Adventure Forums - View Single Post

Jeysie · 12-08-2005, 06:23 AM

I personally think that anything that has creativity involved in its creation should be called art.

Yes, that's an extremely broad umbrella, but why shouldn't it be? Granted, most definitions of art tend towards things primarily designed for viewing by an audience, but even that includes a lot of things most people wouldn't readily consider art... like video/computer games.

For one, games include a lot of things we would ordinarily classify as art. There are artists (heh) who create backgrounds. Writers who write dialogue and in-game text. Composers who create music. Sometimes actors who provide voices or full-body work. And yet when you put that all together, games somehow become *less* than the sum of their parts (I.E. not art)? Why is that?

Someone said that they wouldn't consider Counter Strike as art. Well, why not? If war films can be considered art, then why are games based on war not art? Do they not do the same thing, translate the real experience of a battle into an abstracted experience (passive in the form of a film, interactive in the form of a game)?

If anything, I think games are an evolution of art. To me, art is a collaboration between the artist and the audience... no art is truly complete until someone "adds" their reaction and interpretation to it, if you will. While there are some forms of art that include active audience participation, I think games are one of the few forms where active audience participation is integral to the experience. We get to add our game-playing experience to the creators' vision to make something new.

Many of the arguments I see here seem centered around arguing the quality of things, and the notion that quality=art. I personally disagree with that. Certainly there is good art (something that shows off the aspects of its medium with excellence) and bad art (something that uses the aspects of its medium poorly), but I don't think something has to be good to be art. After all, I think those occasions where people put random bits of trash on planks of wood and call it modern art are moronic, but other people obviously take them seriously... ;P

Peace & Luv, Liz

12-08-2005, 06:23 AM	#57
Jeysie Diva of Death Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Western Massachusetts Posts: 1,402	I personally think that anything that has creativity involved in its creation should be called art. Yes, that's an extremely broad umbrella, but why shouldn't it be? Granted, most definitions of art tend towards things primarily designed for viewing by an audience, but even that includes a lot of things most people wouldn't readily consider art... like video/computer games. For one, games include a lot of things we would ordinarily classify as art. There are artists (heh) who create backgrounds. Writers who write dialogue and in-game text. Composers who create music. Sometimes actors who provide voices or full-body work. And yet when you put that all together, games somehow become less than the sum of their parts (I.E. not art)? Why is that? Someone said that they wouldn't consider Counter Strike as art. Well, why not? If war films can be considered art, then why are games based on war not art? Do they not do the same thing, translate the real experience of a battle into an abstracted experience (passive in the form of a film, interactive in the form of a game)? If anything, I think games are an evolution of art. To me, art is a collaboration between the artist and the audience... no art is truly complete until someone "adds" their reaction and interpretation to it, if you will. While there are some forms of art that include active audience participation, I think games are one of the few forms where active audience participation is integral to the experience. We get to add our game-playing experience to the creators' vision to make something new. Many of the arguments I see here seem centered around arguing the quality of things, and the notion that quality=art. I personally disagree with that. Certainly there is good art (something that shows off the aspects of its medium with excellence) and bad art (something that uses the aspects of its medium poorly), but I don't think something has to be good to be art. After all, I think those occasions where people put random bits of trash on planks of wood and call it modern art are moronic, but other people obviously take them seriously... ;P Peace & Luv, Liz __________________ Adventures in Roleplaying (Nov. 19): "Maybe it's still in the Elemental Plane of Candy." "Is the Elemental Plane of Candy anything like Willy Wonka's factory?" "If it is, would that mean Oompa Loompas are Candy Elementals?" "Actually, I'm thinking more like the Candyland board game. But, I like this idea better." "I like the idea of Oompa Loompa Elementals."