[RED FIRE]

Can games ever be considered an art form? I know they're no where near that at the moment, in my opinion anyway. I think it's mainly due to developers never having to the intend to do so.
I don't blame them either, i mean games that even slighty resemble an art form has not sold well, im talking about ICO, Jet Set Radio, Jet Set Future...
Ok maybe they didnt resemble art, but heck at least they were taking graphics and visuals in a different way, kinda.

No profits would mean that major companies with the most resourses shy away from ever looking at game development as a form of art development. However this doesnt stop indie developers from trying, the problem is that they might have good ideas...their output might not be too convincing.

Whatever happens, i believe it all comes back to action. Sure concepts, ideas, and dreams are all great, they're all just a staring point. Action needs to be taken!

By the looks of things, games are a damn far way away from being an art form, im not saying it's a bad thing.
Im just pondering if they will ever become apart of the wonderful world of art.

What do you guys think?

[Sumaleth]

We've had this discussion before, but games aren't inherently "art", and the few times where people have tried to make games as art the games haven't been all that great.

Could you make a good game that was also good art? I think it's extemely unlikely, although not impossible.

[Frost]

If you ask me, games are a collection of art forms stuck into an interactive package. The artwork, the music, the game design, even the programming are all processes that involve creativity and imagination. However, games are more than art, as a scribble by a single person on a canvas can be called art, where games have to be much more than this, facing technical challenges at every turn -- it's an artform that pits game developers against the limited machine canvas on all aspects of the production.

I consider game artists 'artists', as I consider composers 'artists', and surely other aspects of game developing such as game designers and programmers can be called that for their creative works in each their respective fields. I think because the interactivity portion (ESPECIALLY in the digital entertainment field) is a new 'medium', and the fact that multiple contributing artist groups contribute to a single multimedia production can cause confusion and misunderstanding of what the product is. A monument is usually considered 'art', but is a building itself of its architect/designer an artist? I would think yes, in a way.

I think the question is more what each individual thinks 'art' is. I'm sure most of us would disagree or have different definitions of 'art'. I think the word art and its uses are becoming more and more vague due to the digital age, as there are less and less limitations as to what can be virtually created. I wouldn't see games in a 'museum' in the form that museums are typically represented (paintings, sculptures, -- very few artforms presented there), but I would consider games as being a very complex collaboration of artforms.

Anyway, this is just my oppinion, and I'm sure people don't damn care what *I* think around here.

[Ian Jones]

Depends what you are referring to specifically.

There are games with well developed art in them, and there's games that are so well developed tht ppl refer to this process as an artform.

I'd like to think along the terms that a game should ideally have both. I find myself wondering about the technical aspects and whether they have anything to do with art.. and I think they do. Take the Internet & Flash for example. Many designers have started programming and I think it's not because they necessarily wanted to, but because they saw the artistic value in it. Creating a well-oiled Flash website machine is like creating an entity with a life of its own... sort of having AI. I think that attracts a lot of artists to Flash and further into gaming. So I'd have to say I think games are an artform.

I agree along the lines with what Frost said. Ppl use 'art' as a loose term nowadays, I would call games design an artform because I can't think of another word for it. I think ppl want to recognise it as a medium that has creative options and challenges. That is why I think we call it 'art', to give it some recognition.

My 2 cents...

[RED FIRE]

You guys seem to know what you're talking about, i've posted thsi topic amongst other forums and the replies from those usually sucked.

I can say im abit more clearer on the issues of games and all. I also agree that art is a loose term.
That makes me wonder, who decides what is art and what isnt art?

[Sumaleth]

The individual decides what art is, which is why you get three different answers here.

To me games are 'interactive entertainment' and not art, but by some definitions of art games could fit right in there.

[Catfish]

Ever tried Rez? It's a mix of game and Winamp plugin...the final level is truely beautiful.
It's about as close to art as I've seen a game get.

[Lunatique]

I've had this discussion late one night with an old skool programmer about 4 years ago, while working on Battle Tanx for 3DO.

Basically, I think it's the message that determines what is art, not the medium. You can take an idea and turn it into a novel, a painting, a photograph, a film, or even a piece of music. But, would it still work if you turned it into a game? I think it depends on what the message is, and if it's suitable for being made into a game.

Traditionally speaking, great art share common traits. It is because of these traits we feel compelled to call a piece of work art. What are some of these traits? Off the top of my head, I can name of a few:

1)profoundness
2)innovation
3)beauty
4)intellectual stimulation
5)technical achievement

Now, is it possible for a game to have those traits? Definitely.

Is it possible to make a game that have those traits, AND entertaining so people will buy it? I would think so.

Consider the following scenerio:

A game dev house wanted to prove that it IS possible to make such a game. They proceed with the plan:

1)Hire a great writer--one that is Pulitzer Award winning calibur.

2)This writer is introduced to the world of interactivity. He/she comes up with a profound and philosophical idea that could be played out interactively. For example:

You start in a game as some average Joe. And through a series of events throughout the game, you not only go through a journey of incredible adventure, but you are also transformed as a person. Your dispositions in life will change radically as you learn prfound lessons about human nature, and the meaning of life. Each decision you make in the game will have consequences that affect the lives of other people, including yourself.

3)They go with the idea and have the writer work closely with the designers.

4)The game goes gold, and--it will sink or swim depending on the public's reception.

What would be the drawbacks of a game like this?

Well, first of all, believable characters and AI are not even close to the kind of complexity required to pull it off. Great writing won't make much difference if the message is being delivered by clumsy looking/behaving characters.

I think some of the games managed to pull it off on a minor scale. The Longest Journey comes to mind. The character of April was well written, and during a few times in the game, the writing ventured into the more profound/emotional area. The scene of her talking to her mother on the phone, the scene of her confronted by her evil self, and her feelings about her friends..etc. Emotional and profound elements like that are the backbone of great literary works, and they have had a presence in some games.

Film was considered nothing more than entertainment for a long time. Now, they are considered works of art.

Interactivity doesn't make it impossible to turn games into art. It's all in the message you are trying to deliver.

[ August 04, 2002: Message edited by: Lunatique ]

[StrangeFate]

I don't think games 'are' art, but like Frost said, they have art in them, very poor often tho. Just like a book or video tape isn't art but can contain art.

[RED FIRE]

I've seen Rez on some gamesites, and i've also read reviews about it. All that research has meant one thing, I WANT TO SEE THE THING IN ACTION!

I'll probably rent it and check it...

...anyway i think that games have still have a damn long way to go for it to resemble art. Right now, i dont think there are too many development teams willing to use gaming as a canvas.

[Demon Prince]

Games like Rivan and Myst 3 have awesome 3D imagery in them and some people believe that this is art. I believe Sumaleth has the right idea that art is percieved by the person, not the concept in general. Personally I think too many people still believe art has to be stationary, like a picture or still or accepted widely to be art. Just a thought though...

[Flinthawk]

As others have mentioned, I believe that it is up to the individual on whether or not they consider games a potential piece of art. To everybody I ask you this: do you consider the following works of art?

• Cars
• Webpages
• Furniture
• Buildings and other structures
• Films/Animations

If you consider any one of these a piece of art then I would think you could see how games are just as worthy of being such. If you catagorize these things as something other than art then I would assume that you would not refer to a game as a work of art. Each of these things share parallels with games in that they all combine creative and technical skills of various kinds to create a product for people to use for a particular function. All these things and many others combine form and function in varying degrees.

I believe art is a product of form and function. So saying that, I personally believe that games are works of art...some much more so than others, but art nonetheless. But as it's been said, art has become a rather loose term and others may have their own definitions of what is art.

-Flinthawk

Edit: I can't remember where I'd read this but there are apparently a couple artists that have created works of art using games in different ways. Two such artworks were displayed in galleries. One was a piece of video art where the artist captured footage of herself playing Tomb Raider and then creating a voice over that described how Lara was depicting the artist's message. Another piece of art was actually a Halflife MOD, if I remember correctly, where it allowed people to run around and kill whomever they wanted to...I forget what the exact message was supposed to be but I think it was supposed to make people think about human life. These two examples of games as art aren't exactly what we're talking about in this thread but I thought it was an interesting side-note.

[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Flinthawk ]

[faB]

Videogames may not be displayed in art galleries tomorrow, but like many other things of our culture they certainly will be more and more the subject of the more 'still' forms of art that we know. Just like they get more mass coverage .. slowly but surely... they will become mass entertainment like movies, but right now the videogame industry is very young and very immature both on the content level and t=on the business level (broken deadlines, 99% done aborted projects, etc etc).

I think the immaturity of videogames is due to the fact that most of today's games are made by guys like me who spent way too much time in front of their computers and also for the most part are self-taught. As a result you get remake after remake after remake of shootemups, shootemintheheads, shooteminthebuttocks, etc..

Creating videogames is very much an art form. The game developers are today's real magicians, they create worlds, they make unbelievable and incredible tings happen in front of your eyes.

There has been an evolution these recent years with the mixing of 3D and 2D, such as the 'cellshading'.

Animated films like 'Spirit' are showing great mix of 3D and 2D... cant wait to see the videogames take this path.

I think the sooner people get bored of 3D the better :/

[RED FIRE]

I've seen some artists try to portray games as art before on some website articles long ago. But recently it has crept back to my mind.

I remember there was this article about an artist skinning a quake character and putting it in the game and he claimed it to be art. It was actually shown at an exhibition.

I think that it was rather an odd idea, i mean how many people out there make quake skins, heapsa people! For an artist to make a skin and then have it on display and call it art...well no wonder not much people are interested at looking at games as art.

However even if that was somewhat a failure, it did raise afew eyebrows and opened the door for new ways of thinking in the general public.
I just hope that next some artist or group decide to publicy show games as some form of art, they at least do a decent and respectable enough job on it.