|
Pages: 1 [2] 3
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Are video games artistic? (Read 8173 times)
|
SweetSassyMolassy
*Smell* controller
 Offline
Posts: 271
|
I'd define art as intentional communication (from artist to a recipient) of creative (i.e. not strictly factual) content intended to affect the thoughts and/or emotions of the recipient (e.g. aesthetic appeal or repulsion) without utility. This rules out e.g. engineering (factual, has utility), lies and propaganda (have utility, at least to their creator) and pure mathematics ("the set of useless theorems", but factual). As a work can contain some aspects that are art by the above and some that aren't, the definition gets a bit fuzzy in practice. For example, a song or book becomes less art the more it is intended to achieve a practical goal (e.g. change election results).
So, is entertainment a form of utility? If so, movies are no longer considered art. If not, a stripper can be considered an artist.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
I am not always understand about what you speak, unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
|
Megagun
Enlightened
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 580
Moo
|
Hmm, I just produced a fine piece of art in my toilet...
(Either way, I completely agree with Novus; couldn't have said it any better)
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 3874
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
All those JRPG's which are 90% cutscene are also art of a sort, no doubt.
But that's just by making a game mostly a movie.
Play Earthbound.
This is art of an entirely video-game sort. You can even tell what school of art it is - reconstructionist.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
AngusThermopyle
*Smell* controller
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 304
A paranoid android.
|
What about film? I imagine it takes some serious willpower for many people to try and watch a black & white, silent film. Does that make it any less valid as art? What about film in a language you don't understand? Or film that looks like it was taken (or perhaps actually was taken) with an old recorder or handicam? By your argument, these are disqualifying film as an art form as well.
No one would argue the artistic elements of say, Metropolis. Like I said before, it's all about perception. Because it's a silent film, only film buffs and sci-fi fanatics like us will ever appreciate it. Without society's reverence as a whole, it will never gain the sort of artistic stature as some of my previous examples. (Interestingly, take The Wizard of Oz -- made only a decade and change later -- and you have something that could possibly challenge the big boys.)
But, going back to the original question, I do not believe video games to be on the same artistic level as the previous examples I gave, as perceived by society as a whole (I'm pretty sure that's what Ebert was talking about). I think it would take a major paradigm shift on society's part to start viewing video games on the same level as history's great paintings, sculptures, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Amiga_Nut
*Many bubbles*
Offline
Gender:
Posts: 208
|
As a summery of my thoughts regarding this thread; which is a good discussion IMHO, a final thought. The actual topic aside: Here’s an example of one reason I hate Roger Ebert’s reviews.
The 1993 film, Groundhog Day, starring Bill Murray, in my opinion, was one of the most hilarious and entertaining films ever made.
In Roger Ebert’s review of the film, at no point does he say anything about actually liking the film or suggesting that the reader view it. Overall his review is rather generic and matter of fact. He describes the formula of the film, with no statements of appreciation or detest. To someone who’s never seen the film, there’s not much in his description that would suggest that seeing this film would be a good idea. A grave mistake, I think.
The review IS in Ebert's 3 star category, but I feel that's not enough.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: August 03, 2008, 12:12:29 am by Amiga_Nut »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Battlefrank
Zebranky food
Offline
Posts: 48
|
I dissagree.
About the graphics thing, that's what really makes me angry. People valuing graphics above gameplay.
A debate with a PS3 fanboy ended tragically with "but you do agree that gameplay is what really matters, right?"
"no, man Graphics all the way"
There was this feeling I had. For the first time, I actually wanted someone dead. I call this feeling natural selection.
I didn't kill him, of course, that would be stupid. But I couldn't talk to him anymore. I think graphics are valued too highly.
SC2 is the best game ever in my opinion, and it has horrible graphics by today's standards.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3
|
|
|
|
|
