blog
- Videogames = Art?
- Posted 5 months, 3 weeks ago by Puxel
Before I begin, think to yourself; "What is art?"
According to Britanica, art is: a visual object or experience consciously created through an expression of skill or imagination. The term art encompasses diverse media such as painting, sculpture, printmaking, drawing, decorative arts, photography, and installation.
I believe videogames ARE some form of art.
When most people think of art, they think of paintings, music, movies, or some other form of media, but videogames are a sketchy topic. All of these mediums were labled as art before videogames were thought of, and now that they do exsist, I think they should considered the same.
Videogames are different ALL other media, because we are supposed to put our hands on it and interact with it...taking it out of the programmer/artist's hands, and molding it ourselves, but following the story that they want us to...so does that mean, by playing through the game, we are artists ourselves, or are we just dilettantes?
Style. Creativity. Passion. Illusion. What makes it art.
Some may say it's not the purest form of art...if it is.
Calligraphy
Cartoon
Abstract
Just like other artforms, there is always a censor out to block it. You all know I'm talking about the ESRB. Now, people are coming down harder on this artform because it is interactive, and has potential psychological issues among younger users. To anyone who thought this, I dare them to go watch a movie like Silence of the Lambs, or Schindler's List, and to keep the same feelings. I believe that movie, and game ratings are just a suggestion to parents, but I do NOT believe that people have the right to BAN media in entirely. For instance, the Manhunt 2 fiasco. I would personally like to thank rockstar, for being the freedomfighters that they are. In the game, they did not delete the censored segments, instead they put a layer over it that kept it from being seen. This censorship can be taken away on the PSP using a program, and it can be deleted on a modified copy of the Wii version. A PS2 version of the Uncensored Manhunt 2 was also leaked. I'm not going to talk about the Hot Coffee mod, but BANNING a videogame would be like burning a painting.
Music on it's own is considered an artform. Although a seemingly primative one, many things go into the production of music. I don't mean mastering, mixing, or anything else that Protools, or Cubase could do. There's a special way to write music that makes it catchy enough to not mute. Such classics as the Tetris theme, to the highly refined orchestra scores from Super Smash Bros. Brawl. On their own, they would be considered artwork, so why not consider the game the larger part of the creation?
| Share this article: |
|
Comments
There is a form of sculptural art called the "Happening."
"Happenings" occur consistently in life, and are (through lack of a better word to describe it) just experience. Through this definition, playing a game, experiencing ANYTHING could be considered a form of art.
A ladder falling on a can of paint, a baby being born, or playing a video game that somehow affects you...
Its not that art is "subjective" art is all-encompassing and a crucial part of life.
art is subjective in my opinion. i have a lot of friends who either went to art school or are in grad school now and honestly some of their work has been so incredibly ridiculous (ie: moving to paris to challenge a frenchman to a boxing match and creating a championship belt to give to the winner, which my friend is leaving for paris tonight) but if it is art in their minds or the minds of others who is the authority to approve or disapprove whether or not what seems to be art is or isn't art (yeah not the best wording ever but youll get). i very much believe videogames are art even moreso than some of my friends work but it is all in the eye of the beholder.
I've always believed that there is no one clear concise definition of 'Art'. we see it in a day to day basis in everything
Ninja, when does art have to be 'one persons vision?' as far as I'm concerned, i've done many cooperative paintings. that doesn't make it more or less art. it doesn't matter how many people are involved; what about that photo montage that girl made of everyone from an overhead view lined up to look like pictures?
We always get into big debates here when people try to tell me something is or isn't art. who is anyone to say that video games aren't art? or that artistic nudity is porn? or comic books are just cheap thrills? These just stem from the ridiculous notion that anything not mainstream art is not art period.
videogames, while being stylistic and aesthetically pleasing, do invoke feelings of happiness, fear, sadness, anxiety, relief, and even aggression. they're just so emotionally charged. that alone to me warrants entitlement to being art.
Ok, I will warn you from the get-go, this will be a long reply. But, you should all be used to this with me by now. This argument has been going on for a long time. Most of us know of Roger Ebert's contempt of video games claiming how they can never be art. His argument stemmed from the fact that video games are interactive. You control the flow of the actions. Art stems from the creative mind's own product. If we manipulate that product, then it is not that person's creation, thus it is not art. If we go by that judgment, then films, themselves, lose that rank of "art". Very rarely is a film the doing of one person's vision. There may be one person who's vision it is, but it is a lengthy process from start to finish with many changes brought by many people. Whether it's script changes by the writer, edits by the producer, or directions from the, well, director, the film changes and is manipulated until it is final. There are many people that control the final outcome.
But, let's just say that that only applies to the final product. Allowing a person from outside the process to manipulate the product reduces the possibility of art. Similar to allowing someone to draw on a painting you completed. It would no longer be considerable as art because it is not as it intended. Even heavily linear games fall under this because you control the timing of when events occur.
The problem with this is that the creator made the game with the INTENTION of letting us control it. What we are able to do and how we are able to do it, even giving seemingly endless options to accomplish the said goal, is still the creators' decision. If he wants something done a certain way, it is his choice to force us into an option or not. Even games like the GTA series still follow this. Though you are able to control the flow of whatever you want in that series, the story, backdrop, characters, ideals, etc, are all that of the creators' and you cannot change that.
As with any art, the emotions are taken at your own liberty. One person will feel completely different then the next about a painting or film. Same with video games. As long as another's creation makes us feel something, it can, and should, be considered art.
I agree completely. It's only a matter of time until games are judged not just by how they play, but also on their emotional impact - which is probably the most "artistic"aspect of something. A good book, movie, picture, etc. is judged on the emotions it conveys and draws from the viewer. There are plenty of games that are not only fun, but also stir up our emotions.
It seems like in the past few years, with increases in technology, there has been an influx of more "artistic" games. I'm thinking it is because indie developers are springing up everywhere, and without big budgets they have to find creative ways to make their games popular. It's sort of like indie films...they often are the most artistic and thought provoking.
good points......