"To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers. That a game can aspire to artistic importance as a visual experience, I accept. But for most gamers, video games represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic."
"One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a [sic] 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."
>a game is not art because you can win a game One does not stem from the other, you fagots
Hunter Morris
Every form of modern art is a meme. Art is dead.
Ethan Rodriguez
Youre a dumb fuck. Even MOMA the only relevant say in the dead field of modern art has considered games art.
Tyler Hill
>Games are not art because they differ from older art forms
Anyone who actually believes this is a Luddite who can't accept that culture evolves.
Let's make this point about the development of writing:
>Literary works aren't as good as paintings because they don't have pictures.
It's fucking retarded.
Oliver Roberts
>These are solid points. They are, but comparing a ~60 year old medium to millennia old mediums is a little unfair. No, you may not be able to compare videogames made in the last 10 years to ~2500 year old greek tragedy, but they're well on the way.
In my opinion, it's pretty fucking ignorant to dismiss the fusion of visual art, music, sound design, voice acting and gameplay design as 'not art' because there is a win/lose condition.
Jacob Wright
>To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.
None of you are refuting this.
Isaiah Jackson
it doesn't matter
unless the approval of le no jaw man is critical to your self-image, in which case you have bigger problems
Levi Allen
Seems like the second point is an arbitrary distinction. Because you can finish a movie, a song, a book, or whatever. That's just a minor semantic distinction.
As for the first point, I don't know. I have read a lot of western canon. I love music more than video games. But I think this distinction between art and non-art is pretty much valueless. It's always happening any time a new media happens. Look back in history, when novels started to become more popular in the 19th century century, traditionalists denied that anything other than poetry was art. Same thing happened with film, same with TV.
Time will move on, tlsome of those of us playing games now will become the art theorists of tomorrow and it will slowly just become art.
Julian Price
They've said all this when recorded audio came out, theyve said all this when film came out, they said all this when tv came out. Youre beating a dead horse. Film/tv is hard to take seriously compared to theater which is live. Same with audio i wouldnt call auto tune art. Same with game maker which is like auto tune for the game design field
Connor Green
Why is that even a requirement of art?
Blake Jones
Metal Gear Solid
You're not going to get Shakespeare or Mozart the same as every other medium.
Mason King
Before accusations of samefaggotry, yes this is me on a different device.
Videogames are art, unquestionably. It's an expressive form most often intended for nothing other than the appreciation of the game's aesthetics.
As for game designers "on par with the great ", two things:
1. The implication is that the modern figures in other genres are on par with the great 's, which if you ask many/most people they would disagree with. Is Steve Reich as good as WA Mozart? Is George RR Martin as good as Tolkein? Most everyone would say "no."
2. With this is mind, the question isn't "Are they comparable to classical artists?" but instead is "are they creating their art in a way appropriate to their time?"
For designers like Kojima and Miyazaki, I would say yes.
Kayden Wilson
>fagots Could icycalm be still alive
Joshua Nguyen
>literature, music, and art have been around for millenia >film has been around for a century >Video games have been around for 40 years, and have been taken seriously for MAYBE 20
>Somehow video games are expected to already have a Shakespeare analog
Justin Martinez
wait, so are u admitting they're sub-art as of now?
Jackson Powell
>have been taken seriously for MAYBE 20 20 years ago is 1996.
You can really say MAYBE 30 years, because of Japan.
Wyatt Long
Hey how about reading another post
Carson Hill
If we identify the oldest great novel, were all novels before that not art? Because it seems like a purely subjective argument. Though It probably is purely subjective, art.
Jonathan Moore
I'm not "admitting" anything, I'm saying it's a stupid fucking argument. It's like saying music isn't an art because Mozart didn't exist within 20 years of the first instance of music in mankind.
Eli Bell
I don't call hopscotch art. I don't call virtual hopscotch art. I don't call Texas Hold 'Em art. I don't call Texas Hold 'Em as playable at pogo.com/games/no-limit-texas-holdem-poker art. I don't call games art. I don't call video games art.
