Topic: Shigeru Miyamoto "I have never said that video games are an art"

Oh, dude, I was only having a joke

First of all, he never said Videogames weren't art. So calm down.
Second of all, it doesn't matter. Who cares what it is, as long as you can have fun with it? If you think it's art fine. You can have your own opinion, and he can have his too. How would you like it if someone said your opinion was wrong?

I would ask them to explain how it's wrong, and then if I'm proven wrong I will concede the point.

Too many people mistake having an opinion for an expectation of being treated as though they are correct.

Saying that games are not art is incorrect. It doesn't matter if it's Miyamoto, Obama or Jesus Himself who says it; they're incorrect.

And he never had to.

By that same token, saying that games are art is also incorrect.

True that. The only precise answer is that games can be art.

Miyamoto's games are though.

I think that arguing something as subjective as "what constitutes as art" is kinda pointless, due to it, you know, being subjective?

But it's a great way to waste time.

In the past, thinking about useless stuff was considered and art itself!

pretty much. the answer would differ greatly from person to person. you may as well ask whether someone would consider a series of given sounds 'music' or a collection of random words 'poetry' or 'literature'.

But that's why it's an interesting topic to discuss and hear everyone's opinions

I mean, discussing it is fine. But there's finger-pointing going on in here, and talks of wrong and right.

That doesn't make much sense when talking about art.

I don't care if the he doesn't think games are an art, I do and that's enough for me.

Ok, ok, we're getting serious now, so he's an entirely serious post on my part:

At some point, if you study art theory at university, and take some courses in either philosophy or psychology, you'll come across the notion that artists inject unconscious meaning into their work. That sounds more complex than it really is - basically, any artist you can think of will put meaning into their art that they didn't mean to.

The easiest way to look at this is through some shocking examples: H.P Lovecraft, for instance, never sat down to write his horror stories with the intention "you know what, I don't like black people so this story is going to be racist." Lovecraft was a racist, and Lovecraft's stories contain a great deal of racism, but he was a pulp fiction writer - all he wanted to do was create some scary stories.

Meaning is critical to art - without meaning it's hard to call an object art. Sport isn't art because sports don't have meaning, even though in practice watching a sporting event is functionally the same as watching a ballet performance. The difference between soccer and ballet is simple - it's meaning.

However, meaning is what the audience sees in an art work, not what a artist intends. Artists work for a wide range of reasons - some want to make money, some want to make something fun. Still others want to make something insightful. But ultimately every single person that sees an artist's work will get different meaning from it. A Studio Ghibli film, for instance, might just be a cute animation to a child. It might be boring and shallow to one adult. To another adult it might well be life-changingly insightful. That's what we mean when we say that "art is subjective" - it's not that it's art to one person, and not art to another. It's that different people read different meanings into it.

Games are merely fun to some people. That's not wrong, it's just that they don't get any meaning from games, any more than they'd get from a sporting event. That same game to another person is something they can study in-depth. Portal is merely a fun puzzle game to some. To others it's a wonderfully cynical study and criticism of humanity itself.

Lacking meaning from one person doesn't disqualify something from being art. It's a universal truth that it's art, it's just the subjective opinion of one person that it isn't. The meaning is there, it's just that one person doesn't see it. It's like that philosophy argument - if a tree falls in the middle of the rainforest and no one was there to see it, did it really fall? It did, even if everyone else was oblivious to it happening.

And so games are typically art. Regardless of the reason that the game was made, and regardless of the intention of the game developer. There's still meaning in the way the game was designed and the way that the player interacts with it, and that is the very core tenant of what makes a game art.

I believe the saying goes: If a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear it, did it make a sound?

Either way, I wholeheartedly agree with your post, Matt. Well explained, indeed.

Why does this debate never end?

People like to debate. People like to think.

I respectfully disagree with Miyamoto. Games often have certain things to be judged by. It involves visuals, music, design, and obviously mechanics. Just because it makes money doesn't disqualify it as art. Music, movies, etc. all make money. Even the ones with patron money need to get that money so the artist can live. I think Miyamoto is just trying to be humble. That and he is only one person.

Yes, that one <<

>>

Time for me to take a refresher course in philosophy, clearly. I got the most famous philosophy argument quote wrong

For shame! Lz would have given you an F. >:[

I give myself an F for such an amateur mistake.

As punishment I shall say ten nice things about Nintenod >

"If an enemy explodes in a forest and the camera is not pointing in that direction, did the game render it?"

...
No wait, that doesn't sound quite right.