# Are video games art? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 29, 2006, 12:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682 "2006-04-29T00:50:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![FlyingRamenMonster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@FlyingRamenMonster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/FlyingRamenMonster)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 2:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/41 "2006-05-01T02:52:19Z")
> [@Gorsnak](#): > > Huh? The latest American Idol album is indisputably art. Really, terribly bad art, but art nonetheless. On what grounds do you say differently? I think commercialism compromises artistic value, because I’m of the “It’s art if you intend for it to be art” camp and if their primary intention is to make money… well, there you go. ---
**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/42 "2006-05-01T02:58:37Z")
> [@FlyingRamenMonster](#): > > I think commercialism compromises artistic value, because I’m of the “It’s art if you intend for it to be art” camp and if their primary intention is to make money… well, there you go. Why are making money and making art mutually exclusive intentions? ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/43 "2006-05-01T03:15:40Z")
> [@FlyingRamenMonster](#): > > I think commercialism compromises artistic value, because I’m of the “It’s art if you intend for it to be art” camp and if their primary intention is to make money… well, there you go. So [David](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelangelo's_David) isn’t art now? Most good art is created in substantial part to make money. In contrast, there are incredible amounts of dreck created where the sole intention is to create art. I don’t see how money is relevant at all, and I’m sure that most American Idol contestants really do care about being artistic, even if they are mostly lacking in artistic talent (relative to truly good musicians - they’re far more talented than the average schmo). ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/44 "2006-05-01T04:39:28Z")
> [@FlyingRamenMonster](#): > > I think commercialism compromises artistic value, because I’m of the “It’s art if you intend for it to be art” camp and if their primary intention is to make money… well, there you go. Most art through history has been made for pay. The “real art is unsullied by commercialism” meme is a 19th century invention. At the time it was a response to rising industrialism that suddenly made it possible for the lower classes to buy mass-produced decoration. It was part of a general effort by the middle class to align itself with “aristocratic” tastes to distinguish themselves from the great unwashed. As such it seems a particularly unuseful critical stance for interpreting art in general, and contemporary art in particular. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 5:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/45 "2006-05-01T05:28:50Z")
> [@FlyingRamenMonster](#): > > But I think they _should_ be excluded. So what? Are you saying that cooking is _inarguably_ art? If you’re going to argue that video games should be excluded, you’re going to have to come up with a criteria that makes it clearly different from other art forms. So far, your only criteria has been the commercial nature of video games, which is a terrible argument, because you’ve just argued all art of any nature out of exsistence. > [@](#): > > Not _playing_ Half-Life. _Making_ Half-Life. What’s the practical application of football? Just because it doesn’t do anything doesn’t mean it’s art. Besides, there’s that whole money-making thing. Who cares how it’s made? It’s how its consumed that is important. And while I’ll agree that most video games don’t have a lot of artistic merit, _Half Life_, and _Half Life 2_ moreso, is one of the few games I would highlight as the ideal argument for video games as art. > [@](#): > > Fine. Video games are not generally art YET. Whether they are in the future has yet to be decided. There, is that better? You said yourself that the lack of successful examples is because it’s a new industry. Should we call it art now because it might be art someday? No, we all it art today because it _is_ art today. Again, art is not a value term, its simply a definition. Art can be good, or bad, and most video games are bad art, at best. But some video games are excellent art, and I think deserve to be recognized as such. I think video games have the potential for enormous growth in this direction, and the more people recognize this now, the sooner that growth will occur. > [@](#): > > How is that hostile? In any case, I wasn’t trying to be. You suggested that people were disagreeing with you because they have small dicks. How is that not hostile? > [@](#): > > Sorry. I don’t see how making video games art is going to protect them legally. People are always trying to censor art, too. People want to censor everything. Our laws have clearly protected the right to free expresion since the beginning of our country, but every time a new medium is introduced, there’s another fight to establish that the first ammendment applies to it, as well. Video games are that new medium, and the fight is already on. Hillary fucking Clinton is one of the leading proponents of government censorship of videogames, and she’s getting quite a lot of distance out of it because of the public perception of video games as meaningless fluff, as less important, and there for less deserving of protection, as books, or movies, or music. This is exactly the same attitude that crippled the growth of comic books as a legitimate art form back in the '50s. It’s _Seduction of the Innocent_ all over again, and I think it’ll be a crying shame if the censors win this one, too. > [@](#): > > But see, it’s not a dichotomy, there’s a whole spectrum of art/not art and “art” itself is just a line drawn at an arbitrary place on the spectrum, and if everything is art then there’s no point in having the distinction in the first place. If you’re going to invent a word you might as well use it in a meaningful way. Alright, but you still haven’t given a sustainable criteria for putting video games on the not-art side of the spectrum. > [@](#): > > Yeah, I and wouldn’t call the latest American Idol album art any more than I’d call Halo art. Do they have artistic value? Sure. But you have to draw the line somewhere. If it has artistic value, then by definition, it _has_ to be art. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/46 "2006-05-01T19:14:09Z")
> [@](#): > > But see, it’s not a dichotomy, there’s a whole spectrum of art/not art and “art” itself is just a line drawn at an arbitrary place on the spectrum, and if everything is art then there’s no point in having the distinction in the first place. If you’re going to invent a word you might as well use it in a meaningful way. Let me be clear: I don’t think that everything is art. A bulldozer is definitely not art. A urinal hung on the wall of an art gallery probably isn’t art. And I won’t even claim that all video games are art. For that matter, not all drawings are art, and neither are all movies, nor all sculptures. All I’m claiming is that some video games are art. > [@](#): > > I don’t think video games are art. Why? Because it’s built with a purpose in mind. Not only is “being built with a purpose in mind” consistent with something being art, it’s _necessary_. Something built with no purpose in mind isn’t art, it’s just a mess, or an accident. If Leonardo had painted _The Last Supper_ with no purpose in mind, it’d be an awfully big coincidence that it ended up looking like a bunch of folks sitting at a table eating. ---
**Author:** ![Gorsnak](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gorsnak/32/7587_2.png) [@Gorsnak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gorsnak)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/47 "2006-05-01T19:21:11Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > If Leonardo had painted _The Last Supper_ with no purpose in mind, it’d be an awfully big coincidence that it ended up looking like a bunch of folks sitting at a table eating. Now now, we’ve already established that it’s not art if it’s produced for commercial purposes, and Leonardo painted _The Last Supper_ because Duke Lodovico Sforza paid him to do it. So it was produced with a purpose in mind, _and_ for commercial gain, and hence it’s doubly not art! ---
**Author:** ![sturmhauke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e47c2d/32.png) [@sturmhauke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/sturmhauke)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/48 "2006-05-01T22:05:33Z")
> [@FlyingRamenMonster](#): > > Not _playing_ Half-Life. _Making_ Half-Life. I still fail to see what Half-Life or any other video game has to do with a nuclear reactor. When they design reactors, aesthetics are absolutely not a concern. Have you ever seen one? They’re ugly, industrial complexes, and nobody expects any different. Everything about a reactor is designed to generate electrical power in the most efficient way possible, and that’s it. Video games are pretty much the exact opposite - everything about them is aesthetics. Game designers use a certain graphical style, certain kinds of sounds, set a certain mood, use a certain setting, all in the effort to make a cool game that people want to play. If a game is cool enough, people will play it. How is the pursuit of cool anything _but_ art? ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 1, 2006, 11:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/49 "2006-05-01T23:50:52Z")
> [@FlyingRamenMonster](#): > > I think commercialism compromises artistic value, because I’m of the “It’s art if you intend for it to be art” camp and if their primary intention is to make money… well, there you go. [The Sistine Chapel was painted for money.](http://www.socialstudiesforkids.com/articles/worldhistory/sistinechapelceiling.htm)_You_ wanna argue that it’s not art? ---
**Author:** ![Yumblie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/76d3ee/32.png) [@Yumblie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yumblie)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/50 "2006-05-02T03:20:42Z")
How is this even an argument? Video games definitely require all kinds of creativity. Level design, character design, artwork, story writing, even developing the physics of the game engine all requires creative thought. One might say that the more complex modern games of today are more artistic than the simple games of the past like Pacman, but even those primitive games required some creative input. In my mind, art is anything that requires creativity to create. Of course, how do we define creativity? I suppose one could define art as a work of creativity that doesn’t have any purpose other than entertainment. If someone invents a new kind of toaster, that’s not art, but if someone builds a sculpture of a toaster that doesn’t actually make toast, then it’s art. Now if Michelangelo’s David made toast, would it be art? That’s kind of a gray area there… ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [May 2, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682/51 "2006-05-02T16:29:33Z")
> [@Yumblie](#): > > In my mind, art is anything that requires creativity to create. Of course, how do we define creativity? I suppose one could define art as a work of creativity that doesn’t have any purpose other than entertainment. If someone invents a new kind of toaster, that’s not art, but if someone builds a sculpture of a toaster that doesn’t actually make toast, then it’s art. Now if Michelangelo’s David made toast, would it be art? That’s kind of a gray area there… Careful! [This link just might blow your mind!](http://www.mauricebennett.co.nz/tart.htm) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/are-video-games-art/354682.md?page=2)