Why is it so imporant for video games to be considered art?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Games have never not been an art form. We just don't want to be dismissed as people obsessing over meaningless toys.

At least I don't, anyway.

krazykidd:

I get what you are saying and i agree . Just that my question is "why?". Why is ot important that those few games , as you said, should be considered art . What difference does it make ?

I'm not agruing that some games should or should not be art . I want to know why does it matter .

( note i am not directing this at you personally, just trying to make people think about the motivation behin wanting to considere games art, thats what i'm curious about )

Well, for one, there's a legal reason, since so many game developers are based in the U.S., or otherwise tied to the U.S. , having the medium considered art would save them a lot of trouble with censorship and idiots like Arnie or that lawyer dude (yeah, I know, I make a hell of an argument, I just can't remember his name) who want to ban games.

There's also social validation, it's nice to be able to say you're involved into something important, it just makes some people feel better about themselves, and why not?

There's also the fact that we should call things what they are. Gaming is, without a doubt, art. Hell, it basically incorporates film and photography (or at least some aspects of those as an art form) so saying it's not art simply because you have absolutely no understanding of the medium is stupid (I'm looking at you Ebert)

Personally I'm not fussed about it, I've been a gamer my entire life, I recognize gaming for what it is, and simply not calling it art won't stop the artists from their craft. So I'm good either way, but gaming as a whole could probably benefit from being considered and art form.

I'm also certain that in due time it will be.

krazykidd:

Vigormortis:
It's not important for games as a whole to be considered "art". Just like we don't consider all films, music, books, or even paintings/sculptures art.

However, it IS important that we recognize the few games out there that should be considered art. Ones that are unique, extremely well-crafted, present finely tuned ideas, and either tell a compelling story or present compelling characters. (or both)

Not all games fall into the category of what one would consider art. High art or not. But there are some that are exquisite works of skill and design. These should be called art. Just like any film fitting that criteria.

I get what you are saying and i agree . Just that my question is "why?". Why is ot important that those few games , as you said, should be considered art . What difference does it make ?

I'm not agruing that some games should or should not be art . I want to know why does it matter .

( note i am not directing this at you personally, just trying to make people think about the motivation behin wanting to considere games art, thats what i'm curious about )

For the same reasons we often make a point of recognizing certain songs, drawings, or films as art.

Firstly, as a statement of recognition in quality. Like giving an award to someone who wins a race, labeling someones work as 'art' is generally viewed as saying their work is worthy of recognition. Worthy of praise. (even if it may not be to ones liking, but that's for another discussion on objectivity and subjectivity)

Secondly, it's a way of showing to others, now and in the future, something profound or an example of the best the creative minds of the day had to offer. Labeling something art, in this sense, is like saying, "This is a shining example of someone truly talented, truly gifted, crafting something most people can't. Crafting something that's meaningful, expressive, and thought-provoking.

That's why, at least to me, it's important that video-game design be considered as valid an art form as film, music, or literature. But again, just like those other 'art' forms, not all examples within the medium can be considered 'art'.

[edit] Also, let's not forget that just about every other art-form we recognize in society is used in game design. Animation, music and sound design, drawing, sculpting, architecture. You name it. So it confounds me why we'll consider all of those things, separately, art. But combined they can no longer have that distinction. Perplexing.

So that shit like "The Xbox causes Murders in young people" doesn't happen. Its also allows gaming to fit under certain things like 'freedom of speech' and what not.

I never really cared to be honest.

Art can and usually does suck. The word really doesn't mean much to me.

dyre:

Erana:

dyre:
One of the big events that the "games are art" debate centered around was the Supreme Court case on the California law banning M games being sold to minors. I believe one of the criteria for protecting games was that it had artistic value (unlike, say, porn).

Wait, why is it so selfish? To want something (games reaching art status in the mainstream consciousness) that benefits a large number of people (gamers) at no cost to anyone else? That's hardly selfish.

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

1.) Legal protection from the Jack Thompsons and Leland Yees of the world
2.) Removing social stigma towards certain themes in games (violence, sex, etc.) and towards games on the whole
3.) And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't companies producing art get tax breaks of some sort?

krazykidd:
snip

the way I see it, its not about being considered "art" I dont think theres any question there

I think its more about being held to a higher standard and reaching the heights they can go

kind of like Alan Moore and comic books

C2Ultima:
Games have never not been an art form

Are you looking hard enough before saying that?? If your answer to this question is "i dont really care" or "i have better things to do than do any research" then congratulations, you have achieved the same lvl of thinking that any non gamers has over games in general. Now we have to solve this lazyness that people has so we can show them that games arent a waste of time without shoving the truth right up their's throat.

GrizzlerBorno:
Video games need to be considered an artistic medium so that other people realize what they've been missing out on when they summed up all games as "blood and tits". After that they will, hopefully, join in and have their minds blown by good games.... or they'll just feel bad. I prefer the former, but the latter isn't so bad either.

Aaaaah irony, so delicious

I wonder why there isnt someone that is a film critic and can actually compare some games to films, in such a way that people will understand that games are not so diferent from movies but ALSO they can achieve even MORE than films??

Also, i love how some people dont buy comic books but they do buy graphic novels (even if its the same shit) We just devolved back to the medieval age where if you mention Alchemy you will get the pitchfork and torches greeting, but if you say "Chemistry" then its aaaaaaaawright. Its not like they are the same thing......oh wait

renegade7:
1.) Legal protection from the Jack Thompsons and Leland Yees of the world
2.) Removing social stigma towards certain themes in games (violence, sex, etc.) and towards games on the whole
3.) And correct me if I'm wrong, but don't companies producing art get tax breaks of some sort?

And what does that law says about art? What does that law considers "art"?

Erana:

dyre:

Erana:

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

Waiting? no offense but that isn't the way to do it. We need people that we, the gamers, can trust to expose and debunk any myth and misconception about games by the time the world decides to ask a professional about it. It NEEDS to be well documented for EVERYONE to see and we need to pass the voice in such a way that people will be forced to talk about it even if they are not gamers due to the sheer impact and pressure over public (remember, humans are social creatures and in order to belong to a group they had to share the same ideas as the group)

Lets just hope, however, that the people we "elect" as our voice don't become obnoxious assholes like John Romero whose GALACTIC EGO wasn't precisely a good image for us, isn't it?

Stalk3rchief:
I really don't know, to me a game is a game. But, I'll admit, many games have made me feel something so maybe that has something to do with it. /shrug

I am surpriced that no flame war started by your statement of "a game its a game". I was expecting the same reaction like when you say to a bunch of Star War fans that "its just a movie"

Vanilla_Druid:

DioWallachia:

erttheking:
Mainly because people keep viewed it as a childish waste of time and we all want to be more like Yahtzee.

They want to be an Asexual Misanthrope Supreme that play bad mainstream games for the rest of his career?

That is a rather accurate description of Yahtzee. His constant negativity and bile starts to take a toll on a person. I suppose that is why I no longer watch reviews anymore; there is too much negativity and not enough talk about the positives.

His REAL reviews are in the Extra Puctuation not the "comedic" ones.

But anyway, do you think that he is one of the many people we need in the front by representing the games as a legitimate medium?? (Along with the Extra Credits people)
Or he is too munch of a train-break that people WILL seek excuses to devalidate his opinions?? Maybe we SHOULD get him just for that, after all, it will act as an STRAWMAN-BAIT. If the anti-game people is stupid enough to use those as an excuse then we can make them look bad because they lowered themselves to doing so AND Yathzee and the others will refute them easily. What do you think?

Erana:

dyre:

Erana:

If you'd read on to the rest of the thread, you would have found that I have acknowledged my poor wording and explained the source of my frustrations.

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

I think these are really separate issues. I mean, for gamers to dismiss contemporary art movements while insisting that gaming is art is no doubt hypocritical, but really, doesn't most of the public dismiss contemporary art? So it's no gain for art enthusiasts, but not much of a loss anyway since the gamers' feelings on art is the same as the status quo anyway.

Also, I think gamers who want gaming to be "art" really just want it to be a more mature and respectable medium. They don't really want it to be like art, especially not stuff like Duchamp. Maybe more like realism or impressionism would be better, lol.

I mean, they want games to move from something like Eragon to something more like Song of Ice and Fire, but they're uninterested in seeing any Faulkner, if that makes any sense.

Sorry if I missed your point, I found myself a little confused at what you were trying to say.

krazykidd:
The question is in the title . Why is it so important for video gakes to be considered art? Does it really matter? If they are considered art , then what? Gamers could pride themselves at being art fans? I just don't see the importance of videogames being considered an artform or not .

Now i am not saying i don't see games as art but art or not i will continue playing videogames . Is it just so the media would see gamers as somethin more than childish adults? If you are ashamed of gaming and need validation from the outside world for you hobby, i think theres a problem .

Discuss

You're showing a bit of bias in your post, no this has nothing to do with a feeling of validation from the outside world. Some would define art as an object without purpose, it just is, this is why most modern art is abstract and ugly to most viewers, it is meant to portray itself as art and nothing else. Art is not made to entertain, or help you out in daily life, a car cannot be art since it serves a purpose and thus cannot fit the description. Games on the other hand can fit the description but almost never do, games are meant for entertainment and enjoyment, they are not merely there to be the object alone, with enjoyment not factored into the development.

Art also lacks a definite definition so there are some differing ideas out there, some think art is meant to express emotions and feelings, others think that something a person perceives as pretty is art.

Do some see the label of art as a badge of honor? Sure, but I doubt those people know the true battle that is going on between the art world and games to really know why it even matters. Some developers are trying to use games as an outlet for art, like another medium in the same respect that paint or even music. These are the true people who want to change the status quo, don't worry your games will most likely never be considered art much in the same way country music and heavy music isn't considered art either.

His REAL reviews are in the Extra Puctuation not the "comedic" ones.

But anyway, do you think that he is one of the many people we need in the front by representing the games as a legitimate medium?? (Along with the Extra Credits people)
Or he is too munch of a train-break that people WILL seek excuses to devalidate his opinions?? Maybe we SHOULD get him just for that, after all, it will act as an STRAWMAN-BAIT. If the anti-game people is stupid enough to use those as an excuse then we can make them look bad because they lowered themselves to doing so AND Yathzee and the others will refute them easily. What do you think?

Well, I guess I just have a problem with "comedic" reviews. They all seem to emulate the Angry Video Game Nerd to some degree and say nothing but "this x sucks!" I am sorry if I seemed like I was speaking ill of Yahtzee (I respect the man), I just think he should be less bitter. Also, he is far from being a train-wreck.

dyre:

Erana:

dyre:

Hey, if I made it a habit to read through entire threads around here, I'd never have time to actually make posts!

That said, I went back and read it; so you're upset at people hijacking the art argument for their own ends without a care for the art argument itself? I guess that's understandable, sortof. Still, I don't think the "real" art enthusiasts are really being hurt by the support of their less-interested gamer counterparts. I mean, maybe they don't help much, but their goals aren't counterproductive to your own.

In terms of an ultimate goal, no, there isn't a conflict, but when the goal involves a lot of art politic nonsense, it is counterproductive to disregard the art world.
The thing is, though, people don't just stop at ignoring it. Just look at any thread about contemporary art. Someone just brings up Duchamp or some modernist work or some contemporary white paintings, insults it because it doesn't suit a specific practical sensibility, and dismisses the art world as a whole. Quite often, they'll go and use language indicating that they have absolutely no understanding of contemporary art, and make it feel like they have never even given it a chance.

Its all just a clustercuss of nerd frustration, ignorant ire from society and obliviousness of the art world, and the only people willing to fight for games aren't even aware of what needs to happen.
I chastise the selfish motivations for many, but that is because such a stance really does little for the cause. To be accepted as art, games need artists. And for all the merits of great art games left and right, they are great by standards of video games.
In order to fit into the art world as an emerging medium, games need to be deconstructed to its core, and the heart of what gaming is identified.
The past many decades in contemporary art history have all been spent in incessant production and discussion pertaining to the nature of mediums and the culture that surrounds it: painting as the 2D plane, performance as an intangiable experience, what it means for a work to be placed in a gallery and decorated with the label of "art."

And now, how do we begin to discover this new medium of games? Where can you even begin to start understanding something that is evolving so quickly, and which takes time, skill and funding to create, even to sustain itself as a commercial product?
I suppose with the former, you would simply look for historic parallels and while the latter is still a great hurdle, this situation is improving...

This time will come, I'm certain of it. I have confidence in the medium, the strange, infantile thing that it is. Video games are already too engrained in the design of our rising technology.
It is just a matter of waiting.

I think these are really separate issues. I mean, for gamers to dismiss contemporary art movements while insisting that gaming is art is no doubt hypocritical, but really, doesn't most of the public dismiss contemporary art? So it's no gain for art enthusiasts, but not much of a loss anyway since the gamers' feelings on art is the same as the status quo anyway.

Also, I think gamers who want gaming to be "art" really just want it to be a more mature and respectable medium. They don't really want it to be like art, especially not stuff like Duchamp. Maybe more like realism or impressionism would be better, lol.

I mean, they want games to move from something like Eragon to something more like Song of Ice and Fire, but they're uninterested in seeing any Faulkner, if that makes any sense.

Sorry if I missed your point, I found myself a little confused at what you were trying to say.

For a medium as a whole to generally be accepted as a form of art on a general level, you need the existing institutions of fine art to consider it so. Therefore, it needs to be indoctrinated as a form in the same way other mediums experienced a rebirth in the modernist/postmodernist era.

The art world has huge clout in the national subconscious of what is art. They're the ones who need to be convinced, and the only way that's going to happen is by speaking their language.

krazykidd:
The question is in the title . Why is it so important for video gakes to be considered art? Does it really matter? If they are considered art , then what? Gamers could pride themselves at being art fans? I just don't see the importance of videogames being considered an artform or not .

Now i am not saying i don't see games as art but art or not i will continue playing videogames . Is it just so the media would see gamers as somethin more than childish adults? If you are ashamed of gaming and need validation from the outside world for you hobby, i think theres a problem .

Discuss

For me, it is much less about seeing all (or even most) games rise to the Art title by becoming interactive Mona Lisas... it's more that I want the medium to be validated and recognized for what it does already have to offer. Much like the early novel - which was, for a long time, not considered literature, but rather a diversion for people of little means and less class to fill empty hours with. Yet now we study them and we recognize what those authors have done, by providing that entertainment, to give insight to the day-to-day life of their times, address social issues (or at least bring them up), and reflect the intellectual processes of their era. I want to see video games recognized as a medium that does these things too - yes, in the name of entertainment - yes, as a diversion to fill empty hours... but still - there is so much they can offer and so much we can learn from them as they stand. Without some recognition of being an art form they remain just toys in the eyes of society, and that perception is an inaccuracy that should be addressed.

Socially speaking, I don't give a shit about games ever being "art" or "important" to others. I like myself more than enough to handle something as insignificant as having some coolguy dude show his ignorance by telling me games are toys or whatever.

Legally, though, it matters because it adds more protection. Freedom of speech and all. So in that regard, I kinda care. But not all that much. As the industry is now, every game I could ever wanna play has or is being made. And the older I get, the less thrilled I get with "museum bait" stuff, across any medium.

Simple, because they deserve it. They're as artistically valuable as literature and cinema and deserve the same respect. Games shouldn't have to live in fear of being judged, misunderstood, or unappreciated.

Besides, the more people take games seriously, the more potential designers we have, and the more the developers already here will be encouraged to take themselves seriously.

Games getting the respect they deserve should be an end in and of itself, even without the good it would do the industry.

More government funding, I mean so that people can feel they're making something more. And they're are examples of interactive art out there. So a video game is just an interactive movie, so why not.

Now I'm to tired to think of anything more solid or iron out anything further.

I think it's less about being "art" and more about being "Not just kid's shit."

Gamers in large want respect for their medium, and while I think this desire is entirely legitimate, I don't think games are actually art. Unfortunately whenever I voice that opinion, people interpret me as saying "Video games are just kid shit." so I get jumped.

Urgh. It looks like there is a really long discussion here that I can't be arsed reading. I shall simply give my opinion and if it happens to coincide with yours, consider it a compliment.

I would like for video games to be considered a form of art because it would help legitimise it in the eyes of the general society. Partially because it would curb ridicule regarding it but mostly because I love video games and what they are capable of and want more people to be able to experience them.
It's a relatively young medium and it would really suck if it got snuffed out before we could properly explore it. It needs the support of the wider communtity to really flourish.

Some prancy reason, like some consider alcoholism, sex, grilling or cooking and art, not to mention art itself.

Art, like bureaucracy, serves the one goal of propagating itself, making it a form of communal parasite.

krazykidd:
The question is in the title . Why is it so important for video gakes to be considered art? Does it really matter? If they are considered art , then what? Gamers could pride themselves at being art fans? I just don't see the importance of videogames being considered an artform or not .

Now i am not saying i don't see games as art but art or not i will continue playing videogames . Is it just so the media would see gamers as somethin more than childish adults? If you are ashamed of gaming and need validation from the outside world for you hobby, i think theres a problem .

Discuss

It isn't about games being considered art.

It's about games being art.

In fact, there has been large amount of needless pretentiousness in the games community lately, not because they actually care about games as art, but because "art" is a magic label that protects things from censorship. Sadly, I'd say that even with all the talk about games becoming more sophisticated and such, it's always in the worst possible way. "Gritty realistic" stories and "adult themes" do not make something deep or make it worth while. Sexual content and moral ambiguity are tools not ends. Blood and gore doesn't make the vast majority of violence in video games less juvenile.

This may be a shock to a number of people here, but when the world looks at our hobby and says that it's childish, they're right. Don't get me wrong. I love stupid fun, but it isn't fulfilling. I can't think about most games as being some metaphor for real life because they have absolutely no redeeming qualities with regards to context. I only have a certain amount of time to live, and I don't want most of it to be wasted on only semi-conscious action.

We want our hobby to be taken seriously. Simple as that.

The censorship would not be as drastic, plus games would gain more protection and possibly even more support.

Plus I think deserve the same level of respect that any other artistic medium has. For goodness sake they put so much effort into their jobs, yet by people who aren't gamers, they are seen as just "toy makers". I think a certain level of respect would be appreciated, just like with any other artistic medium.

Games are still seen as childish and a waste of time. This in turn is why I was so afraid to tell my parents that I wanted to become a Game Designer. I had told all my friends, yet I didn't have the guts to tell my parents, since I was so afraid that they would disapprove and see as some "childish" fantasy.

Waffle_Man:

This may be a shock to a number of people here, but when the world looks at our hobby and says that it's childish, they're right. Don't get me wrong. I love stupid fun, but it isn't fulfilling. I can't think about most games as being some metaphor for real life because they have absolutely no redeeming qualities with regards to context. I only have a certain amount of time to live, and I don't want most of it to be wasted on only semi-conscious action.

But for some reason you get the childish stigma to games rather than books about fantasy like for example Lord of The Rings who technically ARE a waste of time for anyone else but the reader. What i mean is that, under the way i THINK outsiders of x medium THINK, LOTR should techinically, under their eyes, be a childish waste of time.

But anyway, i am pretty sure that back then even movies where considered childish. In fact, when you think about movies of that age, specially black and white, what is the first thing that it comes to mind?? comedies, specially Charles Chaplin shorts. But a breakthrough came and all people started to take movies seriously (unless you are Michael Bay)

The real question is how long do games need to suffer this stigma even when i am absolutely sure that there is PLENTY of evidence and works in the gaming medium to show that they ARENT a waste of time?? And remember, when the movies had their "breakthrough" its was when there wasnt any mass communication but somehow managed to spread the word that movies are serious bussiness. But the wallbanger comes from the fact that even in this day and age where you can share you opinions almost instantly and WORLDWIDE, people are EVEN MORE lazy than before even with all the data right in their faces.

TheFinalFantasyWolf:
The censorship would not be as drastic, plus games would gain more protection and possibly even more support.

Plus I think deserve the same level of respect that any other artistic medium has. For goodness sake they put so much effort into their jobs, yet by people who aren't gamers, they are seen as just "toy makers". I think a certain level of respect would be appreciated, just like with any other artistic medium.

Games are still seen as childish and a waste of time. This in turn is why I was so afraid to tell my parents that I wanted to become a Game Designer. I had told all my friends, yet I didn't have the guts to tell my parents, since I was so afraid that they would disapprove and see as some "childish" fantasy.

You make it sound like if games are the new gay or the new black of this generation (something that i SHOULDN'T be able to compare...but since people are this stupid then yeah, its the new black)

You should look for famous examples applied to people in other mediums if you really feel like comparing yourself with a movie director whose "childish" desire to change cinema was mocked.

Erana:

For a medium as a whole to generally be accepted as a form of art on a general level, you need the existing institutions of fine art to consider it so. Therefore, it needs to be indoctrinated as a form in the same way other mediums experienced a rebirth in the modernist/postmodernist era.

The art world has huge clout in the national subconscious of what is art. They're the ones who need to be convinced, and the only way that's going to happen is by speaking their language.

Hmm, well, I guess you'd know better than I would about the art world's influence on what people think is art. Though, I'd say they could do a better job influencing people to respect contemporary art more, lol.

What do normal gamers (who don't know much about art) need to do to help though? I can't imagine the average filmgoer back in the day did anything to uplift the medium, and yet films are considered art now. What should us regular gamers be doing?

DioWallachia:

But for some reason you get the childish stigma to games rather than books about fantasy like for example Lord of The Rings who technically ARE a waste of time for anyone else but the reader. What i mean is that, under the way i THINK outsiders of x medium THINK, LOTR should techinically, under their eyes, be a childish waste of time.

Stories like Lord of The Rings attempt to say something about the human condition. While Tolkien once said that he disliked allegory, it's so prevalent in the way that the world was structured that it's hard not to see parallels between the way that Tolkien would have seen the world and the structure of middle earth. However, Lord of the Rings is the exception more than the rule. The same thing goes with Sci-fi in that most of the classics were created as a metaphor for what the authors thought were some truth important to the way the world is. They were a form of communication, which (in my opinion) is at the very heart of what art is. A large portion of modern sci-fi is a bunch of stuff that happens.

If people respect the Lord of the Rings or the works of Asimov, it's because they were things worth respecting. With this in mind, there are a large number of literary critics who will tell you that genre fiction can't be taken seriously. I don't think anything will make such critics change their minds, but it doesn't matter because genre fiction has a pedigree to back the arguments of apologists up.

But anyway, i am pretty sure that back then even movies where considered childish. In fact, when you think about movies of that age, specially black and white, what is the first thing that it comes to mind?? comedies, specially Charles Chaplin shorts. But a breakthrough came and all people started to take movies seriously (unless you are Michael Bay)

For the most part, movies started out as being view as fairly childish and topical because they were childish and topical. It was a new technology and everyone was super excited about capturing a number of mundane aspects about life. However, it didn't take long for people to actually start trying to use it as an art medium, thus establishing a pedigree.

The real question is how long do games need to suffer this stigma even when i am absolutely sure that there is PLENTY of evidence and works in the gaming medium to show that they ARENT a waste of time??

While I could certainly argue that point, think about it from the opposite perspective. How many video game that gamers often try to point to exist essentially just to answer the question "you know what would be cool?" We point to Bioshock. It's a game about shooting people in the face. We point to Fallout. It's a game about shooting people in the face. We point to Half-life. It's a game about shooting people in the face. Is anyone noticing a pattern here?

While I certain consider each of the above examples to be art, they aren't going to convince critics, especially when even game like those are the exception rather than the rule. Bioshock is a game about the ideals people fail to live up to and shooting people in the face. Most other games are just about shooting people in the face. Thus, it's not going to convince people who already have their minds made up.

Granted, there are a number of "artsy" games around that aren't about shooting people in the face, but they don't get nearly enough publicity to change the way that games are viewed.

And remember, when the movies had their "breakthrough" its was when there wasnt any mass communication but somehow managed to spread the word that movies are serious bussiness.

Hardly. News, journals, and other forms of print were wide spread by the time that cinema became big.

But the wallbanger comes from the fact that even in this day and age where you can share you opinions almost instantly and WORLDWIDE,

Art critics aren't swayed by general whims.

people are EVEN MORE lazy than before even with all the data right in their faces.

"Data?" Art has nothing to do with data.

As I stated previously, most gamers don't really care if the medium is art. "Art" just happens to be a magic word that makes games suddenly exempt from censorship. However, people who do care about art and games usually don't care about public perception. Rather, it's important for games to become art is the same reason anything should become art: The avoidance of stagnant thought and action. Whether people consider it art has little consequence on whether or not it is art.

Or rather, whether art is in it.

Because then game developers can get money from the government.

/thread

DioWallachia:

C2Ultima:
Games have never not been an art form

Are you looking hard enough before saying that?? If your answer to this question is "i dont really care" or "i have better things to do than do any research" then congratulations, you have achieved the same lvl of thinking that any non gamers has over games in general. Now we have to solve this lazyness that people has so we can show them that games arent a waste of time without shoving the truth right up their's throat.

How ironic it is that you talk about not really caring about what you reply to, because that's exactly what you did. It seems to me that you carelessly made assumptions that I have not researched this subject properly or that I don't care about the subject, without any true thought about my words, and that's quite sad. In short, it seems to me that your talking about laziness in this case, is almost comically hypocritical.

Do you disagree? Have games ever not shown their creators' biases about the subjects they explore, even if unintentionally? Have video games ever not tried to convey a message? Have games ever not taught you something, even if it's only "Wow, these developers are incredibly pathetic and disgusting." (See Custer's Revenge)?

Or are you only referring to when games have only been considered art in a legal sense? In that case, you're right. Games were only just recently recognized as art by the Supreme Court and National Endowment for the Arts. You are right, but I do believe that only approaching this issue from a legal standpoint isn't very productive.

I tolerate opinions, but I don't tolerate hypocrisy. I would prefer that you not reply to my posts in future, without actually putting deeper thought into it, in the way that you suggested I do. Thank you very much for your understanding in this matter. I hope you have a nice day.

Forlong:
/thread

Sorry, but I still had something to say.

Waffle_Man:

For the most part, movies started out as being view as fairly childish and topical because they were childish and topical. It was a new technology and everyone was super excited about capturing a number of mundane aspects about life. However, it didn't take long for people to actually start trying to use it as an art medium, thus establishing a pedigree.

Uhm....yeah but still doesn't answer my question, because everyone is super excited about the possibilities that video games have as an interactive medium (sort of like as back then but for movies) but movies got the spark that made people into pushing the boundaries of cinema that eventually broke the stigma, no such luck for video games even if they ALREADY did it. Part of the answer you already say it, the new tech made everyone exited but there is more into that.

Think back of all those Sci-fi books around 1920 of how the future will be with all the technological advances, like a candy store of possibilities, but now everything regarding technological advances just became stagnant.....or so people think. As silly this may sound i think that people are just too depressed and apathetic to notice any tech advancement or even manage to get a clue of how something in this day and age has any cool thing for the future probably because they didnt get flying cars or jetpacks or HAL 9000 around 2001. Hell, i wont be surprised that you get marked as taking Sci-fi books too seriously when you mention something as Nanomachines even if they already exist in the real world.

Hardly. News, journals, and other forms of print were wide spread by the time that cinema became big.

I should have answered my own question by saying that even if there were newspapers to cover the news about movies not sucking anymore, you have to remember that back then there wasnt many movies......there wasnt any of anything except a few radio shows and that is it (remember 1920) Thanks to that fact, people used to remember the movies munch better than today thanks to repeated viewings of the only thing in town.
But today its a totally different story, there are movies up the ass,video games, series on tv, series on internet, social networks, games you can play online and the zoo. It should be more difficult for ANY medium to get attention at all........but things like Twilight got attention very fast even if there is a LEGION of books that are munch more know and could have captured the minds of the audience much better than Twilight. Games, once again, dont have that kind of luck.

This article mentioned that we are not mainstream even with all the millons going around to the game developers, mostly because gamers are just a bunch of people paying enormous an enourmous quantity of money ot sustain their hobbies rather than LOTS of people paying a small fee to rent or see a movie for example:

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_266/7959-We-Are-Not-Mainstream

If we want to get people into gaming, we should aim to show games that are just like what i mentioned down there, even if its a risky gambit since most people will not care to anything that may look to difficult to comprehend for their monkey brains.

While I could certainly argue that point, think about it from the opposite perspective. How many video game that gamers often try to point to exist essentially just to answer the question "you know what would be cool?" We point to Bioshock. It's a game about shooting people in the face. We point to Fallout. It's a game about shooting people in the face. We point to Half-life. It's a game about shooting people in the face. Is anyone noticing a pattern here?

While I certain consider each of the above examples to be art, they aren't going to convince critics, especially when even game like those are the exception rather than the rule. Bioshock is a game about the ideals people fail to live up to and shooting people in the face. Most other games are just about shooting people in the face. Thus, it's not going to convince people who already have their minds made up.

Granted, there are a number of "artsy" games around that aren't about shooting people in the face, but they don't get nearly enough publicity to change the way that games are viewed.

You are going to need to be more clear about "the shooting people in the face" games. Its the inability of developers of working around a pacifist route within the narrative of these games? Do mandatory kills makes them lose points?? How about the games that uses the violence to make a point, like if you go for this kind of attitude the main character becomes a mindless monsters or that your characters is a leader of a society and going ballistic will make everyone follow you to their doom?? Its the presence of violence in general that makes people into generalizing x game as "shooting people in the face"???

I can think of these games when it comes to non violent solutions or that are more about psychological exploration or even deconstructions of video games tropes

World of Goo
The Stanley Parable
IJI (the pacifist route is encouraged by the narrative and most of the character development comes from doing so)
Turgor/Tension/The Void

The "you know what would be cool? shooting people in the bollocks" will always be there fore video games as long there is a public for that. We just need to think how to diminish their presence even with all the marketing that those kind of games have, hoping for people like Stephen Colbert to play those isnt going to help that munch, and i dont think that any of the people here has a relevant career that they may use to promote games

The only way that a miracle could happen is if everyone just stop playing video games around the "shooting people in the face" stigma so other games can resurface and hopefully catch the attention of someone important

This topic again? Just enjoy gaming for what it is, entertainment. It was made to make money so it isn't art. Case closed.

C2Ultima:
Games have never not been an art form. We just don't want to be dismissed as people obsessing over meaningless toys.

At least I don't, anyway.

Just like MLP and Transformers. It is what it is. Enjoy it. Just dont build it into more than it is.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked