|
|
Post by Princess Ember Mononoke on Sept 28, 2004 23:00:49 GMT -5
The video game violence thread made me think of an interesting point of discussion. Can video games be considered art? This is actually quite an important matter, because if they can, that means that they have the right to be as obscene as necessary, whereas if they can't, there are technical legal boundries. It's also just an intriguing question for its own sake.
So, what do you think? Are video games art?
|
|
|
|
Post by Torey on Sept 29, 2004 7:09:43 GMT -5
This is quite interesting. Art is where a person (or a group in this matter) express themselves by creating something (drawing, writing, music) and that is what a video game is; it's a creation made by the imagination of a team of people. So yeah, I'd say it is art. And I think they do have the right to be as obscene as necessary, as long as they have the right certificates on them. A game with lots of blood and gore would be right to have a 15 or 18 certificate on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 29, 2004 8:16:30 GMT -5
Well seeing as modern art is now a toilet or a bed then I think yes, video games can be considered art. They make me think more then a tent does anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 29, 2004 8:43:01 GMT -5
Some video games are works of art. Others are not.  I guess, sure, they could be counted as one due to our low standards of art today...but I honestly don't believe that our standards of art today are all that great (public [male] homosexual bondage sex, and then using an enema on one another and defecating on themselves...done as a public display of "art" on the campus of UCLA....) |
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 29, 2004 8:47:11 GMT -5
If anyone wants to be an artist here is how to do it:
* go out and find some piece of junk e.g a toilet.
* write on it.
* Make up some rubbish about it having a meaning.
* Sell it for millions.
Simple.
|
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Sept 29, 2004 8:48:49 GMT -5
If anyone wants to be an artist here is how to do it: * go out and find some piece of junk e.g a toilet. * write on it. * Make up some rubbish about it having a meaning. * Sell it for millions. Simple. You can only sell it for millions if you have a big name all ready or can pull off acting like a big name and not being a decent human being. Then people will be fooled into thinking you're a famous artiste and you'll get your money. |
|
|
|
Post by aakfish on Sept 29, 2004 8:50:23 GMT -5
You can only sell it for millions if you have a big name all ready or can pull off acting like a big name and not being a decent human being. Then people will be fooled into thinking you're a famous artiste and you'll get your money. That is true. Although if you head over to London you're bound to find some stupid millionaire who is willing to buy any old piece of crap and call it art. |
|
|
|
Post by Oily on Sept 29, 2004 14:36:00 GMT -5
Damien Hirst actually has a factory producing most of his "art" XD I'd say certain video games could be considered art. Like writing is like an artform - certain novels are truly works of art. But a computer manual isn't |
|
|
|
Post by Buddy on Sept 29, 2004 14:51:03 GMT -5
It's ironic - I was just thinking about this subject while I was getting ready for school this morning! Video games, in general, are art as far as I'm concerned. But it's like all types of art - some parts are art, and some are just regular video games. And really, what medium isn't like this? Film is an art, but there's nothing artistic about a porn flick. Writing is art, but, as Oily pointed out, there's nothing artistic about a computer manual. Achitecture is an art (or so it is generally considered such), but there's no art in the way my house was designed. Drawing is an art, but I'm not sure what's so artistic about drawing mountains and rivers and little country cottages. Just to give a few examples. |
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Sept 29, 2004 18:16:54 GMT -5
If anyone wants to be an artist here is how to do it: * go out and find some piece of junk e.g a toilet. * write on it. * Make up some rubbish about it having a meaning. * Sell it for millions. Simple. That's because Dadaism evolved into something other than what it was ment to be....  The state of modern art can be very depressing. There is some good stuff out there, it's just so hard to find. I don't think that art should be defined by what it depicts. There is beauty and emotion in every day life as well. For example, if the person was painting the mountains and rivers they grew up by, they would have a deep emotional connection to that kind of a scene. Something that I never liked was the 'is this art' disscussions, most of which end up being "I don't like it, so it's not art" type conversations. Someone who was a cartoonist saying realism isn't art, realistic painters saying cartooning isn't art... it's messy and degrading most of the time. Does it invoke emotion? Do you connect to it in some way? Did the person who made it want to say something, or have fun, or even just try out something new? That's all art. Cartoons can make you laugh, good ones even know how to make you cry. Buildings can inspire awe, or reverance. A painting can make you think, or feel nostalgic, or make you angry. Just because you don't make the emotional connection doesn't mean it's not art, it could always mean something to someone else. I don't know why it has to be a certain way to be considered art... Look at the cut scenes in the game Legend of Dragoon. They are beautiful and very emotional, the figures are rendered with skill, colour is used very well to accent the mood and feeling. It's like a painting, or a fine film, but it's part of a video game. It's something you create. Anything you create can be art. Art is something that comes from you! Even if it's just a basket you make, or a scarf, or a crayon drawing. I'm very saddened by the poor opinion of art today. There are many beautiful things being created by artists of our age. It's not all poo flung at canvas. Go to South Street in Philly, and there are beautiful murals on buildings. Even in modern art museums there are still some gems to be found. I also don't think that violence and sex makes something less 'art'. 'Europa' is a very sexual painting. 'Olympia' is one of my favorite paintings, even though she is thought to be a prostitute. Many depictions of the death of Christ in art are bloody and heart breaking, Picasso's 'Guernica' shows a violent scene from a Spanish civil war. (I've also seen people argue that cubism isn't art. -__- ) Even if a game is just made for fun, it can still be art. Even violent games can be art. Playing some of them you can see the care and attention to detail that went into them. If you know anything about the processes, about the rendering of 3D figures, backgrounds, the start of the game in the art department through a 'style bible' there is a lot of work going into a game. There's also a lot of creative energy that goes into one. I don't think we really have such a low standard of art these days, we're just going through a certain creative phase. People are pushing limits of what it excepted, they're trying new ways to connect to people and get a reaction. Maybe they don't always do it in the best way, but the process they're using isn't really wrong. In art history there tends to be a cycle of rejecting tradition, returning to it, mixing the old and the new, and then starting again to move away from the social standard. Every art movement at its start is met with resistance. Some fade away after the relevance is lost, and some remain to influence the next generation of artists. People also like to argue over comics, and if they are art or not. The comic 'Maus' finally set that debate down (To a large extent) There are very artistic games as well. I think that it is an artform, though it involves a lot more people working together than other mediums of art. It's only really existed for about twenty years, give it time and I think we'll see some really fantastic things come out of video games. As it is, I think that Video games as an art form are still finding their legs. |
|
|
|
Post by Rishiy on Sept 30, 2004 8:28:43 GMT -5
Some games are art. But stuff like 'Playboy Mansion' is just catering to the masses... Of stupid horny boys...
|
|
|
|
Post by Bacon on Oct 3, 2004 21:26:04 GMT -5
The video game violence thread made me think of an interesting point of discussion. Can video games be considered art? This is actually quite an important matter, because if they can, that means that they have the right to be as obscene as necessary, whereas if they can't, there are technical legal boundries. It's also just an intriguing question for its own sake. So, what do you think? Are video games art? Take it from a nerd, NO WAY ARE VG'S ART!! |
|
|
|
Post by Killix on Oct 4, 2004 0:21:17 GMT -5
My short answer: Yes, I believe video games are art.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheEaterofWorlds on Oct 4, 2004 15:34:07 GMT -5
Take it from a nerd, NO WAY ARE VG'S ART!! Would you like to provide us with your reasoning, or facts that back up your statement? This is a debate, after all. |
|
|
|
Post by Smiley on Oct 4, 2004 19:02:42 GMT -5
Yes, I believe gaming is an art. I believe everything is an art. To me, an art is something that you can develop a skill for, a way to simplify it, or a way to let it improve your lifestyle. Driving, eating, relaxing, sleeping... it's all art to me, because everyone has a different "strategy" (in quotes, because most of the time it requires no thought or planning, you just do it) for performing a certain activity.
With this said, I do not believe that just because something is claimed as "art" makes it acceptable in public. Pornography, indecent exposure, bad language, and violence are art to me (albeit a different form), but don't belong where minors can see them. People coin certain things as art for the sole purpose of shoving it in people's faces, to which I am very much opposed.
To the original question, yes, I think video games can be as obscene as they want to be - anything can be, as long as it is clearly labelled that it may not be suitable for children. I don't think that the term "art" should exempt something from following the rules. If violence in a video game allegedly has bad effects on a child, then why wouldn't violence in a painting or book? I think it should be up to parents, personally, to decide whether or not something is good for a child, but games, books, and other items should state whether or not they contain mature content, just to be safe. (Overprotective parents will shield their children from that stuff, anyway)
I know what I'm saying doesn't make much sense... basically, everything is art, but that doesn't automatically make it fit for society. Video games are fine, though.
|
|
<---- Misty the fennec fox, thanks Sarn 
The state of modern art can be very depressing. There is some good stuff out there, it's just so hard to find. 
