Games aren’t art, and it’s our fault

It’s difficult to see sometimes, but somehow at every corner games are becoming this Katamari Damacy-esque sort of ball, slowly losing pieces while piles of new pieces are added everyday. Nobody really cares, and this is one of the main reasons why games aren’t art.

[Axonometri]

But a big ball made of bits and pieces sitting on a pedestal is art. Right...
Games are art for one simple reason. Artists create art that is visible in all games but text based. Every game results in a player having an emotion. By definition, games are, art.

[jangoblamba]

I have to ask, did you read the article?

[gamer7804]

he's right though, he says "nobody cares". Which is factually incorrect. Games take Graphic Artists to create "artwork" and thus contain many many pieces of art within one game.

[Baka-akaB]

why should he with that silly title ? And the content here aint exactly better , mostly the title "expanded" in an even unrelated yet misguided way

[subtenko]

Title is absolute rubbish. Games can be a form of art. This is so disrespectful to say, and yea I didn't read the fkn article becuz its a BS statement!

I've seen MANY DIFFERENT titles in games that aren't even ment to be an 'art showcase' and people create nice things using in-game creation from GTA V to LBP, to back in the Gameboy Color days. Even Mario paint...Pixeljunk 4am, etc. I haven't even scratched the surface.

Thats just the user end too.. the devs have this thing called...you know..ARTIST that draw models in 3d space after its SKETCHED on paper!

Keep and cherish the Arts people! We cant let that die out, seriously. In schools, everywhere. Keep and understand the arts in many forms!

[Bimkoblerutso]

The article is painfully mis-titled. This is actually about how the current market, with digital distribution and licensing models, is destroying the industry's history....which it is.

I don't know why the whole "art" thing was rolled into the title knowing that it's a pretty hot debate in and of itself. It's actually a fairly good article.

[mydyingparadiselost]

I did read your article and have to say that I agree, for the most part. We may treat games as an art form when we play and experience them, but in the eyes of the law they're nothing more than products.
Like the prints on a paper towel, they're made to be there and look good and then be tossed away when it's used. Very few companies or gamers even care about the preservation of these games for future generations, or even for themselves when they're older, and simply think it will all work itself out. Things like patches to make games fuctional, DRM and DLC only make the problem more difficult and access less likely in the future.
It's funny, so man people on here talk about how there's no real games journalism anymore but when an article pops up that talks about a real problem that rarely gets recognized it's all "clickbait title" and "I don't need to read it to know it's stupid, games ARE art". Read a little everyone, it's good for your brain.

[3-4-5]

* Games are Art and if you don't see they you are blind.

* If games aren't art then movies and books aren't art either, nor is painting a picture.

[Ark_]

Not all movies or books are a piece of art, nor are games. There has to be some kind of aspiration and craft in it ... to be called art. Imo at least.

A sitcom (movie) is not art, nor is my camping guide (book), nor is Call of Duty (game) ...

Most games I would call "entertainment".

[Big_Game_Hunters]

Dumbest debate,Who decides what is art? Any creation that carries the passion and vision of a its creater can be art.

[jangoblamba]

Well my argument in the article was that art has to be treated as art. A forest is just a forest. If we tear down the forest, it isn't art anymore. Gaming has had this issue of not making old stuff playable (from a legal standpoint). And the lack of care to bring these old titles to the modern day is becoming an increasing problem. Of course, you're more than welcome to read the article if you're curious about some more of the points I make :)

[Lennoxb63]

Tearing down a forest isnt art? In video games, destruction is STILL art.

[rezzah]

Actually one can find art in the destruction of things too, something doesn't have to be created to be art. It is all about emotions.

Art isn't universal and will never be, it will always be forgotten to time regardless of how some will try to preserve it. Disputing what is art or the extent of how artful something can be is pointless, unless using the connotations towards a topic being art in the media to sway minds for a business perspective.

[JasonKCK]

"Dumbest debate"

No kidding.

[subtenko]

Thank you! Thank you all! If we lose the arts we lose a part of who we are. Dumba** schools trying to get rid of arts programs, n sht. Fk that! That means less art forms from kids who grow up, less games, less music, less everything!

Ya don't have to like every particular form and piece, but don't let anyone take away any creative thoughts and hope from people.

[Get_A_Job_Foxtrot]

I'm tired of gamers having to defend gaming as an art form.

No... Instead I demand that the naysayers explain to us how gaming is NOT an art.

[jangoblamba]

Well now, you happen to be in luck! You have an article ready to click on right here that might explain some of the reasons why I don't think games are art yet. You're more than welcome to read it rather than read the title and make a comment :)

[JasonKCK]

I think AvaDevine meant real reasons.

[Spotie]

Nobody cares why you think games aren't art. Many millions more people DO, including many millions who are gamers.

Stop defending your crappy article and write a better one, instead.

[BrandanT]

Then why do videos games have art directors, sound directors, story writers, etc.?

[Axonometri]

Not to forget Concept artists, environment artists, texture artists, character artists, modelers, animators, script writers... and so on.

[Moe-Gunz]

I think people confuse art and meaning/purpose. Black Swan is looked at as an art film and Transformers is looked at as a Blockbuster film. Truth is they're both art (no matter how much I hate Transformer films). The difference is one is going for entertainment and the other is looking to make a statement. It's no doubt that both are created by artist.

So it's really just people playing games with the word art. It's a creation and is art. Does it make a statement or tries to deliver a message is what you're really asking.

[DragonKnight]

I'm sorry but this article has nothing to do with games as art. You wrote this entire article to complain about older games being unavailable legally and then extend that to meaning that games are not being treated as art. It doesn't work that way.

Let's take, for example, literature. I'm sure you'd think that that's an art form that is treated as such yes? Well I can pick a random author that you've never heard of and show you a book that he/she wrote that is no longer for sale and cannot be found anywhere but maybe, if you're lucky, a yard sale. Only the greatest best selling books get preserved as with all things.

Or let's look at movies. It's the same deal. I can find a random movie you've never seen and show you that you can't get it anymore legally because it's just not available. Either it was some underused format like laser disc, or it's on VHS and is in a pile somewhere in a garbage dump. Only the best of the best movies get saved.

This is not an epidemic of poor treatment. It's not an indication that games are not art. It is simply the reality of consumption.

Not every painting is remembered, saved, and displayed for the masses, not every game is either.

Games are considered art in many appropriate ways, and many inappropriate ways.

Games are the product of imagination given form. They are a showpiece of intent, design, and creativity. Games can and do provoke emotion and thought and are protected as being forms of expression. This is how games are, appropriately, considered as art.

Artistic critique is where the ball gets dropped, and that's a story for another day.

But to suggest that games aren't art because you can't easily get you favourite Gamecube game for cheap and legally is, well it's pretty selfish in the end. What is or is not art is not something for you to decide.

[Darkwatchman]

Preservation literally has nothing to do with what is considered art and not art. This article was a waste of time. It about the creative vision and emotional response. That is what art is--not preservation.

[Bismarn]

This article says something I have for a long time. The debate about whether games are art has nothing to do with foo foo "what is art?" questions. It is entirely about access and platform. I can look at the Mona Lisa or a photograph of it. The same with the pyramids, etc. But how do I show people Shenmue after the last Dreamcast stops working? How can I show LucasArts' Outlaws when it can't be played on modern PC's. Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 and 2 on the Xbox 360/PS3 were classic games, but since Activision doesn't own the Marvel license they will never show up digitally, get remastered, or be added to XB1's BC list. People 50 years from now will never play them unless they track down physical copies of them and the systems.

Right now games are art, but only like installation art that gets assembled, sits somewhere for a month and then gets disassembled, forgotten. Emulation and backward compatibility are not just conveniences, they are essential to have video games reach new levels of acceptance. Copyright law must be changed to acknowledge this fact. And it goes without saying that games requiring constant contact with a server that can get taken down someday hurt the entire art form.

[FullmetalRoyale]

lol

http://media.giphy.com/medi...

I don't see the connection you are trying to make between being art and you being able to access an old game. If I'm being frank, seeing a photograph of the Mona Lisa is not different from watching Shenmue on YouTube; as in neither is the same experience.

[aerisbueller]

Yeah, exactly, all the great performers in ancient cultures, doing their dancing, acting in plays. None of that is art since we can no longer watch them. Every black and white film that was never archived and is lost to us was not art. All the sculptures and paintings destroyed by ISIS. Not art. Unrecorded live performances of musicians - not art. People who create things like sand sculptures or things that burn in fire at the end of their shows, not art.

Games are art. They have always been art, and being the only art form that combines so many senses, and the only one that holds interactivity as a central defining component, they are to many of those of us who actually love to play or make games the greatest form of art.

[mydyingparadiselost]

If all those ancient cultures, plays, films and the like are lost to the world then yes, they're not art. Art has to be there to be appreciated, if something is lost in time to a point that no record is available and no one is left to remember it then it's nothing. Art requires presence in some form to be appreciated, and you can't appreciate something when there's nothing there to appreciate anymore.

[aerisbueller]

@mydyingparadiselost that doesn't mean it wasn't art when it was there. Just because paintings get lost to history sometimes it doesn't mean that 'paintings aren't art'.

The article says 'games aren't art', not 'games that can't be played anymore are no longer art'. The latter doesn't seem like a 'point' worth writing an entire article about in any case.

Furthermore the logic doesn't make any sense, as obviously things that no longer exist in any meaningful form aren't what they once were, but that has no relevance to what they are when they still exist:

"Cars are not vehicles because some cars have been destroyed beyond all use and recognition."

"Horses aren't animals because some horses are no longer alive and have completely decomposed."

[njitram2000]

Saying that because games are not being properly preserved, they are not to be considered art is ridiculously non sequitur.
But if we want to go a little crazy, here's a version of this theory that does make sense:
The game is art while it exists. When ceases to exist, it is no longer art, because it simply no longer *is*. Then again, if someone remembers it, has it in fact fully stopped existing? :)

[Gh05t]

This article is asinine. Purely because one person does not determine what is and isn't art for others. Not to mention that preservation and attitude towards art has zero to do with its reality. If a museum burned to the ground and all the art inside was lost its still was art. Just because many people choose not to care or you are worried about old pieces not being playable in the future does not make it any less art.

I made a movie in high school, it was a pretty awesome piece of art... it no longer exists in any form other than my memory but it was still a piece of art, while it existed.

There is zero logic based on reality or pattern that would suggest that gaming isn't art with how we as gamers "feel" about it. I cant think of one example of art that truly falls into the vision this author suggests.

Artists die everyday and it doesn't make their art any less art because people didn't know or care what they created. and if that art is destroyed it is part of life. I like preservation very much, but this has zero to do with the concept of is it ART.

[rezzah]

Art is whatever you want it to be. As long as it brings out your emotions you can claim "art".