|
So I was in my Games and Society class today at UCI in SoCal. The class started to get boring because all the presentations from classmates were very uninteresting but then one group went up and brought up an interesting point.
The group's argument was that "Video gaming is an artwork". According to this group, the games created by the companies/developers (Blizzard, Nexon, Joymax, etc) are art but the players who playing the games also creating an artwork. In other word, the games itself is an art and the ways that the games is being played by players are also arts. The group believed that ALL the games in any genres' game play is art.
In my opinion, I agree with this concept because the games ALONE can be art but if nobody play it or even look at it, this artwork is useless. If players playing the game their own way, then they creating their own creative way to play the game. For example: StarCraft's game-play by players is an art work because of the build orders as well the way they position their units. Another example is World of Warcraft, the players built their character into a tank, healer, and dps-er because their are so many different way to build a character but they can creatively build it different that other players.
Sorry for bad description of what I mean please tell me to explain something you dont understand.
My question is that: Do you agree to this group's point? explain?
 
|
I agree that video games are art but it's hard to prove the point that players are doing art too.
Let me explain: If you say that when you play starcraft and you create a strategy, adapt your build, position your units, etc is art then you must say that field commanders in the army are also artists. I think it goes way too far. I would say that players are, as field commanders, strategists and not artists. Strategists may not be the right word tho but I think you'll get my point anyway.
Interesting nonetheless.
|
17078 Posts
Sounds like bored students seeing what bullshit they can get away with in class, honestly :<
|
On October 29 2011 13:40 Empyrean wrote:
Sounds like bored students seeing what bullshit they can get away with in class, honestly :<
Yeah kinda this.
As I said, the first part can actually be true but the second is a bit confusing.
|
Art is such a vague word to use when describing something. Anything can appear as art to someone. I don't really see how videogames classify as art to be honest.
|
On October 29 2011 13:46 MrDudeMan wrote:
Art is such a vague word to use when describing something. Anything can appear as art to someone. I don't really see how videogames classify as art to be honest.
Well the obvious thing that could qualify as art in a video game are the arts themselves. The art designers, the animators, the modelers, etc.
|
Katowice25012 Posts
This is a pretty common view on some of the video game podcasts I listen to. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, you can see it as art you interact with if you want, but ultimately its a classification that has no real bearing or meaning in anything. It's a discussion that has no purpose at all.
|
The creation process of a video game is art.. playing them is not.
|
I think that the story of a video game can be viewed as art, not the way that it is played. for example the story line of wings of liberty is art. There is emotion and character. However Huk microing stalkers is not art.
|
It's a hard sell to say those playing are creating art. But they are most certainly executing it. Participation in the artistic process is as vital to the concept of art as the production of art itself.
That's a really short version of what could be a very very long essay about this. The class is kind of right on this.
On October 29 2011 13:22 itungle wrote:
In my opinion, I agree with this concept because the games ALONE can be art but if nobody play it or even look at it, this artwork is useless. If players playing the game their own way, then they creating their own creative way to play the game. For example: StarCraft's game-play by players is an art work because of the build orders as well the way they position their units. Another example is World of Warcraft, the players built their character into a tank, healer, and dps-er because their are so many different way to build a character but they can creatively build it different that other players.
This, I'm not buying as much. When you execute a build in SC or spec out a healer in an MMO you're not really expressing anything. The goal is utmost brutal efficiency, and you'll find at the top levels everything is built the same because it's simply the best manner of doing that. So while you can do something in a creative fashion, you're not really stating anything, which certainly means it's not artistic.
|
I could kind of see that, depending on the game. There are a lot of games that require creativity to play them, and the end result could be considered art. For example,creating maps in SC2, or creating cool tracks in games like Line Rider. The line gets really blurry though. Its hard to decide what is and is not hard once you start thinking about content created while playing.
|
I've thought about this before. There's something beautiful about well played starcraft. However I think the overwhelming majority of the people in the world would disagree. But for me personally, I'd venture to say there is definitely a creative process in sc2.
When you play a game of starcraft 2 you bring a medium to life. Of course the goal of the game isnt to make the prettiest rally point heart or how perfect your lines of BM pylons are. But those types of things bring life to the game.
You have things like dance and martial arts, both of which are considered art.Maybe sc2 is the new means to expression? I kid, but the creative process is definitely there and its one of my favorite parts of the game. Next to winning of course 
|
Are you in the UCI Starcraft club? If not, we have a huge group on facebook.
Even if this discussion was worth talking about, the points brought up are rather shallow, and to echo heyoka's point, doesn't really contribute to the classification of "art" and video games.
|
On October 29 2011 15:41 shindigs wrote:
Are you in the UCI Starcraft club? If not, we have a huge group on facebook.
Even if this discussion was worth talking about, the points brought up are rather shallow, and to echo heyoka's point, doesn't really contribute to the classification of "art" and video games.
All your friends were at Gina's pizza
You would've brought a good discussion topic
We made up a cozy party of ~10, wish you had known/could make it.
Because we were all talking about your club too
|
The player of a game is no more an artist than someone watching a movie. The fact that you are pushing the story along has nothing to do with how that story was written or that world conceived. The creators and writers are the artists.
But not every game is art, just as not every picture is art. My option is that for a game to be considered art it must succeed at two things, tell story, and cause an emotional reaction in the player.
The first is obvious, its easy to tell if it tells a story. But the second is not so overt, what may bring me to tears may not even cause a reaction in others.
To wrap this up because its 3am and I'm about to pass out. Yes video games are an artistic medium, but that does not make all games art. Just as painting is an artistic medium, but not all paintings are art.
|
Canada1637 Posts
I think that is far too broad a definition of art.You can basically call anything art if you want.
I do think map making can be considered a format of art though because of certain characteristics of it, but just playing a game in general... I don't think so.
|
On October 29 2011 13:53 heyoka wrote:
This is a pretty common view on some of the video game podcasts I listen to. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, you can see it as art you interact with if you want, but ultimately its a classification that has no real bearing or meaning in anything. It's a discussion that has no purpose at all.
Can you post in every eSports are/aren't real sports thread please. 
|
On October 29 2011 13:53 heyoka wrote:
This is a pretty common view on some of the video game podcasts I listen to. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, you can see it as art you interact with if you want, but ultimately its a classification that has no real bearing or meaning in anything. It's a discussion that has no purpose at all.
I think it's of interest to anyone interested in art, and definitely from the point of view that games are comprised of bits of art it can be a fun discussion, but I think it's really been turned into a 'games have to be as legitimate as possible, so games are art, not just for nerds' point which I'd agree has no bearing. Especially with things like eSports actually bringing other dimensions to gaming
|
I definitely agree on games being art, with the story, artwork and music/sound.
But gaming itself is just as much an art as jury sports are. You have the tools, but what you do with them is born out of competing, not entertaining.
I've once done an extensive game review for art class because I thought it was bullshit we could only do movies. It was about Diablo 2 and the story you experience. After I gave my presentation, mostly revolving around the cutscenes, everyone was pretty impressed with the story/narative in games.
|
Eh, whether something is art or not nowadays is mostly a matter of conventions and how universally acknowledged it is. All it takes for anything to become art is enough people wanting it to be an art, subsequently convincing enough other people to believe that it is.
Programming is an art too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
