I should also note that there's not really much "opinion" to whether or not its art. Don't let the snobs fool you, art is not a higher form of entertainment. Just because you don't like the look of a painting doesn't mean it's not art. It's just art you don't like. There's good and bad art, too - there's ones that get the messege across well, then there's ones that don't. And there are ones that didn't have much of a purposeful messege to begin with as well.
if music can still be considered art with the way its industry became, then games are also art.
goodbyes are a sad part of life but for every end there's a new beggining so one must never stop looking forward to the next dawn
now working at IBM as helpdesk analyst my Backloggery
3DS Friend Code: 3995-7085-4333 | Nintendo Network ID: GustavoSF
I've always thought that they were art. However, most people don't find them to be art, which is weird because these same people tend to think that movies are a form of art.
Take Lord of the Rings they missed out the part I wanted to see the most. (Tom Bombadils wife singing and the burning of the shire part at the end). Changed Arwin to be something of significance when it was just an arranged marriage.
Or V for Vendetta - The changes they made stopped large parts of it from making sense. (Evee not being a prostitute / The LSD bit where it becomes clear / The Watering down of the White Supremacist bits etc / Ignoring the Nuclear War.)
Maybe something like Watchmen is Art or The Final Cut of Blade Runner. (But it took them forever to actually release it in its proper form so I dunno if that counts).
(Stuff like adding Male or Female characters to increase appeal or a happy ending / romance etc etc just for sake of it removes any claim to it being a work of art).
Take Lord of the Rings they missed out the part I wanted to see the most. (Tom Bombadils wife singing and the burning of the shire part at the end). Changed Arwin to be something of significance when it was just an arranged marriage.
Or V for Vendetta - The changes they made stopped large parts of it from making sense. (Evee not being a prostitute / The LSD bit where it becomes clear / The Watering down of the White Supremacist bits etc / Ignoring the Nuclear War.)
Maybe something like Watchmen is Art or The Final Cut of Blade Runner. (But it took them forever to actually release it in its proper form so I dunno if that counts).
(Stuff like adding Male or Female characters to increase appeal or a happy ending / romance etc etc just for sake of it removes any claim to it being a work of art).
That still makes it art, its just the director/writer taking their artistic mediums with the source material. I mean you cite Watchmen and despite being nearly a 1 to 1 adaption of the comic, you lose a lot in what Dave Gibbons does with the symmetry of the panels.
WAT!
Hey check out my awesome new youtube channel shingi70 where I update weekly on the latest gaming and comic news form a level headed perspective.
3DS Friend Code: 3093-7342-3454 | Nintendo Network ID: shingi70
I mean look at the original Star Fox which didn't really have much of an artstyle but the graphics however were superior in its time.
Again, this seriously misses the point. No one's arguing over the art assets of a game. The question is whether or not a game as a whole is capable of expressing themes or ideas in a meaningful way.
I mean shovelware like 50% of the wii library is not art.....like do you really conciser games like "Thats so raven" for the gameboy or the rip off party games ART?
they are all lazy attempts to make money
Playing: Wargroove on Switch and Fire Emblem on GBA
Whether a particular game is "high art" or "great art" is completely subjective. For example, just because I consider Super Mario Sunshine to be a monumental artistic achievement doesn't mean anyone else necessarily agrees with me.
I mean shovelware like 50% of the wii library is not art.....like do you really conciser games like "Thats so raven" for the gameboy or the rip off party games ART?
they are all lazy attempts to make money
There are paintings meant to mimic the style of other paintings, low-budget movies meant to cash in on popular themes, books and comics that pooly adapt media from other mediums simply to make money off the brand-name. Are these all not art? I'd argue that good art reflects the inner image of its creator - their hopes and desires, their feelings. Does a shovelware game say a lot about their creators? Their misery, their pain? Their lack of enthusiasm for the projects they must toil on? Perhaps bidding their time, collecting a pay check until its finally their chance to shine? If all they cared about was taking your money, don't you think that would reflect on that which they create? Personally, I'd say those games very much are art, since they reflect the pain of their creators, and their apathy, perhaps even loathing, for the end user much more efficiently than any other medium.
Games are not art. The one thing that art has is that it stands the test of time - you look at Sistine Chapel and no matter who you are, you must admit it's a masterpiece. It is impressive to this day. Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated. I love this definition of art that got brought up in this thread, because it means even Pepsi can is art. When you are feeling thrist, it has emotional power to overcome it and enjoy it.
You can defend the point that "but games are art" with "but it's deep" or "it is artistic" or whatever, but games are only made to have fun with them, that's the main point of the game. If that's still the case, than Bay is the greatest artist there is.
Games are not art. The one thing that art has is that it stands the test of time - you look at Sistine Chapel and no matter who you are, you must admit it's a masterpiece. It is impressive to this day. Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated. I love this definition of art that got brought up in this thread, because it means even Pepsi can is art. When you are feeling thrist, it has emotional power to overcome it and enjoy it.
You can defend the point that "but games are art" with "but it's deep" or "it is artistic" or whatever, but games are only made to have fun with them, that's the main point of the game. If that's still the case, than Bay is the greatest artist there is.
Bay is an artist. Just a really bad one.
Games are art. What you just described is an emotional response to that art.
Just because your point is to have fun does not mean that you don't have a point.
Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated.
Not everything is art. You need to be passionate about your work to produce true art. Otherwise it's just people going through the motions, like some developers creating a blockbuster just for the sake of money.
Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated.
Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated.
Wind Waker.
Pikmin
Playing: Wargroove on Switch and Fire Emblem on GBA
Games are not art. The one thing that art has is that it stands the test of time - you look at Sistine Chapel and no matter who you are, you must admit it's a masterpiece. It is impressive to this day. Now find a game that is not outdated even from 8 years ago. You can appritiate a game for a moment, but after years, you will find that it is ugly/outdated. I love this definition of art that got brought up in this thread, because it means even Pepsi can is art. When you are feeling thrist, it has emotional power to overcome it and enjoy it.
You can defend the point that "but games are art" with "but it's deep" or "it is artistic" or whatever, but games are only made to have fun with them, that's the main point of the game. If that's still the case, than Bay is the greatest artist there is.
I'm curious, What does something have to be to be classified as art to you? Are movies art? Is literature art? are paintings art? Where do you draw the line that says what is and isn't art?
i am part of a social group interested in uniting the world by painting it blue.
Blue blue.
This thread is seriously disappointing me with the amount of people that think art is just about how something looks.
Totally agree. Art in video games doesn't mean the art style.
Art isn't created just for kicks and giggles, it's a conscious decision to comment on something or bring change to something.
All video games are art. All music is art. All movies are art. All paintings are art.
While the "artistic" part of some pieces may not be as buried deep as say, Lollipop Chainsaw, you're doing a discredit to yourself by not calling it art.
QUEEN OF SASS
It's like, I just love a cowboy
You know
I'm just like, I just, I know, it's bad
But I'm just like
Can I just like, hang off the back of your horse
And can you go a little faster?!
Forums
Topic: Do you consider video games as art?
Posts 21 to 40 of 61
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.