PDA

View Full Version : Can games be art?



Senka
7th Nov 2010, 06:09
Would you consider Deus Ex as art for example?

Why? What games don't you consider art, and why not? Recently I made a micro documentary on this topic, and this short video pretty much sums up some of the thoughts I have on the subject. It features a interview with a indie developer in Australia.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-fJpEa39reI

Speaking of art, if you live in Melbourne, you can check out Epic Mickey next weekend. Source: http://games.on.net/article/10697/Play_Epic_Mickey_For_Free_Next_Weekend

BigBoss
7th Nov 2010, 06:29
Yes they are, Super mario/64 are games that show people a whole new medium, and were perfect for an introduction into it. Shadow of the colossus gave me a feeling of excitement and at the same time, guilt in a way that no other medium has. Heavy rain introduced a new kind of cinematic tension that films will never be able to match for the simple fact that you are an active participant in the life or death of it's protagonists at any given point in the narrative, and the delivery of the big reveal/plot twist (I won't spoil it PLAY IT) at the end was delivered in such a uniqe way, that again could only be done in this medium (same goes for bioshock). My final example would be Mass Effect 2. The characters in that were so well thought out, nuanced, uniqe and flawed, that I will remember parts of the cast for a long time just as I would in any good narrative. Dxhr has this potential going for it by trying to tackle the concept of transhumanism, so fingers crossed on that one. Hope that helps your case.

Edit: I did watch your vid, it's interesting to see Ebert change so much from a young enthusiastic critic, ready to defend controversial films older critics dismissed because they didn't understand them, into one of those types of critics himself.

OwlSolar
7th Nov 2010, 06:47
I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a solid definition of "art."

jtr7
7th Nov 2010, 08:23
There is only confusion when the medium, rather than tangible personal expression and creativity, are seen as "art" other than the toolset or framework.

Lady_Of_The_Vine
7th Nov 2010, 09:32
Yes, it is art. It is a creative process.

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 09:53
The thing is... it really doesn't matter if somebody else categorizes anything as art or not.

Nonetheless I have my own definition of art and according to that, games can contain art but the overall product is not art. Art means a very personal form of expression to me and as such no game, movie or whatever else there is, that contains the work of multiple people can be art. It can be great craftsman ship or artful but it is not that kind of personal expression, only created for that very reason (and ignoring any commercial interest or opinions of others), that I define as real art. A possible exception to that are the auteurs of course.

A real artist doesn't give much on the opinions of others and should never become a professional in the first place (at least not in order to produce art).

Mindmute
7th Nov 2010, 10:53
The spoiler tags have an off-topic rant about Bioware's characters, that I'd really like to discuss in a friendly way with BigBoss via PM if he doesn't mind. I added the spoiler tags for people who don't care about that stuff.

Why do people always comment on Bioware's ridiculously corny characters as examples of art when a thread like this shows up? Bioware are fantastic at creating and enacting a setting and can sporadically produce a deep character or two(for example: I sincerely liked Mordin and while Garrus was the typical vigilante renegade, his interactions with Sheppard felt very natural to me, they have a kind of synergy that made me very fond of the character), but the majority of them are simply cliché, corny (I'm looking at you Jack), or reused character archetypes from other mediums/other games. I'll also never forget their comment on how Xander from Buffy the Vampire Slayer became Alistair :rolleyes:

I honestly think that if there are studios that should praised for their characters, it'd be Obsidian/Black Isle.



Either way, grumpy (it's early here) rant aside, the biggest problem with this sort of discussion lies with what OwlSolar said: There still isn't a clear definition of art, since art itself is something intrisicly subjective.

For me, art is an expression of something that the artist wishes to convey. Most videogames nowadays revolve around a pre-produced setting and are not an attempt at transmitting the creator's thoughts, opinion, etc onto them.
With that said, I believe that as long as the character's models are expressing some creative output from the artists who drew them (opposed to "they told me to draw a bloke"), then the character models are art and the same goes for the other parts of the game, in my opinion. The game itself however is a composition of those art pieces, more of a display of art than art itself.






tl;dr: Games as a whole are not art in my opinion, but the different parts that mesh into making a game can be.

mentalkase
7th Nov 2010, 11:24
There's art and then there's Art. The individual painted or drawn assets that make up a game could be considered art, but more in the realm of fantasy or sci-fi art. High art is another matter. I don't think many games aspire towards being high art, although I think that some have gone a way towards a laudable attempt, such as the work of Team Ico, whose games have been said to provoke an emotional response. I think when more games companies seek to transcend cheap violent thrills and start asking more morally ambiguous questions then the industry can properly say it's grown up and at least some of it will be considered art.

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 11:25
In response to Ebert's statement I want to conclude that games (or any other medium for that matter) can theroretically be art (according to my personal definition) if they are entirely created by one person.

Mindmute
7th Nov 2010, 11:27
In response to Ebert's statement I want to conclude that games (or any other medium for that matter) can theroretically be art (according to my personal definition) if they are entirely created by one person.

That's a bit odd to me. Do you consider music to be an art?
Other than classical music, it's a medium nearly always created by several people. Even classical musical often requires a great deal of people to interpret/play it and bring it to life.

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 11:42
It's not really relevant to me if certain music is art or not but since you've asked: I consider some compositions to be art. Many songs are entirly created by one person and as an expression of this persons mind. There are even many one man bands that would match the description of auteurs. In terms of classical music there are many masterful, even genius, works of craftsmanship but I don't think there is a higher concentration of real art to be found in the genre. Probably less so because componists back then were more bound to produce something that sells then many of todays musicians. Today anybody with a PC and some software could produce own compositions absolutely free of commercial aspects.

VectorM
7th Nov 2010, 11:43
It doesn't matter. Not a single bit. The hole art thing is either an excuse to slander games "But they are not art, they have no artistic value, blah-blah-blah", or an attempt from gamers to try to legitimize games in the mainstream "But games are art, they make you think, it's creative process, blah-blah-blah".

And originally, the word "art" was referring to any skill or mastery. Are you a sword maker, a painter, or a cook? All of these were artists. It's the Romantic Era that gave us this subjective, vague understanding of what art is supposed to be, where art could be anything or nothing.

So If we go by the original meaning, then yes, games are art. All of them. Including the bad ones.

And people who say things like "Art can only be something made by one person", or "Art cannot be something made for profit" are full of ****. They are just using the word to manipulate people in to their way of thinking.

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 11:46
And people who say things like "Art can only be something made by one person", or "Art cannot be something made for profit" are full of ****. They are just using the word to manipulate people in to their way of thinking.
How am I manipulating people in to my way of thinking when I say that? Care to elaborate?

Mindmute
7th Nov 2010, 11:48
Alright, thanks for the clarification, fox I think I got the gist of your opinion now. I still don't agree, but at least now I think I know where you're coming from with that :)

Delever
7th Nov 2010, 12:31
Ugh, I saw this discussion somewhere.

If 50 artists create art for 4 years (paintings, costumes, music, models, sculptures), why the outcome is not art just because it is a game?

What the **** is "higher" art anyway? It is more like higher horse: "oh, my art required skill to make, and not simply arranging bits in lifeless machine".

Ilves
7th Nov 2010, 12:57
Art is about conveying ideas, and touching, moving people, through creative expression. Games do just that, and they do it beautifully. To snub games is to snub a huge artistic merit.

The problem is that gaming will rightfully not be taken seriously by the likes of Ebert (who speaks from a position of great ignorance and obsolete notions of what is a "game”, if you ask me) until their subject matter, lingo, tropes and conventions stop being stuck and reveling in the infantile mental world of teenagers.

Try showing a game to a non gamer, and they’ll have a hard time seeing past the stereotypical visual and thematic video game tropes. I tried to pimp DX to a socially engaged high brow movie making friend of mine, to no avail. I tried the camp angle, I tried the cultural context angle of the subject matter, the historic context of the gaming industry in 2000 angle, but she wouldn't have any of it. Her loss, really.


This particularly rubs me wrong:


One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. [One] might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them. * (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html)

How can he be so blind to completely miss the point? That experience is what it is about. That’s what makes it potentially art. This is no longer the age of 80’s arcade platform type of game. Winning is not the main point in modern gaming (lamentably so, maybe, but that’s another debate).

So what if games employ techniques established in different genres? Game adds to this mix the one aspect that makes games potentially more powerful than all the forms he lists; namely the interactivity, and the fleeting moments of awesome that emerge as a result.

There true beauty in the moment, and I say this as a lover of all Arts and the Creative Process (yes, capitalized!) when a spontaneous situation arises in gameplay, one that ties in perfectly with the grander setting, the character you play, the soundtrack responding to the events, that feels so right and so awesome it may well have been a scene in a movie. Except there was no author, no director, no intent; only the ingredients to the story, this intricate, interactive system, and the player. Add to that the fleeting nature of that unique moment, and it brings a whole new dimension to the experience that can never be achieved by an authored piece in the traditional arts.

Pretentious Old Man.
7th Nov 2010, 13:24
I only have one thing to say:

http://files.myopera.com/iliiad/albums/113721/pst_tno.PNG

That is all.

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 13:49
There true beauty in the moment, and I say this as a lover of all Arts and the Creative Process (yes, capitalized!) when a spontaneous situation arises in gameplay, one that ties in perfectly with the grander setting, the character you play, the soundtrack responding to the events, that feels so right and so awesome it may well have been a scene in a movie. Except there was no author, no director, no intent; only the ingredients to the story, this intricate, interactive system, and the player. Add to that the fleeting nature of that unique moment, and it brings a whole new dimension to the experience that can never be achieved by an authored piece in the traditional arts.

I'd say that the game only provided the framework for this to happen but is not art itself. If you'd express this strong emotion you got from this moment via any medium you think is appropriate than that would be a piece of art, in my opinion. You can't do that as team work since there's not one other person who feels exactly the same about it. You may agree on a compromise about how to do it so that it symbolizes/evokes something close to your feelings but only if you do it alone you may be able to capture it like you perceived it. Art means not making such compromises to me.

Ilves
7th Nov 2010, 14:48
^ I can't (and don't want to) define “art” beyond the first sentence of my previous post, but I’ll add that the notion that something can only be art when it is created by a single mind is needlessly narrowing.
(Whereas the idea that anything that is the result of a creative process is art is waaay to broad.)

In the end it’s only the transaction between the work of art and its audience that matters. Any and each emotion and thought that is evoked in that transaction is that piece of work's merit. And for me, the more moving and profound the response, the more meaningful the work of art. Obviously. :)

maria22hzn
7th Nov 2010, 14:59
yes dude it definitely can be a art:) (http://www.squidoo.com/liposuction-tummy-tuck-plastic-surgery-piittsburgh-):) (http://semarangbisnis.info/) :) (http://johnbzu5ke.livejournal.com/838.html)

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 15:06
So far we have the following definitions:

art = result of any creative process
art = purely an expression of personal emotions
art = something that evokes emotions and/or thoughts in the audience
art = something that has been done in a highly skilled way / any mastery

Did I miss something? Any additions?

FrankCSIS
7th Nov 2010, 15:19
What we have, really, is that art is a concept. The tangible result of an intangible behaviour characterising humans.

On a personal level, everyone, on the production floor, who participates in the process fits any of your definitions of an artist, one way or another. No matter the collective result, there is intent, a desire, at one point or another, to express one's personal self. Otherwise they wouldn't be in this line of work. No one gets there by accident, and no one puts this amount of work into something for any other reason than personal expression. Money alone wouldn't justify it, and it's not all that glamourous.

GepardenK
7th Nov 2010, 15:23
Art dont have a specific defined defentition, so your optinion on games as art may depend on what you see as art in the first place.

IMO games are art in the same way that comic books are art: The possibility is defenitly there, but most mainstream products fail miserably because they are unable to convey anything but the most basic emotions.

One could also say that most mainstream games is the artistic equalent of a Michael Bay movie. So if you think Transformers 2 is art, then yes, all games are also art.

Bottom line is: All mediums are able to produce true art, it all depends on the - wait for it... Artist

MaxxQ1
7th Nov 2010, 15:30
My usual response to this question is to point out that photography was not considered art back in its early days. "Highbrow" artists (fine arts painters and sculptors, etc.) said that taking a picture was skipping the creative process, and therefore, cannot be considered art.

Anyone nowadays agree with that?

Eventually, photography was accepted as art, as well as movies (something Ebert may well want to heed), and I feel that someday, games will also be accepted as art. Even now, people who create art with computers are finally becoming more accepted as artists than they were 10-15 years ago.

As for the definition of art as something created by a single person, that's bull****. You think Michealangelo actually painted the entire Sistine Chapel all by his lonesome? Many of his paintings and sculptures, as well as those of other artists of his time, and artists nowadays, were done with assistants/apprentices.

VectorM
7th Nov 2010, 15:44
art = something that has been done in a highly skilled way / any mastery


Not highly skilled. Say a little boy draws a picture of a dog. That is a skill that he has. Being able to draw. He doesn't need to draw it like Da Vinci. It's still art, by that original definition.

Basically anything that you can create is art - making a table, be it even a very simple one, is art.

Art was originally something very simple, but now it's something out of proportion and so vague and subjective, that, as I said, everything is and isn't art.

Or if you want to go with a different definition, that is still close to the original one is: Anything that is created to stimulate the senses.

So, it goes like this:

Games - Art.
Cooking - Art.
Photography: Art
Porn - Art
TV - Art
And so on.

I don't get it why people insist on these ridiculous arbitrary standards, like "But porn is just for jerking off, that doesn't count as art!!", "But TV shows are trying to make money, that is not art!!".

Your favorite game won't become better if you slap it a magical word guys.


As for the definition of art as something created by a single person, that's bull. You think Michealangelo actually painted the entire Sistine Chapel all by his lonesome? Many of his paintings and sculptures, as well as those of other artists of his time, and artists nowadays, were done with assistants/apprentices.

Also, most of the paintings were ordered by rich people, like Da Vinci's "Last Supper" for example. So all you "If it's for profit, its not art" elitists, please get a clue....

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 15:44
As for the definition of art as something created by a single person, that's bull****. You think Michealangelo actually painted the entire Sistine Chapel all by his lonesome? Many of his paintings and sculptures, as well as those of other artists of his time, and artists nowadays, were done with assistants/apprentices.
Many of his works are masterful pieces of craftsmanship and not art in my opinion and so was his comissional work for the church in the Sistine Chapel.


Not highly skilled. Say a little boy draws a picture of a dog. That is a skill that he has. Being able to draw. He doesn't need to draw it like Da Vinci. It's still art, by that original definition.

Basically anything that you can create is art - making a table, be it even a very simple one, is art.

Art was originally something very simple, but now it's something out of proportion and so vague and subjective, that, as I said, everything is and isn't art.

Same here. You may be correct about the original meaning of the term art but it moved away from that a very long time ago and if it hadn't it would be just redundant as the term craftsmanship would suffice. Yes, I think most people nowadays do think of art as something different then just craftmenship so this insisting on the original meaning leads nowhere.

Pinky_Powers
7th Nov 2010, 15:45
Any creative effort by a group or individual is art; be it a painting, sculpture, building, film or game.

St. Mellow
7th Nov 2010, 16:03
So far we have the following definitions:

art = result of any creative process
art = purely an expression of personal emotions
art = something that evokes emotions and/or thoughts in the audience
art = something that has been done in a highly skilled way / any mastery

For me it's a hybrid. Art is anything "done in a highly skilled way" and also both the "result of any creative process" and the process itself. It can be made by only one artist, or collectively in either collaborative or imperative ways. The production of digital interactive virtual experiences (DIVE :nut:) or "games" is an artistic medium in the same way painting, sculpture, music, photography, film, etc. are. It's important to note that not every product or process resulting from the use of artistic media belongs in the category "art". Creative intent and motivation is necessary for it to qualify.

And that's my definition.

MrFoxter
7th Nov 2010, 16:10
In my opinion, games have potential to be art. However, something being a game doesn't automatically imply that it's art. I won't go so far to consider every book or movie "art" either.
For me, it is that indescribable essence that makes art. Art can not be manufactured by machine in serial production. You need to add a little piece of magic, and when this magic is present, then I'd consider the thing art.

Edit: Some games have this magic, therefore they are art to me.

VectorM
7th Nov 2010, 16:25
Yes, I think most people nowadays do think of art as something different then just craftmenship so this insisting on the original meaning leads nowhere.

Yeah, because the vague, subjective, open to interpretation by anyone modern meaning makes such progress, right? :rolleyes:


Art can not be manufactured by machine in serial production. You need to add a little piece of magic, and when this magic is present, then I'd consider the thing art

This is what I was talking about earlier. People think that Art is basically magic :hmm:

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 16:35
Yeah, because the vague, subjective, open to interpretation by anyone modern meaning makes such progress, right? :rolleyes:
*insert wise quote about human nature* :poke:

nomotog
7th Nov 2010, 16:39
I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a solid definition of "art."

I heard this on a car show of all things, but I like it. "In order for something to be considered art then it must have no use other then artistic value." Really funny logic, but basically it says that if the object has a use then it can't be art.

MrFoxter
7th Nov 2010, 16:48
This is what I was talking about earlier. People think that Art is basically magic :hmm:

I didn't mean any spells or curses, I was just saying that in my opinion you need to give a bit of yourself into it in order to make art.

If you see that unique bit in porn, so be it. I don't share this opinion with you, but I am perfectly fine with that.

VectorM
7th Nov 2010, 22:50
I didn't mean any spells or curses

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant when I said "magic", right? :hmm:


If you see that unique bit in porn, so be it. I don't share this opinion with you, but I am perfectly fine with that.

No, I don't see anything "unique" in porn. Maybe if you actually read what I think about this "Art" business (like I did IN THIS THREAD) you would understand why I consider it to be "Art".


Really funny logic, but basically it says that if the object has a use then it can't be art.

Very funny indeed, because then none of the things we consider as "Art" would count as "Art".

Delever
7th Nov 2010, 23:04
Seems like the most intuitive definition would be:

Art is anything that can be sold as art.

"Sold" not only in monetary sense, but also as an idea, that a particular thing can be art. Yeah, I know, I am a bit nihilistic :rolleyes:.

Laputin Man
7th Nov 2010, 23:12
It doesn't matter. Not a single bit. The hole art thing is either an excuse to slander games "But they are not art, they have no artistic value, blah-blah-blah", or an attempt from gamers to try to legitimize games in the mainstream "But games are art, they make you think, it's creative process, blah-blah-blah".

And originally, the word "art" was referring to any skill or mastery. Are you a sword maker, a painter, or a cook? All of these were artists. It's the Romantic Era that gave us this subjective, vague understanding of what art is supposed to be, where art could be anything or nothing.

So If we go by the original meaning, then yes, games are art. All of them. Including the bad ones.

And people who say things like "Art can only be something made by one person", or "Art cannot be something made for profit" are full of ****. They are just using the word to manipulate people in to their way of thinking.

I really hate your avatar.....

Irate_Iguana
7th Nov 2010, 23:15
I really hate your avatar.....

Yeah, the dude is a jackass, but he is also the perfect example of everything that is slowly destroying this industry. Unlike other companies Kotick isn't hiding what he does or sugarcoating everything. He simply doesn't give a **** and does what he does. He is raking in money hand over fist and each and every company is following his lead, while they like to admit it or not.

SageSavage
7th Nov 2010, 23:41
He is the Gordon Gecko of the games industry.

Rindill the Red
7th Nov 2010, 23:43
I really hate your avatar.....

Lol. Doesn't it automatically make you hate whatever he writes? It's like the perfect troll avatar.

Rindill the Red
8th Nov 2010, 00:11
Yeah, the dude is a jackass, but he is also the perfect example of everything that is slowly destroying this industry. Unlike other companies Kotick isn't hiding what he does or sugarcoating everything. He simply doesn't give a **** and does what he does. He is raking in money hand over fist and each and every company is following his lead, while they like to admit it or not.

He may be raking in money, but you have to look at why. He's not raking in money because he's a greedy douche-bag.

He happened to be CEO of Activision, (before which he was CEO of some entirely unrelated to gaming company)... which has published the Call of Duty series which the people at infinity ward successfully made a giant blockbuster with MW1 and MW2.

Then Activision made the tactical decision of merging with Blizzard, which was already a very successful company (Star Craft, War Craft, and WoW).

The new schmucks at Activision-Blizzard voted him CEO, and all he's done is say, keep releasing sequels to highly successful games.

So, he's not making money because of his public relations know-how or because he's a greedy ****, but because he just happened to be in the right place at the right time and knows that pushing a profitable thing is profitable.

So I don't think other companies need to follow suit at all. Other companies need to do what Activision did in the first place, what Blizzard did in the first place, and that was develop their own IP. Once they find their MW2 or their Starcraft or their WoW, then they can start the Activision-Blizzard Kotick route, but before then, simply copying what other successful companies do isn't going to cut it.

Take a look at the Wii. New inventive controls capture the public's attention. My parents drop 300 on the Wii and play it a few times before they get bored.

You think Kinect or that blue wand thingy's going to do the same thing?

IOOI
8th Nov 2010, 00:18
It doesn't matter. Not a single bit. The hole art thing is either an excuse to slander games "But they are not art, they have no artistic value, blah-blah-blah", or an attempt from gamers to try to legitimize games in the mainstream "But games are art, they make you think, it's creative process, blah-blah-blah".

And originally, the word "art" was referring to any skill or mastery. Are you a sword maker, a painter, or a cook? All of these were artists. It's the Romantic Era that gave us this subjective, vague understanding of what art is supposed to be, where art could be anything or nothing.

So If we go by the original meaning, then yes, games are art. All of them. Including the bad ones.

Agree. :thumb:

KSingh77
8th Nov 2010, 00:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Art does come in different forms and ways.

In video games,they show the main character and all the other characters around him or her.

Like in Red Dead,Mass Effect,Ghost Recon,Splinter Cell,Heavy Rain.

Video Games do have different ways of showing their art form.

IOOI
8th Nov 2010, 02:36
"Art is a knowledge, not an opinion." Is it?

The thing is that in nowdays the word art is associated with something of great value. But to who and why?
Something considered of great value for some people (or community, society, nation, ...) might not be valuable for others.

I say that if someone "alien" to one's community (be it from outerspace or from some unknown nation) came to your place and drawn something onto a wall, it could be considered art for some people but not to others - and I don't think that the people accepting the alien's draw as art would be waiting for a background check to certify that he had a great knowledge supporting his expression.

Why can't an "art" object/work be replicated and still be considered art? If the message or what it provoques in the individual is what's important, why can't it be? If it can't be, does it mean that some of the ancient ceramic plates discovered in archeological excavations should be disregarded as art?

What is important in art? It's what I get from it or it's the artist background/knowledge?

In order to be considered art does the object/work or the artist really need to strive to improve something? If you're trying to achieve something specific (?) or meaningful to your community or society, then maybe yes.
But what about the individual? Does his work needs to be in tune with his society or community interests? Can't he just express something that he likes?

Laputin Man
8th Nov 2010, 03:08
Lol. Doesn't it automatically make you hate whatever he writes? It's like the perfect troll avatar.

No, though I do have to re read what he has written sometimes and ask myself if I am being trolled. Not that it has anything to do with what he actually wrote, it's that damn picture of Kotick that just gives everything an instant negative vibe. He could be describing how he pulled a bunch of sick orphaned, puppies out of a fire and I'd still instantly think. "You smug troll faced bastard", even though it has nothing to do with the poster himself or his actions. That pic just does that, Kotick probably has the most punchable face in the world. I'm not even a violent person, I mean I could show a picture of him to my grandmother probably. She has no idea who he is or what he stands for, but she'd probably want to punch him in the face, strangest thing.

mentalkase
8th Nov 2010, 04:23
Something can be created skillfully but that doesn't mean it's artistic. There are lot of games that have been created very skillfully but that are not art. I can't see how anyone could consider Call of Duty art.

I disagree that personal vision is what makes art, whether something is created for a purpose or through a collaborative effort doesn't discount it as art. There are plenty of great works of architecture that weren't necessarily wholly the vision of one architect, for example.

QiX
8th Nov 2010, 04:50
Let's take music for instance. Mozart was a composer. Justin Bieber is a singer. But they don't have anything in common aside from dedicating their work to the music. Ermm.. ok, also both of them started in music at early age, but that's all :p

Yes, games are definitely art. But that doesn't tell much about them.

pringlepower
8th Nov 2010, 05:16
Something can be created skillfully but that doesn't mean it's artistic. There are lot of games that have been created very skillfully but that are not art. I can't see how anyone could consider Call of Duty art.

I disagree that personal vision is what makes art, whether something is created for a purpose or through a collaborative effort doesn't discount it as art. There are plenty of great works of architecture that weren't necessarily wholly the vision of one architect, for example.

I'd say some of the scenes in Call of Duty 4 were done very well, in terms of emotion and spectacle, and on par with some high-quality war movies.

Of course, that's if you can see war movies as art.

BigBoss
8th Nov 2010, 05:49
I wish that all you naysayers could have the chance to round up the entire team behind dxhr, and tell the concept artists, level designers, script writers, composers, and endless other jobs that they are not creating a peice of art.

BigBoss
8th Nov 2010, 05:50
I'd say some of the scenes in Call of Duty 4 were done very well, in terms of emotion and spectacle, and on par with some high-quality war movies.

Of course, that's if you can see war movies as art.

Saving private Ryan is considered one of speilbergs greatest achievements in film. I believe war movies can be art.

Irate_Iguana
8th Nov 2010, 09:56
He happened to be CEO of Activision, (before which he was CEO of some entirely unrelated to gaming company)... which has published the Call of Duty series which the people at infinity ward successfully made a giant blockbuster with MW1 and MW2.

No, Kotick led a group of investors that bought a bankrupt Activision and changed it back to a successful developer and publisher. He has been CEO of Activision since 1991 and is now also the CEO of Activision-Blizzard. Since his takeover of the bankrupt company it has grown enormously by strategically buying companies and focusing on series that can be exploited annually and/or have expensive peripherals.

VectorM
8th Nov 2010, 10:35
No, though I do have to re read what he has written sometimes and ask myself if I am being trolled. Not that it has anything to do with what he actually wrote, it's that damn picture of Kotick that just gives everything an instant negative vibe. He could be describing how he pulled a bunch of sick orphaned, puppies out of a fire and I'd still instantly think. "You smug troll faced bastard", even though it has nothing to do with the poster himself or his actions. That pic just does that, Kotick probably has the most punchable face in the world. I'm not even a violent person, I mean I could show a picture of him to my grandmother probably. She has no idea who he is or what he stands for, but she'd probably want to punch him in the face, strangest thing.

Taking any accusations of trolling from Rindill seriously is like taking anything Glenn Beck says seriously. He uses that word the same way that people use the name Hitler in Godwin,'s Law. When it happens, the argument is basically over.

And I am glad that you see the avatar first, instead of reading the actual content of my post. It reminds of why I chose that avatar in the first place :rolleyes:

mentalkase
8th Nov 2010, 11:25
I wish that all you naysayers could have the chance to round up the entire team behind dxhr, and tell the concept artists, level designers, script writers, composers, and endless other jobs that they are not creating a peice of art.

Those designers, artists, composers etc do create art, obviously. As i've said elsewhere on here the individual assets that comprise a game are generally called art. That doesn't mean that the finished game would be considered a 'work of art' though.

Senka
8th Nov 2010, 11:27
^ That was also raised in the micro documentary, but it was cut. The answer (which I agree with) was that while they can be art, realistically it's mostly commercial artwork - made to enhance the game itself.

VectorM
8th Nov 2010, 11:38
^ That was also raised in the micro documentary, but it was cut. The answer (which I agree with) was that while they can be art, realistically it's mostly commercial artwork - made to enhance the game itself.

Then "realistically", the Sistine Chapel is also commercial artwork.

Irate_Iguana
8th Nov 2010, 11:56
Then "realistically", the Sistine Chapel is also commercial artwork.

It is. It was commissioned and paid for by the Church. Michaelangelo didn't even like working on the structure. To him the work was just an easy way to make a living. Church commissions paid handsomely and were seldom in short supply.

Laputin Man
8th Nov 2010, 12:51
Taking any accusations of trolling from Rindill seriously is like taking anything Glenn Beck says seriously. He uses that word the same way that people use the name Hitler in Godwin,'s Law. When it happens, the argument is basically over.

And I am glad that you see the avatar first, instead of reading the actual content of my post. It reminds of why I chose that avatar in the first place :rolleyes:


Oh no, I do read what you post. But then my eyes glance up at the avatar and there is a disconnect somewhere in my brain. I read what you had to say about games as art, it was well thought out and I'd say I agree with your assessment. But then I just glance up at that avatar and, and all I can think is.... damn you to hell Kotick. Has nothing to do with you at all. I guess all the sensationalist news stories on gaming sites like CVG that constantly cover or quote every obnoxious thing Kotick says doesn't help.


Also, I never took any accusations of you trolling seriously. Nor did I accuse you of trolling, just stated that I don't like Kotick.

VectorM
8th Nov 2010, 12:58
It is. It was commissioned and paid for by the Church. Michaelangelo didn't even like working on the structure. To him the work was just an easy way to make a living. Church commissions paid handsomely and were seldom in short supply.

Exactly.

Knowing that, are the people who talk about "commercial artwork" going to say that the Sistine Chapel isn't really art? I don't think they will...

Red
8th Nov 2010, 13:50
It's not a micro documentary. It's micro interview at best.

And the topic or rather the statements under discussion are taken out of context. Ebert is referring to games as a medium and not as an actual representation (of art). Two different concepts.

VectorM
8th Nov 2010, 15:07
I was arguing about what Senka said. I don't know what Ebert said and I really don't care.

IOOI
8th Nov 2010, 22:50
Something can be created skillfully but that doesn't mean it's artistic. There are lot of games that have been created very skillfully but that are not art. I can't see how anyone could consider Call of Duty art.


Let's take music for instance. Mozart was a composer. Justin Bieber is a singer. But they don't have anything in common aside from dedicating their work to the music. Ermm.. ok, also both of them started in music at early age, but that's all :p

It's a social class thing. Do you know how it's called the art gallery of the poor? Ethnographic Museum.

We have a very curious behaviour. There are some funny things that you notice in peoples comments.
For instance weaving. When it was mainstream its was just a craft when it started to get rare and with few people doing it, you began to hear some people calling it a "lost art".

What we see is something like this: if its not questioning something then it must be of "high quality" or with "high production values" and it can attempt to improve something of valuable for the community or society in question, but it is not necessary; if it is questioning something then it can be anything (using materials of any quality, for instance) but at least be symbolic.

Falcon084
9th Nov 2010, 07:50
Anything can be art as long as some one apreciates it.

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament" - Oscar Wilde.

SageSavage
9th Nov 2010, 08:01
Anything can be art as long as some one apreciates it.

"A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament" - Oscar Wilde.

That quote can be read as support for the notion that art is not primarily created for an audience but simply the result of an artist expressing himself. Opposed to that you seem to support the "art = something that provokes an emotional response or deeper thoughts in the audience" definition (or a hybrid of both).

Falcon084
9th Nov 2010, 08:12
That quote can be read as support for the notion that art is not primarily created for an audience but simply the result of an artist expressing himself. Opposed to that you seem to support the "art = something that provokes an emotional response or deeper thoughts in the audience" definition (or a hybrid of both).

The artist is the "one" whom apreciates it. Though that same can be said of a wider audiance. General Patton believed that war was art. I guess then it is in the eye of the beholder or beholders. I can think of games as art.

Senka
9th Nov 2010, 10:34
It's not a micro documentary. It's micro interview at best.

And the topic or rather the statements under discussion are taken out of context. Ebert is referring to games as a medium and not as an actual representation (of art). Two different concepts.

My film and tv teacher disagrees. We were limited to 4 minutes anyway. The actual interview was 25+ minutes after cuts.

I don't think I took Ebert out of context - he said if they are immersion games they cease to be a game and become a representation of x.

Red
9th Nov 2010, 10:39
I was arguing about what Senka said. I don't know what Ebert said and I really don't care.

And I don't really care what you said. I was answering OP in connection with the topic. And the topic at hand is a discussion over what Ebert said about games as mediums being art.

Otherwise I'd have indicated I was talking to you. Get over yourself.


My film and tv teacher disagrees. We were limited to 4 minutes anyway. The actual interview was 25+ minutes after cuts.

I don't think I took Ebert out of context - he said if they are immersion games they cease to be a game and become a representation of x.

Yes, it's taken out of context of his original article - the one about games, the medium, being art.

Sum: Can games be art? Yes, they can represent art.
Are games as a medium an art? No.

You are talking about apples, while he was writing about oranges.

What you should have done is disambiguate what the medium of games is, how it relates to other mediums, the emergence of it (and so on and so forth), and then start building on that foundation representing your arguments (the developer guy's arguments) about the issue. But I do agree, 4 minutes is not enough to attempt that task.

VectorM
9th Nov 2010, 12:14
And I don't really care what you said. I was answering OP in connection with the topic. And the topic at hand is a discussion over what Ebert said about games as mediums being art.

Otherwise I'd have indicated I was talking to you. Get over yourself.


Way to over-blow a simple misunderstanding.

U mad, btw?

Red
9th Nov 2010, 13:36
no u.

http://www.shrani.si/f/2D/Qh/4KKV4Z5G/takedown.gif

VectorM
10th Nov 2010, 11:16
no u.

http://www.shrani.si/f/2D/Qh/4KKV4Z5G/takedown.gif

Aww, was that you that I sneaked on? Sorry mate, didn't mean to :rasp:

MrFoxter
10th Nov 2010, 14:33
Aww, was that you that I sneaked on? Sorry mate, didn't mean to :rasp:

As a creator of that gif, I approve that you are the one lying unconscious on the ground :nut:

BTW, Good punch, Red ;)

Red
10th Nov 2010, 16:51
Thank you. I couldn't have done it without you. :flowers:

AxiomaticBadger
10th Nov 2010, 17:35
Prepair to taste my mighty brain, meatbags!

Art is defined by one thing, and one thing only: Emotional content. It is an attempt to convey feeling through media accessable by puny human senses. Quality is defined by the complexity of the emotional blend the piece attepts to convey, the strength of the emotions engendered, and the breadth of the audience it is capable of influencing.
Art which is intended to provoke thought attempts to evoke feelings of contemplativeness and/or curiousity which the audience then associates with the subject matter.

A child's picture of a dog evokes a strong sence of familial pride, but the "area of effect" is limited to a handful of individuals.
Transformers 2 on the other hand influenced several million people, but with an excedingly limited emotive palatte with very little strength behind them.
The Sistine Chapel is designed to provoke wonder. It succeeds beautifully, even if in some cases it's more of a "That must have been a right bugger to paint" variety.
Porn is art in the same way that a bag of flour is food.

AxiomaticBadger has Spoken.

MrFoxter
10th Nov 2010, 22:22
Thank you. I couldn't have done it without you. :flowers:

You're welcome :thumb:


Art is defined by one thing, and one thing only: Emotional content. It is an attempt to convey feeling through media accessable by puny human senses. Quality is defined by the complexity of the emotional blend the piece attepts to convey, the strength of the emotions engendered, and the breadth of the audience it is capable of influencing.
Art which is intended to provoke thought attempts to evoke feelings of contemplativeness and/or curiousity which the audience then associates with the subject matter.

Interesting thoughts. I like your definition ;)

IOOI
10th Nov 2010, 23:40
Prepair to taste my mighty brain, meatbags!

Art is defined by one thing, and one thing only: Emotional content. It is an attempt to convey feeling through media accessable by puny human senses. Quality is defined by the complexity of the emotional blend the piece attepts to convey, the strength of the emotions engendered, and the breadth of the audience it is capable of influencing.
Art which is intended to provoke thought attempts to evoke feelings of contemplativeness and/or curiousity which the audience then associates with the subject matter.

A child's picture of a dog evokes a strong sence of familial pride, but the "area of effect" is limited to a handful of individuals.
Transformers 2 on the other hand influenced several million people, but with an excedingly limited emotive palatte with very little strength behind them.
The Sistine Chapel is designed to provoke wonder. It succeeds beautifully, even if in some cases it's more of a "That must have been a right bugger to paint" variety.
Porn is art in the same way that a bag of flour is food.

AxiomaticBadger has Spoken.

I has question.

Lets put it this way, Would something like the sistine chapel paintings be considered art for the Islam worshipers in a mosque?

Donvermicelli
10th Nov 2010, 23:40
I think the problem is that there doesn't seem to be a solid definition of "art."

True. Games that I consider art:
-DX(it shows you can actually throw a bunch of genres together and with enough dedication it can beat any other game of it's time)
-Amnesia The dark decent( this is like a good book only presented as a game, with a good headset you sometimes forget it's just a game you are playing.<-- also would like to add that even the developers state that this game should never be played to win, it should be played to be played.)
-QuakeIII ( not the game itself in particular but the engine that was built for it revealed the true extent of the possibilities computers have.)
-DukeNukem3D (for generally not caring about any opinions, just kick ass. It was a refreshing game)

and more but I guess this would be a start.

Games that I do not consider art:
Sports games in general, they do exactly what they are meant to do. They leave nothing open for the player to decide, discover or learn. ( yes you decide where to take the ball etc. sports tactics are involved but 99% of them lack player input and are the same) Below went a little off-topic but I left it there anyway.
C&C4 <-- just taking one out of the giant pile that presents modern day developer attitude. It was released with the sole purpose of cashing the money from the last of the remaining people still crazy enough to buy the game. It was rushed, nothing new and reeked of I want to milk more out of this franchise before I kill it. Admittedly I am not a fan of anything after red alert 2. Yuri's revenge was decent, generals was a good game but not C&C, Renegade slipped a hint of what Kane really was and decided to focus on the story behind it all and also trying to show the franchise from another perspective so I still consider it a good effort. C&C3 revealed the true lack of interest of EA devs in the franchise. Nothing about the game made sense other than that it was expensive and it featured the scrin as a playable race! Didn't mean to rant about this but I guess it's too late now. This was btw not aimed specifically at that franchise but I dare say I'd apply it to the gross of modern games. not saying there is nothing good these days. Also in the past there were crap games and crap franchises, diffirence is people buy other peoples franchises and then make sequels/prequels of them in the hope of making a quick buck. Ruining the reputation of the dev and the game in the long run.

AxiomaticBadger
11th Nov 2010, 15:05
I has question.

Lets put it this way, Would something like the sistine chapel paintings be considered art for the Islam worshipers in a mosque?Hmm, not sure I understand the question. In any case, Yes.

They might not agree with the subject matter, find it objectionable, or even just plain not understand it, but that merely lessens it's effect, it doesn't invalidate it. In the same manner a christian can appreciate ancient egyptian art without worshiping Ra.

A quick note about games---
C&C 3 was awesome! Good old cheesy acting, a coherent story line and good gameplay. Donvermicelli, you are talking purest refined mumpits!

Bioware is awesome because thier characters, even when unoriginal, are of surpassing craftsmanship. Even the cheesiest characters are given a breadth rarely given to protagonists in other games, presenting a range of emotion and often having reasons why they're clichéd. Alistair may have started of as Xander but he grew to become his own distinct character.
Don't make the mistake of mistaking variety or uniqueness for quality.

Donvermicelli
11th Nov 2010, 22:08
A quick note about games---
C&C 3 was awesome! Good old cheesy acting, a coherent story line and good gameplay. Donvermicelli, you are talking purest refined mumpits!

This I find funny, how can you call it a coherent story line? During Tiberian Sun the world was too polluted for naval vessels to be used, yet in C&C3 we have blue zones? that might be to reformation sure but what about the change in Ion storms? they went from field covering weather conditions to a small aoe skill used by the scrin.

Explain why NOD stealth generators no longer have the ability to stealth themselves while they were perfectly able to in the past? NOD also lost all subterranean units and apparently walls became redundant(so did gates).

GDI retired the mammoth tanks in before Tiberian Sun because they were no longer that viable with the changed terrain of earth, that and the fact that GDI was lead in mech development. They had their entire arsenal in mechs=> Wolverines, Titans, Juggernauts. Yet in C&C3 all but one mech dissapears? and guess what they started using tanks again. The impenetrable Firestorm Defense systems seemed gone too.

Oh and my biggest beef is the complete change in mindset of the franchise. C&C was about two sides of the same coin both trying to achieve one thing: World peace. Only both used a diffirent approach. Neither one was good or bad, yet in C&C3 NOD lost allmost all of their technology and decided to go GLA on us. EA made them out to be a bunch of terrorist fanatics. Truth is, they weren't.

It's so full of holes that it became hard for me to look at it. And guess what? I played it, liked it even but no way in hell did it do the C&C franchise justice. ( same goes for Ra3 though and I'll spoiler tag the next thing: Kane was in fact immortal he was the one that lead the soviet forces against the allies. It's all in the C&C motto: He who controls the past commands the future, He who commands the future, conquers the past. the original intent before EA took over was to align the two sagas in the end to form one epic finale yet EA threw this out of the window along with a lot of other stuff it seems.)

IOOI
11th Nov 2010, 22:52
Hmm, not sure I understand the question. In any case, Yes.

They might not agree with the subject matter, find it objectionable, or even just plain not understand it, but that merely lessens it's effect, it doesn't invalidate it. In the same manner a christian can appreciate ancient egyptian art without worshiping Ra.

Maybe for Islam followers it would be considered rubish or of bad taste, the same way flour is food. So to them it *would not* be considered art.

Like you said and implied, there are things like context, susceptibility or acceptance for the same things (ie: values) and the strength of the emotions engendered - that don't affect people in the same way - that have to be taken into account.

But I agree that for someone who conceives and builds his own machine and then sees it in motion, the simple fact that it works or even the simple fact of seeing it in motion would be considered art for him - it would be a wonderful moment for him.

AxiomaticBadger
12th Nov 2010, 15:13
Flour is a food. You can eat it.

A more apt metaphor would be putting a plate of Rogan Josh in front of a man who doesn't like curry. It remains food, just a food that the man doesn't like.
To this we can add indirect perception; the man can see others in the restaurant eating the curry, therefor it can be inferred that it is food.

...I'm hungry now.
---
In C&C3 it's stated quite plainly that the changes in the environment are a result of GDI technology advancing to the point that they're actively combating the effects of tiberium on the environment. The reduction in NOD stealth efficiency is easily explainable by the idea that NOD stealth tech hasn't advanced quite as fast as GDI detectors. The firestorm is similiar, if NOD discovered a counter to it then it becomes a pointless technology.
These are things that don't need an explination.

Have you even played the original game? NOD was always the evil terrorist organisation. That was their whole schtick.

Please note: I am in no way defending C&C4. Bad gameplay, bad plot, bad storytelling. It was the axiom of disappointment.

Donvermicelli
12th Nov 2010, 16:49
Flour is a food. You can eat it.
The reduction in NOD stealth efficiency is easily explainable by the idea that NOD stealth tech hasn't advanced quite as fast as GDI detectors. The firestorm is similiar, if NOD discovered a counter to it then it becomes a pointless technology.
These are things that don't need an explination.

Have you even played the original game? NOD was always the evil terrorist organisation. That was their whole schtick.

Please note: I am in no way defending C&C4. Bad gameplay, bad plot, bad storytelling. It was the axiom of disappointment. I did play the original game, NOD was not a terrorist organisation they were simply unbound by morals and ethical problems like GDI was but that does not make them terrorists, much less fanatics with suicide bombings.

In Tiberian Dawn, units were simple jeeps and tanks, forward to Tiberian Sun, technology advanced to walkers and hovertanks, then when Tiberium wars comes around, technology dropped back to cars and tanks. Then it pops back up in C&C4 as a attempt to re-enter walkers back into the game.

Becomes even more confusing when you compare the visuals on both sides but I guess people could still like the game regardless of that fact. I just think it doesn't become art because of the lack of detail because those details is what give franchises a means to be great.

IOOI
12th Nov 2010, 23:57
Flour is a food. You can eat it.

A more apt metaphor would be putting a plate of Rogan Josh in front of a man who doesn't like curry. It remains food, just a food that the man doesn't like.
To this we can add indirect perception; the man can see others in the restaurant eating the curry, therefor it can be inferred that it is food.

Aaahhh! Now I know what you meant.

AxiomaticBadger
17th Nov 2010, 21:16
I did play the original game, NOD was not a terrorist organisation they were simply unbound by morals and ethical problems like GDI was but that does not make them terrorists No, it was the bombings that made them terrorists.

maddermadcat
18th Nov 2010, 04:42
Nod isn't an acronym, guys.

SageSavage
7th Mar 2011, 18:40
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/710863/Video-Games-As-Art-An-Apology-For-Roger-Ebert.html

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/issues/issue_291/8608-Almost-Art.2

Crane
7th Mar 2011, 19:56
Yes.

vault_overseer
7th Mar 2011, 20:36
Pretentious question that sites like kotaku, destructoid and escapist like to chew through every few months to bring them bunch of readership from liberal good-for-nothing hippie stoner college crowd.

Considering a piece of turd can be called art these days, this question is pointless. Art these days is whatever you want to label as such.

mahmoudd
7th Mar 2011, 20:40
personally, i do not care if they are art, as long as they're fun

xeoncat
7th Mar 2011, 21:34
Digital Games (not just any game) are the highest form of art known to humankind. If that feels like an overstatement, think again.
Digital Games can be made of the collection of all other types of art, plus something else. Literature, Painting, Sculpting, Architecture, Music, Photography, Cinema, etc etc. They are able to immerse the person and make one feel things, which is the quintessence of art. They are able to convey political, religious or moral points pretty effectively if the developers want to.

Just because some games appear to be shallow, it doesn't mean that the medium is flawed as an artform. just my 2 cents.

MrFoxter
7th Mar 2011, 22:27
Digital Games (not just any game) are the highest form of art known to humankind. If that feels like an overstatement, think again.
Digital Games can be made of the collection of all other types of art, plus something else. Literature, Painting, Sculpting, Architecture, Music, Photography, Cinema, etc etc. They are able to immerse the person and make one feel things, which is the quintessence of art. They are able to convey political, religious or moral points pretty effectively if the developers want to.

Just because some games appear to be shallow, it doesn't mean that the medium is flawed as an artform. just my 2 cents.

The games have a potential to be the higher art. Something being a collection of arts doesn't imply that it's more than the collected art. It is even possible that it won't be an art at all (gallery of paintings, folder with photos...). It's the way they are put together and enriched in the process that makes it something more than a collection. Mainstream games are meant to be fun. However, some experimental indie games are more thought-provoking, they try to use an interactivity of the medium to enrich the experience and I'd search for signs of art there.

Spyhopping
7th Mar 2011, 23:24
The word "art" doesn't really mean anything anymore. Games contain the work of richly talented individuals, and they can be beautiful creations when the whole thing fits together in a particular way, carrying a well written story. It's still a young medium with exciting potential, and a long way to go.

xeoncat
8th Mar 2011, 11:59
The games have a potential to be the higher art. Something being a collection of arts doesn't imply that it's more than the collected art.
Yes, maybe you are right. Most of the times, an object is something different than just the collection of its parts.


The word "art" doesn't really mean anything anymore.
And there's that problem too, since modernism, art can be anything. In my personal definition, I think art has to have a purpose, at least try to convey something. I wouldn't classify much modernism and post-modernism as art simply because when I see them I can't get anything from them > Pollock for example >

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/4a/No._5%2C_1948.jpg

mentalkase
9th Mar 2011, 17:47
I get something from Jackson Pollocks art personally. He took one idea within visual arts to its logical conclusion, that of freedom of line. Up until then there was a certain constraint within the use of line that limited its dynamic potential. What he did may not have been difficult, and if you don't know what you're looking at they can look like nothing but childs play, a mess, but he did have artistic ability and he was controlling what he put on the canvas. There were still compositional tensions being created within his canvases, and within the lines themselves. Taken in context of the non-representational modernism that was popular at the time they make sense.

Basically I see it as him doing it so noone else had to, the same way dadaism took the idea of art itself to its logical extreme. To me it's the people who've only emulated what those artists did that are the frauds. If they take the ideas within their works and create something original with their own vision then they're just incorporating their knowledge of art history into what they do.

I'd agree that he relied on a gimmick and that anyone who wants to think his stuff is junk is perfectly entitled to think that, but he did add a certain 'language' to art that has been used since in interesting ways and that can be appreciated by those who aren't interested in what he did.

I guess in a way I think that's what's largely missing from games (as art), they're not willing to push boundaries enough, to show a personal vision that may be difficult to understand or make the person playing the game uncomfortable or think about what they're playing, or even be willing to not have a point, to just be what they are for no reason other than that's what the artist creating them wanted. Are they still games then though? Aren't there certain rules inherent in what a 'game' is? That's another question up for debate. How far can you push a game before it isn't actually a game anymore.

The thing is though we don't call people making games artists, we call them designers. There are designers of all types who have earned the right to be called artists, certain architects are among the premier artists working today, and in my opinion architecture can possibly be considered the highest form of art, when the architect has had a lasting impact on society as a whole, while also staying true to his own personal vision. So games can also be an important form of art, as i've said before though, generally I don't think they aspire to be enough.