The Literal Art of Video Games

Aux-In · 03-04-2015, 05:49 PM

The late Roger Ebert caused a stir when he said video games weren't art.

Video games can never be art | Roger Ebert's Journal | Roger Ebert

Loads of comments from users who I think got him to later state that video games might be art.

For me, I've always like the SNES graphics/art. Best colors, the sprites look cool...just something about them.

Can video games be art, though? For me, they contain great art, but for some reason I don't take them in the same as a painting or a piece of music. It's probably too interactive to be one single piece of art in the same context as the other mediums. Not saying that's fair or right, because to this day, nothing has moved me more as a single piece of "art" like Final Fantasy III (VI) did. I'd say video games are more an experience in art than art itself.

The Batlord · 03-04-2015, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aux-in

The late Roger Ebert caused a stir when he said video games weren't art.

Video games can never be art | Roger Ebert's Journal | Roger Ebert

Loads of comments from users who I think got him to later state that video games might be art.

For me, I've always like the SNES graphics/art. Best colors, the sprites look cool...just something about them.

Can video games be art, though? For me, they contain great art, but for some reason I don't take them in the same as a painting or a piece of music. It's probably too interactive to be one single piece of art in the same context as the other mediums. Not saying that's fair or right, because to this day, nothing has moved me more as a single piece of "art" like Final Fantasy III (VI) did. I'd say video games are more an experience in art than art itself.

If art can be meant to be interpreted by each person individually rather than simply being a blanket statement designed to hold the same meaning to everyone then it is certainly interactive, if possibly only in a passive sense. Why should making the interaction active all of a sudden make it not art? Are you not engaging with both in a personal, meaningful way?

Aux-In · 03-04-2015, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

If art can be meant to be interpreted by each person individually rather than simply being a blanket statement designed to hold the same meaning to everyone then it is certainly interactive, if possibly only in a passive sense. Why should making the interaction active all of a sudden make it not art? Are you not engaging with both in a personal, meaningful way?

I think the user comment by AlonditeMX in the Ebert article is succinct:

Quote:

AlonditeMX: I'm an avid gamer of over 20 years, but games are not art.

People like to think anything which creates some sort of emotional reaction or engagement to be art, but that's incredibly messy use of language; language and words are clearly defined for a reason. If I'm emotionally impacted by taking a dump, does that make it art? Absolutely not, and to assert such a thing is an absurd notion.

Video games are defined by interaction and experience. Art, as much as pretentious, self-proclaimed "artists" and "art connoisseurs " would like you to believe, is not experienced, it is observed. However, that doesn't make it any less valuable, it's just the simple truth of it.

I'm not saying they aren't art, they are an experience in art.

Key · 03-04-2015, 07:02 PM

I'd say they are art like music and pictures are art. And I don't need articles to back that up.

The Batlord · 03-04-2015, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aux-in

I think the user comment by AlonditeMX in the Ebert article is succinct:

Quote:

Video games are defined by interaction and experience. Art, as much as pretentious, self-proclaimed "artists" and "art connoisseurs " would like you to believe, is not experienced, it is observed. However, that doesn't make it any less valuable, it's just the simple truth of it.

I'm not saying they aren't art, they are an experience in art.

I think that's nonsense. If you're just observing art and not experiencing it on some emotional level then are you really appreciating it or just claiming to just so you don't look like a Philistine.

Aux-In · 03-04-2015, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I think that's nonsense. If you're just observing art and not experiencing it on some emotional level then are you really appreciating it or just claiming to just so you don't look like a Philistine.

That's not what I'm saying. It's more nuanced than that. By observing art, you can experience art and be moved by it. Same with music. Video games involve interacting with it in order to experience it as an art form, which again, I'm not saying that video games aren't art.

The Batlord · 03-04-2015, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aux-in

That's not what I'm saying. It's more nuanced than that. By observing art, you can experience art and be moved by it. Same with music. Video games involve interacting with it in order to experience it as an art form, which again, I'm not saying that video games aren't art.

I just don't see that distinction as being relevant. Isn't that kind of arbitrary?

Aux-In · 03-04-2015, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Batlord

I just don't see that distinction as being relevant. Isn't that kind of arbitrary?

I don't take them in the same way, and I did state that that was a personal thing to me.

Painting: Observe
Sculpture: Observe
Music: Listen
Video games: Interactive

If you're just listening, that is still a passive thing. There is a difference. You have no choice but to play the game to experience it as an art form in its totality.

^^ My kind of video-game art.

**Janszoon** · 03-04-2015, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aux-in

That's not what I'm saying. It's more nuanced than that. By observing art, you can experience art and be moved by it. Same with music. Video games involve interacting with it in order to experience it as an art form, which again, I'm not saying that video games aren't art.

Theater and live music often involve interacting with the art. It's still art.

Key · 03-04-2015, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aux-in

That's not what I'm saying. It's more nuanced than that. By observing art, you can experience art and be moved by it. Same with music. Video games involve interacting with it in order to experience it as an art form, which again, I'm not saying that video games aren't art.

Keep in mind I was talking about both video games and the making of video games. You don't think the people that draw the backgrounds / landscapes for video games are artists?

03-04-2015, 05:49 PM	#21 (permalink)
Aux-In Wrinkled Magazine Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: In Time Posts: 467	The late Roger Ebert caused a stir when he said video games weren't art. Video games can never be art \| Roger Ebert's Journal \| Roger Ebert Loads of comments from users who I think got him to later state that video games might be art. For me, I've always like the SNES graphics/art. Best colors, the sprites look cool...just something about them. Can video games be art, though? For me, they contain great art, but for some reason I don't take them in the same as a painting or a piece of music. It's probably too interactive to be one single piece of art in the same context as the other mediums. Not saying that's fair or right, because to this day, nothing has moved me more as a single piece of "art" like Final Fantasy III (VI) did. I'd say video games are more an experience in art than art itself. __________________ Reviews l YouTube Playlist: Another Dimension "All over a bowl of bitter beans."

03-04-2015, 07:02 PM	#24 (permalink)
Key . Join Date: Dec 2010 Posts: 13,153	I'd say they are art like music and pictures are art. And I don't need articles to back that up.