TheAllSeeingEye wrote:Sorry. But if art has no definition then, by default, you cant define anything as art since there are no criteria for classification.
If your assumption is based on the premise that art can only encompass topics debated by people in an academic environment, might I point out that there are a number of groups, colleges and Universities that run courses and degrees on the subject. Infact, a quick google search will bring up a whole plethora of essays and dissertations on the matter.
I'm not suggesting that every videogame ever made could be considered as art, (and neither can every movie ever made make that claim either), but there are without doubt a number of games, and the people who work on them, that are worthy or recognition.
cinephile2000 wrote:A video game is most definitly an artistic endevor by the creators. Take Halo, or Final Fantasy these two franchises excell at making the audience or player feel emotions while plaing the game.
MonkeyM666 wrote:Ahhh.... pacman.... How I love having a few beers and slamming that yellow guy around.
Doc Holliday wrote:MonkeyM666 wrote:Ahhh.... pacman.... How I love having a few beers and slamming that yellow guy around.
Racist!
AtomicHyperbole wrote:If only Farenheit hadn't had made some massive fucking narrative errors and resisted veering off into bollocks territory, I would've loved it.
Doc Holliday wrote:You should be able to pick it up dirt cheap by now Monkey.
Mind you, seeing as how you're of the FF persuasion I wouldn't even say that - you're obviously capable of the 'Door closed, phone off, shutters down, outside bad' approach to gaming - just hire it out - you'll finish it in less than 20 hours.
Great game though - closest I've come to yet in forgetting I was playing a
game and thinking I was watching a film.
Apart from about 75% of Metal Gear Solid 2 of course.
TheAllSeeingEye wrote:The game that I truly class as art is The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. It's the best game I have ever played. Nothing since comes close to capturing what that game offered; it's also why i refer to Shigeru Miyamoto as a genius.
The Ginger Man wrote:I think for a piece to ultimately be defined as art, its medium must be critically analyzed and academically studied as art. By this defintion, video games are not art. The majority of games are defined by their entertainment and marketing value. While this may also be said of many films, cinema itself is analyzed and studied as art...video games are not.
Monkey666 wrote:Have you played Twilight Princess? Does it stay true to the Zelda themes etc, etc.... it does look beautful, even though it is SD.
Monkey666 wrote:So here's the next point to discuss. If a game (or list of 5 games) could be classed as art and placed down for study what would they be?
MonkeyM666 wrote:hungry eyes
Doc Holliday wrote:hungry eyes
MonkeyM666 wrote:The argument of 'designed by committees' I don't think is that valid I'm afraid, as film, sculpture, large scale painting (Sistine Chapel for example) etc are a team effort. Art doesn’t have to be completed by one man, if it was we could have a large amount of singular life works and no collections.
MonkeyM666 wrote:Can we have more story on how 'Barbie Fashion Show' came about
MonkeyM666 wrote:Now you've got me thinking. If all games are manipulated by the corporations to maximise profit (yeah, I know... durrrr) and films are in the same boat, is art (in the sense of the mass media) in fear of being crushed in these formats. Is the drive for profits and that next product placement quashing the artist?
The Ginger Man wrote:Films...not so much. Games, possibly. Keep in mind, developers are small groups of programmers, working on an IP for a publisher, who pays them on a milestone basis...with the milestone requirements being set by the publisher. These guys work from paycheck to paycheck and when the paychecks stop....the company closes.
Now is it wrong for publishers to create games this way? Not really. A movie studio can spend $125 mil to have Spielburg churn out a film in 5 months that will rake in just as much in the opening weekend and continue to earn money for weeks and later in DVD sales. Games don't have that earning potential. A game bombs during its one-time release...its bombed for good.
So a publisher is spending say $20 mil (just in dev payments) over 2-3 years to produce something that may be "out-dated" before it's finished and hoping consumers will eventually pay $60 for it. And they're doing this on multiple titles, all coming from different developers of different skill. Then you add in shareholders, financial quarters, and the real business side of business...well, you see how it starts to make sense. It's not that corporations don't want to be artistic...it's that being artistic can easily kill a corporation.
Film is full of visionaries. Games...not as much. We've got Miyamoto, Will Wright, Sid Miers...maybe a few others. These guys get to do what they want b/c they've made people money...much like film visionaries. But they were only considered visionaries b/c their ideas made money. If no one bought The Sims, we would not be getting Spore. This is b/c games aren't widely accepted as art. There is no public forum to award VG's artistic merit. Film has The Oscars, Globes, Cannes...all sorts of things that give studios and directors creative collateral. Games don't have this...so creative collateral is only useful in regards to the # of units sold.
Pacino86845 wrote:I dunno Ginger, I get what you're saying about the business elements of games dominating the development pipeline, but couldn't the same arguments be made about animated films or comics?
I also think that the "infancy" argument still carries a lot of weight in defense of video games. I'm not sure games will be officially recognized as an art form of sorts, but until recently they've depended heavily on the technology available.
Arguments against video games' artistic merits that are based on the lack of the public's recognition don't stand up too well, though. We could look to the world of comics and even cartoons for reference. Comics were kids' stuff for decades, and now that we're finally in an era that recognizes art in the comic form, that recognition goes way back to the origins of the medium. I'm not saying it's a sure thing, but the same might happen to videogames, if it hasn't already started.
godzillasushi wrote:MonkeyM666 wrote:Now you've got me thinking. If all games are manipulated by the corporations to maximise profit (yeah, I know... durrrr) and films are in the same boat, is art (in the sense of the mass media) in fear of being crushed in these formats. Is the drive for profits and that next product placement quashing the artist?
*pops in* Did somebody say EA? *zing*
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests