EPTAre Video Games an Art Form? - Page 3
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
nttea
Sweden4353 Posts
| ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
On April 25 2010 05:13 nttea wrote: its simple, anything created by man with the intention of being art is art. Then the question becomes: Is anything created by man with the intention of being good art, good art? | ||
|
benjammin
United States2728 Posts
| ||
|
XsebT
Denmark2980 Posts
| ||
|
Catch]22
Sweden2683 Posts
| ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
Take a game like Silent Hill 2 or 3 for example - this game has more symbolism ( http://www.translatedmemories.com/ ) then most movies (which of course alone doesn't make it art) and is very well put together and contains a strong atmosphere with an intelligent pacing, and is able to strike emotions extremely well. Since you can interpret this game in several ways, I consider it a form of art, though in a different sense that other art forms are interpreted (such as how movies are viewed differently from a painting, for example). I imagine movies at some point weren't considered art by the mainstream (though, i could be wrong). | ||
|
banban678
China7 Posts
warcraft and starcraft have numerous of concept art during their development, and then the units were modeled based on those arts. a game cannot happen without good artists even those games based on animes are a form of art, because anime is based on manga, and manga is drawn by japanese artists and there are games that are neverending and you will be playing forever if you dont quit, like WOW, WOW is a game that you beat up other players, but you cant win the game, eventually, the game will "win" you (you dont feel like playing it anymore) | ||
|
zenaardvark
United States18 Posts
I would counter that by saying that the point of a video game is not to win. I can play tic-tac-toe against third graders and win all I want, but I play video games to give me an experience. An experience can consist of a philosophy, feeling, or an emotion consistent with what the game is designed to portray rather than just the objective of winning. People also mention that video games are just a combination of art forms and that video games are defined by their inert objective rather than the material that makes them up. I argue that movies are just a game with the simple objective of reaching the end. You can't loose, but no one plays a video game to lose, you play it to get through to the end and experience the game itself. Just because I twiddle my thumbs while I experience something doesn't make it any less fantastic and amazing. Surely you don't watch a movie to experience different individual media aspects, why can't video games be considered art if movies are. The definition of art is loose, but that doesn't change the fact that out of touch people like to degrade and defame a growing phenomena that they don't quite understand. | ||
|
NukeTheStars
United States278 Posts
| ||
|
Nairul
United States262 Posts
It uses games: Halo CE, Halo 2, and Halo 3 to make the best Sci Fi show I've ever watched. If thats not art, I don't know what is... | ||
|
Comeh
United States18919 Posts
On April 24 2010 23:52 blahman3344 wrote: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case. Its also worth of making a counter point to this statement that Ebert states as "resting his case". Apparently his claim is that videogames are just simply a form of corporations making money, and that videogames are a business - Which to a lot of cases (of course indie games are different) is true. However, the same damn thing can be said about movies - they are in many ways made to make money. But in many ways, they are a compromise between the artistic direction and message being sent to the viewer, be it an argument or a spectacle or just a way to entertain the viewer, and a way to bring in large profits (coughavatarcoughcough). Unless Ebert doesn't believe movies aren't an art form (which i know he does), he's a hypocrite. | ||
|
Halfpastnoob
United States191 Posts
| ||
|
jacen
Austria3644 Posts
videogames are a composition of multiple mediums. so ... | ||
|
machinehead..
412 Posts
| ||
|
spinesheath
Germany8679 Posts
On April 25 2010 05:23 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Then the question becomes: Is anything created by man with the intention of being good art, good art? Are there such things as "good art" and "bad art"? Subjectively: yes. Objectively: Unlikely, unless you include it in the definition of art. | ||
|
welkin_gunther
5 Posts
| ||
|
Hypnosis
United States2061 Posts
| ||
|
HeartOfTofu
United States308 Posts
| ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On April 25 2010 03:33 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote: Pat on the back to the first person to provide an objective definition of art! W/O that definition, art is whatever you say it is -- that is, art is whatever anyone says it is. Art is a work created for the sake of expressing/communicating ideas and emotions to an audience, thereby opening a two-way dialogue between artist and observer. In short, Ebert is a moron for saying video games are not art. Maybe a run-of-the-mill senseless shooter game would not qualify as one, but any great game is a work of art. Metal Gear Solid Series, Final Fantasy series, Planescape Torment, etc. Every one of these games sought to convey a message, feeling, experience, etc to their gamers and evoked a great deal of two-way communication. To say people who play games do not react and respond to the stories is ridiculous. Just because you can "win" a game, doesn't disqualify it as art. Winning a Final Fantasy game doesn't mean you "got" everything the game was about. Just as winning Xenogears doesn't mean you suddenly understand all the symbolism/metaphors involved in the story/characters. | ||
|
Athos
United States2484 Posts
Her next example is a game named "Braid" (above). This is a game "that explores our own relationship with our past...you encounter enemies and collect puzzle pieces, but there's one key difference...you can't die." You can go back in time and correct your mistakes. In chess, this is known as taking back a move, and negates the whole discipline of the game. Nor am I persuaded that I can learn about my own past by taking back my mistakes in a video game. She also admires a story told between the games levels, which exhibits prose on the level of a wordy fortune cookie. Wow, this is such skewed and biased interpretation of braid. Mr. Epert should at least fucking trying playing Braid before he cites it as a failure at art. The man should just stick to film. The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. What kind of fucking moron reviews a game without playing it? Somebody needs to sit him down and force him to play this shit or shut up. | ||
| ||
