• Welcome to the Fantasy Writing Forums. Register Now to join us!

Games just as much an art form as Film or Literature?

SmokeScribe98

Minstrel
I've always thought games to be an art form in their own right myself, especially recently as the years have gone by they are getting better and better in the stories they can tell and the emotion they possess with games like Bioshock Infinite and The Last of Us to name a few. Just wondering if any of you would argue on this point, that you still view games as primarily entertainment just to pass the time or whether you view them as on par with film and other art forms?
 

teacup

Auror
I know close to nothing about most art forms, but if film is considered art then games certainly should be. Not all, but some, like final fantasy 9, imo, should be called art. Games include music, story, whole worlds, film as cut scenes and even the visuals could be compared to art. If all of these things alone are classed as art then surely, if they are all brought together in a game, then a game would also be art.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I don't know what the Art History museum people would say, but as luck would have it, the US Supreme Court has ruled video games to be an art form. So, huh.

Certainly many games tell a story or evoke emotions in other ways. But any game requires a delicate balance and a mastery of technique and style to be effective.

Still, I can understand some kind of an argument as to why Tetris isn't an art, but anyone who would argue that a game like Chrono Trigger isn't art is a dolt.
 

Rinzei

Troubadour
I've always felt they are - but that's mostly because I enjoy them so much. I find myself invested in the story and emotions of a game just as much as any deep drama TV show. To me, it's another way to experience a story and have an emotional response.

When I say emotional response, I don't just mean tugging your heartstrings. An action game will give you an adrenaline rush, a horror game will instil terror, and a light-hearted fun game will make you feel like puppies are licking your face. There are games that make you take a good hard look at society and situations you don't want to face or acknowledge (The Last of Us), and there are games that are just pretty to look at and enjoy (Flower). Isn't "traditional" art similar in that respect?
 

kayd_mon

Sage
It isn't logical to call one game art and not another. Either they are, or they aren't. A simple example is to hang a painting of mine next to any painting you'd expect to see at an art gallery. Since I cannot paint very well, my art will be terrible in comparison, but it will still be art. The quality of the art might vary, but lack of quality doesn't mean that a thing isn't art. If the definition of art is "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination, especially in the production of aesthetic objects" (taken from merriam-webster.com), then any product of human skill and creativity is a form art.

Music and movies, while they both seek to entertain, are still art in their own right, and I consider video games to be art of a similar kind. Whether it is a glorified time-waster you download for your phone, or a sprawling RPG, I'd say all video games are a form of art. So are board games, from the definition.
 
Oh yes, I enjoy games more than films, I'd actually wager that games are more rewarding experiences which actually stimulate the mind more. I mean if you are going to complete a game you have to be on the ball, paying attention, honing your skills and thinking carefully about how to get past the next challenge. With films you just kind of sit there and watch. So yes, I think these interactive simulations are certainly art.

Certainly in this day and age, you have well respected professional composers with full soundtracks, often orchestral. You have professional actors, both talented voice-over artists and increasingly motion-cap actors as well. Then of course there's all the sophisticated physics engines and graphic art, and the story writers as well. Games like Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption, and the Fallout series have deep, engaging stories that have stayed with me, and have taken effort to write. To be honest films don't make me cry, some games have left a stubborn tear in my eye. I think as critics get used to this relatively new artform it will be seen as that. Yeah, I'm a real game-nerd, but for the reasons above I don't mind :).
 

Rinzei

Troubadour

Shockley

Maester
There are some games that could be classified as art, but I would not classify games as art anymore than I would classify paintings as art. That might need clarification. The Mona Lisa is a painting that is art - Gerhard Richter's Grey could not, in my opinion, be classified in such a way. James Joyce's Ulysses is art, the works of R. A. Salvatore less so. So on and so forth. So some games may be art, but the medium itself is not art.
 

Jabrosky

Banned
There are some games that could be classified as art, but I would not classify games as art anymore than I would classify paintings as art. That might need clarification. The Mona Lisa is a painting that is art - Gerhard Richter's Grey could not, in my opinion, be classified in such a way. James Joyce's Ulysses is art, the works of R. A. Salvatore less so. So on and so forth. So some games may be art, but the medium itself is not art.
So only high-quality creative output counts as art in your opinion?
 

kayd_mon

Sage
As I said in my earlier post, it is illogical and inaccurate to classify two objects of the same medium differently. They are all art, or they are all not. You can like one and not the other, but the definition of a thing is not subjective.
 

Steerpike

Felis amatus
Moderator
As I said in my earlier post, it is illogical and inaccurate to classify two objects of the same medium differently.

Then is practically everything art? Because somewhere, someone has used just about every medium to make some sort of artistic expression.
 

T.Allen.Smith

Staff
Moderator
Art- The products of human creativity

So yes, what one considers art is subjective. However, anyone can classify the result of a creative endeavor as art if they choose.
 

Devor

Fiery Keeper of the Hat
Moderator
I'm not going to try and define art, but I named Tetris and Chrono Trigger as the example earlier, and I'll go back to that one. The difference I was talking about wasn't quality - from a game-design standpoint, Tetris is a high-quality game, and Chrono Trigger has a number of the common RPG flaws.

But Tetris is about moving blocks, while Chrono Trigger tells a powerful story with compelling characters and literary value.

I'll go with Tetris as being art - sure - but in the way that anything can become an "art" when done well. Or in a way which says that all games are art because people admire the way it merges form and function to evoke emotion, even if it's just the frustration of having your screen piled up on you.

But I won't argue with someone who argues that Tetris isn't art because they're talking about how it's a purely mechanical, repetitive game, and they want something that evokes a high level of catharsis.

But a game like Chrono Trigger deserves to be on some kind of list somewhere for its artistic value. And it probably is. At the very least, I don't see a legitimate reason to say paintings and sculptures and novels are art, but not a game which can evoke similar emotions.
 
Last edited:

Shockley

Maester
So only high-quality creative output counts as art in your opinion?

Not necessary 'high quality,' as I am a big defender of Marcel Duchamp and the Dadaists as artists, and you could never define that as 'high quality.' I would say that there has to be a certain amount of intention and purpose behind the piece, as well as some technical skill used. Just so you understand what I mean when I talk about Richter's Grey, here's his own reasoning behind the painting:

"When I first painted a number of canvases grey all over (about eight years ago), I did so because I did not know what to paint, or what there might be to paint."

And the painting looks like this:

images


This solid gray canvas hangs in the Tate Modern Museum, not too far from a Matisse and a Pollock (both of which I would recognize as art). I refuse, absolutely refuse, to recognize something with no technical skill and no real motivation as a work of art.

What counts as art is subjective, IMO. What one person raves about, another might look at (or listen to) and go "meh".

Agreed. As a big fan of both punk and folk music, I have been on the receiving end of more than a few sneers.

As I said in my earlier post, it is illogical and inaccurate to classify two objects of the same medium differently. They are all art, or they are all not.

Disagree completely. Can you tell me why it would be illogical to classify two objects differently, despite being the same medium?

I am going to go ahead and start this by saying that a canoe and a building can share a medium – wood – but that it would be absolutely ludicrous to classify them as the same thing. In the same sense, we can look at a painting (the medium here being canvas, or paint, or a painting) and then classifying them differently – as minimalist or romanticist or cubist or realist, etc.

On the last part, I refuse to accept the idea that you can’t have nuance in classifications. We have plenty of nuances about the classification of something as simple and organic as a tomato – surely we can justify nuance in art.

---

I think Devor’s distinction is absolutely perfect, and I would like to second that.
 

kayd_mon

Sage
A medium, such as painting, sculpting, writing, music, and in this discussion video games can be called art. Individual expressions within that medium are therefore art. This is objective, and it follows a clearly don't fined definition. The perceived quality of the pieces does not factor into the definition, therefore it is illogical to call one painting art and another not art (or song, sculpture, or whatever). You can say that a thing is poor, or a poor example of art, but it can't be declassified as art just for being lower quality in one's opinion.

For example, there are a lot of modern art pieces that are not as universally pleasing to the eye as many classical art pieces are. They are still art.

We are all people. Just because a person is "bad" or a bad representation of humankind doesn't declassify them as a human.

For your example, wood isn't a medium, it's a material. I also didn't say that you can't classify genres within the art - of course you can. But you're still calling it art. What wouldn't make sense is to say, "impressionism isn't art, but romanticism is." That's the same thing as saying, "This painting is art, but this other painting isn't." And when the reason you don't call it art is because you don't like it, then you're using subjectivity to answer an objective question. That is illogical and inaccurate.

So, for this discussion, either games are art, or they're not. Once you decide that, you can nitpick about which ones are good representations or not. Call Tetris bad art and Chrono Trigger good art if you like, but if one is art then the other must also be. They are made from the same materials, and they are the same medium. That medium is either art or not.

I think I may have repeated myself a bit here, but it's too hard to edit using my phone (so apologies there).
 

Shockley

Maester
A medium, such as painting, sculpting, writing, music, and in this discussion video games can be called art. Individual expressions within that medium are therefore art. This is objective, and it follows a clearly don't fined definition. The perceived quality of the pieces does not factor into the definition, therefore it is illogical to call one painting art and another not art (or song, sculpture, or whatever). You can say that a thing is poor, or a poor example of art, but it can't be declassified as art just for being lower quality in one's opinion.

Okay, I think this cuts to the core of our dispute:

I agree when you say 'can be called art.' In the sense that there are paintings that can be called art, writings that can be called art, games that can be called art, etc. I disagree when you say that 'individual expressions within that medium are art,' and would replace that with my own wording, 'individual expressions can be art.' I am not factoring in quality in the definition of art (I am criticizing Richter more for his admitted lack of emotional and creative input into Grey, not the fact that it is a solid wall of gray paint), but the actual act of creating art.

There is also a subjective aspect to the definition of 'people.' If we break down definitions of what it means to be human into details, we will find disagreements - I would have to admit that my own definition of humanity would, without taking subjectivity into account, also extend to include certain special specimens of great apes. Yet, my subjectivity allows me to exclude great apes, and create a purer definition of 'people.'

For your example, wood isn't a medium, it's a material.

I'm using medium to mean 'a means of conveying something,' and wood can most certainly be used to convey something.

What wouldn't make sense is to say, "impressionism isn't art, but romanticism is." That's the same thing as saying, "This painting is art, but this other painting isn't."

It's not the same thing - painting is a technique, a method; in itself it has no aesthetic or emotional quality or value. Impressionism and romanticism are both different things, but they both seek to convey emotion, qualities, etc. I would say that the desire to create something that is emotionally, culturally, individually relevant (I've used that term a lot today - blech) is more important than the physical act of painting and more important to the definition of art.

And when the reason you don't call it art is because you don't like it, then you're using subjectivity to answer an objective question.

I'm not saying that - I'm saying that intention is more a part of recognizing something as art than technique, method or medium. I don't, subjectively, like Pablo Picasso - I still recognize what he does as art.

So, for this discussion, either games are art, or they're not. Once you decide that, you can nitpick about which ones are good representations or not. Call Tetris bad art and Chrono Trigger good art if you like, but if one is art then the other must also be. They are made from the same materials, and they are the same medium. That medium is either art or not.

I do not like the idea of connecting one item's definition as art to another item's definition as art, solely because that creates a problem. I would never, ever define Pong as art - not because I don't enjoy it (I love Pong), but because it is not art; I don't like turning that around and saying 'Suikoden isn't art because Pong isn't art.' That is not a definition that works for me.
 

kayd_mon

Sage
I still think that you are relying on subjective means to define objective terms. Your further explanations just make that more apparent. I completely understand the reasoning for your point of view, but I just don't think that it stands up to logic.

Anyway, I'm ok with agreeing to disagree, or whatever the cliche is.
 
Top