A look into the status of videogames as a legitimate art form.
I've always felt this was a tough topic. On one hand, gaming meets the dictionary definition for art and appreciation, but(and this is where it gets tricky) the definitions can only be met with the involvement of the observer(the player) At that point, the gaming message is tangible, and can only be received with active participation by the player. The "accepted" definition of art involved mediums where no involvement is needed by the observer to receive a message. I don't need to write a song, i only need to listen. I don't make the dance moves, i watch them. etc... Expression and emotion are intagible, and i think what prevents some people from seeing gaming as art is that you need to press A,B, or C for something in a game to happen. Too much involvement by the observer. I'm torn on the subject, to be honest.
A better way to answer "Are games art?" is to answer the question "What is art?" Frankly until you establish grounds for the latter you can never definitively answer the former. This is really subjective based on everyone's own personal opinion of what can be construed as art. [Opinion] I would think that ANYTHING that can be crafted by someone's hands (note this doesn't necessarily have to be tangible) that can be observed and interpreted by another "loosely" falls under the broad definition of "art". Games are a combination of different art forms. Music is an easy pick as most games have music composed for them to match their theme. One can make criticisms about the artistic aspect of a game's soundtrack just like they would a film's score or even a symphony. Games in this sense are as much art as film is art; they just go one step further than film with some form of interaction. Also, just like with other forms of art, you have a great range of crap and masterpieces. Games like the Last of Us would fall under the masterpiece category while others like Call of Duty (let's all admit it's gotten watered down) fall under the crap category...artistically. [/Opinion]
Yet another article on this topic?
ahhhh. that ol' chestnut.
Games are not art at all, what is art and what not? Games are just occasionally fun products.
I think this is a good time to read this article/interview with indie dev Jack King-Spooner: http://www.fateofthegame.co...
Yes. Problem solved. Seriously, unless the hand of god comes down to personally deliver this answer to some of you people, you will bicker about it even after death.
How can something be art that is meant to appeal to the mass-market? Games are just products, produced to be sold, to make money. Some games are really well-made and fun, but I do not think that games can be art, it is just a myth. Art is boring, games are not. Games are interactive, art is not. Art focuses on aesthetics, while games need proper "gameplay mechanics" to work. I do not play art, I play videogames. Why should videogames be art?
Such a broken logic.
Explain your point of view on my point of view, please. I will send you a message if you cant understand my arguments, but explain me my "broken logic", pls.
Your logic isn't broken, it's merely artificial and unnecessarily restrictive. You have a very definitive answer to what art is and clearly interaction is not part of that definition. Unfortunately, art is undefined. So your answer is equally as right/wrong as anyone else.
Your logic is laughable.
Such a pretentiousquestion
"Life imitates art far more than art imitates Life." -Oscar Wilde
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.