i am one of those people who views video games as art, although more industrialized i suppose, and before anyone starts flaming me calling me a geek or anything, think about it. Games are a form of expression, able to immerse you into a story as well as a book, deliver visuals worthy of movies, and use music and sound to accent the experience, crafting amazing things from epic stories like halo to fright-inducing stories like F.E.A.R., and don't get me wrong, im not saying all games are art, (Wii Sports, anyone?) im saying some experiences in gaming are so immersive and so well presented, they can't be anything less. now, that being said, who agrees and who hates me now?

I agree that games can be viewed as a sort of art. If a book or movie can be art there is no reason why a game cannot be. Shamus Young makes a really good argument on his web page in favor of video games being art.

http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/index.php?p=1090

I am on the fence on this one. The Gamer in me wants games to be art but the film buff in me does not see that many games that show any artistic style. When I play games like Okami and Shadow of the Colossus I see beautiful art direction and it feels close to an art form but it's still seems slightly off. Video Games have never moved me like films have but then again I have never cried reading a book either. I think the word art is far to subjective to really ever come to a conclusion and those who have always seen art as something you hang on a wall will never see what we do as anything more then playing a game.

I agree! Games should be more accepted as culture. NOT WoW and NOT CS. Warcraft but now World of Watcraft. But thats the thing, CS and WoW are the only games ppl outside of gaming knows of, and its being presentated in media as something very bad. Which is sad =_=

I definatly agree that games are art, though some games might be more artistic than others.
Say, Ocarina of Time vs Lord of the Rings Online.

I definatly agree that games are art, though some games might be more artistic than others.
Say, Ocarina of Time vs Lord of the Rings Online.

When I think of games that have artistic merit Ocarina of Time and Lord of the Rings Online don't seem to fit. What about those games feel like are to you.

What games do you guys think could be called art and why?

When I think of games that have artistic merit Ocarina of Time and Lord of the Rings Online don't seem to fit. What about those games feel like are to you.

What games do you guys think could be called art and why?
Woah, don't get me wrong. I think Lord of the Rings Online is a horrible, horrible game.
It's hard to say what that makes Ocarina of Time art though... I might have to come back on that one...

Half Life games, rich story, very good voice acting, good story-telling, engaging gameplay.
Grand Theft Auto series, or at least GTA: SA (which is the only one I play through) engaging gameplay and story and good voice acting.

Oh and its nice to see another swede here :] GULDET KOM HEM!

Games are not art, games are more of a service, they are meant to appeal to a large audience and entertain them, unlike art.

Games are not art, games are more of a service, they are meant to appeal to a large audience and entertain them, unlike art.
So paintings, music and movies don't do that?

Story, and Voice Acting are great elements in an art form but don't make and art form. Game play is one of the things that I think hurts the idea of gaming as art because shooting aliens or hookers in first person is not art. All those things make a great game but none of that seems like Art to me. Art is the expression of higher ideas in a form that others can interpret. Games are more about base emotions like excitement or fear.

So paintings, music and movies don't do that?

No Art is not a service, it is an expression of an artist and is not made to appeal to everyone. When an artist sits down to create nobody gives him a target demographic, he expresses himself.

Games are art, they're expressions of several artists, though not made to appeal to everyone. When a designer sits down to create nobody gives him a target demographic, he expresses himself with the help of many.

... See what I did there?

Note: designers may or may not have demographics.

Yes they do, he either pitches an idea or is assigned one, and as he works he has people above him to make sure what he does is right. The designers do not just make whatever they want and put it out, because unless it ends up being good for a demographic it will not be made. they HAVE to target a large audience because it is a product for the masses. Art is a personal expression that may only appeal to a few people.

Do YOU see what I did there?

Yeah, I see it.
But doesn't that also count for paintings, music and movies?

I don't consider music art, and only some independant films are art, because they like art are not dependant on things like sales or appeal.

I think I might understand how you see art now...

Since the dawn of mankind we have used to art to express ourselves, through cave drawings, song, instruments and proper paintings.
But when we sell our art and make it while thinking of what it might bring us, it is not art, but capitalism?

Warm or cold?

Has a game ever moved you? More then just the adrenalin of CS or fear you get playing a survival game. Have you every played a game that just stuck with you for days because the images that you saw? Not just cool moments of "pwning some n00b". Has a game ever made you reconsider the choses you made with your life are the beliefs that you had? Has a game ever made you emotionally uncomfertable about it?

I'm not talking about normal emotions but the deep emotions that only humans feel. An animal can feel fear or joy or excitement but humans have emotions so broad that we have the abillty to create art. Game are about the primitive emotion we all have but art is the high stuff that sometimes we don't even know we are feeling.

This is a hard one as everyone already seems to have acknowledged.

For me personally, I do not really see games as art and yet when I see a game like Okami in motion I feel that it is absolutely a piece of art through its art design, colour pallet and atmospheric music.

I think most games are more of a service like an earlier poster stated with the odd exception like Okami or possibly Max Payne (through its narrative and graphic novels) really claiming the title of "art house games".

I think I might understand how you see art now...

Since the dawn of mankind we have used to art to express ourselves, through cave drawings, song, instruments and proper paintings.
But when we sell our art and make it while thinking of what it might bring us, it is not art, but capitalism?

Warm or cold?

Warm. Though sometimes I feel gamers say games are art because they really want games to be more appreciated and true forms of entertainment, but I think it is better to not just classify games as one thing, but to let it classify itself.

Yeah, I think that might've been how I felt about it.
I'll take back my thing about games being art and just remain neutral through this discussion for now.

All that which Duncor just said.
I don't know Duncor, but I think what you said might have to do with why I love roleplaying game series like Knight of the Old Republic and Neverwinter nights.
Those games aren't just about fighting, they're also about conversing and experiencing things from other 'realities'. Also; I might be taking RPGs too seriously.

but in KOTOR you spend most of the time in a turn based battle. Think the problem is that Art is some thing to look at and interpret and games are something you do. Some games have artistic qualities but the over package is more like a sport.

I might've enjoyed the talking and storyline more than the combat though.

It has artwork, it has music, it has writing etc..... it combines every art form there is so obviously its art. Theres no two ways about it.

It has artwork, it has music, it has writing etc..... it combines every art form there is so obviously its art. Theres no two ways about it.

could of not said it better my self, even games like wow can be seen as art when u think about how many hours they put in2 desinging the world and all the idears they put in2 making the dungeons and stuff. Even the items some 1 had to shit down and make steches of weapons, so some 1 could make that peice of art digital and give it "life" in that world. But yes games like Wii sports and all the other shit mini games the wii has there hard 2 defend as being art

Eibmoz has a very good point, let's see some arguments.

Just because it has components of art and may incorporate art does not mean it is art.

Some games are art. It's like movies: Some are art, and others a commercialized crap engineered to only earn money.

so music + aspects of film/tv + writing + design = art
but mix them and its not art?

maybe part is a personal thing maybe som ppl see art difrently, i mean i look at a painting and i dont realy care but i watch Anime and i look at the animation and stuff and love it, also to some ppl marshal arts can be seen as a art form

A museum incorporates art but is not art. Games do use art but the game as a whole is not art. Games convey art, but are not art themselves.

A museum incorporates art but is not art. Games do use art but the game as a whole is not art. Games convey art, but are not art themselves.

Museums are architecturally designed by a visionary... The Guggenheim and Louvre are aesthetically pleasing places inside and out with or without the art contained within. I think you're confusing museums with wal-mart or something.

so are you saying if a museum was just a typical building with four walls and such, but it had priceless artwork on display inside, it would still not be a museum.

Here's how I see it. There are artists who work on video games. What do they make? Art. Therefore video-games are art.

sorry but that is a very simplistic view on the subject.

I think some are, some are not. There are games out there that look really nice, but are at heart just another cookie cutter made title. Now some games really do bring it all home, from music, to graphics, the art that goes into those, mixed with a great story.

When I think of art...just to name one I think people have heard of, is the first Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver game comes to my mind.

ok i just got back and i read a bit so i just wanted to answer (for at least me) the people who ask if a game has ever moved me. yes, they have moved me, iv'e felt desperation in a game, joy, fear, anger, helplessess, all from a game so im just adding this to add a little to why i think some of them are art, and just to clarify , just because art goes into a game doesn't make it art, it has to come together in a way that makes it a rich experience

I agree that it is a work of art. What else would you call a two-man team going against 4 with rocket launchers and vehicles in Halo 3 and killing them all?

It's futile trying to discuss it with Mona Lisa fans. They just don't get it.

i think some games are as much of art as music or movies, and i definitely think music and movies can be art.

I agree that it is a work of art. What else would you call a two-man team going against 4 with rocket launchers and vehicles in Halo 3 and killing them all?

It's futile trying to discuss it with Mona Lisa fans. They just don't get it.

I call it entertainment, and crazy.

so are you saying if a museum was just a typical building with four walls and such, but it had priceless artwork on display inside, it would still not be a museum.

There's no such thing as a typical building.

Yes there is.

Yes there is.

Name one.

A museum incorporates art but is not art. Games do use art but the game as a whole is not art. Games convey art, but are not art themselves.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

One of the things I've noticed over the years is that the only people who consider video games to be art are gamers. Not art critics, not English majors, not English professors. These people as a whole have a good idea of what art is and what it is not. I even recall both Hideo Kojima and Shigeru Miyamoto denouncing games as art, and if the top game creators don't think games are art, why should anyone else?

Though I must admit, I do appreciate the fact that the gaming industry is giving jobs to writers, actors, and graphic artists. Making a living as a real artist usually does not pay well and I'm glad to see some more opportunities for them to work.

Though just because an artist works, it doesn't mean their work automatically becomes art. Just take a look at "Garfield". Just because Jim Davis draws a cat and writes dialog, it doesn't mean it's a piece of art.

I call it entertainment, and crazy.

Since when can't art entertain or be crazy? Salvador Dali paintings are absolutely crazy, and I still laugh with delight everytime I see EM's "The Scream" -- my favorite painting.

what? just a building with four walls and a roof, no distinctive features. but the point is the architecture does not make a museum, it is what is inside the museum.

P.S. I didn't say art can't be entertaining or crazy, but not everything that IS entertaining or crazy is art.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

One of the things I've noticed over the years is that the only people who consider video games to be art are gamers. Not art critics, not English majors, not English professors. These people as a whole have a good idea of what art is and what it is not. I even recall both Hideo Kojima and Shigeru Miyamoto denouncing games as art, and if the top game creators don't think games are art, why should anyone else?

Though I must admit, I do appreciate the fact that the gaming industry is giving jobs to writers, actors, and graphic artists. Making a living as a real artist usually does not pay well and I'm glad to see some more opportunities for them to work.

Though just because an artist works, it doesn't mean their work automatically becomes art. Just take a look at "Garfield". Just because Jim Davis draws a cat and writes dialog, it doesn't mean it's a piece of art.

You're talking about Professorships' views on art as supreme which smacks directly in the face of so-called "new criticism" which is the backbone of modern literary studies. Before the U.S. it was impossible for regular people to define art or identify or criticize art because only the elite who actually hung out with Byron and Wordsworth in real life had the "right" to interpret meaning from their texts.

In other words, what you're implying about "people who know what art is" coincidentally flies right into the face of what they as professors and scholars stand for and identify themselves as.

As an aside, my dad's an English Professor and he represents video games as art in his class. I'm a doctoral student of English and I believe games are art. My mentor/advisor at undergraduate college believed video games and comic books as well to be art. Secondary English teachers around the country are incorporating video game and video game stories into their lessons to teach plot structure, the so-called hero's journey, etc. etc. At an education conference I attended recently (google "Games in Education PBS") revolved around this issue. It is not a minority view point anymore.

what? just a building with four walls and a roof, no distinctive features. but the point is the architecture does not make a museum, it is what is inside the museum.

P.S. I didn't say art can't be entertaining or crazy, but not everything that IS entertaining or crazy is art.

Would you then contend that an oral storyteller/reciter is not an artist because he's delivering Homer's poetry? What about his gestures? What about the calculated voice changes, harmonies, and eye movements?

The museum is to a painter's painting as an actor is to a playwright's words. The actor's preperation, delivery, and passion is just as poetic as the lines he's delivering. The frame holding a painting and the museum holding the frame that holds the painting is a work of art in and of itself. If the "priceless paintings" (if perceived monetary value is your value system regarding art) are in a general steel building or a so-called ordinary looking building, it was placed within that building for a specific aesthetic purpose. The stairs in front of the philadelphia library once held a statue of rocky balboa as a memento to rocky's training scene in that series of movies. The statue is no longer there, but that staircase still represents an artistic value. Even though the rocky movie is already shot and stored away forever, if a demolition company were to come and demolish that set of stairs -- even though there's no statue on it -- it would be the destruction of a work of art. An irreplaceable loss.

Probably a better example of this is Michelangelo's David.

David originally stood in an Italian Piazza in Florence for public display, but because the statue was vulnerable to the elements, and because it is admired so much, it was moved into a protected environment.

So... WHY today does a COPY of David now stand in that Piazza? What is the point? Hell, a museum without its art? How about a spot on the ground in the open air without its art! The piazza itself has transcended into the conscience just the way that the statue of David itself transcended. That's why they built and placed the replica in the exact same spot.

you should probably either make one long post, or let someone else reply, before making a triple post.

i do, however, agree with a lot of what you're saying, even though you feel the need to beat and grind your point of view into everyone's brain, and you forget that "art" is what the critic (everyone who wants to be) interprets it as.

for you, and you've made this very clear in multiple threads, video games allow you to experience something almost spiritual, and that's great! you have to realize, though, that video games don't do that for everyone. in fact, they don't do that for many people. it's along the same lines as movies and books. not everyone connects with movies, lots of people don't like movies at all, same with books.

just because you're knowledgeable in historical art and the likes, doesn't mean you're opinion is any more valid than the next person's, especially when the topic is about what everyone considers art.

What about before David, before everything, was that plot of land worth anything more then another plot of land. It was made famous by the art placed there, the land itself is not art, but what was on it was art.

This topic was heavily discussed in GamesTM the greatest video gaming magazine ever. not just the run-of-the-mill OH MY GOD LOOK AT THE NEW GAMES on the front cover but intelligent articles all the way through.

What about before David, before everything, was that plot of land worth anything more then another plot of land. It was made famous by the art placed there, the land itself is not art, but what was on it was art.

I'm not sure, I'm sure for some people it was. Italian plazas and their tiling are quite beautiful, but like most art I'm sure it was taken for granted by its contemporaries.

The point is though it was merely land, it was nothing until the art.

sorry but that is a very simplistic view on the subject. Is there a problem with being simple?

Yes, because it misses a lot.

It's art. Movies are considered art and video games have the same characteristics.

Story, acting, visual style, music, production value, etc...

they are not the same, everybody knows that.

Not the same but has similar characteristics.

It was mentioned before but how you define something as art is:

1. Did the creator intend the work to be an art piece?

2. Does the viewer view the work as a piece of art?

If the answer is yes to both questions than anything can be art. That's a very textbook definition but I like it.

I personally think that video games are an art form.

The only thing in my opinion stopping video games from being art is whether the game designers intended the game to be a piece of art. Obviously the graphics, modellers, lighting designers, set designers, etc would say that what they do could be considerred art. Anything that needs creativity to create can be considerred art.

However, it also depends on your personal interpretation of the piece. If you don't think that something is art then it is not art.

agreed, art is based on opinion, we all have our own views on what is art and what is not.

Games are not art, games are more of a service, they are meant to appeal to a large audience and entertain them, unlike art.

If art is not meant to appeal to a large audience and entertain them, then what is its purpose? Because by that standard, movies, books, photography, music, comics, pretty much nothing entertaining is also art. So what would you consider to be art?

art is the a reflection of the artist, games are based off of income. Lets say a company is looking at making a sequel, they don't say "man that game truly moved me. We need another." No they look at the money it made and decide whether to let it go. I personally never heard of an artist who decided to not paint what they truly wanted to paint because of money. Art is not made towarda as wide an audience as possible, it is a reflection of the artist.

P.S. Like I said games have art, I admit that. that does not mean that it itself is art.

Are movies art? Videogames and movies are almost the same. They use graphics and voice acting to convay a story. I believe that video games count as art.

I already voiced my opinion on movies as art, and games are a combination f technology and art to make a product that brings you the entertainment.

art is the a reflection of the artist, games are based off of income. Lets say a company is looking at making a sequel, they don't say "man that game truly moved me. We need another." No they look at the money it made and decide whether to let it go. I personally never heard of an artist who decided to not paint what they truly wanted to paint because of money. Art is not made towarda as wide an audience as possible, it is a reflection of the artist.

P.S. Like I said games have art, I admit that. that does not mean that it itself is art.

art is very much about $$$ -- why do you think the vast bulk of great art in Europe is in Venice, Genoa, Florence, Siena, Paris, etc. and not in Krakow, Budapest, and -- I don't know -- Gronzy? It's because those were the wealthiest cities on Earth during the Renaissance. No one says "Hey let's buy an original Picasso painting because it moves me" -- they buy original Picasso paintings because they want to show off their wealth to their rich buddies.

I mean seriously dude, I'm sorry if I sound to condescending or w/e ala douche is all huff and puff in a fit about, but you're just bringing an ideology about "what art is" into the picture that is just really naive and simplistic. I mean, c'mon... "man that art truly moved me"? By that logic, black and white films like casablanca would be a less quality art than Doom or Bourne Supremacy since teenagers are "moved" by those movies (usually moved to shoot up their schools...) while citizen kane puts a lot of teenagers to sleep in high school (including myself).

I already voiced my opinion on movies as art, and games are a combination f technology and art to make a product that brings you the entertainment.

i just don't understand your low opinion of entertainment... I mean, the whole point of poetic verse is to make prose delightful and entertaining. When you read nursery rhymes you're really singing more than you are reading, and that's delightful. That's entertaining. Nursery rhyming is just a fun activity and you learn a moral or constructive lesson of some sort in the processes. If you try reading war & peace to a 3 year old they'll start crying!

because you need to draw a line, not everything that is entertaining is art. Let's just agree to disagree since this is going around and circles. Oh and by the way most of those artists were not appreciated until death, they do not paint based on money. Oh and if those certain movies moved a certain group then that proves my point. you believe Casablanca is better then Doom, good for you, but those people who liked Doom better are welcome to their opinion.

Who are you to say one is better? that to me is naive.