Can games be considered art?

Anything made for profit cannot be considered Art.

No way, they are that, games, people don't consider stuff like football or chess art.

yes i am, of course there might be exceptions but an artist was someone that was trained and his job was to paint commissions from the church or some noble

No. If you play with it it’s either a game, a puzzle, or a toy ... or some combination.
A walking simulator (ie. something with no win or lose states or rules ofherwise) is a toy.
Something with rules, win/lose states is either a puzzle or a game.
The interactivity separates games from art, even if the game is visually beautiful or the rules are artistically crafted.

Not really no. Even if we take the most charitable interpretation of art video games just don't offer much. They're toys, and they're not designed to invoke emotion or make you rethink your life. They're just something you do while you're on the shitter before you go back to work.

I think people who buy into the "video games are art" meme are coping with the fact that they wasted a good chunk of their lives getting invested in a meaningless hobby.

Attached: patrick-star-starfish-spongebob-pictures-s029.jpg (407x460, 31.13K)

retard

Anything can be considered art. The question you should be asking is if they can be considered fine art. The answer's is it's possible but hasn't actually happened yet btw.
You realize most classical artists were commissioned to make shit right? Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine Chapel because he fucking felt like it. He was paid to.

Pic related: not art

Attached: 678px-Sistine_Chapel_ceiling_02[1].jpg (678x1024, 216K)

>they're not designed to invoke emotion
You can argue vidya not being art, your IQ is in the single digits if you don't think all forms of entertainment can invoke emotion of any kind, that's the point of entertainment in the first place.

Legitimately, if you ever cried or felt any strong emotion from a game then you might be mentally stunted.

Isn't arts true meaning to be a current reflection of how a human percieves and understands both the physical and metaphysical world around them?
I do agree that art when used by most people its meant to display taste and trigger some preloaded conception of being better than other forms. In the videogame medium its been used as a form of vindication for critics quote unquote sneering down at it.

Attached: 1581776856042.jpg (563x565, 46.05K)

why not? the player can show mastery of his skill over a game by outplaying his opponent the same way a musician performers a play

I agree that vidya are toys, but they can definitely be designed to evoke emotions.
Journey is basically a walking sim, you walk from point a to b, with some light platforming, but the visual and audio design and the themes are evocative.
It’s a toy, but it’s designed to give you a beautiful experience as you play it.

Would you say the same about movies, television, and books? There are also more emotions than "sad" and "happy", there are many subtle emotions that make up your everyday life based on what happens around you.

seethe more

maybe stop playing dogshit games

ok let's settle this shit argument for once
SINGLE PLAYER GAMES WITH AN ENDING = ART
COMPETITIVE GAMES WITH MATCHES THAT CAN BE PLAYED MANY TIMES = E-SPORT

Attached: 1537750982024.jpg (583x580, 77.82K)

That’s incredibly reductive.
Single player games are toys or puzzles. The act of play separates them from art.

why?

>They're just something you do while you're on the shitter before you go back to work.
Imagine being a mobile gamer and thinking your opinion counts on Yas Forums

>The act of play separates them from art.
Why would the way that it is consumed impact whether it has artistic merit? I could dress up in a fur suite, go to my local art museum, proceed to shit in a bucket and then cover myself in it, all while standing in front of a Rembrandt. Despite how I chose to consume the art, that Rembrandt would still be a piece of fine art.

Attached: Halo.jpg (512x288, 32.89K)

>they're not designed to invoke emotion or make you rethink your life.
Sure, I doubt anyone is trying to change lives with their games but this is still so untrue. Any game dev would point and laugh at you for saying this.

Attached: 1583370415101.jpg (719x703, 113.03K)

The only way you could argue that video games aren't art is if you glorify the standards of art in the first place. Art isn't some holy title reserved for ancient paintings/sculptures, art is the product of mans creativity, no matter the form. There are many forms of art, some shittier than others.

Attached: 1582991462756.png (445x163, 12.93K)

Most of the shit artists were commissioned to draw was not art at the time it was made. Some noble woman wanted somebody to draw a picture of her. And over time, as it's stood through the ages as a good picture of a woman and gained fame, it's become art.
Leonardo didn't go out thinking "I'm going to paint that woman, and in 500 years, it will be the most memorable portrait on the globe and a priceless relic of classical painting". He probably decided that he had some space for this dumb broad inbetween his gay orgies and she paid well, so, he'd put something together for her, and through a mixture of luck, a spark of inspiration and random circumstance, it turned out pretty nice.

Nobody who ever sets out to make "art" will ever make art. No "Art Game" will ever be regarded as art. It's just pretentious garbage by insecure faggots who couldn't make a real game and so hand-wave away the shitty short comings by saying "IT'S ARRTTT".

There is no why. Play is just separate from art.

because you want to?

>Why would the way that it is consumed impact whether it has artistic merit?
Play is different from consumption. You’re right that you “consume” art, but you “play” games, which is an active and productive state of being.

Your opinion is just separate from being correct.

That’s just how it is.
I could play with art, but play is separate from art.

The problem you’re running up against here is that it’s a fact.

doesn't matter, what matters is fun

What if they just profit off of it ironically?

The thing is that it's supposed to be an expression of the artist. How many times has a game not come out as intended? No longer is it a proper expression, but one silenced or altered by greed. In this way I believe that most games are not art, and that the only reason there's a push for it to be art is so that faggots who couldn't make it as a director can feel less like they're making toys for children. Not all videogames are art, but some are.

Until art changed especially with the entire expressionism movement which countered its highly elitist and exclusionary nonsense

Key point here being that art as a whole changes over time.

Except that the artist will put their own expression into a commision. Like for instance, maybe the most famous shitpost of them all:
Michelangelo is basically forced by the church to paint (he hated painting) and decides that he's going to shit all over christianity at a level above their understanding.
That's the very definition of art.

that's the most retarded thing i've read all week

It's separate from being a fact, actually

>Most of the shit artists were commissioned to draw was not art at the time it was made. Some noble woman wanted somebody to draw a picture of her. And over time, as it's stood through the ages as a good picture of a woman and gained fame, it's become art.
it was always considered art and the painter was always considered an artist but at that time art had a different meaning, it was what we would consider today as a craftsman
if thats how it is then you must explain why, nothing just is what it is

>I could play with art, but play is separate from art.
Okay. You could play with DooM.

All games are art, but "art" doesn't mean valueable or good. Almost everything made by a human involves art in some way.

>interactivity no longer makes it art
There are whole movements who would highly disagree

Sorry friend, reality is what I want it to be.

Agreed up until your last bit. But yeah, a lot of famous artists died in total obscurity. Being an artists is not glamorous. The only reason we have some famous close-to-being-household-name painters today is because of the rise of information technologies and because most well known modern artists tie their works into politics or social issues.

Games are a super versatile story telling medium. Reducing non-traditional games to being pretentious is pretty disingenuous and totally misses the point of what separates games from other mediums in that you can create whatever the fuck you want in games. There's room for strory and visual based walking simulators too. You don;t have to play them or like them.

Attached: Based_Kent.jpg (1000x634, 175.14K)

Right, and that would be play, which is something other than art.

so? I still don't see how this removes artistic merit from a game.

>he's going to shit all over christianity at a level above their understanding.
t. r/atheist

Do you really think artists never compromise on their art, either due to lack of skill, time, or materials? If that was a factor, a lot of what's consider art today would be disqualified as many artists almost never feel fully satisfied in their work. If a game is pushed into release, ready or not, it has become "art".
This shouldn't be an issue to understand unless one subconsciously equates the title of "art" as being inherently "good", which isn't accurate.

yes, because all art is subjective and so are games.

simply ask a few people what makes a Good game and like art you will get different opinion, interpretations, and thoughts.

What you're doing with it is play. The game itself is decidedly not play. You're doing the same thing with it that you said you can do with art.

It doesn’t. It’s just that play turns it from “art” into a “game”.

Don't need to be an atheist to appreciate the amount of anti-catholic symbolism he managed to sneak in there, literally above their heads in plain view.
Maybe not shitting on christianity as a whole, but definitely on the Roman Catholic Church.

>Except that the artist will put their own expression into a commission.
depends on what you mean, of course he had his own style, but he couldn't just paint whatever he wanted, maybe he could but it would be like a blacksmith making an armor that doesn't fit anyone
>Michelangelo is basically forced by the church to paint (he hated painting) and decides that he's going to shit all over christianity at a level above their understanding.
That's the very definition of art.
that's the definition of art today, by that time this was just being a troll

>adds ostentation to your game

Attached: julian+gough+black+hole+1.jpg (640x480, 131.96K)

>make a shitty painting
>try to sell it
>"wow your art sucks shit fuck off"
>throw it in your attic
>die
>200 years later
>bought and sold privately, millions exchange hands for money laundering
>gets donated to a museum for the purpose of tax evasion
>"what a genius and truly the master of the artform"
surely games will get this treatment eventually

>The game itself is decidedly not play.
Sure. It’s a game. A game can be artistic, there can be art in a game, but a game is something slightly more than just “art”.
It’s like “art plus”, because it’s something you play with.
A similar comparison would be religious ritual. There is artistry in religious ritual, but to call it “art” is reductionistic: ignores the purpose. Removes the soul.
Likewise, to call a game “art” is to ignore the purpose.
A game can be beautiful and artistic, but if it’s something you play it’s more than just art.

So if I play catch with a Fabergé egg it transcends art and becomes something more

To be fair, by "Art games" I mean specifically games which call themselves, or consider themselves to be "Art".

>eventually
bro
ebay.com/itm/LSD-Dream-Emulator-PS1-Sony-Playstation-1-From-Japan/223642637439?hash=item341223d47f:g:0a8AAOSwCUldZ8-y

yes just wait to miyamoto dies people are going to consider him a genius

That would be against the purpose of the artifact, but, you could make a game of that.
The thing is, since it’s not inherently designed to be played with, I wouldn’t call it a game or a toy.

All of them.