
Can Art be Games? - muratmutlu
http://www.sophiehoulden.com/can-art-be-games/
======
danso
This has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I've read on this subject,
and I'm in favor of seeing games as art. Yes, if you reduce art to prints, it
does seem like games have a leg up. However, film and theatre and music have
long since been considered to he art, and this is usually where the debate
takes place.

The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen
as a great art form, IMO, it can't be that they simply provide a vehicle for
other art forms, such as music and film (I.e. cutscenes).

The key dimension that games add is interactivity...in that sense, the art of
games is more along the lines of modern performance art in which the viewers
actions amplifies the artistic meaning.

The first time I really felt that a game had hit me in a narrative way that
was impossible in film/theater/literature was in Portal, in the scene in which
Glados compels you to "kill" the Companion Cube. At the end of it, I felt this
huge sense of comic relief because I half expected the box to start screaming,
and then I laughed and marveled at how the gamewriters were able to create a
sense of attachment to an inanimate box, merely by having you pick it up and
move it to places. I haven't played portal 2 yet, but I can't think of any
other game that elicited such a strong emotional reaction from me through the
mechanism of interactivity.

~~~
blackhole
This is satire, and is a direct response to how several art critics have
dismissed "games" as capable of being considered fine art for reasons that are
just as silly as this blog post, which is precisely why it's funny.

~~~
mjn
I believe it's most directly a response to this op-ed making the rounds
recently:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/nov/30/moma-
video-games-art)

The "[x] isn't art" op-ed seems to be that particular Guardian blogger's
specialty. Last year, he caused a flurry of outraged discussion in a different
set of communities for roughly similar reasons, when he wrote an op-ed on why
neither cuisine nor high fashion are art:
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2011/apr/21/food-
fashion-art-cuisine-couture)

~~~
soljin2000
Jesus this Johnathan Jones piece is pure flame bait pure and simple. I don't
even believe he believes it. Doesn't even need a response.

------
DanBC
> _After Emily left I checked on the internet and it turns out she was right,
> you really do just look at it, that’s all!_

Well, that's one way of doing it, and it's what most people do, but you're not
going to get the most out of it.

Rothko's Four Seasons murals are a good example - big slabs of colour, nothing
too complicated. But then when you find out that he said ...

> _"I accepted this assignment with strictly malicious intentions," Rothko
> said. "I hope to ruin the appetite of every son of a bitch who ever eats in
> that room." He wanted his paintings to make them feel that they were trapped
> in the room "where all the doors and windows are bricked up, so that all
> they can do is butt their heads forever against the wall."_

... you get a better appreciation for them.

~~~
innguest
But if you have to explain your "art" like that then it's probably not very
good to begin with.

~~~
Jare
That line of offence more applicable to jokes than to art. Not all art is
meant to be consumed easily and without context. In fact, I'd argue that if a
piece of art CAN be consumed easily by anyone of any background without any
context, then that piece will usually be rather obvious and just not very
interesting, insightful, or valuable.

Of course, take that with a grain of salt. There's a rather large area between
'obvious' and 'unintelligible', and plenty of authors have tried (and failed)
to elevate the artistic value of their pieces by turning them into useless
mazes of obscure data.

------
toksaitov
There is also an interesting argument between Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago
(the co-founder and former president of Thatgamecompany) on this topic
[http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_neve...](http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)

~~~
enneff
It's not really that interesting to me. Ebert's argument is based on the idea
that art needs to be good to be art. There's plenty of bad art, but it's still
art. Indeed, the bar as to what can be art is startlingly (and often
maddeningly) low.

Video games are part entertainment, part engineering challenge, part craft.
Just like all art forms.

I enjoy reading Ebert's film reviews, but I think with this debate he's just
stirring up controversy for notoriety's sake.

~~~
vacri
I visited MoMA in NY and in different parts of the museum, and by different
artists, I saw a plain sheet of white paper, a plain sheet of red, and a plain
sheet of black. Someone had considered these to be 'art' enough to hang on a
wall. I found the rest of the exhibits to be interesting in some way, but
these three pieces represent the lowest I've seen the bar set.

------
brunoc
MoMA posted this a few days ago - they've acquired 14 games:
[http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-
game...](http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-
the-collection-for-starters)

tldr:

• Pac-Man (1980) • Tetris (1984) • Another World (1991) • Myst (1993) •
SimCity 2000 (1994) • vib-ribbon (1999) • The Sims (2000) • Katamari Damacy
(2004) • EVE Online (2003) • Dwarf Fortress (2006) • Portal (2007) • flOw
(2006) • Passage (2008) • Canabalt (2009)

~~~
wfn
I am disappointed by a severe lack of Braid in that list.

After all, Jonathan Blow is most definitely one of those stirring the (most
peculiar) discussion of games & art; see an article+interview about him,
[http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-
most...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most-
dangerous-gamer/308928/) \- quite a decent (even if somewhat pretentious on
several levels) read while on the topic, by the way!

~~~
shardling
Eh, they say they have a particular type of collection in mind:

>Are video games art? They sure are, but they are also design, and a design
approach is what we chose for this new foray into this universe. The games are
selected as outstanding examples of interaction design—a field that MoMA has
already explored and collected extensively, and one of the most important and
oft-discussed expressions of contemporary design creativity.

------
10098
I don't understand how games can't be art.

Creating images is art. 3D modeling is art (like sculpting). Writing stories
is art, as well as creating interesting characters. Animation is art. I'm
intentionally not mentioning things like programming or gameplay design, but
some people might call these art too (not me, though).

So many artists are involved in these projects. And yet, when all of their art
is fused together inside the game engine, to be presented to the player in all
of its interactive glory, it somehow becomes NOT art? How can this be?

~~~
andolanra
Because the fact that a game _contains_ art doesn't necessarily imply that it
_is_ art. I can also take a gymnasium, commission art for the walls and music
to be played as people exercise and so forth. I doubt that people would
consequently consider the gymnasium to be itself art, despite the fact that
art no doubt went into its creation.

A film could also feature excellent writing and beautiful visual art, but the
_art_ of film comes not from those individual elements being present, but the
artistry present in their use together. The thing that makes film an art is
the combined whole of those individual elements, which is why you can have a
film that is not good _as a film_ despite having, say, spectacular acting or
sharp cinematography or a beautiful score.

So the question is, can the artistic elements of games be combined in such a
way that the _whole result_ , not just the individual elements, is artistic?

------
arocks
The article might be a brilliant bit of satire but many young parents can
actually relate to it. Children are exposed to interactive toys like tablets
at such a young age that traditional toys like a Kaleidoscope barely holds
their interest. It is sad to see one of your favourite childhood pastimes get
a minute or two of their attention before it is thrown to the attic.

To be fair, even I do not find a Kaleidoscope fascinating anymore. It shows
pretty images but so does a music visualiser.

~~~
saraid216
A friend of mine has a lovely 5 year old daughter who's equally fascinated by
crappy Zynga games as she is by a hand-cranked music box. ...and toy swords
that say, "Thundercats!"

I've mostly put it down to a complete lack of taste, but it's a fairly large
gamut of childhood toys there.

------
matthewowen
I will never for the life of me understand why so many video game players are
so insistent that video games must be art. Why does it matter?

For what it's worth, I don't think that video games can be art for reasons
that are far too lengthy for the scope of a comment on here. But that doesn't
mean video games can't be good things. I also like sport, newspaper articles,
and good beer. Cultural artefacts don't have to be art to be good.

~~~
vacri
I don't understand either of the polar sides of the 'are video games art?'

'Art' is just a description, no more. No promise of quality, no conferred
legitimacy. There is plenty of really crap art out there, that no-one will
claim is not art. Every argument I've seen for the 'is not art' camp does some
pretty torturous semantic weaving. And articles like this for the other camp
that say 'art is shit, who wants that' are equally unenlightening.

I would say that creating video games in general is more of a craft than an
art, but there is definitely art involved in getting to the final product.

edit: ugh, I didn't pick that the article was satire. shame on me.

------
soljin2000
The fact that this is even an article is so ridiculous. OF COURSE GAMES ARE
ART. Movies are art. Billboards are art. Comic books are art.

This is the kind of thing I'd have expected to see in 1998. If games weren't
it would be strange news to the hundreds of thousands of artists working in
the games industry for the last decade.

By far some of my most memorable experiences are from games.

Any concept of art as static prints of pretty pictures is so laughably out
dated and so out of touch with the art world it is funny.

Judging whether or not something is art by if it's shown in museums kind of
went out with dadaism in 1916.

------
rizzom5000
I get that the OP is likely satire, but it's an interesting question after
all. Can a game be art like a film or a novel can be art? I think probably
yes, but the user interacting with the art when it is a game isn't really any
different than the user interacting with the art when it's a play or a film -
you're still "just looking at it".

And that's where the satire breaks apart for me.

------
xyzzy123
Personally? Yeah I think games can be art.

However, while I've had some great experiences playing games, I don't think I
have yet played a game which deeply changed my worldview in the same way as,
say, some novels have.

------
pervycreeper
>I had always assumed that ‘art’ was something for a different generation.

As an art-loving millennial, I wonder if this a common sentiment among my
generation.

------
Millennium
Games have exactly as much potential to be art, or to not be art, as any other
medium. The only difference is how it is used.

------
hnruss
Now if only you could fork art and send a pull request...

