I disagree that esoterism is equivalent to art. Esoterism may well be a subset of art, but post-post-modernism is a joke; I know a several artists who have very little respect for it. It shouldn't define what art is in its entirety.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Do you think Video Games are art?
- Thread starter Flash_gearz
- Start date
People also confuse the concept of art and fine art. Art is a very broad noun, and in fact I'd even suggest that within the established definition of art you could say that art is a more an aspect of the human condition than anything else. Of course video games are art, a well made door is art.
Fine art involves the creation of things that are beautiful or made with exceptional skill. This is where you get to say that some things are fine art and some aren't. Still, alot of video games have been fine art.
Fine art involves the creation of things that are beautiful or made with exceptional skill. This is where you get to say that some things are fine art and some aren't. Still, alot of video games have been fine art.
The discussion on thread reminds me of a contemporary art class I took. I'm glad no one is saying people are dumb for thinking art is bad or good, because they're definitely has to be bad art, that the general populace can agree on being bad art. Also, glad people here can accept and intelligently discuss the good art and bad art dilemma.
The class defined art as what we can perceive to be art. Which I thought totally just a lazy excuse for artists to pass whatever slop piece of junk they wanted as art, though I didn't say it this way and was polite about it. Of course I was flamed for it, because a lot of the kids were hipster art snobs, and got really discouraged to speak in that class again.
I think that art has to have some sort of general aesthetic appeal, so I do think that video games can be art. Have no examples at the moment, but I remember always being able to look at Super Mario Bros 3 and be impressed by the environments and style of the game.
The class defined art as what we can perceive to be art. Which I thought totally just a lazy excuse for artists to pass whatever slop piece of junk they wanted as art, though I didn't say it this way and was polite about it. Of course I was flamed for it, because a lot of the kids were hipster art snobs, and got really discouraged to speak in that class again.
I think that art has to have some sort of general aesthetic appeal, so I do think that video games can be art. Have no examples at the moment, but I remember always being able to look at Super Mario Bros 3 and be impressed by the environments and style of the game.
I guess I might as well chime in again as it has been two years... to me, an artistic medium is one that allows the creator to express themselves. The question "are video games art" isn't well-defined enough to answer. Are video games an artistic medium is how I'd frame it and the answer to that is a resounding yes.
So, would you prefer a question like "Is [particular game] an artwork?"
Nah. Then people bitch forever. There are games that I think have artistic merit and other games which I feel have little to none. I don't care enough to argue the artistic value of individual games.
No it isn't art.
?
To me, art is anything done with an intent. (e.g.: arguing is an art, parking a car is an art, etc.) How good the art is is simply how will it portrays its intent. (e.g.: convincing the opponent, parking exactly 5" perfectly parallel to the curb, etc.)
A video game is an art in that it tells a story, it demonstrates the specs of a system, or merely in the fact that it gets sold.
this confuses me too
I beg to differ, as it could simply be called "natural art"
It could also be called beautiful, awe-inspiring, interesting, thought-provoking, or any host of other adjectives.
"Natural art" is not art unless you are a creationist.
So basically, paintings made by elephants can't be considered art, as it's not done by a human?
If so, is this site just one big oxymoron? http://www.elephantartgallery.com/
If so, is this site just one big oxymoron? http://www.elephantartgallery.com/
Elephant paintings are not works of art unless you think the elephant has an intention in painting them (which it very well could).
Getting elephants to paint sell-able paintings and selling animal paintings however, are certainly arts.
Getting elephants to paint sell-able paintings and selling animal paintings however, are certainly arts.
Of course it is art! If it's not I'm pursuing a fake major. I'm focusing on art in my senior year of high school to go to college for Game Art and Design. There is an art to video games, and without it games wouldn't be interesting to play.
If video games don't count for some kind of art, neither should movies. Ironically, movies were first intended as a new kind of art--think paintings, but with motion. Obviously, the beginnings of moving pictures are widely forgotten these days, but they are still art. Why, then, would video games not be art, considering that for the most part they're interactive movies? Even games like Madden or Nintendogs are art, because the express what the producers and developers and everyone who worked on the game felt should be expressed.
doesn't it involve the consumer having an intent of their own, the amount of people working on it and some features of the game?
I believe programming isn't really an art, because there should be a set way of programming something, and that leads me to believe a large amount of the game is coding things. now coding may seem like an art if it's done well on paper, but the users never really see that. and since parts of a game isn't apparent to consumers, I don't think it can be considered 100% art.
this is just theorymon; I'm not trying to piss anyone off by what I said
I believe programming isn't really an art, because there should be a set way of programming something, and that leads me to believe a large amount of the game is coding things. now coding may seem like an art if it's done well on paper, but the users never really see that. and since parts of a game isn't apparent to consumers, I don't think it can be considered 100% art.
this is just theorymon; I'm not trying to piss anyone off by what I said
Damn, I just had a class around discussing whether something is art.
We had come up with:
1. Opinion
2. Personal
3. Skill
4. Impression (Impact)
5. Taste
6. Inspiration
7. Communication
There is one kid who would go on and on about video games being art...
There was once a guy who took an urinal and put it in an art gallery. Make what of that as you will.
Personally, I, someone who does not play video games, do not regard that as "artistic" on a personal level.
But since many of the general audience of viewers do consider video games art, by definitions, they should be called art (in each person's own perspective).
Does art have to be in a musuem, or even a physical interpretation?
No, I don't think it has to, and that is a common misconception about art.
We had come up with:
1. Opinion
2. Personal
3. Skill
4. Impression (Impact)
5. Taste
6. Inspiration
7. Communication
There is one kid who would go on and on about video games being art...
There was once a guy who took an urinal and put it in an art gallery. Make what of that as you will.
Personally, I, someone who does not play video games, do not regard that as "artistic" on a personal level.
But since many of the general audience of viewers do consider video games art, by definitions, they should be called art (in each person's own perspective).
Does art have to be in a musuem, or even a physical interpretation?
No, I don't think it has to, and that is a common misconception about art.
I believe art is anything that is created and into which is invested some kind of social, spiritual, emotional, intellectual, aesthetic, or even political value-whether by the creator or the beholder. This definitely includes video games; they are deliberately crafted to stimulate players; whether by emotionally or intellectually drawing them into a plot, dazzling them with stunning visuals and audio, or by inciting wonderment in some other way.
One may not be inclined to compare video games with works of "high art" such as Botticelli's Birth of Venus or Michelangelo's Creation of Adam, but I reject the notion that a work of art must be "higher" or "sacred" for it to be considered as such.
One may not be inclined to compare video games with works of "high art" such as Botticelli's Birth of Venus or Michelangelo's Creation of Adam, but I reject the notion that a work of art must be "higher" or "sacred" for it to be considered as such.
A naturally occuring object isn't art, but a photo of that object can be art.
If you want to challenge the difference between a creative work of art and a natural object, consider fractal images. They certainly have aesthetic appeal, but they tend to be more "discovered" than "created".