Smithsonian And National Endowment For The Arts Ends Argument: Video Games ARE Art

[LaughingMAN.S9]

You really REALLY don't understand art, this is painfully obvious. Art is not art because some random idiot thinks it's good, nor is it not art because some moron says its 3 hours of black and white garbage. If there were no standards that art had to live up to, art exhibits around the world would be filled with random, meaningless garbage; your saying this is really just laughable.

lady...you test my patience, so i'll try to go a bit slower...



ART HAS NO STANDARDS TO LIVE UP TO, ART EXHIBITS AROUND THE WORLD ARE FILLED WITH RANDOM, MEANINGLESS GARBAGE...


...unless of course, you CHOOSE to give it meaning, you obviously do, i obviously dont, we're both right. art isnt inherently anything, its bound to the whims of perception.

example: a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest, might be heralded as a new wave of avant guarde post modernism by someone as "refined" and "cultured" as yourself, but to my untrained and uncivilized eyes, all i see is a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest.



the time u spend deconstructing my every post and telling us what art isnt, could be better spent trying to convince us what art is. explain it to me in particular as its clear that my reading comprehension isnt what yours is.

remember to tell me just exactly how many years of your life you waisted in film school, and how its helped enrich your life.



oh and btw



samurai seven......FUCKING....

















sucked.

[SplashChick]

lady...you test my patience, so i'll try to go a bit slower...



ART HAS NO STANDARDS TO LIVE UP TO, ART EXHIBITS AROUND THE WORLD ARE FILLED WITH RANDOM, MEANINGLESS GARBAGE...


...unless of course, you CHOOSE to give it meaning, you obviously do, i obviously dont, we're both right. art isnt inherently anything, its bound to the whims of perception.

example: a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest, might be heralded as a new wave of avant guarde post modernism by someone as "refined" and "cultured" as yourself, but to my untrained and uncivilized eyes, all i see is a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest.



the time u spend deconstructing my every post and telling us what art isnt, could be better spent trying to convince us what art is. explain it to me in particular as its clear that my reading comprehension isnt what yours is.

remember to tell me just exactly how many years of your life you waisted in film school, and how its helped enrich your life.



oh and btw



samurai seven......FUCKING....

















sucked.

No, you're just wrong and have no perception of what art is. Funny you're saying I'm deconstructing your posts when you're the one writing page-long responses to my 6 line posts.

[SplashChick]

Then art book doesn't make any sense either, and you've lost me.

Architecture is the concept of design of structures. Literature is the concept of volumes of written word. They're not objects. The house or magazine or book is the object. I did say book was a concept, and I fudged it on that. It is an object with certain characteristics, and it has a categorical term to distinguish those characteristics with a word: book. Descriptors can mix objects, concepts and even other descriptors. That's what I meant.

Alright, but it mostly didn't make sense because you can't really define an "art game". Games of all genres can have artistic value in both subtle and blatant ways, labeling something as an "art game" really does nothing to help describe it.

[pseudonym]

example: a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest, might be heralded as a new wave of avant guarde post modernism by someone as "refined" and "cultured" as yourself, but to my untrained and uncivilized eyes, all i see is a dead rat, dangling from a shoe string noose, dipped in yellow paint and strapped with a suicide note staple-gunned to his chest.

Stuff like this is never art, people who make edgy "art" like this are douches IMO. Are you Urzu's alt account, I swear with the ellipses, spelling errors and nonsense you post most of the time, that you are.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

If you passed on it the first time in this thread, I again invite everybody to watch this:

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=SYMMJ3O1

[slip81]

I just hope that if video games are finally being recognized as art that it isn't limited to the "artsy" games.

But seriously, if this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...an_CompRYB.jpg

and even this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

are art, then certainly video games can be as well. Both of those are taught in the college art history course I'm currently taking, by the way.

I'm curious as to why you feel selected works of Mondrian and Duchamp shouldn't be considered art? Especially since a main point of dadaism and Duchamp's Fountain in particular were made to try and broaden peoples interpretation of what could be art. I think if he were alive today he'd be all for calling games art.

And Mondrian was basically about pure aesthetics, mainly concerned with removing the "meaning" element from art by using simplistic abstract to forms to force the work to be judged based on it's primary qualities like, balance, composition, form, color, etc. Though it could be argued that his work contains a deeper meaning and philosophy simply because of the fact that he felt so strongly about what type of art he was creating and why.

[Bojay1997]

I don't see much of a difference whenever this topic ends up in the media.



Well that clearly hasn't been a problem for video games so it's really a moot point. And forgive me for calling it as I see it. When Roger Ebert made his statements, and presented them perfectly cordially, the gaming public called for his head on a platter. I call that butthurt.



Again, this industry is thriving. A random "art" moniker is not going to change anything. If expanding the industry is the goal then arguing for acceptance as art is one hell of a roundabout way to go about it.

I think you're confusing financial growth with growth and maturity of a medium. I would agree with you that more people are gaming and buying games than ever before, but that's not the same as the industry thriving in the same way that film and other media have done. The commercially viable independent games market is fairly tiny and most of the releases in 2010 appear to be sequels. I'm not saying we won't get some good games, but growing the industry further will require even more mainstream acceptance so that niche audiences can grow which will in turn mean more titles and potentially more creative games. Whether you like it or not, the "art" moniker has significance to certain people in powerful positions to influence the public. If it didn't, Ebert wouldn't have bothered to even talk about it and we wouldn't be debating it now.

[TonyTheTiger]

"Art game" doesn't make any sense

Mario Paint.

I think you're confusing financial growth with growth and maturity of a medium. I would agree with you that more people are gaming and buying games than ever before, but that's not the same as the industry thriving in the same way that film and other media have done. The commercially viable independent games market is fairly tiny and most of the releases in 2010 appear to be sequels. I'm not saying we won't get some good games, but growing the industry further will require even more mainstream acceptance so that niche audiences can grow which will in turn mean more titles and potentially more creative games.

Most 2010 releases are sequels because games cost more to the consumer who thereby feels less comfortable taking a chance with a new I.P. A $60 gamble at GameStop is a bit bigger than a $10 gamble at the local movie theater. And even $10 is pushing it. None of that has anything to do with art.

Whether you like it or not, the "art" moniker has significance to certain people in powerful positions to influence the public.

And if that is the case, which I doubt it is, then bowing to that, caving in to the oh so powerful Art Gods, would be a straight up act of cowardice. Talk about selling out. If this image you're painting of the world is true, I'd rather see games buck the system and be successful on their own terms, for what they are, rather than be assimilated into some hive assemblage with the mentality that genuine success can't be achieved without succumbing to some art cabal.

[Bojay1997]

Mario Paint.



Most 2010 releases are sequels because games cost more to the consumer who thereby feels less comfortable taking a chance with a new I.P. A $60 gamble at GameStop is a bit bigger than a $10 gamble at the local movie theater. And even $10 is pushing it. None of that has anything to do with art.



And if that is the case, which I doubt it is, then bowing to that, caving in to the oh so powerful Art Gods, would be a straight up act of cowardice. Talk about selling out. If this image you're painting of the world is true, I'd rather see games buck the system and be successful on their own terms, for what they are, rather than be assimilated into some hive assemblage with the mentality that genuine success can't be achieved without succumbing to some art cabal.

Who cares? I just want more great games. If that means "selling out" to art critics, journalists or people with huge wallets, I could care less. Games are a commercial product, there is no bucking the system because they are now and have always been part of the system. They are created to make lots of money for companies, not so that you can feel all edgy because you like them and other people don't. Like films, I just want more games to choose from and like I have been saying consistently, mainstream recognition of games as art is one powerful tool in making that a reality.

[Aussie2B]

I'm curious as to why you feel selected works of Mondrian and Duchamp shouldn't be considered art? Especially since a main point of dadaism and Duchamp's Fountain in particular were made to try and broaden peoples interpretation of what could be art. I think if he were alive today he'd be all for calling games art.

And Mondrian was basically about pure aesthetics, mainly concerned with removing the "meaning" element from art by using simplistic abstract to forms to force the work to be judged based on it's primary qualities like, balance, composition, form, color, etc. Though it could be argued that his work contains a deeper meaning and philosophy simply because of the fact that he felt so strongly about what type of art he was creating and why.

I wasn't really trying to say that they are or aren't. I just think it's silly that a guy can take a urinal (that someone else made), tilt it on its side, sign it with a pseudonym, say "look at this art I made" and the fine arts museums of the world readily accept this (shortly later at least, after the initial outcry), yet video games, which often contain very traditional arts like classical-style music and non-abstract painting, struggle for even those elements to be recognized as "real" music or "real" visual arts.

As with Mondrian, that was my feeble attempt at a clever analogy in that his paintings actually resemble early video game graphics, I feel.

[TonyTheTiger]

Who cares? I just want more great games. If that means "selling out" to art critics, journalists or people with huge wallets, I could care less. Games are a commercial product, there is no bucking the system because they are now and have always been part of the system. They are created to make lots of money for companies, not so that you can feel all edgy because you like them and other people don't. Like films, I just want more games to choose from and like I have been saying consistently, mainstream recognition of games as art is one powerful tool in making that a reality.

And you have completely missed the point. Clearly this bowing to some phantom art cabal you think exists implies a kind of homogenization of entertainment mediums. "Damn, if Street Fighter isn't appreciated by Hamlet critics just as much as Hamlet itself then we're really fucked."

Seeing enemies who don't actually exist, interpreting even innocent things as personal attacks, and constantly feeling that you have something to prove amounts to a textbook inferiority complex. That results in a kind of overcompensation. But unlike the guy who's really small in stature and goes out to buy a huge truck, I see the gaming constituency going out of it's way to "prove" that games are art. Even if they are, the constant "Look at us! We're gamers! We play art! Hironobu Sakaguchi is a modern Shakespeare!" is immature at best and outright counterproductive at worst.

Games are games. Everything else is everything else. If games are art, great. If not, get over it. Not once have I ever heard fans of Monopoly or Chess decry random art critics for denying the "legitimacy" of their past time. They don't need it. Games don't need it. Movies don't need it. Books don't need it. I'll go so far as to say paintings don't need it. What's good is good. If it's good, and not sunk by poor marketing, then it will perform decently enough out there in the world. If it sucks, then it sucks. That's all that matters.

[Bojay1997]

And you have completely missed the point. Clearly this bowing to some phantom art cabal you think exists implies a kind of homogenization of entertainment mediums. "Damn, if Street Fighter isn't appreciated by Hamlet critics just as much as Hamlet itself then we're really fucked."

Seeing enemies who don't actually exist, interpreting even innocent things as personal attacks, and constantly feeling that you have something to prove amounts to a textbook inferiority complex. That results in a kind of overcompensation. But unlike the guy who's really small in stature and goes out to buy a huge truck, I see the gaming constituency going out of it's way to "prove" that games are art. Even if they are, the constant "Look at us! We're gamers! We play art! Hironobu Sakaguchi is a modern Shakespeare!" is immature at best and outright counterproductive at worst.

Games are games. Everything else is everything else. If games are art, great. If not, get over it. Not once have I ever heard fans of Monopoly or Chess decry random art critics for denying the "legitimacy" of their past time. They don't need it. Games don't need it. Movies don't need it. Books don't need it. I'll go so far as to say paintings don't need it. What's good is good. If it's good, and not sunk by poor marketing, then it will perform decently enough out there in the world. If it sucks, then it sucks. That's all that matters.

I actually suspect that you have no point, other than to mask your belief that games can't possibly be art behind a screen of claiming it doesn't matter.

I don't think it's about overcompensation at all and I'm not hearing anyone in this thread or any other brag about the fact that they are playing art. The reality is that I consider gaming to be like any other emerging form of media that the public is now slowly starting to discover. I'm happy and excited that people are getting to enjoy what I have been enjoying for almost three decades. I'm also excited that more gamers can potentially mean more diverse games.

As someone who works for a large media studio, I can tell you that the status of a particular form of media in the view of pundits, critics and journalists does make a difference. Corporate executives allocate resources based on their perceptions of what's happening in the market and those perceptions are directly shaped by pundits, journalists and critics. Whether that's right or wrong is a whole other debate, but I know for a fact that it happens and as such, I want video games to get the most resources possible. Therefore, I have no problem promoting the view that they are art. I guess I would just ask why you are even bothering to continue debating and posting if the status of games as art doesn't even matter to you. It seems like your statement should just be, "I don't care if games are considered art. The end."

[Rob2600]

More funding? From whom? Video game companies are going to continue making video games. That's their business, it's what they do. They fund themselves. Nintendo will continue to release Super Mario games, Capcom will continue to release Resident Evil games, Sega will continue to release Sonic games, whether or not video games are officially considered art.

Also, do you know many painters or actors who are living it up, raking in millions? All of the artists I know are scraping by, living in converted old knitting factories in Williamsburg and waiting tables to pay the bills. But painting and acting are officially recognized forms of art...so why aren't my friends getting all of this magic funding you keep mentioning?

[TonyTheTiger]

Seeing enemies who don't actually exist, interpreting even innocent things as personal attacks, and constantly feeling that you have something to prove amounts to a textbook inferiority complex.

I actually suspect that you have no point, other than to mask your belief that games can't possibly be art behind a screen of claiming it doesn't matter.

Interesting.

[Bojay1997]

More funding? From whom? Video game companies are going to continue making video games. That's their business, it's what they do. They fund themselves. Nintendo will continue to release Super Mario games, Capcom will continue to release Resident Evil games, Sega will continue to release Sonic games, whether or not video games are officially considered art.

Also, do you know many painters or actors who are living it up, raking in millions? All of the artists I know are scraping by, living in converted old knitting factories in Williamsburg and waiting tables to pay the bills. But painting and acting are officially recognized forms of art...so why aren't my friends getting all of this magic funding you keep mentioning?

Actually, they don't. While all of those publishers you listed do in fact have in-house development teams, there are still many, many independent developers which end up creating new games and IPs either under contract to the big publishers or prior to selling the rights to a publisher. Those independent developers are constantly being created (and sadly closing) and they depend on capital from investment sources (whether that be investment banks, private equity or large studio financing) just like any other media-related business.

There are actually many, many artists that make a decent living as full time artists and some that make remarkable amounts of money doing it. Similarly, there are many who don't make much if anything. It's the same in game development. I suspect if one day everyone woke up and agreed that paintings weren't art, the number of painters making a decent or remarkable living would shrink to nothing.

[Rob2600]

Good points.

I think little development studios would continue to pop up and close even if video games were officially recognized as art though. What do you think?

Also, I think of video games, movies, music, and writing as "entertainment" first and as "art" second. That's just me though. For example, when I played Super Mario 64 for the first time in 1996, I kept thinking how much fun it was and how technologically impressive it was...but I usually didn't think "Wow, this is an amazing piece of art."

I definitely see the artistic merits in video games, but to me, again, it's secondary to the fun. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether or not video games are officially recognized as art.

[Bojay1997]

Good points.

I think little development studios would continue to pop up and close even if video games were officially recognized as art though. What do you think?

Also, I think of video games, movies, music, and writing as "entertainment" first and as "art" second. That's just me though. For example, when I played Super Mario 64 for the first time in 1996, I kept thinking how much fun it was and how technologically impressive it was...but I usually didn't think "Wow, this is an amazing piece of art."

I definitely see the artistic merits in video games, but to me, again, it's secondary to the fun. Therefore, it doesn't matter to me whether or not video games are officially recognized as art.

Fair enough. I agree with you that having games recognized as art isn't the be all and end all of whether or not the industry continues to grow, but I do believe it certainly can be helpful. I also agree that for me, games are entertainment first and art second, which is exactly how I feel about literature, films, television, and most other older media that are now considered to be art. I completely respect your views on the debate and I have no problem with people not caring either way. I only take issue with that small group of people who seem hell bent on opposing the view that games can be art as I can't possibly understand what stake they would have in seeing that their view carries the day.

[Rob2600]

What's funny is that in 1996, I was playing Super Mario 64 with my friend. Her older sister majored in art and worked at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. She hadn't played video games since the NES, but she was watching us play and kept commenting how SM64 was so "non-linear" and "postmodern." She loved it. Meanwhile, we just thought it was fun.

So, for what it's worth, an actual artist and art aficionado perceived SM64 as modern art.

[SplashChick]

What's funny is that in 1996, I was playing Super Mario 64 with my friend. Her older sister majored in art and worked at the Museum of Modern Art in Manhattan. She hadn't played video games since the NES, but she was watching us play and kept commenting how SM64 was so "non-linear" and "postmodern." She loved it. Meanwhile, we just thought it was fun.

So, for what it's worth, an actual artist and art aficionado perceived SM64 as modern art.

She has a good eye.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I would imagine that most contemporary artists have a different perspective on exactly how video games may (or may not) qualify as "art", especially considering that most of them have experience with digital art/design in some capacity. Perspective means a lot when forming an opinion like this.

But on topic ... considering that the vast majority of art academia, art professionals, art critics, and the general public haven't been able to come up with any empirical consensus or measurable "formula" for what "art is" for, like, centuries (and they STILL haven't) ... is it really worth debating whether what is essentially a new media in its infant stages is or is not "art"?

If games will ever grow to be "accepted" as art on a larger near-universal scale (say, on the level of something immediately identifiable as a concise-definition art product like portrait or landscape painting) it's going to need to take a completely organic and meritorious route to happening, and it's going to take a long long time. Longer than it has to get to the point we're at now. I personally feel that it's on it's way and moving along the right path, but it needs a few hundred (maybe a few thousand) more "milestones" for artists, critics, academics and scholars to use as supporting arguments.

The argument is far from ended based on anything that the Smithsonian has done.