Disclaimer: I know I’m dredging up a long dismissed argument from 10 years ago, and discussing it in all the same tone as people did back then, despite everyone having moved on. My core thesi…
My point is that engaging in the arguement of “What is art” regardless of your actual position lends it legitmacy. In my opinion, the only correct answer to “What is art” is to say “who cares” (if you are feeling polite). Its an inherently idealist arguement that obfuscates the material reality of artists and their works.
Now imagine playing a version of a video game without the art assets, where you just interact with the raw rules, the raw systems, the raw spaces. You only see the grayboxes of levels, rather than the final meshes. Imagine how that is artistic in its own way. Maybe it’s not as appealing overall, and maybe it suffers a bit for not giving as clear or understandable feedback (visual design and sound design impact the game design too!), but try thinking about how this too is a type of art.
Video Games are containers for art, but at the end of the day they tend to be a commodity.
It does, that’s the point. “Games” as a concept aren’t art, they are a medium that contains art, or facilitates art. Games, movies, and books are all the same, with just different levels of abstraction from the base art.
I think the whole argument here is that the commodity form of art should not be considered art because it is the reification of the artistic labor it contains that has taken the commodity form.
I think the whole “games are art” argument of that era was flawed, and there was a point to be made there, since that position was ignoring the specific individual artistic labor that goes into them.
Stuff like shader authoring, texture optimization, sound engineering, writing, voice acting, etc. are all unique forms of art that come together in a gallery that is a game. You don’t call a gallery art.
a gallery certainly can itself be art, either on its own or in conjunction, but “lol we hung some paintings up in a room”, like some of the exhibitions i’ve been to, definitely isn’t art by default.
But a video game is a whole. It’s surely made of many many small parts, that are artistic in their own right. But only the finished, whole, piece is the art.
And being more or less commercial isn’t what makes art art.
Art is the way to communicate an abstraction, and transport the viewer to it. It’s an exercise in empathy, of the artist to communicate it and the audience to experience it.
I appreciate the serious response, but I was just being silly and parroting what everyone else was doing, because you clearly had already read the article.
My point is that engaging in the arguement of “What is art” regardless of your actual position lends it legitmacy. In my opinion, the only correct answer to “What is art” is to say “who cares” (if you are feeling polite). Its an inherently idealist arguement that obfuscates the material reality of artists and their works.
did you read the article
did you read the article
Yes, and your position is the position of the article.
My “position” is that the article shouldn’t exist at all.
did you read the article
Oh boy.
Video Games are containers for art, but at the end of the day they tend to be a commodity.
So are movies not art, because most are just a commodity?
Music? Books?
Like how does that not apply to every art form in late stage capitalism?
It does, that’s the point. “Games” as a concept aren’t art, they are a medium that contains art, or facilitates art. Games, movies, and books are all the same, with just different levels of abstraction from the base art.
I think the whole argument here is that the commodity form of art should not be considered art because it is the reification of the artistic labor it contains that has taken the commodity form.
I think the whole “games are art” argument of that era was flawed, and there was a point to be made there, since that position was ignoring the specific individual artistic labor that goes into them.
Stuff like shader authoring, texture optimization, sound engineering, writing, voice acting, etc. are all unique forms of art that come together in a gallery that is a game. You don’t call a gallery art.
a gallery certainly can itself be art, either on its own or in conjunction, but “lol we hung some paintings up in a room”, like some of the exhibitions i’ve been to, definitely isn’t art by default.
But a video game is a whole. It’s surely made of many many small parts, that are artistic in their own right. But only the finished, whole, piece is the art.
And being more or less commercial isn’t what makes art art.
Art is the way to communicate an abstraction, and transport the viewer to it. It’s an exercise in empathy, of the artist to communicate it and the audience to experience it.
I appreciate the serious response, but I was just being silly and parroting what everyone else was doing, because you clearly had already read the article.