Can games be art?

Can games be art?

most games, yes. moviegames like uncharted or the call of duty campaigns can never be art though. they're too dishonest.

I've been there. The way they protect the sculpture from rain is pretty cool.

Art isn't even art these days

For it to be considered art, a game needs to have a unique art style that's more just a visualisation of its systems or the utilisation of the latest hardware, and it needs to have mechanics that can both stand on their own merit and support the work's underlying meaning. Stuff like Journey comes to mind.

Art, GOOD art, is something expertly crafted, so yes.

yes, all games are art
kojima's games are the most famous examples of art tho

the game isn't the art, the experience of playing it is art, and as such can only be truly captured in early youth, and not after the internet proliferated widely.
you would play games like legend of zelda, drawing your own maps, maybe watching your older brother play it first, talking about secret codes or tricks as rumors, trying them at home to see if they are bullshit. the experience was the art. having a every fucking kid in your neighborhood show up at your door because you were the first to have a sega genesis or SNES or playstation was art, in that instance the games don't even matter. the experiences were living portraits but the memories are art, and they're way more valuable than most of the garbage that gets called "art" these days.
today there is nothing like that. the only thing that came close to game+art as experience was vanilla everquest, maybe up to kunark, and vanilla wow, although i didn't participate in vanilla wow because after my EQ addiction i vowed never to play another MMORPG.

According to the dictionary art is the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
So yeah, sure.

I put people like you on the same level as "i was born in le wrong generation lmao queen and justin bieber" plebaians. Immature shallow judgements

Why would they want to go to France, why didn't Julius Cesar want them there, and why the fuck did they burn their homes before leaving?

Anything can be art.

...

i put people like you on the same level as "DUDE it's CURRENT YEAR, just do as everybody else"
Wow such art, can't you see it? well if you don't it's just you being stupid and not getting it

wheres that built?

Las Vegas

I don't know but that lighting is perfect for the mood of the monument.

Yes.

That guy's full of shit. thats in Switzerland

...

If you tell me that shitting on a canvas is art then you have an opinion as shitty as the canvas has become.

stop posting this garbage everywhere

>modern art was a CIA psyop to gaslight gommies
>probably deflected criticism by accusing them of being dumb and "not getting it"
>it still exists
>""""artists"""" unironically use the same deflection

...

Jinked!

A painting:
>crafted from imagination to convey an idea and/or feeling in the person consuming the media

A movie:
>crafted from imagination to convey an idea and/or feeling in the person consuming the media

A game:
>crafted from imagination to convey an idea and/or feeling in the person consuming the media

A book:
>crafted from imagination to convey an idea and/or feeling in the person consuming the media

The only actual difference is how people interact with these things, which shouldn't change anything, contrary to what some dipshits say. Any of the above can be cynical cashgrabs made purely for profit since ALL of these things are products, but any of the above can also be made because the creator was genuinely passionate and wanted to share something with us that otherwise wouldn't exist outside of imagination. That's what art is.

Think about what is needed to make a game:
>concept artists
>character designers
>environmental artists
>animators
>programmers
>writers
>music composers

All these people, by themselves, are artists. Therefore, what they make together is art.

Yes, but it seems nobody really gets how to make games art. People think that by throwing aspects of a game out, they can make art. This is not taking advantage of the medium, it's trying to make a game something it's not.
Gameplay, story, artstyle, music, interactivity, and so on. Games have access to a million different aspects that can be used to create art. The folks that scream the loudest about games being art seem to think this means throwing out everything but story and interactivity, and I think that's a mistake.
If you asked me if there are games that are art, I would say yeah but they're rare.
If you asked me if games need to be art, I would say no. Games can be anything, there's no shame in liking games that are just fun time killers or guilty pleasures. "Art" isn't a metric to measure if a game is good, it's just one of many things you can do with games.
I like videogames.

is this picture art then?

Nope.

Parts of games can be art - the OST, the narrative, even the models - but the actual game itself cannot be art.

It's like asking "can sports be art?" No. If someone runs around on the field with the Mona Lisa printed on their jersey that doesn't make AFL art. Saying that games are art because they're made of art is a joke of an argument. You have to justify gameplay as being art, and you can't.

Define art

you're thinking of the real one. ops pic is from vegas

So in other words you're saying art can't be interactive.

I'm saying that gameplay isn't art.

but if someone shits on a canvas, it's art
if some fags get naked, paint themselves blue and suck each other's dicks on the street, it's art

Counter question: Why does it matter?

Why does it matter whether a game is art or not?

What's up with that one really weird looking dude in the middle? He looks gay af.

Nope.

A display of technical skill is a fundamental part of art.

...

of course and anyone who says no is a fag

Ueda makes art.

who is the black guy wearing a luigi hat

Sure. But do you have the Pride of the Lion?

In the modern sense, sure, but in the Platonian "there is an objective beauty to art" sense, no. The worst thing about faggot ass gamers saying their horrible medium is art is that when you try to critique it as such they start flinging shit and sperging out. Exactly why vidya will never be as respected as literature or film.

no they are games they have art in them but games are not art

Esi

How is that different than say a music instrument? A lot of people would consider a Stradivarius violin a piece of art, some are even at display at acknowledged art museums.

i'm going to share a tale

There once was a king, who one day received a visit from a dressmaker.
The dressmaker told the king he had a special beautiful wool that only "smart people" could see, the king believed him, and once he was shown the woolball he pretended to see it even if there was nothing, he even started to complement its colors and everything because he was afraid that others may think that he wasn't fit for being King.
He then commissioned a full dress to the tailor and paid heavy money,
A week passes and the voices of the debut of the king and his new "special" dress has spread all across the kingdom.
When the day arrives and the tailor "finished" his product he handed it to the king who then acted as he was trying to wear an imaginary dress and walked to the balcony where everyone was waiting to see him,
so at that point he, completely naked showed himself to everybody.
nobody could see his dress but no-one said anything, everyone was both afraid of being thought a fool and wanted to appear smart,
until a guy screamed: " He's Naked!"
a few moments of silence later
"What a fool!" everyone was saying.
the day later many and many more commissions were made to the tailor, who became rich by selling air

Not that user but my two cents are that when something is interactive it's difficult for it to be art because just because there are inputs or player agency doesn't mean it's well done or good. I can pick up a violin and try to play it like a guitar or a drumset, and I'd look rightfully retarded no matter how many times I shouted "respect my art form choices!" Same reasoning behind faggots who play a stealth game like a first person shooter. If you do it objectively wrong it's hard for me to say its art.

Only if their gameplay is worthy of artistic criticism, as their individual compnent elements having artistic merit does not make the whole thing have artistic merit.
Gameplay is the only thing that differentiates vidya as a medium, so it along can determine artistic value of the whole product.

>the cave is shaped like a pig because they didn't pay the artist

What is this?

That's a query contingent on defining art itself, which is no easy task.
But as far as i can figure, if a fucking urinal is art, then so are video games.

Yes

But it's hard because making interactive art is much more costly then just drawing your feelings.

Thats why most games are made to be sold, not to be an experience.

We want to feel smart about playing videogames

RICED

To put my opinion simply; "Art" is very hard to accurately define, but what most people call "Art Games" are very poor Artworks within the Medium of Video Game.

Unrelated gif to make my post stand out.

The only people who care about games not being or being art are pretentious asshats who probably arent talebted in their field of critique and who dont understand art to begin with. "Art" is a label of quality that gives something essence, post modernism makes all human expression art. Pretending otherwise is just stupid.

The etymological definition of art is the refinement of skill to its essence.
Modern art does not take skill, therefore, it is objectively not art.
You can twist the definition of the word however you like, but the true meaning of the idea of art will always be skill, and that which does not take skill cannot be considered art.

Musical instruments are not art.

A Stradivarius is not a piece of art.

Art is for display. Anything which has a primary purpose other than display is immediately and automatically not art.

Apart from this, art must also be beautiful and skillful.

Well dont programers pay artist to draw certain areas or characters to then copy that into the game?

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. You might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

Your up early cunt

everything is art
the real question is if "being art" has value

shut the FUCK up ebert

I love the point you're making it makes sense. But at the same time it means that unsharted can be defined as art so I am conflicted.

fuck up mate i'll bash ya

of course they are. they can be art AND fun. that's why they are so good.

>Apart from this, art must also be beautiful and skillful.
I hate this line of reasoning. Something can be ugly, but involves a lot of skill and vice versa. Does it stop being art?

>Does it stop being art?
Yes.

Games themselves aren't art, but the act of playing games gives an experience you could describe as art.

>Vidya can never be ar-

No. There can be art inside it (mostly shitty unoriginal art), but games themselves can't be art because they always need to cater to the fact that they're a game and the player needs to play them. If a game doesn't do this it's not a game. Simple.

some of it is
don't dismiss all contemporary art just because of some post-modern shit

It's how you get to the next area after the boss fight.

What are you even basing this on? Personal preference? Platonic aesthetics?

a window you dumb fuck

What the fuck do you even mean. This is a swiss memorial.

>Art is for display. Anything which has a primary purpose other than display is immediately and automatically not art.
So you're of the school that thinks stuff like films and music can't be art because they have other uses than display?

Yeah, because words never evolve or change their meaning.

It even says "Helvetiorum" on it.

I agree with your point to an extent, but I feel some games do break out of their mold and become something more. For example pic related, I felt if there is a game that can be called art, it has to be this. What do you think?

Assumption: For language to be useful it must convey meaning.
Argument: there is a problem in the way that the word 'art' is used because it no longer conveys meaning usefully
Proposed solution: 'art' should be defined as what I've already gone over in the thread.

But they don't.

Except maybe educational films, but nobody considers those art even under the current expansive definition so that supports my point anyway.

That's just how people in nevada call vegas

the story is great, diving into the backstory was exciting. The gameplay and the puzzles are pretty meh my dude.

Any definition of art that doesn't include games is too wanky.
People have always been moving the goalposts for what counts as art since the printing press, as new forms become legitimized.
It mostly comes from people who disregard the medium as kitsch, preying on the fact that games are a young medium, to seem cultured. It's all posturing.

Thank you, I was beginning to think nobody would recognize that

idk if some mopey stone lion in a rock can be art than I guess games can be too

They're art, but equally low art. It's stupid thinking you're better than others because you prefer Fallouts 1&2 over 3&4.

what if he's sucking dick really, really well?

I feel like people are using the term art for good art. Lots of things are art but whether or not it can be considered good is different and subjective.

>the definition of art changed between now and an hour ago
>source: I said so

So you have your own la la land definition of art, thats fine but youre wrong. You can be as wrong as you want, youre still not correct and if you want others to agree with you its good to at least be correct.

So what did the definition of art change to?

Sup Forums putting those cereal box community college art degrees to good use

The way i see it is that video games can tell a story similar to tv, movies, or a book, so i guess the question is do you consider tv, movies, or books art cause if you do than yes video games can be art

To add to this their isnt really a video game i can think of that i would consider art

Who gives a shit about telling a story. Do you think history books are art too?

Why would i answer you when all your arguments so far were "la la la i'm right you're so wrong you're wrong you're wrong!"

Kino

fuck off