Guild Wars 2

To avoid a superficial and elitst form of thinking, I’ll not start from the premise of pointing what is art and what isn’t. I think that a creation or expression based on an intention to send to others something, even if unconscious, is a form of art.

In a brief and oversimplified definition, art is the use of specific abilities to express your ideas and/or feelings. And though videogames are legally protected by the US Supreme Court as creative work, it still remains on a philosophical boundary between the art and an entertaiment tool.

Roger Ebert, a renowned film critic, stated that, even if in a controversy way, videogames could never aspire to be art, such as great part of the cinema. “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. […] Cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”

One of the Halo’s franchise games was characterizade by the motto of “Engineering The Fun” and was attended by experts to research and develop specific moments of happiness, frustration and fear. And we saw it being applied later on the Call of Duty games who were there introducing moments and areas to maximize the fun, regardless of any artistic intention. What makes me think that all tripple A games are not art.

In other hands we have the recently released Bio Shock: Infinit, and despite the “Win” objective that acording to Elbert would break all the artistic purpose, it introduces us a rare seen well constructed plot and a even rare dedication to the construction of dialogues, all involved in a scenario that could be present in an art gallery of NY. So as Journey in the beauty of loneliness and Limbo in the beauty of death.

Maybe this obduracy and reluctance of seen games as art comes with the age of itself. For some reason, you can’t interpret new cultural manifestations. Jazz and Samba also faced a hard approval and supposedly were directed to mediocre and small groups and there they would stay. Even though videogames reached a much bigger audience than these two, I still hear people murmuring arguments such as “What do you expect? A Super Mario statue next to Mona Lisa?”.

For last, I want to drop here a link to a video of a very talented man playing Ghosts ’n Goblins song without know it is from a videogame, with a remarkable execution, which could have passed as a classic from the western times. An assertion that not always the art is contained as a whole, but as an individual part of the set.

Now I want to ask you, what do you think? Videogames are art? And more, Guild Wars 2 is art or just entertainment?

Also, a thanks to Carlos Merigo, Saulo Mileti, Guga Mafra, Alexandre Maron and Pedro Burgos, which indirectly brought me to write this topic to our community.

I think the wrong questions are being asked in this thread

Are Video Games / Virtual Novels art ? there are very few that could be considered art in my opinion but yes some are .

Do they inspire or allow you to create art and the answer to that is yes . In fact some games are based on you doing just this like The Sims and the now defunct game The Movies .

They’re a service.

They aren’t either by definition. They do, however, have the potential to be either or both. Some games are very much art with the gameplay as an afterthought. Some are very much pure entertainment with little to no thought towards artistic pretense. Some are very much a fusion of the two, to varying degrees.

Art is a type of entertainment.

The way most courts have looked at Art is if the subject is being harmed in the action of the making of the art. I do not think that word for word but its close to what it seem to be.

So i would have to say there where no real life quaggan harmed in the making and playing of GW2.

My humble opinion:

The game itself may not be art, but there is art in the game since those are things we experience and they help to “paint a picture” for us. Sure we can win the game and affect the storyline, but there are nevertheless things we can only experience: lore, architecture, environment, etc.

However whether or not you can call the in-game art “art” really depends on the degree of freedom that the artists have to create what they envisioned.

Is someone defecating on a white canvas art? Some seem to think so. Game are meant to be entertaining first and art second (if at all). Art is wildly subjective, and using a broad term like “Games are Art, period” is widely overused. Same goes for any media, imo. Some people would call Bieber art.

Short answer: “Yes”

Long answer: It depends on the piece, much like the movie. Die Hard will never really be a classic work of art, but it will always be an entertaining ride. However, it is hard to see “2001: A Space Odyssey” as anything other than an attempt at art in a film medium.

Likewise, there will be games which aspire to the artistic . . . and there will be those which are just empty entertainment. There is nothing wrong with either of these things.

So what about games like Dear Esther which you can “win” but it’s really just a story. You can’t attack anything. It’s very artfully done. It’s extremely creative.

I think that most video games aren’t art, but they mostly contain art within them. There are areas of games designed to instill a certain feeling in players. This is done with graphics and sound. How is that not art?

I should point out that art is a form of entertainment, so the question itself is kind of flawed.

However, just as there is “art” that honestly is bottom of the barrel, not every game is good enough to be considered art.

Example of a game that can be considered art: Okami, seriously, tell me this does not look like a kitten painting in motion.

Also, correct me if I am wrong, didn’t Ebert eventually revise his opinion stating that some games COULD be considered art?

It really depends. Some games are really a collage of different art pieces coming together with beautiful graphical displays, great story delivered correctly, and spot on sound to drive home feeling. On the other hand some games are just copy paste factory push outs to generate money. The deciding factor is really the player. If a game hits home for you and instills feeling and other such things why would it be any different than a painting or a symphony?

yes its art. /15 chars lol

Art is just entertainment.

I think games by definition is just that- games but capable of creating art in the right hands. Take a look at journey for example. Gameplay is written almost like a very beautiful poem but its still just that, a game.

Ive said this before and I’ll say it again. Games in my opinion is the ULTIMATE form of art as every and any form imaginable can augment its success. (example from cinema, photography, to having a PhD in physics). If anything its impossiblity. creativity, and reality incarnate.

To emphasize though im not saying EVERY game is amazing art. Im saying it has the potential to become one.

Art is a varied term. It once meant beauty, sacrament, a tribute to gods… now we have museums, bubble gum walls, graphitti and urinals. What was once strictly cultural tradition also has become art in a variety of ways, thus TIME is essential, as the OP suggests, “the age of itself”…

Is this art? My conclusion is yes, because of the amount of culture that has become enthralled not just PLAYING video games, but also a language, lifestyle, with its own arrangement of norms and traditions. I have no doubt some day 100 years from now videogame culture will be different, and so will today’s norm be tomorrow’s thoughtful reflection. I’d say that is in the tradition of art.

As a practice, however, we get into some mediums that may seem controversial in calling video games an artistic discipline. take a step back, is graphic design considered art? when you look at a magazine are there elements of artistic scope in any designs? absolutely, likewise with graphic art, so the virtual as well. There is scope and artistic elements that are timeless, that I have no doubt developers of guild wars even have studied them.

Another suggestion from the OP comes from an artistic reflection of the art critic. I.E., those who experience the work. when one sees a work of art, what impressions are drawn, which are contextual, which are historical, which have connections with other mediums and make their own circles of comparison? “Winning” is the common aspect in games, that we experience. But I’d argue that when we view a comedy or a tragedy, we also incorporate ourselves into that character, so we feel their success, their failures, and walk away with a sense of meaning by identifying with art, so because we can identify within a degree with the characters we encounter, or relate to, or make judgments about, we automatically enter the realm of criticism.

So. Narrative and criticism are capable. A sense of tradition and culture are there. and there are degrees of artistic scope in design. Now anyone can come and compare the degree to which the artistic scope goes, whether it is Good, meaningful, or lousy and lazy, whether there are any adherences to tradition or culture, either, can be considered. but to some degree in GW2, I think all these are present.

Art has and always will be in the eye of the beholder.
Take the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

Now personally I don’t think slapping my name on a toilet and calling it art qualifies but someone did and now it is.

Some of the most famous pieces are just someone tossing paint around, is that art? To me it is more of the expression of the process of creation of the piece than the finished product itself.

Then there’s the duplication method where you simply take someone else’ piece and copy & paste it until it fills up the canvas and call that art (campbells soup cans
anyone?).

Don’t forget the physical art you sometimes see at parks, or entire buildings themselves.

And then there’s the super subjective graffiti! which ones of those are art?

In the end, art isn’t something that can be defined, it is something that is perceived.

Kaizer.7135:

They’re a service.

And this is profound.

MMO gaming is an entertainment experience — open ended, but otherwise not a lot different than going to a resort, climbing a rock wall, even watching a movie.

Art is a component of the experience, but it isn’t the experience.

Just like some resort in Hawaii spending a fortune to turn scrub land into golf courses and beautiful tropical landscaping, or the aesthetic backdrop at a Disney theme park, or even the artistic skill of the person who built the rock wall.

So my vote is the art, no matter how good, is a component of the experience. And the game is the experience.

I would argue that anything that has time and effort devoted into it’s making with any kind of aesthetic in mind can be considered an Art. I know this generally gets me in trouble, but yes I would argue that Cars aesthetically can be considered a type of Art, even mass produced ones, however Video Games (like Cinema) fall into a very sordid love affair with Narration. The Art in Video Games, and in conjunction Movies, Television, etc… is that despite having a Visual, the strength of the medium lies in its ability to tell stories. Even when those within the Medium try to push the boundaries of it, they are still invariably locked into the story which it tells (abstract or literal).

Do Video Games incorporate art? Yes, it is incorporated into the Story through the visuals used to narrate it. This is used in Cinema as well.

However as I mentioned earlier, the power that Video Games hold as a Medium are often its ability to tell a story to us (The Viewer/Gamer). I would argue that Cinema and Video Games share more in common though with Literature, for this very reason. Some games use story telling less than others (‘Casual’ Games on Facebook, Apps, the original Mario), however those very games are looked upon less for their Story and more for their raw ‘entertainment’ value (Similarly to any Michael Bay movie ever produced).

So to draw on my Car example, though not all Cars are considered priceless works of Art there exist some in the Medium that are exalted for their Aesthetic Design incorporated into their Manufacture. In that respect, there are many games that I would place alongside Caricatures you buy of yourself at Carnivals, there are indeed some that we can praise as wonderful artistic achievements in the Medium.

The best part about Art though is it’s ability to subsume almost any form and spark debate. Taste and Aesthetic Appeal are constantly changing, people hold different values over others and will laud onto some aspects moreso.

If you’re looking for an actual answer from me though, I suppose I would have to say ‘No, a Video Game is not a work of Fine Art.’ (take from that sentence what you will), however the creation of a Video Game is indeed a work of Artwork. I say this not just from the standpoint of the countless hours spent by artists making the Concept Art, but also to those rigging the 3D models into a tangible ‘living’ thing. This Game, as many games, are the vision of a group of Artists who had a story to tell. It’s up to the viewer to decide the value of the work put into it.

@Ratphink-

Car COMPANIES, have a quota to meet, and their designs are often bent on the gains and wains of the economy, which broadly speaking any artist, really, is socially accountable to. But we venture into a “fine art”, when something is created that uncovers a relational aspect with our own human experience. I don’t know any car that I have truly felt bound to emotionally. Although I have met car collectors who have made beautiful things out of old cars. The car trick company Braubus in Germany is an awesome example of this too.

Similarly ANET’s a company bound by quota to make it’s ends. I think that this company has “tricked out” the videogame industry, with a sense of novelty. I have played games that I’ve thought have some real reflection with the culture that we live in, some to a positive degree, others to a negative degree. That doesn’t change my behavior, maybe I’ll sit thinking in the bathtub a little longer about something, but all in all I am just living with a new, fresh view of what I have already known…

I am a much more traditional person who has a high degree of beauty in art. I enjoy landscapes. I am not about to say that this game is a “fine art” in comparison with walking into a museum or reading Tolstoy, but there are elements that draw me into the work, in which case I would say it is a successful production, while other parts of it do fail. but that’s for a different thread.

Videogames are an experience, and as experiences the medium has the potential for artistic qualities. The medium can deliver on narrative, impression and so forth; the sum of these qualities creates deliberate experiences for the audience, greater than the individual elements. A “total work of art,” if you will.

That said, I have a problem with people calling videogames “art” in the sense that statues, paintings and films can be art. In doing so, people tend to use skin-deep measures of comparison. They deconstruct and cherrypick to prove whatever point they try to make, and they do this without examining the experience as a whole as it is meant to be. The review system certainly isn’t doing the medium any favors by following this exact method of critique (although I can’t really blame them all things considered).

Edit: to answer the TC’s last question, no I don’t consider GW2 art. It certainly has artsy visual elements and music, but my experience playing it has left me unfulfilled.

Redfield.6174:

In other hands we have the recently released Bio Shock: Infinit, and despite the “Win” objective that acording to Elbert would break all the artistic purpose, it introduces us a rare seen well constructed plot and a even rare dedication to the construction of dialogues, all involved in a scenario that could be present in an art gallery of NY.

I don’t think it is a well constructed plot as it is wildly irrational. But thats just me. As to whether the game will sell well worldwide or to people with different ideological tendencies is another matter altogether.

I was not aware that books were featured in art galleries of NY.

Even if you haven’t heard of Mr Daniel Dociu, just the water effects alone in this MMO is ridiculously good-looking.

Totally skimmed over this part, but as a counter to the “win mechanic” some might not consider themselves winning when they playing through Spec Ops: The Line, yet they do so anyway for the experience.

Redfield.6174:

To avoid a superficial and elitst form of thinking, I’ll not start from the premise of pointing what is art and what isn’t. I think that a creation or expression based on an intention to send to others something, even if unconscious, is a form of art.

In a brief and oversimplified definition, art is the use of specific abilities to express your ideas and/or feelings. And though videogames are legally protected by the US Supreme Court as creative work, it still remains on a philosophical boundary between the art and an entertaiment tool.

Roger Ebert, a renowned film critic, stated that, even if in a controversy way, videogames could never aspire to be art, such as great part of the cinema. “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. […] Cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”

One of the Halo’s franchise games was characterizade by the motto of “Engineering The Fun” and was attended by experts to research and develop specific moments of happiness, frustration and fear. And we saw it being applied later on the Call of Duty games who were there introducing moments and areas to maximize the fun, regardless of any artistic intention. What makes me think that all tripple A games are not art.

In other hands we have the recently released Bio Shock: Infinit, and despite the “Win” objective that acording to Elbert would break all the artistic purpose, it introduces us a rare seen well constructed plot and a even rare dedication to the construction of dialogues, all involved in a scenario that could be present in an art gallery of NY. So as Journey in the beauty of loneliness and Limbo in the beauty of death.

Maybe this obduracy and reluctance of seen games as art comes with the age of itself. For some reason, you can’t interpret new cultural manifestations. Jazz and Samba also faced a hard approval and supposedly were directed to mediocre and small groups and there they would stay. Even though videogames reached a much bigger audience than these two, I still hear people murmuring arguments such as “What do you expect? A Super Mario statue next to Mona Lisa?”.

For last, I want to drop here a link to a video of a very talented man playing Ghosts ’n Goblins song without know it is from a videogame, with a remarkable execution, which could have passed as a classic from the western times. An assertion that not always the art is contained as a whole, but as an individual part of the set.

Now I want to ask you, what do you think? Videogames are art? And more, Guild Wars 2 is art or just entertainment?

Also, a thanks to Carlos Merigo, Saulo Mileti, Guga Mafra, Alexandre Maron and Pedro Burgos, which indirectly brought me to write this topic to our community.

You failed the moment you attempted to define art for the mass.
Art’s definition is subjective.
For some, games are art. For others, games are simply entertainment/service.
It all depends on your perspective.

Entertainment for me.

Computer games are far more entertaining in my personal opinion than any other form of entertainment except one and that one exception can’t be talked about but is a 3 letter word…

I did this for a presentation and since I accidentally just deleted my previous message, you’re getting it in point form:
-All games are art due to being created from multiple sources of art (graphics, sound, programming etc) They are essentially a collaboration of art pieces
-People choose to stop appreciating the artistic elements, in Skyrim someone might do the quests but one day just look around and appreciate the look of the game (especially with mods)
-Some games focus heavily on aesthetic over play elements such as Heavy Rain or Journey, the goal of these games are to cause a connection or an emotion. For instance: The cutting finger scene in Heavy Rain is not fun to do, and nor is it meant to be, it is there to allow the player to feel disturbed by their own actions – Also to compare to Roger Ebert’s idea, you do not “win” the game, your only reward is the story
-These games are called “art games”
-There are some games that still have gameplay elements but focus on trying to create a connection still, a few examples would be Shadow of the Colossus and Spec Ops: The Line. Both games essentially make you feel terrible for playing and have a heavy atmosphere. While they still have gaming elements like shooting or killing enemies, they are doing so to create a message.

Imo, video games are interactive works of art and it truly depends on your perspective as you play the game.

In relation to Guild Wars 2, you could state the same ideas that the art is there and people ignore it. In addition, it would also be advisable to keep in mind that Guild Wars 2 was designed in the same way an artist would paint on a canvas: Through love and dedication. Yeah it sounds kind of cheesy, but the way I see it is that if I was one of the designers in any of the teams, I would be angry if somebody told me my work was not art. From concept to truly being created, the final product itself is what I would consider the work of art in the same way that I would consider any design.

To Conclude: We consider films as art work due to various aspects such as acting ability, the overall aesthetic (ie Tim Burton), or simply the overall form and structure of the narrative. The same can be applied to games, there are voice actors, body actors, narrative structure, and aesthetic (ie Borderlands, Journey, Limbo, Flow, Flower etc) and we choose to ignore them. Films can be seen as artistic AND entertainment, and the same can be applied to games. Guild Wars 2 can be seen as artistic and a form of entertainment depending on how you perceive it.

On a side note: Something like Call of Duty would never be considered artistic.
http://www.gameseek.co.uk/images/screens/cod_black_ops2_s1.jpg
This is considered artistic to me imo.

P.S. I’m tired, ideas may be scrambled lol

Art is subjective.

I think video games are art.

Duchamp created ‘Fountain’ almost 100 years ago and I love that it’s still being used as an example of what art isn’t or shouldn’t be. I think it’s one of the funniest ever two fingers up at the elitists that populate the art world <3.

CookMETEnder.7582:

You failed the moment you attempted to define art for the mass.
Art’s definition is subjective. […]

Please, don’t take me wrong. I just tried to avoid writing a book to define art before start the topic! >_<

And despite the imparciality which I tried to apply on the first post, I do agree with videogames being art on the same way that I do agree with cinema. For me, all depends on the author intentions and if he succeeds on passing it on.

Art is capable to involve everyone regardless it’s origin, age or monetary power, it will affect anyone who allow it. An example I always like to use is from my mother. A 60 years old woman who never liked videogames but enjoyed to be there and watch all the colossus die and even asked me to teach her how to play so she could enjoy Journey by herself.

There aren’t many but I always welcome all these brand new ideas and moments.

I did a paper on this for university which basically surmised…

" This disagreement has been called the ludology vs. narratology debates. The narratological view is that games should be understood as novel forms of narrative and can thus be studied using theories of narrative (Murray, 1997; Atkins, 2003). The ludological position is that games should be understood on their own terms. "

Quoted from wiki.

I went into depth about the nature of video games and how they can be analyzed in the same sense as theater plays. I basically tried to dismiss Ludology as a narrow way to make value judgments on video gaming.

The ludological approach is, in short, simply taking a game at face value and analyzing it for its’ systems design, gameplay, and other mechanisms while ignoring the narrative value. I went on to compare games like Pong to Flower, Ico, and other “art games”.

So yes, some games can definitely be defined as art. But it has a lot to do with the intent. Video games are just another artistic medium that can be marketed in many, many ways. Ludology is a logical approach, but it’s pretty narrow and analytical, even though it does have its’ place in defining and analyzing video games, it shouldn’t be the only factor.

They used to be both, these days they are all money making machines with very little soul..

Is “art” even real, or is it merely a catch-all term we’ve arbitrarily invented as a means to draw an enormous circle around unrelated activities? If I had to try to pin down a definition, I would say it’s something very vague and broad, like:

The result of a creative expression (usually a product, performance, presentation or appropriation) which may be appreciated as a focus (especially as a combination) of aesthetic, technical, conceptual, social, cultural, or philosophical interests.

So, yeah — pretty much anything can be art by this definition, in some sense. But, the narrower you define the term, the less and less relevant it becomes. I don’t think “Is this art?” is an interesting or profound question. I think we’re better off assuming the subject of discussion is art, and instead asking something like: “Is it good art?” Of course, even that is rife with problems, and it’s completely subjective, but in general some good things to consider might be: What does it say/do? How much does it say/do? How well does it say/do it? On what levels can we evaluate what’s going on?

I have no concern whatsoever for what Roger Ebert thinks of video games. He is not an expert on video games, and I don’t see how he is even an expert on art. He is known for reviewing Hollywood movies, and assigning them a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down.”

When Ebert said “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game” , this is almost a kind of non-sequitur. Is there a rule that you can’t achieve varying degrees of pre-defined “success” while taking part in an artwork? I mean, a couple people have referenced Duchamp’s Fountain , and I would argue that you can “win” at appreciating that piece. If you just sit there and stare at it, fuming about how “it’s just a urinal,” then you have failed at art. Likewise, there is a ton of “high art” out there that is very conceptual, inaccessible, and otherwise dependent on prior historical context or knowledge of other art works. A lot of art is a game.

In Ebert’s realm of movies, you “win” when you get to the end of the movie and have some appreciation for the story, or for the techniques employed in creating the film. A lot of that is passive, and even if you don’t understand any of it you will still “finish” the movie by the end of the 2 hours — is that a strength of film, over video games? Is the fact that film always provides the same static, linear experience every time necessarily always a point of superiority? Aren’t there also many video games that tell a story, and provide you with an experience? And since when does “art” = telling a story?

To me, it sounds like Roger Ebert thinks “art” simply refers to the craftsmanship or telling a story well. I don’t see how that’s particularly profound, relevant to a discussion of “art,” nor how video games as a medium necessarily fail at doing that.

If you’ve ever created (or tried to create) a game, you’d know they are art.

Any work that involves creating breath-taking sightings or modifying items into a more original and good-looking one counts as art.
Artworks and mapmaking in games are art, of course it can be bad art (to not use more rude terms) or good art.
Game music is art as well.

I feel that the artist behind the painty artworks, loadscreens etc is a very talented person.
I know some painters that can do similar works but this guy definitely goes beyond and gives an unique feeling to it.
Jeremy Soule is also obviously an artist, a famous one.
The mapmaking team also make artistic environments, but it’s a niche sector so they don’t get as much credit (not even the Skyrim mapmakers are very famous).

The smithsonian has an exhibit now called “the art of video games”. The game Flower by thatgamecompany is featured.

Yes video games are art. If it takes a creative mind(s) to create something out of ones own mind and thought onto some form of “canvas” for others to enjoy or interpret, then yes its art.

Is Writing art? Yes
Is Music an art? Sure is.
Is Drawing/painting/ visuals an art? Yup
Are Movies art? For sure.

Videogames are a sum of all of these. It’s just more interactive that’s all.

I’m sure when movies came out people scoffed at it saying it wouldn’t amount to the same thing as proper theatre…

Id like to state also, video games make a lot more of the “fantastic” art that we enjoy… Ive come to call it fart F A R T

Redfield.6174:

Now I want to ask you, what do you think? Videogames are art? And more, Guild Wars 2 is art or just entertainment?

There is no such thing as “just entertainment”. Most forms of entertainment are art (unless they are a sport). That, in itself does not mean much, however.
Yes, GW2 is an art (and it contains lot of art in the form of graphich and music, for example). It is also an entertainment service. And a social communication service. It wants to be a sport (though so far it is not even close to having esport potential). And (last, but definitely not least) it is a business.

The question as it was framed is pretty much useless. Anything can be an art. The real question should be whether it is sold as art. What was more important for the developers – their artistic vision, game’s entertainment value, or perhaps it’s business potential? And looking at the game we can easily say that the money has been more important than the vision. Which is not surprising – it is a business, after all.

Video games are an interactive medium that combine different artistic disciplines together to create an experience that can inspire a range of emotions in the end user; basically a film without the interactivity. I think it’s inherently apparent that video games are a form of art. I think Roger Ebert doesn’t know what he’s talking about, which doesn’t surprise me as he’s a film critic and not a gaming critic, gaming journalist, developer or what have you.

Guys remember that YOU can’t define what is art or what it isn’t.
Art is something that belong to a system that decides what art is… by itself.
Art critics and artist decide what is art.
Art is not something of the masses.

So, if somewhere and sometimes in the future, some art critics will start to define a videogame as art… then that videogame will be art.

Art doesn’t have a real definition, but excluding videogames is pretty much based on prejudice.

Are books art?
Can movies be art?
Could a painting be art?
Could clothing be an artist’s expression?

Art is a word without any real meaning. The only thing it means is “I don’t have a job and I have a right to get a government fund because no one wants to buy my trash”. Somewhere along those lines, the meaning of art got drowned because it either becomes elitist and/or government controlled.

By definition, it seems any self sufficient entrepreneur can’t be an artist. Living in the gutter seems to a prerequisite. You’ll find that most people who earn money with art don’t call themselves artist but rather writer, designer, musician, painter, as in, they state a profession that earns money.

It’s a bit stupid but that’s the way it is.

Now that i think about it Games could indeed be called art . After all anything worthy of having a display in the Smithsonian is worthy of being called art .

I just remembered about this
http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/

’’Art’’ has no true direct definition, so much so that a lady sleeping in a glass box was a major attraction, that to me is not art but to some people it is.

also 4 strobe light’s on a wall titled ‘’light, colours’’ was in the tate years ago (no idea if it still is) that to me is some guy saying ‘’this looks cool’’ but not actually art.

Art is anything you deem it to be.

videogames = media
So, are media art? Can a movie, or a song, be considered art?
Its subjective, but i believe so. Thing with “TRUE” art is, it born and prospered for millennia, where technology was not available, yet it spread to everything man could do.
Write, sing, sculpt, paint, compose, anything. Why would media be different?
But it will probably take centuries for that to be accepted by common culture.

Writing is a form of media, painting, sculpting and composing are also media forms, if not directly they can be.

the ‘’I want YOU!’’ propaganda poster from (WW2?) was artwork created to be mass produced and used as media.

its one of the same, media just strem lines certain aspects.

for a writing example, the Game of Thrones TV adaptation was recently referred to as ‘’a fantastic art form’’ JRR Tolkien books are also referred to as ‘’works of art’’ as is Shakespeare’s plays, etc.

Art is art no matter the medium of creation. This isn’t even really a discussion, it’s more of an opinion, because video games handily fit into the art category by definition.

It’s not really open ended, pretty straightforward.

This question is what got Mass Effect 3 in trouble.

Let’s ask the girl from the Old El Paso commercials. “Why not both?”

As someone who is related to the industry myself.

We’re almost there, and the first games that could be looked at as art are starting to appear, much of the modern arts is about experience and communication anyway. Art is turning into an entire experience rather then one piece, with multiple artists creating cabins or machines.
So what games are coming close. “Journey” is certainly one of them. “Spec ops: The line” another, these games are trying to transfer an idea trough an experience, and do more then just entertain. They have a purpose beyond that. And i think that’s the biggest idea, having a purpose beyond entertaining is hard for a game, wich is the biggest form of entertainment there is.

It’s the “Fun” in games, that’s basicly in it’s way imo. Games are always designed to be “Fun”, while the goal can be made much broader then fun, the goal should be to involve and engage the audience. A drama movie, a true story in books or movies, a thriller, these kinds of things are not “fun” in the basic concept of the word, and yet they engage you. Transfering hurt, misery, lonelyness, pain and other difficult toppics trough a game is often hard, making a game character weak and powerless is a big risk. It’s hard for people not to be “the hero” in any game. And yet this is a line we must cross to have a more engaging and powerfull medium in video games. A “HERO” is not something you can easely relate to, and even tough it feels good to play as one, the game does not engage you like it would if you could actually deeply relate to your character. Most people that do not play videogames at this time are not limited by the technology or the medium itself, but by the lack of something to engage them into this medium. Telling a sad story about a weak and hurting person and then turning him into john rambo gameplaywise doesn’t help either. Games need to ooze the atmosphere the main character is in to become really engaging. If you are hurt and broken you need to feel it in every move, in every action.

If you would look at movies, games are mostly based in the Commedy or Action blockbuster genre, until we can cover the others, i don’t think we can call games an art, but as i said before, there are a few games starting to do other things, starting to head in other directions and starting to broaden our medium, i hope everyone here encourages that process, cause it’s a hard one, and companies crash and burn over the risk they are taking making these gems that will carry forth our industry.

I wonder how deep the rabit hole goes, and i’m exited for the years to come in our industry.

Fox

p.s. i don’t think mmo’s will ever be art, altough some experiences designed in them maybe, but overall an mmo is to large and to broad to entirely translate a concept, idea or emotion. It’s not needed anyway, the mmo genre is a platform for communication rather then an experience, and if it is it’s a shared one. MMO’s and multiplayer lean more to a sport then an artform, wich is what they are ment to be in the first place.

The answer is simple, its all a matter of opinion. Art is highly subjective. There is no true definition of what is and what is not art, no matter what anyone says. Its up to each and every one to decide what they think.

I say, yes, Guild wars 2 is art. Because that is my opinion and thus it holds true for me. If five billion people said to me that its not art, does not invalidate my opinion. Its still art to me. It is also entertainment.

Then of course, then we have all the art involved in making the game. Many different forms of art, but thats another story.