68 replies to this topic

[Pedro The Hutt]

I do think that there are at least a few things in art that you can call objectively good or bad. But my point basically is that some people get their judgement clouded all too easily by the silver words of the creator of a certain artwork. And I certainly feel that you should critique art before you listen to the artist. You don't wait with reviewing a film until you interviewed the director either.

[General_Tobias]

New Idea. Video games are art but they are pop art. end discussion.

[peregrin]

General_Tobias, on 03 January 2012 - 03:48 AM, said:

New Idea. Video games are art but they are pop art. end discussion.

Nope.

Don't like it.

Well, unless you want to call all modern art pop art. But then I'd just wonder why we make a distinction between the two in the first place. Wait, what is pop art supposed to mean anyway? Going by the wikipedia page, I don't see how video games are any more "pop art" than other art forms these days.

[General_Tobias]

peregrin, on 03 January 2012 - 06:34 AM, said:

Nope.

Don't like it.

Well, unless you want to call all modern art pop art. But then I'd just wonder why we make a distinction between the two in the first place. Wait, what is pop art supposed to mean anyway? Going by the wikipedia page, I don't see how video games are any more "pop art" than other art forms these days.

there is pop art in other forms of art that you see. most movies would be considered pop art, alot of modern art is pop art too. alot of modern art also isn't pop art.

the majority of video games would be pop art. I haven't run into any exceptions besides maybe Yume Nikki.

I am using this definition of pop art by the way

pop art: Art based on modern popular culture and the mass media.

[peregrin]

General_Tobias, on 03 January 2012 - 09:22 AM, said:

there is pop art in other forms of art that you see. most movies would be considered pop art, alot of modern art is pop art too. alot of modern art also isn't pop art.

the majority of video games would be pop art. I haven't run into any exceptions besides maybe Yume Nikki.

I am using this definition of pop art by the way

pop art: Art based on modern popular culture and the mass media.

I mentioned Portal and Shadow of the Colossus earlier. I fail to see how they fall under this definition without expanding the definition to include almost all conceivable artwork. There are a lot of games that would probably fall under this definition, but there are many that I don't think would. Thus, I'd hesitate to call video games "pop art" as a medium.

Take, for example, The Mario Bros. The first game wasn't referential to popular culture or mass media at all from what I can see. Has it become pop culture? Absolutely. But so has most artwork. The question then is: do we define video games by what they were when they were created or do we define them by what they have become? Is a Mario game that references past Mario games basing itself on popular culture by virtue of being a Mario game? And what of the original games that started these iconic series?

[General_Tobias]

peregrin, on 03 January 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

I mentioned Portal and Shadow of the Colossus earlier. I fail to see how they fall under this definition without expanding the definition to include almost all conceivable artwork. There are a lot of games that would probably fall under this definition, but there are many that I don't think would. Thus, I'd hesitate to call video games "pop art" as a medium.

Take, for example, The Mario Bros. The first game wasn't referential to popular culture or mass media at all from what I can see. Has it become pop culture? Absolutely. But so has most artwork. The question then is: do we define video games by what they were when they were created or do we define them by what they have become? Is a Mario game that references past Mario games basing itself on popular culture by virtue of being a Mario game? And what of the original games that started these iconic series?

Original? don't kid yourself. Mario is a cartoon stereotype fighting a plethora of anthropomorphized creatures. Look at children's cartoons and you will see this common ground. The fact that video games have been around long enough so that they can abstract from their already material inspired from other forms of entertainment is nice and quite pleasant to see but I would say only proves my point further.

I do see your point though on the pop art issue. A drawing of mario would be pop-art like Warhol's brillo pad's or (badly made) screenprint of Elvis. One could say Mario is just part of pop culture then and not pop art. I really need to read up on my definition of the term ( I didn't really like the way wikipedia handled it).

To be fair it is very difficult to be original these days.

Shadow of the Colossus could totally be an anime or something like that. Portal is a game whose plot and exists to compliment the gameplay. I don't know how original it is though (g.l.a.d.o.s can be seen as inspired by other crazy robot cliches like hal although g.l.a.d.o.s is certainly one of the most entertaining). I could see portal being a sci-fi flick.


To be honest here is one of the main reasons I don't consider video games art. They are made to entertain and sell well and rightfully so. As long as they remain that way I would rather compare Video Games to Movies (mostly action, anime, horror ect....). On that note I would call them mass entertainment that way you don't have some sort the value of some greater purpose of furthering mankind's ability to express itself attached to the video games (unless you count it as being a late part of the realism which I would say is very arguable).

I wouldn't be to upset at video games being pop art since it would be sharing that spot with comic books.

found a pop art definition I think suits this argument better.

pop art:
A form of art that depicts objects or scenes from everyday life and employs techniques of commercial art and popular illustration.

or

(Fine Arts & Visual Arts / Art Movements) a movement in modern art that imitates the methods, styles, and themes of popular culture and mass media, such as comic strips, advertising, and science fiction

or

British and American art movement of the 1960s which explored antitraditional and often antiesthetic means to present everyday objects and events.



Wikipedia covered the last definition only. The second definiton used an interesting term, commercial art. Nearly all video games could probably could be considered commercial art at this point (including Mario, Shadow of the Colossus, and Portal). Although usually commercial art describes advertising so I guess you could say that Video Games also are not Commercial art.

At this point it may just be easier to define Video Games as something entirely different than art.

[peregrin]

General_Tobias, on 06 January 2012 - 06:42 PM, said:

To be honest here is one of the main reasons I don't consider video games art. They are made to entertain and sell well and rightfully so. As long as they remain that way I would rather compare Video Games to Movies (mostly action, anime, horror ect....). On that note I would call them mass entertainment that way you don't have some sort the value of some greater purpose of furthering mankind's ability to express itself attached to the video games (unless you count it as being a late part of the realism which I would say is very arguable).

Here's my beef: there are countless works of high art that have been conceived for the purpose of entertainment and sales. The best example I can think of is opera, which has been a terrifically entertaining and lucrative business for centuries. It's full of tropes, knock-offs, ripoffs, etc. and yet we still unequivocally refer to opera as one of the highest forms of art, no? It's definitely artsier than musical theater, and I'd say a lot of people consider musical theater to be art as well. I want to defend video games as art if only to work against this bizarre hypocrisy of considering new things designed for entertainment as culturally inferior to old things designed for entertainment. It smacks of Cold War era logic and I really think we, as a society, should move past that. Art doesn't have to be for art's sake. Art can have a function as entertainment. Art can be created for the sake of profit. I mean, that's what being an "artist" implies, no? That you make a living out of making "art?"

I guess in the end, I think "art" is a stupid, arbitrary term. But I'd rather call video games art than deny them the privilege because calling something art implicitly gives it culture. It gives it societal significance beyond just being a consumer product. I think there have been many fantastic games that deserve recognition as more than just sales figures - and to me, that's really what separates pure entertainment media from art.

[Takashi]

If planning how the characters would look like wouldn't be called art.
What would be sketching and drawing would be for anyway.

Without these, there wouldn't even be a game.

It's just that people are competitive and saying their work is the best and would call it art then start calling their enemies's work not art.
Same that their enemies would also do.

[pegasaurus]

I'm pretty sure I've posted here before, but why wouldn't video games be considered art?

Graphics are a form of visual art.
Music is a form of auditory art.
Story is a form of theatrical art.
Heck, even gameplay itself is a form of programming and mechanical art.

I think people who don't consider video games to be art are limiting their definition of art as something that is static and exists apart from its audience. But why must art only exist with a glass display case or a stage separating it from its audience? Take engineering and design. Sure, these things are designed with a purpose in mind, but the very fact that something as complex as a car is constructed from many smaller components, all of which must play their role in order for the machine to function as a whole is in itself a feat of art.