EPTAre Video Games an Art Form? - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
number1gog
United States1081 Posts
| ||
|
Emon_
3925 Posts
Seriously though, If this is art + Show Spoiler + | ||
|
Kaniol
Poland5551 Posts
Even though that is true that games are not an art form, why should they be? They are "sportlike", sport is not an art, it is competitive and requires other set of skills than art. Computer graphics, music (aka components of game) may be an art (and quite often are) but why would one ever consider looking at games as an art | ||
|
Piste
6180 Posts
| ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9104 Posts
| ||
|
-fj.
Samoa462 Posts
The question is not whether games are art in a broad sense or not, but whether you, as a person, think they are great art or not. It makes about as much sense to argue about whether music is better than painting or not. Obviously the guy who wrote that article thinks that nothing about games is as artistic as the well known and well established arts, but it's nothing more than an opinion. So it's ok, he can hold that opinion, and we can hold ours, whatever it may be. Personally I think that games can have artistic merit, but that it is mostly irrelevant.. Because all of us at teamliquid know that games are about WINNING, not having fun, and art is generally incompatible with that kind of competition. When progamers place buildings they don't often draw flowers or interesting patterns with them, they space them for optimum movement and close packing because it will increase their chance to win the game. As far as game developers doing art, I think most of them that have tried did a pretty lousy job, and I'm not surprised, because they are game developers, not artists. A common example of an "art game" is Braid, and I won't say that Braid is bad, because I think that for the audience it targets, it's a really nice game. I will however say that the claimed artistic side of it.. just isn't there. Perhaps the CLAIM that an ordinary game like Braid is a work of art can be considered a great work of art itself, but not the game alone, in my opinion. A real art game would be seem like a novelty to 99% of gamers, it probably wouldn't be very fun. It sure as hell wouldn't be "flower" either. Flower is another one of those "the claim is the art" things, except that this time the artistic claim is that flower is a game and not a demoscene. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
| ||
|
lepape
Canada557 Posts
Cinema started to be really acknowledged as an art form only in the 50's, with the french New Wave. There's many movies with artistic value made in the 20's, 30's, 40's, but the vast majority of them were made for pure entertainment, nothing else. Today, the game industry is pretty much the equivalent of the 20's in cinema. Braid would be Metropolis, we're still waiting for Citizen Kane. | ||
|
ColorsOfRainbow
Germany354 Posts
 | ||
|
D10
Brazil3409 Posts
ERGO LOGIC | ||
|
palanq
United States761 Posts
I think there are certain ways of defining the word "art" that would even include games with the strategic depth of chess/go/sc. you sometimes hear people talk the interplay between players in these sorts of games as a "dance," even. | ||
|
hoborg
United States430 Posts
On April 24 2010 23:52 blahman3344 wrote: One of his main points is that the difference between art and games is "you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome," and when it doesn't have points or rules, then it ceases to be a game and turns into a representation of a story or novel. I sort of half-agree with the jist of Ebert's article, but this bit is not necessarily true. The Endless Forest is an art game (or is it?) where there aren't any goals or points. And there isn't a story, besides whatever your own imagination can come up with. There are, however, activities, bits of interaction, things to explore much like a video game. You could say it's not technically a 'game', and that's probably true since it isn't goal-based... but what else would you call it besides a "video game"? An "Interactive artwork"? Well, that's not very specific, there are thousands of interactive art installations that are nothing like this at all. This is much more closer to a game of counterstrike than most interactive art... Gravitation is undeniably a video game because there are rules and goals... but all of those rules and goals and constraints are symbolic of actual human emotion. The structure of the game tells you something personal about the artist and you can empathize/sympathize with him. I won't get too specific because you should play it and see, it's really short and a quick download. | ||
|
years
Costa Rica216 Posts
what do you have to say now mr.ebert? | ||
|
lowbright
308 Posts
if you make a new build order and successfully execute it, you have created something new and it can be considered art in my opinion. but if you just copy what other people do over and over again until you've perfected it, that's cool but it isn't art. | ||
Rekrul
Korea (South)17174 Posts
the definition of art is different person to person i guess koreans think it can be real art yo~ | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
or, in other words, anything that isn't utilitarian or doesn't provide some sort of function can qualify as art, that art has to be useless in a practical sense or otherwise it is something else i've been thinking about that--would a newspaper photograph be art? it's an expression of something, but its purpose of creation is to be useful to a newspaper, so maybe not. would a video game be art? if its function is just entertainment, you could argue that all entertainment is useless to a large degree, and since so much work is spent on appearance/aesthetic/story (did i really just say modern video games spend a lot of time on story), i guess that would classify it as art. what ebert is doing is making a pretty senseless delineation between art and "high art", which is never going to appeal to any sort of objective understanding, as well as considering player involvement in the experience as opposed to the medium, which seems a bit unfair that said, i kind of like that ebert said it, if only because it might've made developers work harder to create a game that achieves more artistically | ||
|
Jalle
Sweden149 Posts
| ||
|
Saturnize
United States2473 Posts
On April 24 2010 23:55 dani_caliKorea wrote: Shadow of the Colossus and Okami. Ico, Uncharted 2. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On April 25 2010 04:36 Rekrul wrote: this whole discussion is retarded the definition of art is different person to person i guess koreans think it can be real art yo~ We should get rid of the word "art" and instead use the word "an entity fashioned by a human being." | ||
| ||
