>I had always assumed that ‘art’ was something for a different generation.
As an art-loving millennial, I wonder if this a common sentiment among my generation.
Can Art be Games?
21–30 of 38 posts
Re: Can Art be Games?
#22MoMA posted this a few days ago - they've acquired 14 games: http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-game... tldr: • Pac-Man (1980) • Tetris (1984) • Another World (1991) • Myst (1993) • SimCity 2000 (1994) • vib-ribbon (1999) • The Sims (2000) • Katamari Damacy (2004) • EVE Online (2003) • Dwarf Fortress (2006) • Portal (2007) • flOw (2006) • Passage (2008) • Canabalt (2009)
I am disappointed by a severe lack of Braid in that list.
After all, Jonathan Blow is most definitely one of those stirring the (most peculiar) discussion of games & art; see an article+interview about him, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most... - quite a decent (even if somewhat pretentious on several levels) read while on the topic, by the way!
Re: Can Art be Games?
#23MoMA posted this a few days ago - they've acquired 14 games: http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-game... tldr: • Pac-Man (1980) • Tetris (1984) • Another World (1991) • Myst (1993) • SimCity 2000 (1994) • vib-ribbon (1999) • The Sims (2000) • Katamari Damacy (2004) • EVE Online (2003) • Dwarf Fortress (2006) • Portal (2007) • flOw (2006) • Passage (2008) • Canabalt (2009)
I am disappointed by a severe lack of Braid in that list. After all, Jonathan Blow is most definitely one of those stirring the (most peculiar) discussion of games & art; see an article+interview about him, http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/05/the-most... - quite a decent (even if somewhat pretentious on several levels) read while on the topic, by the way!
Eh, they say they have a particular type of collection in mind:
>Are video games art? They sure are, but they are also design, and a design approach is what we chose for this new foray into this universe. The games are selected as outstanding examples of interaction design—a field that MoMA has already explored and collected extensively, and one of the most important and oft-discussed expressions of contemporary design creativity.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#24I get that the OP is likely satire, but it's an interesting question after all. Can a game be art like a film or a novel can be art? I think probably yes, but the user interacting with the art when it is a game isn't really any different than the user interacting with the art when it's a play or a film - you're still "just looking at it".
And that's where the satire breaks apart for me.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#25The fact that this is even an article is so ridiculous. OF COURSE GAMES ARE ART. Movies are art. Billboards are art. Comic books are art.
This is the kind of thing I'd have expected to see in 1998. If games weren't it would be strange news to the hundreds of thousands of artists working in the games industry for the last decade.
By far some of my most memorable experiences are from games.
Any concept of art as static prints of pretty pictures is so laughably out dated and so out of touch with the art world it is funny.
Judging whether or not something is art by if it's shown in museums kind of went out with dadaism in 1916.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#26Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is satire, and is a direct response to how several art critics have dismissed "games" as capable of being considered fine art for reasons that are just as silly as this blog post, which is precisely why it's funny.
I believe it's most directly a response to this op-ed making the rounds recently: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201... The "[x] isn't art" op-ed seems to be that particular Guardian blogger's specialty. Last year, he caused a flurry of outraged discussion in a different set of communities for roughly similar reasons, when he wrote an op-ed on why neither cuisine nor high fashion are art: ht…
Jesus this Johnathan Jones piece is pure flame bait pure and simple. I don't even believe he believes it. Doesn't even need a response.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
I knew I shouldn't check HN on a Saturday...I blame it on the reflexive groan I make every time a Square-Enix game is mentioned in the context
That's the part that ruined the entire article for me. To quote these games as hallmarks of emotional or intrinsic value in games is to me as clueless as to talk about paintings as 'things that you just look at', renders the person in the article clueless about both art and games, and destroys the sarcasm imho.
I took it more as showing the bare minimum that needs to be achieved, i.e. "these are the games that are at the lowest of the ranking list, that I still consider to be capable of eliciting an acceptably genuine emotional response from me".
Re: Can Art be Games?
#28Now if only you could fork art and send a pull request...
Re: Can Art be Games?
#29The article might be a brilliant bit of satire but many young parents can actually relate to it. Children are exposed to interactive toys like tablets at such a young age that traditional toys like a Kaleidoscope barely holds their interest. It is sad to see one of your favourite childhood pastimes get a minute or two of their attention before it is thrown to the attic.
To be fair, even I do not find a Kaleidoscope fascinating anymore. It shows pretty images but so does a music visualiser.
Re: Can Art be Games?
#30I don't understand how games can't be art.
Creating images is art. 3D modeling is art (like sculpting). Writing stories is art, as well as creating interesting characters. Animation is art. I'm intentionally not mentioning things like programming or gameplay design, but some people might call these art too (not me, though).
So many artists are involved in these projects. And yet, when all of their art is fused together inside the game engine, to be presented to the player in all of its interactive glory, it somehow becomes NOT art? How can this be?