The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

April 10, 2009 -

Have you heard? 

There seems to be some debate as to whether or not video games can be considered art.

All kidding aside, “Are games art?” is a passionate and oft-debated topic; your opinion probably depends on how you’re defining art.  If you define it simply as a work produced using skill, creativity, and imagination then the answer is very likely yes.

However, if, like Devin Faraci of movie news site CHUD, you define art as “something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling” then you may, like Faraci, conclude that games do not fit the bill:

[Games] may be artistic... and they may be used as art objects - an exquisitely hand painted Monopoly board, for instance - but games are not art. The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not...  in the end a game is simply a series of rules... If rules themselves were art, the US Congress would be the most prolific artists of our time.

Now before anyone cracks their knuckles in preparation of a strongly worded email, Faraci offers one final thought.

For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough?

-Reporting from San Diego, GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen met Devin Faraci once and promptly forgot how to pronounce his name...


Comments

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I think he's not looking deep enough into the subject matter.

He says rules themselves are not aren't.  That's arguable, but I'm going to let him have that one.  In the same way that a square is not art.  But you take a bunch of squares and put them together in a meaningful way, and that IS art.

If you look at what he would call "the rules" of say a game like Braid (which pains me to praise), they are simple time based gimmicks.  But it's the application of those gimmicks (game mechanics) that make the levels in that game art.

 

------- Morality has always been in decline. As you get older, you notice it. When you were younger, you enjoyed it.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 So if art is something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling”, then would spraypainting on a wall "Devin Faraci is a goat-raping wanker" be considered art?  It is a purposeful creation to communicate my ideas and feelings on the person.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not...  in the end a game is simply a series of rules..."

You mean the same way reading a book isn't art? That doesn't make the book any less artistic just because you're looking at the wrong side of what's going on.

The storylines and the players interaction with them is an artform, the strategies a player uses are an artform, the level design, modelling and texturing are all artforms. So why the hell aren't game art?

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

That doesn't make sense at all... Why isn't reading a book art? The act of reading itself isn't something to call art, but it certainly is a form of communication. That's where Faraci-defined artistic value is, which I agree with.

But playing a game by following rules doesn't communicate much. The parts that really communicate with you is actually that of other medium, according to Faraci, and I agree with him. Think carefully when and where you're being told of a story in any given game. Most, if not all, will be by cutscenes, CGI movies, narration, text block, logs, dialogues, or anything that's not at all interactive. This means you can pretty much drop game part altogether, connect those non-game parts together, and still be told of the same story, and probably in more time-efficient way.

Am I the only one who agrees (while not absolutely, totally, to 100%) with Faraci? Am I the only one who feels the delta between player action and the plot of any given game is far too large? Playing games for storylines, emotions, messages, but is frustrated by interruptive "game" parts? I just can't believe none of you have any beef at how today's games are formatted.

--

XBL: NekoNari

http://notjustgame.blogspot.com/

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I just signed up here to leave this post:

Am I the only one who sees some merit to Faraci's post? I mean, the question, "Are games art?" aside, doesn't the part where "today's games are more or less movies with games inserted in between stories" sound somewhat true? For me, I used to love games for what they are, simple but pure fun experiences. However, now that they've added so many layers to it, the core gameplay alone isn't the center of the experience anymore, as noted by someone else here. Plot and characters are at least as important, if not more, as gameplay to the whole experience now. And still, games keep forcing players to dish out hours and hours of meaningless gameplay sections just to progress plots. More story-driven a game is, more unnatural the experience is, and I sometimes wish the game was just an interactive movie without interruptive game sections.

Yes, the "interactivity" is the primary merit of games, hence, it should be perfected. But today's trend of games goes against this. I think games really need to be seperated into something that's more honest to the core game--which is what Nintendo is doing--and something that's purely story-driven interactive experience without game-like interruptions.

But then, I'm already straying too far from what this article is about.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"For the people so hung up on getting music recognized as art, I have to ask: why?  Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough"

I changed but a single word in that above quote, but I think that simply replacing "videogames" with "music" is a good way of showing how ludicrous Devin Faraci's quote really is.

Are videogames art? That depends..... is computer animation art? Is music art?  Is storytelling art?

If you say yes to all three of those questions, then why is it that when one adds "interactivity" to the mix the videogames as art debate isn't anything other than a no-brainer?  Finding Nemo is art, but Okami isn't because it's interactive?

Sorry, but that's garbage logic.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Thinking on it, this guy seems more like a "artiste" than an artist. The difference for me being that an "artiste" only accepts mediums they themselves work in, and will openly mock anyone who doesn't "get" the meaning of their work right away. It can be a sock stapled to a piece of cardboard and they would publicly mock you for not understanding it.

MAybe he'll accept a game made of nothing but sound and black dots.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

"For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough?"

Why does it matter to you if they are? Fucking hypocrite.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Yeah. I guess in his view Art is something you just look at, not touch or interact with. He's very oldskool about it, no doubt. But it's hard to say that games haven't created inspiration for many people.

----------------------------------------

"Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

---------------------------------------- "Because this town is under the stranglehold of a few tight eyed Tree Huggers who would rather play Hacky Sack than lock up the homeless" -- Birch Barlow

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Faraci is typical of people who feel art is made up of the things we are used to art being made up of. He thinks his argument is, "games aren't art because game mechanics are not art and are not capable of expressing art," but his actual argument is, "games aren't art because I'm not able to understand how game mechanics can be art."

Game mechanics can be used to communicate an idea or feeling, and I wish the book Well Played was out now so I could encourage everyone to read my essay in it on Ico, in which I discuss at considerable length how the game mechanics themselves create the strong bond between the player and Yorda.

The fact is, there are ways to create emotion or express ideas that can *only* be done through interactive gameplay.  There aren't a lot of examples, and not all the examples are good, but since Faraci is making a blanket statement that games aren't art, all I would need is a single example.  So while I could come up with examples besides Ico, it's not necessary.

If Faraci were a book critic in 1910, I'm sure he'd have written a similar essay on why movies aren't art.  He acknowledges that his arguments could be applied to film, but says that editing makes them art. I'm sure this imaginary 1910 Faraci would deny editing as an art form simply because it had never been an art form.  He would probably compare film editing with being a newspaper editor.  His essay is facile but ultimately simply shows his lack of understanding of the power and potential of video games and his lack of vision and imagination.

Charles Herold - Wii Guide

nintendo.about.com

Charles Herold - Wii Guide nintendo.about.com

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

In my eyes, art is, essentially, telling a story.  It is in the way you tell the story that it becomes alive and begins being art.  A simple black square on a white canvas is no more a story competently conveyed than the word "it" on the middle of a page.  I know this isn't the best description, but many different things can be considered "art."

Art has been around since the dawn of man and has evolved in quite the fashion.  I'll be honest when I tell you that I have no idea how it started, but I'd imagine it was a villiage elder or wise man that would tell stories by fire at night or drawings on the insides of caves.  There has been steady and obvious progression on those humble beginnings.  Moving from verbally told stories to pictures to songs and dance to canvas paintings to sculptures to books to moving pictures to moving pictures with music to where we are now.  Now we are a PART of the stories we see.  Now we personally control the story and make our own as we manipulate moving pictures with sound.  No two game plays of the same game will be exactly the same, even if they are remarkably similar due to the constrictions of the game.  This is where the game becomes the most artistic, in my mind.  When it is played by someone who makes their own story of how the game progresses.  How many different paths are open to you when you first begin your journey in Oblivion?  What different choices can you make stepping your first time into an MMORPG?  How many different ways can you kill the same five guys in any FPS?  How is this not a story?  How is this not art?  How can you tell me that making your own story is NOT art?

Video games are the current pinnical of art.  They combine all the things of the past that made things art as well as giving the person enjoying the art a sense of creating their own story through the medium.  I have very serious doubts that the way I play video games is the same way other people play video games.  The difference in the stories is remarkably large, even if the pre constructed story remains the same.  A sniper moving through the battle field will be largely different than a grunt.  A mage will make completely different moves than a warrior.  A car with front wheel drive will behave differently on the same track than a four wheel or rear wheel drive car.  To be perfectly honest, some of the most beautiful moments in my recent gaming history have been watching an expertly maneuvered vehicle go through twists and turns.

Really, though, this all comes down to a single question.  Is all art created equal?  If so, then pornography is just as valid as any movie playing in the Sundance Festival.  If not, then maybe we should start assigning values to our art to determine once and for all whose art is better than everyone elses.  It seems odd that everything in the world eventually just comes down to prick measuring.

Then again, I am just a crazed video gamer.  What do I know for art?

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

In video games, most of the time you watch a plot unfold without your control over it. And then when you finally gain control of the game, the plot suddenly comes to a total halt to let you enjoy the "game" part. Whatever you're performing in that time, be it solving problems, buy items, run errands, or what not, you're doing something remotely related to the actual, meaningful plot, and thus has tiniest bit of consequence.

If you want to include those parts like fighting thousands of critters that just runs around on fields, or crawling about in dungeons to find the best item ever as parts of the overall story, then I say that story is worse than the most boring story. The current pinnacle of art my arse.

Someone has said that art (in a general sense) is knowing what to take out of a work to perfect it. If all those sections involving player action must be dropped to be a better piece. But when one does exactly that, what do we have here? It's something with absolutely no characteristics that make a game what it is; we have a movie with a face of a game--machinima--but not a game.

--

XBL: NekoNari

http://notjustgame.blogspot.com/

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Art can be anything that tells any type of story, depending on who you are. Arguing what constitutes and does not constitute art is rather silly.

The most common explanation for what is art is: "Art is anything that expresses an intangible quality". By this definition, anything can be art as anything can be experienced differently by any number of different people.

I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Art is relative, dude. Even with your definition, many games fall into the art category because videogames tend to have stories. Stories are ideas y'know.

 

Let's stop trying to find reasons to keep games from being considered art, 'kay?

Reality/////////////////////////////////////Fantasy. Seems like a pretty thick line to me...

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

True but I know that some people will asume that if games are considered art, they will call us artists if there is any level making involed. That alone would get me ready to knee someone in the face.

We don't need the government, all we need is Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security!

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

hell yeah games are art. games require "artist" to help make the games and games also follow a "ART" direction when it comes to scenery and the characters so yes games are art.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Anything can be called an art these days.

I will not buy securom games. http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message1.jpg and http://www.wolvenmoon.com/sharedfiles/message2.jpg

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I'd like to say I'm surprised at the number of angry response to this story. I know the status of video games is contentious but try not to take this specific story personally, people argue over what constitutes art all the time; it's not necessarily a slight.

I doubt many of us would get so upset if someone questioned "modern art" in the same way. Keep a sense of perspective.

Gift.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

This is a gaming website. I don't see why these responses would seem surprising. Go to a poetry forum and tell them they're worshipping a dead art, then come back and tell me how many friendly replies you get.

It doesn't help that Faraci makes the mistake of ending his editoral with a jab against anyone who might have arguements against him.

The Honest Game - http://www.thehonestgame.org

The Honest Game - http://www.thehonestgame.org

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

If I did that on a poetry forum I'd expect to be laughed off actually. I'm surprised more gamers don't do the same. After all Mr. Faraci can say what he likes on art it doesn't mean he has a point worth listening to. As I said above, his very narrow definition excludes a good deal of modern art not just games; it's silly and not worth getting annoyed over.

Gift.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Personaly I think that video games are more like a book and a movie combined with personal interaction, then art like a painting or a poem. Although there are some games that are in a different sense of the word art, like the one game Flower.

 

In life there is one constant. When an opinion is made, an idiot can change it to be hurtful.

We don't need the government, all we need is Medicare, Medicade, and Social Security!

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

let me be the first to say this...

 

Fuck the elitist artists and connesiours.  They are so damn winded up in their abstract rants about what's art that they make no sense half the time.

Can't we have a simple defination please?

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I find it kind of funny that someone writing for a Web site that most likely takes its name from either the movie 'C.H.U.D.' or one of Stephen King's pulpier novels, 'It,' is trying to define what is and isn't "art."

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling

 

Okay so this has probably been said, but Games are just that. Yes Games have rules, games are playable, but the rules are not the only aspect of a game, it's just that it makes it a game. A Video game tells a story just like a book or a play, or even a movie. It's visuals are something like a painting each area there to communicate an idea or feeling, the music too does the same thing. Take a game like Silent hill, the combined Story, visuals and music all work together to enhance your nervousness to pull you in like a book does through written description to paint a picture in your mind.

To use the monopoly and Chess as this idiot did....yes Monopoly and chess have rules, a beautifully crafted game board, pieces whatever is still art, someone purposefully created those things to make someone feel like while she were playing that she was playing above her station. "Oh isn't this just a gorgeous set? makes me feel like a high class lady! I bet all rich people have sets like this!" That's exactly what these sorts of things are made for...to communicate the idea that because someone has that board or set that she is high class, she gets kind of a confidence boost in that area I imagine.

So really all that stuff fits perfectly into that definition, I imagine this person has never played a video game or they'd see what all was involved.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

If a urinal can be considered art - I suspect a game can too...

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I take it you are refering to Marcel Duchamp's Fountain?

Because that was the whole point being made by the Dadaists (anti-art) to the art establiments and schools at the time. Duchamp, if he were alive today, would think games as art. Isn't chess a ready-made object?

And I bet Devin Faraci would fit in with those jerks who hated the Dadaists. Or he could be a descendant of a member from the Académie des Beaux-Arts who thought the Impressionts' work wasn't art. Cause his faulty complaints sound too simlair for my tastes, you could interchange it for any art style developed through the years. (Artist who is also into Art History)

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

No piece of art is really complete until it has an audience because the viewer's own experiences add to the meaning of the work.  A painting in a closet isn't art, it's junk and/or unfinished.  A painting on a wall is art.

The point of art is to engage the viewer.  In my mind at least, this makes video games perfect for art.  You can't experience a game without playing it, so the medium forces engagement in the piece.  Okay, I guess you could watch someone esle play it, but I can never do that without wanting to play myself.

 

 

-- Obi

-- Obi

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

So wait... in the article he says that the music in games are art, the narrative in games is art, and goes on about all the elements in a game that could be considered art... but the game is not art... essentially he is saying that games are made out of art, but are somehow not art in and of themselves because of nothing more than the idea that "playing the game is not art"

That's got to be one of the stupidest arguements that i ever heard. Really how could combining all those artistic elements into a single piece and making it all flow and work together as one not be considered art in and of itself.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 Yeah that's a really weid thing to say. Its like saying a painting isn't art because looking at a painting isn't an art. 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Or that saying a painting isnt art, because its just some paint, and a canvas, and a frame, and some brushstrokes.

i.e. missing the point.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

He is emphasizing is that video games are never 100% artistic assets. If they were, all we're left buying are DVDs full of a collection of textures, 3d models and videos. I guess the question nobody seems to agree on is "how much art must exist in a product until the entire product can be considered art?" Or the opposite of this question, "how much art can you take away from a product until the product is no longer art?" The answers are highly subjective.

These questions would only fall on things where its creation crosses disciplines outside of artistic fields.

GameSnooper

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 Since when can't games commuinicate ideas or feelings though? I mean someone still has to design the areas and the characters, someone has to craft the models, someone has to write the story. So if the chess pieces are art but the actual playing of chess isn't, surely the game itself can be art while the actual playing and experiencing of it isn't.

 

Did he really think people meant PLAYING games is an art? 

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

I cried watching the final fist-fight with Old Snake and Liquid Ocelot in MGS4, I was moved that much.

Let's see the Mona Lisa do that.

300 Episodes and counting: http://www.orangeloungeradio.com/

400 Episodes, TEN YEARS and counting: http://www.orangeloungeradio.com/ | Voice of Geeks Network - http://www.vognetwork.com

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Yeah yeah, sounds like he's talking out of his ass. Move along, nothing new to see here.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Actually, the way he's talking leads me to believe him. I got the impression that he feels not all games are art, but they CAN be. Like the chessboard example. Just because it's a game doesn't mean it's art, but at the same time, there are many games that can be considered art by themselves. Thats the way I feel, anyway.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Saying playing the game is not art is the same as saying watching a movie or looking at a painting is not art: duh.  But the painting, the movie, and the game are all art. 

Screw You Mister Man.

Screw him! Games have made me who I am, molded my personality! MGS4 is so art. Some games... Who is this Dude?! He can go take a picnic at a park with biscuits and a side of my balls to suck on.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

To address Mr. Faraci's last question first:

We care about games (not gaming, mind you, a distinction Mr. Faraci seems confused about) being recognized as art because things recognized as art are easier to defend under the First Amendment, and games frequently come under legal attack. Additionally, we want to see the developers who work so hard to provide us with games get the recognition and honor they deserve.

The rest of his opposition to the idea comes down to the old, thorny question, "What is art?"

Nearly everyone who has seriously considered the question has their own unique slant on the answer, even if it amounts to "I know it when I see it." Mr. Faraci's claimed definition “something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling” actually comes fairly close to my own, but I feel that he betrays that definition with his own argument. He confuses technical elements of a medium with art expressed in that medium. He refers to "an exquisitely hand painted Monopoly board", for instance; while such a thing may be pretty, does it necessarily convey an idea or feeling? It could, perhaps--I could envision a bitterly satirical custom Monopoly board, for example--in which case it would be art by both Mr. Faraci's definition and mine. Merely being pretty, or the canvas of excellent painting techniques, is not sufficient, however. Indeed, many works of art could be considered ugly, or poorly executed.

To clarify my stance, my personal definition of art (which you are all free to throw tomatoes at, if you wish) is this: Art is anything created for the purpose of evoking a specific emotion or complex of emotions in an audience, or to convey an idea along with an emotional context for that idea. The medium is irrelevant to the definition--art is art.

So, are games art? They can be. Many aren't, of course; I would not call Pong art. Some most certainly are, however, and their numbers are growing. As a medium, games offer unprecedented flexibility and scope for art. They can engage audiences in ways no other single medium has managed.

Perhaps that's what naysayers like Mr. Faraci are afraid of.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

>> To clarify my stance, my personal definition of art (which you are all free to throw tomatoes at, if you wish)

maybe your definition isn't the best (not up to me to decide) but it's your attitude that makes you spot on and is exactly the missing element from Faraci - he's getting lots of tomatoes thrown at him for spewing his inanities and he doesn't like it one bit -check out the CHUD site where he's now complaining about all the feedback he's getting.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Interesting this guy says this not long after the release of The Path.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

yeah

 

The graveyard,

The Path,

Flower...

 

if those games arent 'art' then i honestly dont know what is.

 

The path is so messed up, but hauntingly beautiful. Totally spooky, and full of emotion, and metaphors about life, its amazin.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate


For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough?

I love it when people try to cover their opinions with last statements like this. He's basically saying, "here's all the reasons my opinion is right", and ends with, "why do you care about your opinion? You shouldn't try defending them, that's pointless."

I have to say, games have frequently had a profound impact on me. Games like KotOR that teaches lessons of supposedly "moral choices" that have unintended consequences. Or Terranigma, where I have shame in admitting that I had tears in my eyes at the end.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Playing Chess is not an art?

Okay, that guy is officially a ****tard.

 

------ Ago. Perceptum. Teneo.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 "GamePolitics Correspondent Andrew Eisen met Devin Faraci once and promptly forgot how to pronounce his name..."

It's pronounced "F**khead".

 

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Just wondering who decides what is art and what is not?

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

this d-bag contradicts himself and his main points are go-nowhere failures of logic

his definition stinks:
>> something purposefully created or presented with the intention of communicating an idea or feeling...

so then he says:
>> an exquisitely hand painted Monopoly board, for instance [is art]

really? how is an exquisitely painted Monopoly board communicating a feeling? and if it weren't 'exquisitely' painted then it wouldn't be art? he's trying to grapple with concepts that are out of his league, obviously.

>> in the end a game is simply a series of rules

ahh! but no one is saying that the rules are what's art, it's how those rules are manipulated, utilized, bent, broken, etc... to the will of those who are engaging the rules. Classical painting has quite a lot of rules (color, stroke, composition ,etc...) but it's how the painter manipulates those rules to create the painting that is the art as much as the finished product. this is completely lost on this ass clown.

>> For the people so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, I have to ask: why? Why does it matter to you that your hobby is validated in that way? If you're having fun, isn't that enough?

for those people so hung up on getting video games NOT recognozed as art, I have to ask: why? why does it matter to you that your hobby doesn't have a deeper meaning or affect on the human psyche? if you're having fun, why is that enough?

***

AE: Let's keep it a bit classier than that.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

>> AE: Let's keep it a bit classier than that.

sorry, I saw lots of classlessness in other posts and thought it was ok. I did try to couterpoint my lack of class with intelligent points... 'B' for effort?

but let me put the original point back in: I bet Faraci and Ebert agree on lots of things, in an out of bed.

still not classy but certainly a bit more :)

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

 @axiomatic

I agree with you. 

Most of what CHUD does seems to be an exercise in self-indulgence designed to get page views.

This is just another hack movie reviewer trying to drum up attention for themselves.

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Lets put it a different way. For me to get in to the game development world I have a fine arts bachelors degree and a 3d animation degree. I use the knowledge of those degrees with every thing I create. For the end result to NOT be art while built with every ounce of art knowledge I have is preposterous.

The codeing language under the art is mostly for displaying the art in an interactive manner, but that still doesn't change the fact that the product is still just moving art.

This Devin Faraci is really just twisting the semantics of the term "art" in a way that will generate page views for his article. IMO

Re: The Return of the "Are Games Art?" Debate

Oh, THIS old thing again.

Someone, please explain to me why this is art:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Marevich,_Suprematist_Composition-_White_on_White_1917.jpg

or this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Malevich.black-square.jpg

They... are considered masterpieces. Fine. If people want to think it's art, then it's art, OK?

Let's argue that. Michelangelo created that lovable naked statue of David. It was a disegno, which means it was a male art form based on the study of God. What that means is, if you don't believe in God, or the God that Michelangelo worshiped, then the statue of David might not be art. It's just a sculpture. Miquel Barcelo is an atheist painter that nonetheless designs art for churches. Is his "art" any less because he does not share the same ideas? If religion would not be your only persuasion on thought, how about your nationality, your race? The color of your skin? Would an African art mask be less art then a White Anglo-Saxon's painting?

Fartci isn't looking at the whole picture. He says we're so hung up on getting video games recognized as art, we don't have to. We already know. I don't think ALL games are art. I just think that much of the ones we have been seeing, especially as of late, have much to offer to the senses.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
NeenekoSo "worked" vs "failed" really comes down to who you think is more important and deserving04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoThough I am also not sure we can say NYC failed. Rent control helped the people it was intended for and is considered a failure by the people it was designed to protect them from.04/15/2014 - 7:04pm
NeenekoIf they change the rules, demand will plummet. Though yeah, rent control probably would not help much in the SF case. I doubt anything will.04/15/2014 - 1:35pm
TheSmokeyOnline gamer accused of murdering son to keep playing - http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Crime/2014/04/15/21604921.html04/15/2014 - 11:50am
Matthew Wilsonyup, but curent city rules do not allow for that.04/15/2014 - 11:00am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician