KimKarsmashian
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2014
- Messages
- 495
I voted waste of time. 
Mostly they're a hobby and entertainment.
The question "are video games art" is interesting if only because it poses a deeper question - what the hell is art?
Is it a creative expression of the soul? Then works commissioned for money are not art, since they resulted from a desire for money as opposed to some deep movement of the soul requiring artistic expression to cease its tremors. Sorry Mozart, you're the equivalent of Dr. Luke!
Is it a statement? Then most instrumental music cannot be art. Once again, Mozart, step up your game.
Is it something that is extraordinarily well crafted, appealing to established formal rules? Then an exceedingly well-designed toaster can be art, and experimental or avant-garde works would be excluded from consideration. Mozart, however, finally gets his turn to shine.
Is it something beautiful? Then... it's entirely subjective. Mozart's works can be considered beautiful, but I've known music enthusiasts who thought him trite. Also it excludes a lot of things people consider art, like performance art.
The debate about whether video games are art or not stems from people having different ideas about what the heck art is. Traditionally, art was related to craftsmanship, and artists were craftsmen. Composers were viewed as craftsmen until around the time the romantic period started, when the perception of the musician changed to something more akin to modern times and we had composers as figures that could look into the human soul. I can't speak for other artistic fields, but I'm certain a similar shift took place as well, so that "statement" and "creative expression" became more important than "well-craftedness" or "beauty." A lot of the people who don't see video game as art would compare it to my "toaster" example, and say any given game may be well designed in all aspects, but that does not make it art.
I personally lean towards art being something that makes a statement or asks a question in a creative way. This would allow some video games to be considered "art." Undertale makes a statement about how the medium of video games encourages people to engage in actions they normally would never consider because they feel like they "need" to. Metal Gear Solid makes statements about war and the human condition. (Note: I am not saying these games succeed in their statements or that they are "good art" or whatever. Merely that they do make statements) I think you could examine them from a critical perspective. You can't really examine Super Mario Bros. because it doesn't say anything. It's "play."
But most of the time? I think the question of whether something is "art" or not is not the right question to ask. When you say something is "art", you also conflate with it a sense of quality. But... you can have "bad art." Why not? This whole issue of "art" inherently meaning "good" is part of the reason people are so cagey about its definition!
Personally, I go back to the basics. Is something well crafted? Then say it. Say "Bach's understanding of counterpoint combined with his knack for melody allow for very interesting works with a small motivic base." Say "this Britney Spears song is immaculately produced, the lyrics are thematically consistent, and the tune is catchy without becoming irritating." Say "Jane Eyre is a bold entreaty about what it meant to be a woman in Victorian England." Say "John Lennon's works are extremely relatable and express who he is as a person and how he feels." Any of these is more informative than the vague "x is art," and you can actually debate the work itself, instead of debating something as ill-defined and vague as "art."
Mostly they're a hobby and entertainment. The question "are video games art" is interesting if only because it poses a deeper question - what the hell is art?
Is it a creative expression of the soul? Then works commissioned for money are not art, since they resulted from a desire for money as opposed to some deep movement of the soul requiring artistic expression to cease its tremors. Sorry Mozart, you're the equivalent of Dr. Luke!
Is it a statement? Then most instrumental music cannot be art. Once again, Mozart, step up your game.
Is it something that is extraordinarily well crafted, appealing to established formal rules? Then an exceedingly well-designed toaster can be art, and experimental or avant-garde works would be excluded from consideration. Mozart, however, finally gets his turn to shine.
Is it something beautiful? Then... it's entirely subjective. Mozart's works can be considered beautiful, but I've known music enthusiasts who thought him trite. Also it excludes a lot of things people consider art, like performance art.
The debate about whether video games are art or not stems from people having different ideas about what the heck art is. Traditionally, art was related to craftsmanship, and artists were craftsmen. Composers were viewed as craftsmen until around the time the romantic period started, when the perception of the musician changed to something more akin to modern times and we had composers as figures that could look into the human soul. I can't speak for other artistic fields, but I'm certain a similar shift took place as well, so that "statement" and "creative expression" became more important than "well-craftedness" or "beauty." A lot of the people who don't see video game as art would compare it to my "toaster" example, and say any given game may be well designed in all aspects, but that does not make it art.
I personally lean towards art being something that makes a statement or asks a question in a creative way. This would allow some video games to be considered "art." Undertale makes a statement about how the medium of video games encourages people to engage in actions they normally would never consider because they feel like they "need" to. Metal Gear Solid makes statements about war and the human condition. (Note: I am not saying these games succeed in their statements or that they are "good art" or whatever. Merely that they do make statements) I think you could examine them from a critical perspective. You can't really examine Super Mario Bros. because it doesn't say anything. It's "play."
But most of the time? I think the question of whether something is "art" or not is not the right question to ask. When you say something is "art", you also conflate with it a sense of quality. But... you can have "bad art." Why not? This whole issue of "art" inherently meaning "good" is part of the reason people are so cagey about its definition!
Personally, I go back to the basics. Is something well crafted? Then say it. Say "Bach's understanding of counterpoint combined with his knack for melody allow for very interesting works with a small motivic base." Say "this Britney Spears song is immaculately produced, the lyrics are thematically consistent, and the tune is catchy without becoming irritating." Say "Jane Eyre is a bold entreaty about what it meant to be a woman in Victorian England." Say "John Lennon's works are extremely relatable and express who he is as a person and how he feels." Any of these is more informative than the vague "x is art," and you can actually debate the work itself, instead of debating something as ill-defined and vague as "art."
Anyone know those people?
