Hmm... looks like art to me!
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/gaming.gadgets/08/31/video.games.art.steinberg/index.html?iref=allsearch
This article from CNN.com discusses the debate on whether or not video games should be considered an art form. The author is trying to convince the reader that a video game is an artistic experience, and he compares gaming to looking at more "traditional" art. He states:
Sure, the swirls of Van Gogh's "Starry Night" or the magnificence of Michelangelo's statue of David can prompt awe and contemplation in onlookers. But should we think any less of sprawling virtual worlds that marry music, literature and graphics into a layered aesthetic experience filled with countless scenes, scenarios and choices open for individual interpretation?I had never really thought about video games in that sense, but after reading this article, I do agree that video games are a form of art and should be considered as such. I personally am not a "gamer," but I do know that an enormous amount of effort goes into making video games, and they have a strange and inexplicable effect on those who really get into them. Video games are accessible. They bring art and the resulting passions and emotions into one's own living room, and the interactive nature allows the player to dive right into a new world.
From an outsider's perspective, I do think that there is an often-overlooked artistic value to video games, and I think that it should be acknowledged. I don't play video games, but I recognize and appreciate that fact and the idea of accessible art. However, I don't think that the artistic nature of video games can ever replace the traditional notion of art that we have had for centuries, and it shouldn't. Computer-generated forms and landscapes are art in their own right, but they just aren't the same as the actual physical act of putting a paintbrush to canvas. Someone wouldn't compare a dance with a painting in order to validate whether or not each should be considered "art" because they are completely different. I think that video games should be given their own independent category, interactive visual art, instead of being put in a category with other types of visual art. It just makes sense!
I agree with you. I haven't ever really looked at them as art, but when I take a look back they really are. They have art directors and designers for a reason. It takes just as much effort to create realistic computer generated images as it takes paint a masterpiece. Just because it is a game and has a story doesn't take away from the artistic effort it takes to make the show.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. I am sort of a gamer, and I can name plenty of absolutely beautiful video games that definitely should be considered art. It's not the same as painting or dancing, but it is certainly its own form of art, one unlike any other. A lot of effort goes into each good game as well, and that should not be overlooked.
ReplyDeleteVideo games in their own sense can be art. There is a lot of time, energy and creativity that goes into each part of it but I also agree that it should never replace our idea of art as we have been taught for thousands of years. There is something very beautiful that goes into each brushstroke of a painting that I don't think could ever be the same as the art that goes into video games.
ReplyDeleteDenying video games as an art form is almost like disinheriting their roots from the base of cartoons, and then further still their ancient predecessor drawing. I know that sounds like an extreme, but as mentioned in my other comment on Lauren’s blog, you have to be open-minded to the ever changing form of art; it is not always going to be in the form of sculptures and ceiling frescos. The way we today view art has changed. I very much agree with the line, "They bring art and the resulting passions and emotions into one's own living room, and the interactive nature allows the player to dive right into a new world." Art is what the individual makes of it.
ReplyDelete