Can Video Games be Considered Art?

[Vegerot]

Discuss. If you need anything to help get this topic started (because you have no creativity) then either watch this video, or read this essay I wrote*(read 'bout that at the bottom) .



*Yep, I am very proud of my essay that I totally wrote and all the hard work I did on it and how much time I spent on it. It took me a lot of time and effort to complete; but I pulled through and I made this kick-ass essay!

Discuss.

Edit: Nice, took you 23 minuets to discover my evil plan. Good going!

But seriously so I don't get my ass sued off, and my honor diminished, this essay was written by Rick Halloran, or Kayar as we know him by.

[Kayar]

Excuse me? Hey, you little shit, that's MY gaming essay, off MY mediafire, for fuck's sake! Lol, though, I see the joke now, why all the capital "I's" and etcetera, nice sarcasm there, you knew I'd recognize this as mine... I forgot I had this on mediafire, I had to put it there in order to print on another computer or something... This would have been last year, my first semester at UMASS. Oh, yeah, and now if anyone still doesn't know and wants to know my real name, well, yep, there it is... I thought I put this in my private access folder, I'll have to go investigate that... but, for now, I trust most of you, so I'll just say, yeah, these are my views on the subject, I've thought a great deal about this as well as violence in video games and such, written several essays now on video games in college as well as high school.

Touché, Vegerot, touché.

[kiddten]

I'm... confused.

[Kayar]

Lion jet skiing. And video games should be and will eventually be considered art, perhaps.

Also Vegerot posted an essay of mine and made a joke that it was his and that he was proud of it but made it abundantly clear that this was a joke by underlining every instance in which he referred to it as being his.

[kiddten]

Oh, right.
Well then, before we can classify games as art, we have to define what "is" art.
because that conversation doesn't get old after the first time you have it.

[Vegerot]

Lol k. Back on topic. I still think this will be a great and interesting conversation to have. I assume that Kayar will be the biggest contributor, for obvious reasons.

Let me start after we've had this bumpy beginning:
No, I don't think that games can be considered art because they are just shooting and violence. And have no deepness in them.

[Yarok]

I forgot I had this on mediafire, I had to put it there in order to print on another computer or something... This would have been last year, my first semester at UMASS. Oh, yeah, and now if anyone still doesn't know and wants to know my real name, well, yep, there it is... I thought I put this in my private access folder, I'll have to go investigate that...

Because flash drives, email, and Google Docs are too mainstream.

[kiddten]

No, I don't think that games can be considered art because they are just shooting and violence. And have no deepness in them.

Wow. It's like you don't even know there are games that aren't first person shooters.
As for art, there have been some community mods for several games that are quite artish.

[nil]

...No, I don't think that games can be considered art because they are just shooting and violence. And have no deepness in them.

Are you still trolling? I do not know how anyone could agree with this falseness.

Britannica Online defines art as "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others."

Obviously, by this definition, video games can be art. Even if you think video games are not art, you cannot deny that video games incorporate art such as music, story telling, graphical elements, etc.

[TaxiService]

Yes.


Increpare games.

[Vegerot]

While what you said is somewhat true, while a game might not need to be a first person shooter. The primary purpose of video-games is for ENTERTAINMENT. Unlike true art which is majestic and illustrious.

Please guys, I'm not an idiot. I am merrily playing the "devil's advocate" to start the conversation. I am hoping that this moves on from and gets deeper. I just said that as a discussion starter because I knew that all of us here disagree with that.

[Yarok]

Please explain to me how a play, let's say, oh, Oedipus or Romeo and Juliet, and then explain to me how they are not created for entertainment because they are, in fact, art.

[Vegerot]

Because, I mean, art is something which one does not take part in but merely observes. So you just observe those plays, but in video games you actually play in it. On of the big-ass differences is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Works of art are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. "Winning" them ruins the point.

[kiddten]

PFPSCHPFPSC Rick, HALLORAN?
Also speaking of games and art, I just played through portal 2's first dlc.
Glados actually refers to chambers as "art".

[Sugarlumps]

Art can be defined as the various branches of expression of creativity. I myself feel that art can be in many forms, and video games are no exception. Many have perceived art as something that has to be visual, something that is acceptable in modern day society, something that has to have depth to it, a common and flawed conception of the term. Art refers to the expression, the story told behind something. While literature directly tells the story to one, either immersing them into it, or by a flat overview, it is still considered art. Photography is regarded as a form of art. Videography is regarded as a form of art. Should video games be any different?

I feel that art can be of any form, and representing something, an emotion, a story, anything, can allow it to be classified under art. It could be a proud grand dad's crayon drawing of something, and it can be regarded as a form of art, as it means something to him, if not to others.

So yes, video games can be considered art. In my opinion.

EDIT: Scrolled up and read a few more posts.
EDIT2: Re-read my post and added a few more points.
EDIT3: More arguments.

Because, I mean, art is something which one does not take part in but merely observes. So you just observe those plays, but in video games you actually play in it. On of the big-ass differences is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Works of art are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. "Winning" them ruins the point.

I feel that this is incorrect. A work of art was never defined as something that had to be observed. In video games, true, you can win them. However, while there are constraints, the work is still being experienced, first hand. As for winning, winning never ruins the point. A movie is regarded as a work of art, is it not? Then what happens after it ends? Literature. Stories end. The experience is over, true, but that doesn't mean that you can't experience it again, and you have already experienced the expression of the team that has worked on it (or more accurately, one person's expression, the team's work). Furthermore, you can play as an "observer" in games, while experiencing it at the same time. These constraints merely guide the observer, just like how the Rule of Thirds are applied in Photography, how so? To guide the viewer's eye.

Unlike true art which is majestic and illustrious.

Refer to original post before edits.