Video Games and Art, Any artfags in the house?

Well, over at my preferred gaming site Insomnia, there was a "games as art" thematic week. Starting with an article on "Can Games be Art?", the discussion warranted a second article explaining why all games have a message and culminated with an artfag test.
This spawned from his review of No More Heroes and the subsequent backlash of people who tried to defend it.
What it boils down to is that good games are art. People who call bad games "art" want them to be something special when they're not.
So, you can either read those articles or just throw your comments out there. I'm open to either. What do you think?

It depends. A game such as "Bully" which has a real meaning and message to it can be considered art. But something like "My Little Pony Adventures" is not.

It's the same for music. John Lennon's "Imagine" is art. Soulja Boy's "Crank Dat" is product.

Even then, I hardly consider games a major art form at all. They're products meant for entertainment and profit. But if the creator really means it to be something, it can be art. Very few games could be called art.

I agree with ICM on this one.

Also, I tried to read the articles, and even looked at some of the other stuff on the site, but I couldn't get very far before his self-elevation pissed me off too much to continue, and I had to find something else to read.

Well it all depends how you define art. Do you think of it like paintings, sculptures, music, or more broadly as some individuals trying to get an idea made into a reality?

Anyway, once someone says something is "art" everyone rushes to the conclusion that it's beautiful. Slow the hell down. Art is subjective. Just because it's called art doesn't mean everyone likes it. Sure a shitty game may be art, but it doesn't stop it from being shitty.

Edit:

I don't know if anyone reads this thread anymore, but I've actually decided to write a research essay for one of my classes on this subject.

This post has been edited by MacDogbertist on Mar 27 2008, 09:56 PM

Ya, it all depends on the game itself. Some of these games have different visual styles which I think make the difference when it comes to considering them art. Sarges heroes wasn't even close to art. A game like Okami would be considered art by me. Basically any game that has a weird concept and kinda breaks the mold with the visuals is art to me.

Every game is art in my opinion. They were all originally creative ideas brought into reality. Like I said, when someone mentions art, everyone thinks it has to be aesthetically pleasing, or more than what's regular. If you look it up in the dictionary that's one of the primary definitions, however if you continue on you'll see "Art" has a damn long list of definitions.

Anyway, the way I choose to define art is a thought brought into reality. If we picture something, however small it may be, and we create it, it's art. It's an expression of our thoughts, like video games. Someone thought up the ideas and got a few people to bring it to life.

Look at Andy Warhol. He took a Brillo Box, put it in a museum and called it art. Although I disagree that people should pay to see it, I agree with his theory. Everything that was once a thought is art.

However, that doesn't mean everything that was once a thought is nice, smart, and/or emotional. They can be crude, retarded, and/or void of feeling. The point is that the creator is offering a look into their mind.

I think of art as a piece of creativity, done for the sake of that creativity. Whether, it be to prove a point or just be a dada piece, it should have heart put into it. Is a video game designed solely for the purpose of making money truly art? Maybe by a dictionary definition.

Let's put it this way - Would you call Epic Movie art?

Not that I'm attacking any specific thing, or saying that everything that isn't art is inferior or bad. I just feel to call it art, some heart has to be put into it. Art is a way to express yourself.

You do know that a lot of what we consider "High Art" wasn't made for on art alone. Many sculptures in Ancient Greece and Rome were made for their gods. The same with Ancient Egypt. Michelangelo was commissioned by the pope to design the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel. So although art for arts sake is nice, we can't discredit things just because they were paid or did it for some other higher purpose.

Here's a fact: EVERY MOVIE IS MADE FOR MONEY. If Epic Movie had been good, you'd call the directors artists and say they had a vision. But it sucked so it isn't art. Granted it really does suck, but it was someones idea, no matter how hastily thought up.

By the way, Ed Wood made art for art. So with your theory you'd have to consider him an artist.


If you had an idea, and you were paid to create that idea, how is that not your own creativity?