try finishing the game, because it tells a story in a way that can only be told via gaming - it can't be told with prose. So, if the emotion / story is conveyed best through the gaming medium, surely you can argue that Braid "is art".

Video-Games contain art but can never be considered artworks on their own, capisce?

  On 4/20/2010 at 7:14 PM, vasio said:

Video-Games contain art but can never be considered artworks on their own, capisce?

.. why?

you're limiting the definition of art to the content of games, the character designs, the music, the existing mediums that are currently accepted as art. so, just because a game has rules and can be beaten, it means it can never be considered a work of art?

if anything, I think it's more in the zeitgeist of 21st century art that a game is a multimedia experience that is not merely observed or taken in but participated in. Its beauty is activated by the participatory, reciprocal nature of gamer/game.

and look at it from the perspective of a game developer, the "artist" of a game. Programming games isn't an exact science. It involves lots of human variables, an understanding of psychology, cause and effect, game theory, etc. You could argue that crafting a game is "more an art than a science".

when art and science meet...

and the definiton of music is always changing so, i bet authecrhe would not be considered music 100 years ago. i'm not dissing on it, i'm just saying, instead of defining it as a diferente genre, we could define it as other art form. i'm actually giving it more value than certain "music"!

when i talk about authecre i recall gantz graft and that kind of music that some people call NOISE, and noise and music are diferent things, therefore my "confusion"