Quantcast

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

games as an art form?

GintohGintoh Member UncommonPosts: 329

Don't get me wrong, i love games, but i simply think they are not an art form or atleast not high art. i mean look at games with supposeadely great narratives, Nioshock, Mass Effect ect. All of these games' narratives are on par with a slightly above average movie but no whare near fantastc. the plots in them are ment to be interesting but not neccisarily to explore complex themes like other art forms do. I guess the reason why I have this opinion is because games, by definition, bust be entertaining whare as in my opinion the best films and books ect. are not. Just take a look a Ulyssees (sp?) one of the greatest books ever written, but it's torture to read. What do you guys think? Why?

Comments

  • paulscottpaulscott Member Posts: 5,613

    Yes games are an artform,  yes games aren't an artform?    no matter how one answers it can be taken both ways.

    ____

    So you're saying that because games aren't satisfactory in one artistic aspect it discludes the whole thing?

    I find it amazing that by 2020 first world countries will be competing to get immigrants.

  • CleffyCleffy Member RarePosts: 6,246

    I don't believe its an art form.  I believe thinking of it as an art detracts from what a game can achieve.  An art tries to convey onto others the artists vision.  A game tries to give the player their own vision through tools they can manipulate.  If the game was truly an art it would end up just being an animation.  When you think about games that tried to be an piece of art, they always end up boring and over-sensationalized with little player interactivity and more the developer trying to push the story along.

  • bluelabelbluelabel Member Posts: 4

    I think it's incredibly difficult to truly pinpoint what exactly is "high art" or even "good art" for that matter. I mean, someone can trace an anime screen shot and stick it on their web page and call themselves an "artist". Same thing with fanfiction.

    A lot of games have excellent story lines that could easily be translated into a novel form.

    Art takes talent and time. I don't think it's something that can be rushed. Given that criterion, I feel that certain games can be considered works of art.

  • arrecksarrecks Member Posts: 17

    If a painting of a can of Campbells Tomato Soup is considered art, I just don't know anymore. Damn you, Andy Warhol.

  • CaleveiraCaleveira Member Posts: 556

    Yes, videogames are an art form, a nascent one. I know some people in this forums will dislike my example but i consider FFX a good work, it is if not better, at least on par with your average fantasy novel or movie. A good game involves many of the elements of cinema and similar collaborative arts; good writing (story) visual arts (graphics) music (soundtrack) not to mention other associated arts such as art direction, sound design, set building, even acting (voiceovers). Good balanced gameplay is by itself functional art, and MMOs in particular have some elements of participative or interactive arts. Add to this the overall work of what is truly a director and you even have some elements of the work of an autheur. So called computer arts have begun to gain recognition with CGI films (including MMO based Machinima) at the forefront. Add to this the complexity that MMOs posses in producing derivative work (fan fiction, character portraits, etc.) and we could even speak of complex metatextual systems. We are talking works on par with many of the conceptual art exhibits in contemporary modern art museums.

    Will it be recognized as such? We are very likely a long way off. Except perhaps in Korea and Japan. We should be reminded that comic books have struggled for close to a century now for similar recognition, and have only in relatively recent times gained wide acceptance through the art world. And then, only in the gimicky guise of the "graphic novel". Cultural elites still mantain prejudicial attitudes directed at both videogames and gamers, which are looked upon as unsofisticated and in general terms lumped together with subcultures often blamed for the "demise" of the fine arts.

    Videogames as an art are still very young, and i dare say MMOs in particular have yet to progress beyond works of craftmanship at best. But the potential is undoubtedly there, and as technological advancements allow for better tools we may one day see MMOs fulfill their potential. Another necesary thing for recognition is to find ways to relate the experience in an understandable way to nongamers, very likely through other arts. Lets face it, only those of us who play MMOs understand what theyre really about, even people with multiplayer experience cant quite get it, and it would take talent in other arts to convey a part of it.

     

    Just to make things clear...
    I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.

  • GintohGintoh Member UncommonPosts: 329

    I think that mmo's are the farthest of the game genres from being art. Why? Because they are open, I think by definition art must be a controled experience, in an mmo the game can take many different paths and players can reach different ends. Imagine if there were many paths the story could take in Romeo in Juliet, if completely different things happened each time, it wouldn't be art because art is a controled experience.

  • CaleveiraCaleveira Member Posts: 556
    Originally posted by Gintoh


    I think that mmo's are the farthest of the game genres from being art. Why? Because they are open, I think by definition art must be a controled experience, in an mmo the game can take many different paths and players can reach different ends. Imagine if there were many paths the story could take in Romeo in Juliet, if completely different things happened each time, it wouldn't be art because art is a controled experience.



     

    You might want to try reading Julio Cortazars Rayuela (Hopscotch) an undisputed literary masterpiece which can be read in many ways and offers paths leading to different ends. As for art being a controlled experience there are a host of great authors (Wilde, Rimbaud, Camus) that would beg to differ.

    I dont dispute MMOs now being the genre the farthest from legitimate art status.

    Just to make things clear...
    I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.

  • altairzqaltairzq Member Posts: 3,811
    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by Gintoh


    I think that mmo's are the farthest of the game genres from being art. Why? Because they are open, I think by definition art must be a controled experience, in an mmo the game can take many different paths and players can reach different ends. Imagine if there were many paths the story could take in Romeo in Juliet, if completely different things happened each time, it wouldn't be art because art is a controled experience.



     

    You might want to try reading Julio Cortazars Rayuela (Hopscotch) an undisputed literary masterpiece which can be read in many ways and offers paths leading to different ends. As for art being a controlled experience there are a host of great authors (Wilde, Rimbaud, Camus) that would beg to differ.

    I dont dispute MMOs now being the genre the farthest from legitimate art status.

     

    If I remember well it has only 2 ways of reading it: as a normal book or reading the chapters in a non-sequential order given by the author, so it's still 100% controlled by the author.

    Art is a personal and transcendental message from the author to the audience. Hardly a game.

  • CaleveiraCaleveira Member Posts: 556
    Originally posted by altairzq

    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by Gintoh


    I think that mmo's are the farthest of the game genres from being art. Why? Because they are open, I think by definition art must be a controled experience, in an mmo the game can take many different paths and players can reach different ends. Imagine if there were many paths the story could take in Romeo in Juliet, if completely different things happened each time, it wouldn't be art because art is a controled experience.



     

    You might want to try reading Julio Cortazars Rayuela (Hopscotch) an undisputed literary masterpiece which can be read in many ways and offers paths leading to different ends. As for art being a controlled experience there are a host of great authors (Wilde, Rimbaud, Camus) that would beg to differ.

    I dont dispute MMOs now being the genre the farthest from legitimate art status.

     

    If I remember well it has only 2 ways of reading it: as a normal book or reading the chapters in a non-sequential order given by the author, so it's still 100% controlled by the author.

    Art is a personal and transcendental message from the author to the audience. Hardly a game.



     

    You obviously dont remember from reading the book yourself, the various ways in which the book can be read and how this affects interpretation are still matter of debate amongst latin american connoisseurs.

    And people, please stop trying to define what art is, it cant be settled, and certainly not on a forum thread. Art isnt always personal (as in some schools of abstract painting which held the very purpose of divesting the individual to reach the universal) nor is it always trascendental (as in Budhist mandalas which attempt to concretize the trascendental precisely to liberate the artist from it by the works temporal destruction). The thing about art (and funny enough, no one here has included aesthetics in attempts to define it) is that it can be anything. You cant define art, its not science. A definition is always exclusive and whatever someone would leave out of its conception, someone else considers art. Classical authors would include beauty in their concept and yet today we have artists like Geiger. Christian theologists posed an attempt at reaching for the divine and yet Gide was granted the Nobel prize in literature despite the Vaticans attempts to censor his work. Most penal codes consider graffiti destruction of property and yet Lady Pinks work is now in exhibit at the Met. Frank Sinatra considered Punk rock an abomination and yet the Sex Pistols rendition of My Way is now considered a classic.

    Some previous poster made something of a cliche remark about Warhols work and yet... If you dont consider MMOs or videogames an art form youre well entitled to your opinion, but stop trying to rationalize it by something as futile as trying to define what art is. Whats the phrase Americans use? "I may not know art..."

    Just to make things clear...
    I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.

  • MunkiMunki Member CommonPosts: 2,128

    I think calling Games art is selling games short.

    Art is a final product delivered by an artist. They control every aspect of your perception of it.

    They frame the painting, the book is written sequentially, the sculpture looks the same regardless who you are.

    Movies are the same, every frame you watch sounds and looks identical to the one everyone else in the world watches.

    Video games you all play differently. I go left, you go right; I save Wrex, you kill him.

    I may see something simular but I may never walk down that hallway. I may never use that gun.

    Video games are a medium that include the viewer in the presentation. This is something art cannot and will never do. I think by trying to frame video games as art you are not doing justice to the video games.

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

  • loirnoirloirnoir Member Posts: 170

    I have to respectfully disagree. A game is a final product. All the options are delivered by the developers. An artist, of any sort, can not "shape" your perception, for it will always be subjective to you, and you alone. You can't say that I hear or see exactly like every other person, for certain objects and sounds might have different associations in my mind than they do with the rest of the world.

    In a movie a person can focus on whatever part he wants, and he can pay no attention to other parts.

    For a painting, the same applies.

    Games are the most interactive form of art. Which, in my opinion, makes them the highest art of them all.

    They allow the viewer (player) to feel as if he is the one making the art. It gives a sense of control and creation which if executed with elegance and creativity can result in an experience that a painting hanging on a wall could never give.

    Have you ever felt like you were the one making the brush strokes when you looked at a painting?

    Other forms of art don't have the same effect as Games do, though games are by far the most difficult to create.

  • CaleveiraCaleveira Member Posts: 556
    Originally posted by Munki


    I think calling Games art is selling games short.

    Art is a final product delivered by an artist. They control every aspect of your perception of it.
    They frame the painting, the book is written sequentially, the sculpture looks the same regardless who you are.

    Movies are the same, every frame you watch sounds and looks identical to the one everyone else in the world watches.
    Video games you all play differently. I go left, you go right; I save Wrex, you kill him.

    I may see something simular but I may never walk down that hallway. I may never use that gun.
    Video games are a medium that include the viewer in the presentation. This is something art cannot and will never do. I think by trying to frame video games as art you are not doing justice to the video games.



     

    Not all books are written sequentially, not all paintings are framed, the sculptures ive seen throughout my life have appeared differently as experience and knowledge have allowed to look at them in different eyes... Art i live with, music changes with me, books i discuss with people and sometimes find its almost like weve read two distinct works...

    I guess i just realized mines the minority view on this thread, but i dont call art a product.

    Just to make things clear...
    I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.

  • WolfjunkieWolfjunkie Member Posts: 985
    Originally posted by Munki


    I think calling Games art is selling games short.

    Art is a final product delivered by an artist. They control every aspect of your perception of it.
    They frame the painting, the book is written sequentially, the sculpture looks the same regardless who you are.

    Movies are the same, every frame you watch sounds and looks identical to the one everyone else in the world watches.
    Video games you all play differently. I go left, you go right; I save Wrex, you kill him.

    I may see something simular but I may never walk down that hallway. I may never use that gun.
    Video games are a medium that include the viewer in the presentation. This is something art cannot and will never do. I think by trying to frame video games as art you are not doing justice to the video games.

     

    Back in '00, Marco Evaristti did a display at a danish art museum. Live gold fish in a blender. The blenders was plugged in, and the audience was allowed to turn on the blender if the felt like it. This doesn't seem to fit into your definition of art, yet it's still widely acknowledged as art.

  • altairzqaltairzq Member Posts: 3,811
    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by altairzq

    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by Gintoh


    I think that mmo's are the farthest of the game genres from being art. Why? Because they are open, I think by definition art must be a controled experience, in an mmo the game can take many different paths and players can reach different ends. Imagine if there were many paths the story could take in Romeo in Juliet, if completely different things happened each time, it wouldn't be art because art is a controled experience.



     

    You might want to try reading Julio Cortazars Rayuela (Hopscotch) an undisputed literary masterpiece which can be read in many ways and offers paths leading to different ends. As for art being a controlled experience there are a host of great authors (Wilde, Rimbaud, Camus) that would beg to differ.

    I dont dispute MMOs now being the genre the farthest from legitimate art status.

     

    If I remember well it has only 2 ways of reading it: as a normal book or reading the chapters in a non-sequential order given by the author, so it's still 100% controlled by the author.

    Art is a personal and transcendental message from the author to the audience. Hardly a game.



     

    You obviously dont remember from reading the book yourself, the various ways in which the book can be read and how this affects interpretation are still matter of debate amongst latin american connoisseurs.

    And people, please stop trying to define what art is, it cant be settled, and certainly not on a forum thread. Art isnt always personal (as in some schools of abstract painting which held the very purpose of divesting the individual to reach the universal) nor is it always trascendental (as in Budhist mandalas which attempt to concretize the trascendental precisely to liberate the artist from it by the works temporal destruction). The thing about art (and funny enough, no one here has included aesthetics in attempts to define it) is that it can be anything. You cant define art, its not science. A definition is always exclusive and whatever someone would leave out of its conception, someone else considers art. Classical authors would include beauty in their concept and yet today we have artists like Geiger. Christian theologists posed an attempt at reaching for the divine and yet Gide was granted the Nobel prize in literature despite the Vaticans attempts to censor his work. Most penal codes consider graffiti destruction of property and yet Lady Pinks work is now in exhibit at the Met. Frank Sinatra considered Punk rock an abomination and yet the Sex Pistols rendition of My Way is now considered a classic.

    Some previous poster made something of a cliche remark about Warhols work and yet... If you dont consider MMOs or videogames an art form youre well entitled to your opinion, but stop trying to rationalize it by something as futile as trying to define what art is. Whats the phrase Americans use? "I may not know art..."

     

    You sir, are a fama.

  • CaleveiraCaleveira Member Posts: 556
    Originally posted by altairzq

    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by altairzq

    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by Gintoh


    I think that mmo's are the farthest of the game genres from being art. Why? Because they are open, I think by definition art must be a controled experience, in an mmo the game can take many different paths and players can reach different ends. Imagine if there were many paths the story could take in Romeo in Juliet, if completely different things happened each time, it wouldn't be art because art is a controled experience.



     

    You might want to try reading Julio Cortazars Rayuela (Hopscotch) an undisputed literary masterpiece which can be read in many ways and offers paths leading to different ends. As for art being a controlled experience there are a host of great authors (Wilde, Rimbaud, Camus) that would beg to differ.

    I dont dispute MMOs now being the genre the farthest from legitimate art status.

     

    If I remember well it has only 2 ways of reading it: as a normal book or reading the chapters in a non-sequential order given by the author, so it's still 100% controlled by the author.

    Art is a personal and transcendental message from the author to the audience. Hardly a game.



     

    You obviously dont remember from reading the book yourself, the various ways in which the book can be read and how this affects interpretation are still matter of debate amongst latin american connoisseurs.

    And people, please stop trying to define what art is, it cant be settled, and certainly not on a forum thread. Art isnt always personal (as in some schools of abstract painting which held the very purpose of divesting the individual to reach the universal) nor is it always trascendental (as in Budhist mandalas which attempt to concretize the trascendental precisely to liberate the artist from it by the works temporal destruction). The thing about art (and funny enough, no one here has included aesthetics in attempts to define it) is that it can be anything. You cant define art, its not science. A definition is always exclusive and whatever someone would leave out of its conception, someone else considers art. Classical authors would include beauty in their concept and yet today we have artists like Geiger. Christian theologists posed an attempt at reaching for the divine and yet Gide was granted the Nobel prize in literature despite the Vaticans attempts to censor his work. Most penal codes consider graffiti destruction of property and yet Lady Pinks work is now in exhibit at the Met. Frank Sinatra considered Punk rock an abomination and yet the Sex Pistols rendition of My Way is now considered a classic.

    Some previous poster made something of a cliche remark about Warhols work and yet... If you dont consider MMOs or videogames an art form youre well entitled to your opinion, but stop trying to rationalize it by something as futile as trying to define what art is. Whats the phrase Americans use? "I may not know art..."

     

    You sir, are a fama.



     

    Since a cronopio would never post something like that id take you to be an esperanza then.

    Just to make things clear...
    I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.

  • ChealarChealar Member Posts: 268

    A lot of people seem to think that art is "fixed" down by the author... It couldn't more wrong.

    As pointed out by Caleveira, a lot of authors would disagree, if only because as long as a text (I'm a literature student, so let me focus on this art form) is not read, it does not exist. But once read, you start interpretating it.

    If "interpretation" is generaly understood here as "understanding", you also have to consider the "musical" meaning of "playing a (music) sheet". Even though a music sheet is the same for every mucisian, some ahve a very personal way of palying it... (think Glenn Gould here). Proust said something about his books being "offered" to the reader as some thing to play with, twist, make their own, and maybe use as basis for their own books...

    Plus, in the words of Paul Val

    image

  • MunkiMunki Member CommonPosts: 2,128
    Originally posted by Wolfjunkie

    Originally posted by Munki


    I think calling Games art is selling games short.

    Art is a final product delivered by an artist. They control every aspect of your perception of it.
    They frame the painting, the book is written sequentially, the sculpture looks the same regardless who you are.

    Movies are the same, every frame you watch sounds and looks identical to the one everyone else in the world watches.
    Video games you all play differently. I go left, you go right; I save Wrex, you kill him.

    I may see something simular but I may never walk down that hallway. I may never use that gun.
    Video games are a medium that include the viewer in the presentation. This is something art cannot and will never do. I think by trying to frame video games as art you are not doing justice to the video games.

     

    Back in '00, Marco Evaristti did a display at a danish art museum. Live gold fish in a blender. The blenders was plugged in, and the audience was allowed to turn on the blender if the felt like it. This doesn't seem to fit into your definition of art, yet it's still widely acknowledged as art.

    And this is a car:

    Its an exception to the general rule.

    For every book that can be read backwards, there are 100,000 books that are read normally.

    For every goldfish in a blender there is 100,000 sculptures just as I described.

    If you want to argue the rare exception that spits in the face of the rule, realize that spitting was probably the intent of this particular piece of "art"

    I've setup art exhibits; The artist and the curator know exactly what they want you to see. Everything is structured so you get what they want you to take from it.

    If you want to argue that one time in band camp under a harvest moon in 1963 something contrary happend you can go till your blue in the face. But Art is still; Art is created by the artist, not by the viewer. A game is made so the player can experience the game how they see fit and act how they want; Without having to close their eyes or leave the room at certain points to get their own "personalized" experience.

     

     

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

  • CaleveiraCaleveira Member Posts: 556
    Originally posted by Munki

    Originally posted by Wolfjunkie

    Originally posted by Munki


    I think calling Games art is selling games short.

    Art is a final product delivered by an artist. They control every aspect of your perception of it.
    They frame the painting, the book is written sequentially, the sculpture looks the same regardless who you are.

    Movies are the same, every frame you watch sounds and looks identical to the one everyone else in the world watches.
    Video games you all play differently. I go left, you go right; I save Wrex, you kill him.

    I may see something simular but I may never walk down that hallway. I may never use that gun.
    Video games are a medium that include the viewer in the presentation. This is something art cannot and will never do. I think by trying to frame video games as art you are not doing justice to the video games.

     

    Back in '00, Marco Evaristti did a display at a danish art museum. Live gold fish in a blender. The blenders was plugged in, and the audience was allowed to turn on the blender if the felt like it. This doesn't seem to fit into your definition of art, yet it's still widely acknowledged as art.

    And this is a car:

    Its an exception to the general rule.

    For every book that can be read backwards, there are 100,000 books that are read normally.

    For every goldfish in a blender there is 100,000 sculptures just as I described.

    If you want to argue the rare exception that spits in the face of the rule, realize that spitting was probably the intent of this particular piece of "art"

    I've setup art exhibits; The artist and the curator know exactly what they want you to see. Everything is structured so you get what they want you to take from it.

    If you want to argue that one time in band camp under a harvest moon in 1963 something contrary happend you can go till your blue in the face. But Art is still; Art is created by the artist, not by the viewer. A game is made so the player can experience the game how they see fit and act how they want; Without having to close their eyes or leave the room at certain points to get their own "personalized" experience.

     

     



     

    Ever heard of The Breeders dude? Ive seen Kim Deal perform not 3 feet away from me, heard her music while stoned out of my mind and also while in the company of the woman i loved. Ive heard her music while surfing on the pacific, drunk in a Moroccan kasbah and while dinning in Rome. Ive been depressed, extatic and mellow through the same old songs. It was never the same music to me and always i loved it.

    But if you believe personal interpretation is not valid, how about a performer's? Lets take puccini's Turandot as an example. The opera was unfinished at the time of the composer's death which means no one has ever heard it as originally intended. Some people are of the idea to follow Toscaninis lead and that the play should be interpreted only until the middle of act III, which while it may appeal to purists is somewhat disapointing to those of us who like to follow the libretto. There are a number of endings to solve the problem, Alfanos usually being recognized as one of the better ones despite his obvious deviation from Puccinis original notes for the work. One following closely on the work as originally intended is masterfully done by the Teatro Colons company. Which is better? The fact remains theyre all both the same and different.

    But then, this is something that will happen with most works performed live regardless of the score. No two companies will perform Hamlet in the exact same way, and if youve ever listened to Stravinskys work youll agree is too fiendishly complex to ever be done exactly the same by different conductors. Music and theater are certainly no exceptions in the art world...

    Finally you posted a pic of a car to make your point, to me there is no question the 1965 Shelby Mustang is a masterpiece. Yes, there is even such a thing as automotive art, and trust me, no two persons will experience an engine in the same way.

    Just to make things clear...
    I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.

  • DelovelyDelovely Member Posts: 92

     

    I still want to try that "Flower" game, it seems very artsy :)

  • IhmoteppIhmotepp Member Posts: 14,495

    Art is entertaining, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Just because you OP are not entertained by Ulysses, doesn't mean someone else is not.

    I enjoy a good Shakespeare play, but frankly if you haven't read the play and gotten some familiarity with it before hand, just sitting in the audience for the first time, you'll wonder why people are laughing, and what the heck is going on?

    But if you put in the effort to understand what is happening in the play, you will find it immensely entertaining because Shakes is such a good story teller.

    So it can be art to someone, and just tortuous to someone else.

    image

  • MunkiMunki Member CommonPosts: 2,128
    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by Munki

    Originally posted by Wolfjunkie

    Originally posted by Munki


    I think calling Games art is selling games short.

    Art is a final product delivered by an artist. They control every aspect of your perception of it.
    They frame the painting, the book is written sequentially, the sculpture looks the same regardless who you are.

    Movies are the same, every frame you watch sounds and looks identical to the one everyone else in the world watches.
    Video games you all play differently. I go left, you go right; I save Wrex, you kill him.

    I may see something simular but I may never walk down that hallway. I may never use that gun.
    Video games are a medium that include the viewer in the presentation. This is something art cannot and will never do. I think by trying to frame video games as art you are not doing justice to the video games.

     

    Back in '00, Marco Evaristti did a display at a danish art museum. Live gold fish in a blender. The blenders was plugged in, and the audience was allowed to turn on the blender if the felt like it. This doesn't seem to fit into your definition of art, yet it's still widely acknowledged as art.

    And this is a car:

    Its an exception to the general rule.

    For every book that can be read backwards, there are 100,000 books that are read normally.

    For every goldfish in a blender there is 100,000 sculptures just as I described.

    If you want to argue the rare exception that spits in the face of the rule, realize that spitting was probably the intent of this particular piece of "art"

    I've setup art exhibits; The artist and the curator know exactly what they want you to see. Everything is structured so you get what they want you to take from it.

    If you want to argue that one time in band camp under a harvest moon in 1963 something contrary happend you can go till your blue in the face. But Art is still; Art is created by the artist, not by the viewer. A game is made so the player can experience the game how they see fit and act how they want; Without having to close their eyes or leave the room at certain points to get their own "personalized" experience.

     

     



     

    Ever heard of The Breeders dude? Ive seen Kim Deal perform not 3 feet away from me, heard her music while stoned out of my mind and also while in the company of the woman i loved. Ive heard her music while surfing on the pacific, drunk in a Moroccan kasbah and while dinning in Rome. Ive been depressed, extatic and mellow through the same old songs. It was never the same music to me and always i loved it.

    But if you believe personal interpretation is not valid, how about a performer's? Lets take puccini's Turandot as an example. The opera was unfinished at the time of the composer's death which means no one has ever heard it as originally intended. Some people are of the idea to follow Toscaninis lead and that the play should be interpreted only until the middle of act III, which while it may appeal to purists is somewhat disapointing to those of us who like to follow the libretto. There are a number of endings to solve the problem, Alfanos usually being recognized as one of the better ones despite his obvious deviation from Puccinis original notes for the work. One following closely on the work as originally intended is masterfully done by the Teatro Colons company. Which is better? The fact remains theyre all both the same and different.

    But then, this is something that will happen with most works performed live regardless of the score. No two companies will perform Hamlet in the exact same way, and if youve ever listened to Stravinskys work youll agree is too fiendishly complex to ever be done exactly the same by different conductors. Music and theater are certainly no exceptions in the art world...

    Finally you posted a pic of a car to make your point, to me there is no question the 1965 Shelby Mustang is a masterpiece. Yes, there is even such a thing as automotive art, and trust me, no two persons will experience an engine in the same way.

    I have no idea what getting stoned listening to music has anything to with debating the merits of videogames as art. The music is the same regardless of your mental state.

    When a musician rewrites music... another Musician rewrote it.

    The listener remains blissfully uninvolved in the process.

    You've completely missing the point of the argument. Video games create a feeling of agency, art does not.

     

    image
    after 6 or so years, I had to change it a little...

  • CaleveiraCaleveira Member Posts: 556
    Originally posted by Munki

    Originally posted by Caleveira

    Originally posted by Munki

    Originally posted by Wolfjunkie

    Originally posted by Munki


    I think calling Games art is selling games short.

    Art is a final product delivered by an artist. They control every aspect of your perception of it.
    They frame the painting, the book is written sequentially, the sculpture looks the same regardless who you are.

    Movies are the same, every frame you watch sounds and looks identical to the one everyone else in the world watches.
    Video games you all play differently. I go left, you go right; I save Wrex, you kill him.

    I may see something simular but I may never walk down that hallway. I may never use that gun.
    Video games are a medium that include the viewer in the presentation. This is something art cannot and will never do. I think by trying to frame video games as art you are not doing justice to the video games.

     

    Back in '00, Marco Evaristti did a display at a danish art museum. Live gold fish in a blender. The blenders was plugged in, and the audience was allowed to turn on the blender if the felt like it. This doesn't seem to fit into your definition of art, yet it's still widely acknowledged as art.

    And this is a car:

    Its an exception to the general rule.

    For every book that can be read backwards, there are 100,000 books that are read normally.

    For every goldfish in a blender there is 100,000 sculptures just as I described.

    If you want to argue the rare exception that spits in the face of the rule, realize that spitting was probably the intent of this particular piece of "art"

    I've setup art exhibits; The artist and the curator know exactly what they want you to see. Everything is structured so you get what they want you to take from it.

    If you want to argue that one time in band camp under a harvest moon in 1963 something contrary happend you can go till your blue in the face. But Art is still; Art is created by the artist, not by the viewer. A game is made so the player can experience the game how they see fit and act how they want; Without having to close their eyes or leave the room at certain points to get their own "personalized" experience.

     

     



     

    Ever heard of The Breeders dude? Ive seen Kim Deal perform not 3 feet away from me, heard her music while stoned out of my mind and also while in the company of the woman i loved. Ive heard her music while surfing on the pacific, drunk in a Moroccan kasbah and while dinning in Rome. Ive been depressed, extatic and mellow through the same old songs. It was never the same music to me and always i loved it.

    But if you believe personal interpretation is not valid, how about a performer's? Lets take puccini's Turandot as an example. The opera was unfinished at the time of the composer's death which means no one has ever heard it as originally intended. Some people are of the idea to follow Toscaninis lead and that the play should be interpreted only until the middle of act III, which while it may appeal to purists is somewhat disapointing to those of us who like to follow the libretto. There are a number of endings to solve the problem, Alfanos usually being recognized as one of the better ones despite his obvious deviation from Puccinis original notes for the work. One following closely on the work as originally intended is masterfully done by the Teatro Colons company. Which is better? The fact remains theyre all both the same and different.

    But then, this is something that will happen with most works performed live regardless of the score. No two companies will perform Hamlet in the exact same way, and if youve ever listened to Stravinskys work youll agree is too fiendishly complex to ever be done exactly the same by different conductors. Music and theater are certainly no exceptions in the art world...

    Finally you posted a pic of a car to make your point, to me there is no question the 1965 Shelby Mustang is a masterpiece. Yes, there is even such a thing as automotive art, and trust me, no two persons will experience an engine in the same way.

    I have no idea what getting stoned listening to music has anything to with debating the merits of videogames as art. The music is the same regardless of your mental state.

    When a musician rewrites music... another Musician rewrote it.

    The listener remains blissfully uninvolved in the process.

    You've completely missing the point of the argument. Video games create a feeling of agency, art does not.

     

    Thats the thing, you have no idea. Interpretation is not rewriting. And if you dont get a feeling of agency when engaged in a book (in discovery, in exploration) youre very likely the kind that gets bored reading.

     

    Youre obviously not involved in art or you wouldnt talk about it that way. To define art is something that mankind has failed to do throughout its entire history. It would very well solve the existential dilemma and you would be historys greatest genius if you could. But apparently all your life you have but watched art from the sidelines as a mere spectator, which means no work has moved you enough to become involved with it. And you claim you can decide what art is or isnt?

    Just to make things clear...
    I speak for myself and no one else, unless i state otherwise mine is just an opinion. A fact is something that can be independently verified, you may challenge such but with proof. You have every right to disagree with me through sound argument, i believe in constructive debate, but baseless aggression will warrant an unkind response.

Sign In or Register to comment.