• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Are games art or something to be consumed

Art or product?

  • Total voters
    72
Keihart

Keihart

Member
So what do you think?
i know there are people that sits in both ends. Some people see games as something to be consumed and tailored to the player tastes, but there are also people that think that games are something to be experienced as is, in the way the developer delivered at the moment of release.

You can see this clearly from people wanting to adjust every little thing in a game to fit their personal tastes (like trainers or mods on PC sometimes) or people wanting the OG experience like playing on a SNES games on a CRT with original hardware.
 
Last edited:
MasterDerico

MasterDerico

Member
Art is the beautiful beyond your eyes, it's personal.

Some people think game "x" is art, and I don't. And i think Silent Hill 2 is a piece of art and some don't.

Art is subjective, a blind adjective of the product, in this case.

So, it's both, becauce we have art in everything.
 
Last edited:
haxan7

haxan7

Volunteered as Tribute
If you want to break it down you can say that the "art" is a building block for the game ... game assets are created/modeled/drawn just like art ... but they're just the front layer of the game that you interact with.

So I would say games have art in them, but that art is mostly functional, and serves the purpose of presenting the visual elements that you interact with when you play a game.

It's like asking are "area rugs" art? Are "vases" art? Yes, they can definitely be seen as an art, and they can have actual art on them, but they are also a functional thing with a purpose.
 
Keihart

Keihart

Member
haxan7 said:
If you want to break it down you can say that the "art" is a building block for the game ... game assets are created/modeled/drawn just like art ... but they're just the front layer of the game that you interact with.

So I would say games have art in them, but that art is mostly functional, and serves the purpose of presenting the visual elements that you interact with when you play a game.

It's like asking are "area rugs" art? Are "vases" art? Yes, they can definitely be seen as an art, and they can have actual art on them, but they are also a functional thing with a purpose.
Click to expand...
Who gives them their purpose tho? the developers or the consumers?
I think this an interesting topic that you can also see in fields like comics when being steered by publishers and editors will, usually based on consumer trends.

There is always a divide between people that want the purist experience and people who want the games personalized to their tastes.
 
Last edited:
Naibel

Naibel

Member
Overall, the videogame medium certainly is an art form. But like movies, books or music, not every game is intended to be "Art" with a capital A. Some are just entertainment "products" made to pass the time and have fun, and that's perfectly fine.

Not every game has to be Silent Hill 2 or Valliant Hearts, thank god for that ! :messenger_grinning_squinting:
 
Damigos

Damigos

Member
Are books art ? Are movies art ? If yes, then so are games.
All media should be considered art. The fact they mass produce them and you pay for them doesnt negate the fact that games are still art.
 
mcjmetroid

mcjmetroid

Member
Technically art can be just about anything, anything that is created and can be subjective
Things like MAth or Science in general can't be art because there is a right and wrong answer to a solution.

Games are a product AND art.
 
Starbuck2907

Starbuck2907

Member
Art is consumed. Art is a product. Your choice is flawed. Artists have struggled with this for years, but at the end of the day, they try to pay their bills by selling art or creating art on commission. Even in non-financial terms, art is still consumed and is a product according to marketing definitions.
 
Ogbert

Ogbert

Member
Neither. They are a craft.

The magic of video games is in the mechanics. The visceral feel of controlling a character and the moment to moment enjoyment to be had. There is an immediate pleasure in excellent mechanics, just like sitting in a comfortable chair or driving a well-engineered car.

The rest is simply window dressing.
 
Keihart

Keihart

Member
Starbuck2907 said:
Art is consumed. Art is a product. Your choice is flawed. Artists have struggled with this for years, but at the end of the day, they try to pay their bills by selling art or creating art on commission. Even in non-financial terms, art is still consumed and is a product according to marketing definitions.
Click to expand...
Maybe i redacted the thread incorrectly.

When i'm saying if it's a product to be consumed or art to be experienced, i'm more precisely referring to how much of it you want it to be a customization to your specific sensibilities.
A big part of the gaming community usually likes to be pandered, they want the game to be this or to be that, or to played like this. Instead of judging games in what they are attempting to do and how they are attempting it or achieving it.

Inconveniences in gameplay for example are usually put as flaws in design in the mainstream, but often those are also done with purpose but since it's not pandering to the player they are perceived as flaws.
Maybe it is correct to see games as products that should be enjoyed in whatever way the consumer wants and consumer knows best, but this was the point i was making.

I compare this with comics, when they are changed sometimes just to pander a specific audience even if it stops being what the author wanted it to be at first.
 
TheSHEEEP

TheSHEEEP

Gold Member
Anyone who thinks art cannot be consumed has never eaten in a really good restaurant.
(and no, I don't mean that fancy nonsense with minimal plates and portions, just truly good food, prepared by a master)
 
Last edited:
Tschumi

Tschumi

Member
This genuinely changes from day to day for me.

At the moment I'm getting confused because graphics now are more beautiful and expressive than ever - but by the same token this seems to both make their beauty less exceptional (less art?) and add the double whammy effect of making older games that i used to consider "art" (Morrowind, for one) lose their lustre.

Art evokes an emotional response and thought, but to what extent is that emotional response in a game one beholden to art, or a geeky spasm for a really cool game? Did the first time i saw sunrays bleeding through branches in a tree in Halo constitute an artistic moment? Or just a "wow shit's hawt"?

At the moment i can't find a satisfactory image, but i guess for now I'll assert that, to me, one example of art in gaming is the interiors of Telvanni towers in Morrowind.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
IDKFA

IDKFA

I am Become Bilbo Baggins
Both?

TLOU2 can be considered art, but FIFA or Fortnite are absolutely a product made as a money making machine.
 
Ellery

Ellery

Member
That is the great thing about having your own mind. It doesn't matter what others define as art. It is such a loose term anyway and a point of pointless discussion. In the end it is important how you perceive it and how it makes you feel. Just because others don't see something you see doesn't mean their ignorance should be bothersome to you.

At the end of the day I would take Silent Hill 2 over taping a banana to my wall.

In my opinion videogames are much more than art, entertainment or consumption. They are the everevolving next step and many people just don't know it yet.
 
vaibhavpisal

vaibhavpisal

Member
Games are culmination of art forms and you have a choice to experience or consume it.

I will leave some examples:

Witcher 3 - Good story, music graphics but shit gameplay

No choice but to experience it.

Farcry 4 - good graphics, music, story AND gameplay.

You can consume it by quicktravel and run and gun gameplay. Or experience it by walking to locations and using stealth occassionally.
 
Soodanim

Soodanim

Member
I was going to quote a couple "Some are" posts and say it's not worth discussing, but if you think about "Art" we often just think of paintings. In that sense, not really. Although some games are very arty.

But if you think about "The Arts", it's a different matter.

Wikipedia said:
The arts refers to the theory, human application and physical expression of creativity found in human cultures and societies through skills and imagination in order to produce objects, environments and experiences. Major constituents of the arts include visual arts (including architecture, ceramics, drawing, filmmaking, painting, photography, and sculpting), literature (including fiction, drama, poetry, and prose), and performing arts (including dance, music, and theatre), culinary arts (including cooking, chocolate making and winemaking).

Some art forms combine a visual element with performance (e.g. cinematography), or artwork with the written word (e.g. comics). From prehistoric cave paintings to modern-day films, art serves as a vessel for storytelling and conveying humankind's relationship with the environment.
Click to expand...
If games are a sum of their parts and each part is the result of creative expression (graphics, sound effects, music, voice, writing, and the rest of it) then you could argue from that perspective that games are at the very least a product of various forms of art brought together for the purpose of being played.

Also from the same page:
Wikipedia said:
Video games

See also: Video games as an art form

A debate exists in the fine arts and video game cultures over whether video games can be counted as an art form.[28] Game designer Hideo Kojima professes that video games are a type of service, not an art form, because they are meant to entertain and attempt to entertain as many people as possible, rather than being a single artistic voice (despite Kojima himself being considered a gaming auteur, and the mixed opinions his games typically receive). However, he acknowledged that since video games are made up of artistic elements (for example, the visuals), game designers could be considered museum curators – not creating artistic pieces, but arranging them in a way that displays their artistry and sells tickets.

Within social sciences, cultural economists show how video games playing is conducive to the involvement in more traditional art forms and cultural practices, which suggests the complementarity between video games and the arts.[29]

In May 2011, the National Endowment of the Arts included video games in its redefinition of what is considered a "work of art" when applying of a grant.[30] In 2012, the Smithsonian American Art Museum presented an exhibit, The Art of the Video Game.[31] Reviews of the exhibit were mixed, including questioning whether video games belong in an art museum.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
H

Hunnybun

Member
It's a false dichotomy.

Games are a medium, like movies.

Some movies are art, some are worthless pieces of garbage. Chinatown is art, Home Alone isn't.

A game like Rime is definitely art. I'd say in general a smaller percentage of games are art than films, but they do still exist.
 
U

UnNamed

Banned
Everything can be art.

If I made an incredibile cake, that's art.

If I stole your wallet without you noticing, that's a form of art too.

So why videogame can't be art?
 
B

B-universe

Banned
You can have your own definition of art, as well as your own definition of armpit, and swear and live by them. That doesn't mean your definitions are truthful.

In order to determine whether videogames are art or not, one must first understand the nature of art. Without clearly establishing the anthology of art, the question is meaningless. No, the definition of the term is not a pointless discussions. It has had immense consequences throughout the 20th century, when the controversy initially spiked, and continues to do so with no less vigour.

Is the goal of art the same as the goal of videogames? What is the goal of art? What sets art part from every other human endeavour? If nothing separates art from any other human activity, then art does not exist. If all things were blue then the notion of blueness itself would be pointless and meaningless. Brain surgery can be a spectacle to watch. Elevator music can be pleasant to listen to. Are brain surgery and elevator music art?

The goal of categories is to render the mental landscape clearer. As already mentioned, "art" is often used to mean "great", adjective, or "exceptionally good", as in "sublime". Under this definition there would be no such thing as bad art. How does such an absolute definition help render matters clearer?

A videogame is first and foremost a game in video form. What is a game? What is the purpose of games? What sets gaming apart from other human activities? Does it have the same purpose as art?

Stating something is not art isn't the same thing as stating it's inferior to art. Avocados are not leather couches, but they're not inferior to leather couches. The goal of eating avocados and sitting on leather couches is very different, yet both are respectable.

Be prepared to answer these tough questions if you want your stance on whether games are art or not to be taken seriously.
 
Bernkastel

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Games are a interactive medium. If I am interacting with a medium and contributing to its progress, then I want it to be tailored to my tastes. I want to enjoy it as I consume the medium. A chef makes a dish based on his customers interest, not his own. A game that only the developer likes and has to be rated based on his artistic status prescribed the fanbase is like enjoying a food because some internet celebrity made it and his fans called it art. Everyone has his own taste on what game he likes.
 
Keihart

Keihart

Member
Bernkastel said:
Games are a interactive medium. If I am interacting with a medium and contributing to its progress, then I want it to be tailored to my tastes. I want to enjoy it as I consume the medium. A chef makes a dish based on his customers interest, not his own. A game that only the developer likes and has to be rated based on his artistic status prescribed the fanbase is like enjoying a food because some internet celebrity made it and his fans called it art. Everyone has his own taste on what game he likes.
Click to expand...
this is kind of the discussion i'm interested in, because how i see it, there is a lot of expression going on on games, that doesn't necessarily tries to pander to me but somehow i find value in it.
But i know this is a point of contest for a lot of people, like the usual reduction that games should be fun and not that they can be.

I think that the medium can be so many things and restricting it to something palatable makes it less. With the amount of know how in the industry it's probably easier to make palatable games like ubisoft sandboxes than something uncomfortable like Kane and Lynch 2 or Death Stranding or The Last of Us 2, which i'm sure are games that make many people not have fun while playing them or even bore some because of how little they care about the player being comfortable.
 
Last edited:
Bernkastel

Bernkastel

Ask me about my fanboy energy!
Keihart said:
this is kind of the discussion i'm interested in, because how i see it, there is a lot of expression going on on games, that doesn't necessarily tries to pander to me but somehow i find value in it.
But i know this is a point of contest for a lot of people, like the usual reduction that games should be fun and not that they can be.

I think that the medium can be so many things and restricting it to something palatable makes it less. With the amount of know how in the industry it's probably easier make palatable games like ubisoft sandboxes than something uncomfortable like Kane and Lynch 2 or Death Stranding or The Last of Us 2, which i'm sure are games that make many people not have fun while playing them or even bore some because of how little they care about the player being comfortable.
Click to expand...
I never found Ubisoft sandboxes palatable. "Palatable" really depends on the user. I found playing Destiny, Destiny 2 and Monster Hunter World more "palatable" than lots of games deemed art. I had more "fun" playing them. No way are those games easier to make, especially Destiny and they are supported for years after launch unlike other "art".
 
Humdinger

Humdinger

Member
It's a false distinction. They're both.

"Art" is a very broad category and can include your 8 year old's drawings of a cat.

"Something to be consumed" is also a broad category and basically means "anything with a price attached."

Games are both. They are creative things, and they are sold for money.

This is true across all mediums. Art and commerce mix. It's both/and, not either/or.
 
Goro Majima

Goro Majima

Kitty Genovese Member
I don’t think games at their core gameplay are art. I’m talking about the old games like Pong, Super Mario Bros, Super Mario 64, etc. where we learned those basic elements of gaming that carried forward to today.

What some games have done overtime is add in cinematic elements that essentially layer a movie into some of what we consider “art games”. To me that’s a bit of cheating and if you strip away the elements that makes it a video game - those don’t often stand alone as “art”.

When I think of stuff like Epistory or Undertale it gets a bit trickier to me. They’re more like interactive picture books so it doesn’t feel quite as obvious as sticking interaction within a movie.

Really in general I think video games are its own medium but those artistic elements borrow very, very heavily from already existing mediums.
 
iNvid02

iNvid02

Member
Not an either or situation, they are both. Some lean towards the product end of the spectrum like the annual COD or FIFA brimming with microtransactions, while others who have the luxury to do so are more akin to art like RDR2
 
ROMhack

ROMhack

Member
Depends what you play. Games driven by singular visions can be worthy of the tag - like Shadow of the Colossus, The Witness and INSIDE. They ask the player to actively understand them.

I find a lot of AAA games artistic without necessarily being art - obvious example being The Last of us 1/2. The design is often spectacular, as are the themes they convey, but in many cases they undermine themselves by not really demanding much from the player. Art since the late 1800s has oftenb been about questioning perception, which began with expressionism and the Fauves. Look at a Picasso or Matisse, or even Monet/Cezanne before it, to see at how representation of reality wasn't a determinate of artistic merit. I'm not convinced the graphical fidelity of modern games actually gets that as it seems like pandering in a lot of cases (the WOW factor).

Art though is subjective and constantly evolving. A lot of modern art, especially within entertainment mediums, seems to be more about design.

Let me be frank though, if you played a game and it changed your way of seeing the world, then yes you can call it 'art'. Might not be great art but it is art.
 
Last edited:
#Phonepunk#

#Phonepunk#

Banned
It’s both product and art. Also it’s silly to split these into two things. The art world is all about selling products. Look at Jeff Koons.

it was over a hundred years ago that DuChamp proved literally anything can be art all it needs is context

silly this is even a conversation anymore. a toilet can be art.
 
Last edited:
Airola

Airola

Member
A picture being a picture doesn't make the picture art.
A sound being a sound doesn't make the sound art.
A story being a story doesn't make the story art.

Picture's, sound's and the story's goodness doesn't make them art
A really well painted picture of a tree doesn't make the picture are. It is a painting of a tree.

Games are a mixture of several things that might and might not be art.
The mood of the game in itself doesn't make the game art.
If the story is really good in the game, that doesn't make the game art or even the story art.

If the picture of the tree has things that have the intention to mediate a hard to explain thought to a person that instead of trying to tell that by words can be shown as that painting of a tree, then that painting becomes art.

If a game has a storyline that can be thought to be art, I don't think that makes the game itself art. That makes the story art.

In video games, for them to be art as themselves, the gameplay has to be a big part in making the art. I think it's very hard to do art with gameplay. One game that to me definitely is art is Journey. It shows you things that are hard to explain by words, and a lot of it comes through the gameplay itself. I personally don't care about that game at all but I very much think that game is art.
When someone says the game X is art because it has such a good story, what they call art is actually just the spoken animation part of the game. For that art to exist the game doesn't necessarily require the gameplay at all, so I wouldn't then say the game itself is art.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Considering the importance Nintendo puts on software ip diversity, why do you think they don’t have something like Gow:18/Rag or TLOU? Inability?
2 3 4 5
237
9K
Woopah replied
  • Poll
Do you really think gaming industry is in trouble?
Opinion 2 3
146
5K
Mooreberg replied
retro consoles and 240p / 480p resolution - sometimes less is more
2
77
5K
Corporal.Hicks replied
It seems like gaming can become a job if you become too dedicated
31
2K
Freeman76 replied
  • Locked
Is it time to Boycott X-box and Microsoft games studios?
2
75
4K
Desless1 replied
Top Bottom