[Xcommunicated]

The US Supreme Court sees video games as art, and are thereby protected under the First Amendment. From a political standpoint here in the States, it's basically case closed.

However, much like film, music, literature or any other artistic medium, not every game is going to be considered a "work of art". At some point I'm sure that art museums will have gaming exhibits that showcase titles merited as "exceptional" art.

[mrpain]

Ahh, Mirrors Edge is a good example of games being art. The way the game uses color was simply brilliant.

I believe they are two type of games: Games for the explosive junkie and games for the artistic individual. Take for example, shooters like Modern Warfare, Battlefield and Gears Of Wars, sure, they may be fun games, but I don't consider them art at all. They're just simply mindless-shooting fun.

Now games for the artistic individual has a different feeling to it. It just brings a new experience to gaming and therefore considered art. Some Indie games such as Braid and LIMBO comes to mind, where the artists that made the game created a atmospheric world with just some of the finest 2D graphics.



Not only Indie games can be considered arts. Some of the major titles out there too can be considered art. Take Borderlands for example. It's odd but beautiful cel-shaded art style definitely brought a fresh new experience to the shooting experience.

[Robinski]

Inevitably, I think they will be. But now? Not so much.

Interactive mediums are the obvious next step in art creation. We've gone from simple, one dimensional creations (visual art, music) to combined mediums (film, music videos) and interaction just seems like the next step to me. But at this point in time, I think we're only just starting to see what videogames can be, and what we as a culture (as in, everyone, not just young, middle class males) want them to be.

It's a lot like film, in the early days, when the tech was simple and the medium untrusted, you tended to get pictures that amounted to tech demos with little and simplistic, if any, storytelling. Then as it moved on you got a lot of (what we now consider) mediocre and middle-of-the-road films that a particular demographic enjoyed. Sure, you occasionally got your Citizen Kanes and your 12 Angry Men, much as you get your Portals and your whatever these days, but largely there wasn't many greats in the earlier days.

I reckon we're still a while away from having serious classes about the nuances and finer details of making video games like we do for film now. If you tell people you're taking a film class these days, they might think you're a bit pretentious, but tell them you're taking a videogame class and the eye-roll you'll get could power third world nations.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 06:06)

From a political standpoint here in the States, it's basically case closed.

but not because the Supreme Court said so.

video games have always been art by definition.

QUOTE (Robinski @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 06:24)

Inevitably, I think they will be. But now? Not so much.

ok, now I've seen several people echo this same exact sentiment.
but you're wrong.

just because you personally don't find today's games to be "beautiful" or something, you say they aren't art.
or just because they don't have all the "fine nuances" of a great feature length film, you say they aren't art.

but that was never the qualification for art.
art can be ugly. art can be crude with little detail.

the definition of art is the expression of creative ideas that can be shared with others.
that's what video games are.

[Robinski]

That'd all be well and true if the question was "Are games art?", but it was;

QUOTE

Do you think Video Games should be considered an Art Form in the humanities aspect?

Personally, I'm one of those soppy people who will define anything done as expression as art, but we're talking about acceptance by society as a whole and the establishment, not at an individual level.

[Otter]

Whoa whoa whoa. Hold on. "Simple, one dimensional [media]" - what are you smoking?

[Robinski]

I mean like paintings, sculpture, architecture, music etc. You're either looking at it or listening to it. There's one way you take it in.

[Xcommunicated]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:59)

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 06:06) From a political standpoint here in the States, it's basically case closed. but not because the Supreme Court said so. video games have always been art by definition.

Actually within the context of my post, yes, because the Supreme Court says so, hence the significance of them being protected under the the First Amendment like every other artistic medium.

QUOTE

because video games start as an idea that is eventually created in physical form and expressed using a medium that can be shared with people all over the world. and that's essentially the definition of art.

The problem with this definition is that it's too generalized. By such a definition some twat could try to defend, in the literal sense, child porn, bestiality and snuff films as art. Obviously freedom of expression should never be granted to anything that violates human or animal rights. Extreme examples, but the right to freedom of speech is essential when properly recognizing a medium as an art form, at least within the US it is.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Robinski @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 14:05)

but we're talking about acceptance by society as a whole and the establishment, not at an individual level.

are we?

there are many types of art that were not "accepted" by "society as a whole" until long after they were created.
just because it took time for them to be recognized as art doesn't mean that they were not art before then.

they were always art.
society is slow to change when it comes to almost anything. that doesn't make them right.

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:22)

Actually within the context of my post, yes, because the Supreme Court says so, hence the significance of them being protected under the the First Amendment like every other artistic medium.

but the "context of your post" is not universal.

video games were art long before the Supreme Court said anything about them.

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:22)

The problem with this definition is that it's too generalized.

says who?
that has always been the definition of art.

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:22)

By such a definition some twat could try to defend, in the literal sense, child porn, bestiality and snuff films as art.

well sure.
but we already know that obscenity (especially when it causes physical harm to other living things) is NEVER art.

that doesn't change the definition of art.

[Xcommunicated]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 17:34)

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:22) Actually within the context of my post, yes, because the Supreme Court says so, hence the significance of them being protected under the the First Amendment like every other artistic medium. but the "context of your post" is not universal.

Oh, but it is.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 17:34)

video games were art long before the Supreme Court said anything about them.

In a totally subjective and unprotected sense, they sure were.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 17:34)

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:22) The problem with this definition is that it's too generalized. says who? that has always been the definition of art.

Fine, let's say the idea of having to take a sh*t enters my mind, then I eventually turn that into a physical form in a public restroom. I leave my pile of sh*t sitting in the toilet to share with others. Not many would classify that as art, so yeah, too generalized.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 17:34)

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 15:22) By such a definition some twat could try to defend, in the literal sense, child porn, bestiality and snuff films as art. well sure. but we already know that obscenity (especially when it causes physical harm to other living things) is NEVER art. that doesn't change the definition of art.

If you mean "we" as in "everybody", then that would definitely be ideal, but you'd be sorely surprised.

My whole point is simply that by video games being protected under the first amendment, developers have a right to artistic expression. Had California successfully banned what they deemed as violent video games, that would have set a precedent for other states to do so. It'd be hard to recognize a medium as an art form if it's being censored or denied public access, which would basically contradict the very definition you're throwing around in the first place.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 16:16)

Oh, but it is.

sorry but it's not.

the US Supreme Court is not the authority on the entire world and it's history.

QUOTE

Fine, let's say the idea of having to take a sh*t enters my mind, then I eventually turn that into a physical form in a public restroom.  I leave my pile of sh*t sitting in the toilet to share with others.

you and I both know that that's a very stupid example and a poor attempt at a Straw Man rebuke.

what you just said does nothing to counter my original point.

QUOTE

My whole point is simply that by video games being protected under the first amendment, developers have a right to artistic expression.

and I agree.

but my point is that video games were always art.
they didn't explicitly need 1st amendment protections in the US in order to gain that distinction.

QUOTE

It'd be hard to recognize a medium as an art form if it's being censored or denied public access

this is not true.

many artists from many disciplines (painters, musicians, authors, etc) have had their work censored at various times in various places throughout history.
this never stopped it from being recognized as art both before and after the fact.

just because the state attempts to censor something doesn't mean it suddenly cannot be art.

[Tchuck]

As a developer, I believe striving for games to become recognized as art is pointless. From a financial perspective, the more games approach the product realm of things, the better they'll become.
As a gamer, it doesn't make any difference to me. It won't make other people respect games any more than they do, and it won't suddenly make games insanely fantastic and deep. In fact, most blatant attempt at "deep" and "meaningful" games come off as ridiculously pretentious, much like much of the Art made today. Occasionally a game comes along, like say Shadow of the Colossus, that hits all the right buttons and could definitely be considered a piece of art, but it wasn't set to become a piece of art, that's why it's good.

However, games can go to a deeper level. Games, not just computer one, belong to a higher level, are an innate part of our culture. While Art is but an expression of the artist's feelings, views on something or what have you, games are part of what we are. And that, to me, is more important than being considered "art".

[Xcommunicated]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 16:16) Oh, but it is. sorry but it's not.

Sorry, but it is. Or how about, I know you are but what am I? Like that one better?

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

the US Supreme Court is not the authority on the entire world and it's history.

And the funny thing is I'm not even trying to argue such a thing to be the case.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

QUOTE Fine, let's say the idea of having to take a sh*t enters my mind, then I eventually turn that into a physical form in a public restroom.  I leave my pile of sh*t sitting in the toilet to share with others. you and I both know that that's a very stupid example and a poor attempt at a Straw Man rebuke.

Nope, it only serves to exemplify why such a dirty-hippie definition of art doesn't hold up... or should I say, holds up even when you don't want it to hold up.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

what you just said does nothing to counter my original point.

And what exactly was that again? That Video games fit a vague and overly general definition? What's funnier is that I never tried to counter that because lots of things fit that definition just fine.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

QUOTE My whole point is simply that by video games being protected under the first amendment, developers have a right to artistic expression. and I agree. but my point is that video games were always art. they didn't explicitly need 1st amendment protections in the US in order to gain that distinction.

Yet I wasn't trying to argue that they weren't art before said ruling. The key words I had used were from a political standpoint. That is the "universal context" of my post over which I so foolishly engaged in such childish argument with you.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Friday, Apr 13 2012, 19:32)

QUOTE It'd be hard to recognize a medium as an art form if it's being censored or denied public access this is not true. many artists from many disciplines (painters, musicians, authors, etc) have had their work censored at various times in various places throughout history. this never stopped it from being recognized as art both before and after the fact. just because the state attempts to censor something doesn't mean it suddenly cannot be art.

Again, not the point I was arguing. For an art form to prosper and be recognized on a large scale, it helps when political discretions aren't hindering it.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 12:33)

Sorry, but it is.

you can say it is but you're still wrong.

the Supreme Court does not speak for the entire world or it's history that extends thousands of years before the courts creation.

QUOTE

it only serves to exemplify why such a dirty-hippie definition of art doesn't hold up... or should I say, holds up even when you don't want it to hold up.

clearly you don't understand what a Straw Man argument is because you've just tried to use it again.

your "example" of public excrement is a poor Straw Man at best and your attempt to classify my definition of art as a "dirty-hippie definition" immediately renders your opinion that much less valid. the definition I gave is one you'll find in virtually every university art course in the world.

I've studied architecture in Versailles and they used essentially the same explanation of art there as I was taught in the States.
the fact that you would label it the "dirty-hippie definition" shows - not only that you're childish - but that you're grasping at straws while your tenuous position erodes under the weight of your ignorance.

QUOTE

Yet I wasn't trying to argue that they weren't art before said ruling.  The key words I had used were from a political standpoint.

yes and that's why I had to remind you that art was never in need of US political protections in order to be recognized as such.

it's not hard to comprehend.

QUOTE

For an art form to prosper and be recognized on a large scale, it helps when political discretions aren't hindering it.

thanks Captain Obvious

[Xcommunicated]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:50)

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 12:33) Sorry, but it is. you can say it is but you're still wrong. the Supreme Court does not speak for the entire world or it's history that extends thousands of years before the courts creation.

Stop being so inexplicably dense already. At no point was this the basis of my argument.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:50)

QUOTE it only serves to exemplify why such a dirty-hippie definition of art doesn't hold up... or should I say, holds up even when you don't want it to hold up. clearly you don't understand what a Straw Man argument is because you've just tried to use it again. your "example" of public excrement is a poor Straw Man at best and your attempt to classify my definition of art as a "dirty-hippie definition" immediately renders your opinion that much less valid. the definition I gave is one you'll find in virtually every university art course in the world. I've studied architecture in Versailles and they used essentially the same explanation of art there as I was taught in the States. the fact that you would label it the "dirty-hippie definition" shows - not only that you're childish - but that you're grasping at straws while your tenuous position erodes under the weight of your ignorance.

In no way has my "straw man" example misrepresented such a catch-all definition. But in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even matter. Art at the most rudimentary level is still totally subjective, so it really makes no difference how it's defined. Still, any dictionary will provide a more robust definition than that.

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:50)

QUOTE Yet I wasn't trying to argue that they weren't art before said ruling.  The key words I had used were from a political standpoint. yes and that's why I had to remind you that art was never in need of US political protections in order to be recognized as such. it's not hard to comprehend.

I needed no such reminder as I was fully aware and knowing of such.

Look, homeslice, I already understand your argument just fine and I'm really not trying to disagree with you because I personally have perceived games as an art form for a long time. But it's clear to me that you took my original post out of context. It's quite clear I made no implication that government intervention is a necessity for classifying something as art.

[El_Diablo]

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:33)

I'm really not trying to disagree with you

ok then.

[Xcommunicated]

QUOTE (El_Diablo @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 20:06)

QUOTE (Xcommunicated @ Saturday, Apr 14 2012, 17:33) I'm really not trying to disagree with you ok then.

Fixed, since this is the second time you've taken my words out of context. Seriously though, enough of this crap. PM me if you still want to argue, otherwise, get back to the topic.

[oysterbarron]

It's mass produced sh*t. Its going to be no more defined than your average toaster made in china.