-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Kamiya says games are not art (NSFW)
- Thread starter OnanieBomb
- Start date
- Status
Videogames are products of design. Lines blur and all that but, generally speaking, games fixate on the users' experiences while artsy titles come from a desire/need expression of their respective creators. Yeah, you can't just set apart art from design as an element in the whole process, but most developers always support their design by outside factors (budget, trends, hardware, etc.) that artists would not, and criticism of the products from its consumer is crucial to the jobs of the designer to improve what is made by developers.
There is no coincidence that the most-well known videogame designer Shigeru Miyamoto has a degree in industrial design :p
There is no coincidence that the most-well known videogame designer Shigeru Miyamoto has a degree in industrial design :p
I think he is lind of an asshole.
I'm a huge fan of his games.
That works for me, cause I can separate the art and artist.
Here you are.
I'm a huge fan of his games.
That works for me, cause I can separate the art and artist.
Here you are.
I'm surprised gamers still care so much about the argument surrounding the validity of games as an art form. Gamers tend to not even look at games as wholly being art. It's more like some games that are really good and happen to be in the public eye the most at a particular point in time are art, and then they're put on a pedestal and insulated from critique. Those games are there to justify and legitimize their hobby. The rest are just whatever.
That's what it's seemed like to me for a long time now, and why I decided that it's pointless to debate or discuss it.
That's what it's seemed like to me for a long time now, and why I decided that it's pointless to debate or discuss it.
Is his argument actually that games can't be art? Sounds to me like he's saying that for him, games aren't art. In that, he does not intend to make art, just like Michael Bay doesn't intend to make art, but rather an entertaining product. That sounds like a dig on Kamiya, but I meant that as an illustration of the point that to certain people, games are a medium to solely make entertaining products in. Which is an entirely valid viewpoint.
Not everyone cares about making something deeply artistic, if Kamiya just views what he's doing as just simply making entertainment then honestly cool for him, I can even appreciate someone who doesn't take their work so seriously, when the stuff they put out is so good to boot, honestly that's how I treat most the stuff I do.
Doesn't mean I can't disagree with him and view his games or others artistically despite intentions anyways. "Incredible game dev doesn't think what he's doing is artistic" is a pretty whatever story.
Doesn't mean I can't disagree with him and view his games or others artistically despite intentions anyways. "Incredible game dev doesn't think what he's doing is artistic" is a pretty whatever story.
Pretty much this. Not sure why people bother to dispute it one way or the other.
This is a giant load of bull shit.
Kamiya is looking at porn with one hand on the mouse, and the other hand on a phone?
Bullshit.
Kamiya is looking at porn with one hand on the mouse, and the other hand on a phone?
Bullshit.
Heh, as someone who agrees that video games are not art, the second and third panels made me laugh. A lot of people don't understand that saying games aren't art isn't a slight against the medium. We don't need to see games as art to justify liking them.
I love and respect the hell out of Kamiya's brand of entertainment, from the insanely stylish vibe his games give off to the satisfying nature of their play.
But I think he's missing the point. He's just another social media curmudgeon that's come under some criticism and scrutiny and kind of entirely misunderstood why.
He's created entertainment media perhaps with no overt intention of harming anyone, and just being self-indulgent in his interests, but I think he's missed the point that games have gotten much more ubiquitous than they were as many of us audience members grew up with them and creators grew alongside the industry as well, and with the huge new following and with people growing up and maturing alongside the medium, there's coming an inseparable link between our adult lives and the media we desire to continue consuming.
That's to say, men and women are becoming far more socially conscious -- and not in a social-justice-warrior way, I mean from a level of actual adult interactions and experiences -- of their interactions with other people. The entertainment is still there to provide a reflection or escapism from whatever we've been dealing with in our adult lives, and I think that's why a growing consciousness for games-as-art has come about -- because the industry as a whole has largely advanced in age and those themes and ideas being explored as part of our growing is resonating a lot.
Now, I wish I had statistics to cite this, and I can really only cite anecdotal and flawed data, but it seems to me like I run into a lot more people on the 'net that are in their 30s or 40s and still discussing games with almost feverish enthusiasm. Sure, there's still a lot of younger folks than that, but I remember when I got my start in games discussion by way of GameFAQs, the old-school and then-not-taboo subject of "A/S/L" yielded a lot of late teens and early 20s any time it got asked -- and the tone of conversation tended to reflect that age group and what you might reasonably expect from people of that age and level of life experience. I think it's just around 23 or 24, as people tend to leave college or kind of hit that age where they're very much coming into their adulthood independence, that people tend to start to have a shift to higher levels of social consciousness, either by understanding their need to get better at certain types of interactions or starting to have enough experiences interacting with other people that they start to understand what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong when it comes to winning over social favor, and it starts occurring in a far more dynamic and arguably empathic way. That, or it's the age where you double down on your perceived social strengths and decide that it's for sure the type of person you want to be -- either way, that type of person probably had pause to be challenged and had to make a decision to continue or change.
Speaking personally, I grew up a military brat and within a pretty conservative social bubble, which was then overlapped with sort of the early-2000's-"gamer" persona, i.e. the type of crowd that had its mind blown when Mountain Dew was running Halo code promotions and thinking it was a clear sign that gaming had "gone big." In other words, kind of the foul-mouthed, socially unaware, stereotypical jerk bag. I mean, it didn't completely define my personality, but that's how I tended to present myself to other people as I was just breaking into internet forum discussions about videogames. Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is a game that would very much have appealed to my late-teenage tastes, but being 31 years old now, I have a difficult time interacting with it. So what's changed since then? I left home at 18 to attend college, experienced something of a culture shock, realized that my "full-stop nerd" presentation was so small and insignificant to the larger culture I had found myself moving into, I bumped into people that had life experiences so far removed from my own that I started to grasp with concepts and experiences that I had never been capable of imagining before (some positive, some horrifically bad), and all of that continued as I stayed away from that bubble I grew up in for 18 whole years. I'm still learning stuff about people and what they have to go through that's entirely different than what I did, and I feel like it's personally enriching to me to listen and to understand and I enjoy expanding the scope of my empathy. Not everyone digs that, but I know for sure I'm not alone in that notion. See, growing up the way I did, it was very much the sort of "alpha male" personality that was taught and expected of me, and despite my interest in games and anime growing up, I tried to apply those concepts to the entertainment I consumed, and the violent power fantasy was always there to sort of back up and reinforce that in videogames and the type of anime I watched. It was my idea of male identity and male success. It's also a culture, I learned, that did a pretty good job of suppressing and hiding the horror and hurt of sexual harassment and assault, because I had grown up around a lot of domestic violence and possible sexual assault (hate to say it, but seemingly not uncommon in military circles) -- domestic violence was actually a part of my household, too. SHAMEFULLY, I grew up for about 14 years just thinking this was typical man controlling the household behavior. One particular bout of domestic violence between my parents when I was 14 shook me and made me feel genuine fear that the entire illusion snapped. I held that experience to myself and tried my hardest to cope (often failing and giving way to depression) until I left home. At 18, running into other people with a wide range of really positive experiences and really negative experiences like mine kinda helped me establish a way to redefine myself, and I was really blessed at the time that a lot of game developers seemed to be trying to explore more narrative possibilities that either brought kind of a sense of hurt to all of the violence on display or tried to explore things beyond violence all-together. Now, I'm not saying that games made me a violent person, but they kind of reflected and reinforced the ways I was taught to view violence and its place in adult life as I was growing up, and I don't think it ever, ever came from a place of game developers trying to mind control the masses or anything, but rather it just came from a place of them not really having an opportunity in their lives to run into other types of experiences and understand that it's not all as heroic and cool as we think.
That said, I think my own story there is just ONE TINY part of a bigger movement that's kind of just caught on as other people that partake in this industry have also found opportunities to grow as people, and that comes from both the audience and the development side of things. I think God of War 2018 might be one big indication of that, going from a high-octane, extremely glorified romp of masculine power fantasy when I was just getting ready to leave for college to a story about that kind of man trying to grapple with the pain of the violence of his past and the threat it poses to his current circumstances with his son, a loss he can't endure to suffer again. Cory Barlog went from expanding upon Kratos' then-hyper-masculine icon status to turning him into a desperate father on a quest to honor and protect the only family he's got left in pretty bold creative contrast to Kratos' origins, and I don't think that's an accident -- I think Cory (and much of his team at SSM) had a slew of adulthood experiences that shifted him as a person over time. That's just the most recent example I can think of, I think older-running series like Yakuza have continuously grappled with these ideas since they debuted on PS2, and I think that lends a huge part to its cult following and new-found wider appreciation -- Kiryu was always young and impressionable to his ideal of the Yakuza in the early games but had to constantly face various other interpretations and life experiences of Yakuza that threatened his own well being and challenged his notion of what it meant to be Yakuza over the course of the series, and I think audiences absolutely understand what that's like, because that's just adulthood if you find yourself having to live outside of your known comfort zone and bumping into other people all the time.
There's a lot of talk about how gaming social culture is very male dominated and there's been obvious backlash to the idea of inclusion in some circles of gaming culture that seems to hope to preserve that good old notion so that it can just continue to almost exclusively pander to those tastes. On one hand, I can kinda get why the culture might resist growing up -- because when I got culture shocked into being exposed to people from vastly different backgrounds with different income levels, experiences, etc... It was not comfortable to feel so insignificant after all. People latch to the escapism of games so hard and it's typically been very reinforcing of masculine domination that for some people, especially people who are perceived as "nerdy losers," it might be the only constant outlet of comfort and support for their belief system. You get a whole lot "incel" types that fail to realize that their own social failures are their own inability to adapt to the presence of other personalities that come from entirely different experiences, and there's a sort of "persecution" to being a nerd that backs up their need for a comfort zone, which games more than often tend to provide -- again, not out of malicious intention in most cases, just that I think many developers themselves lived through those types of experiences and probably never really ran into alternatives. I mean, think about your college's computer science or computer programming program about 10-15 years ago -- probably not super diverse, or if you lack data, you probably don't THINK of it as super diverse.
It's not an apology for their behavior, just a theory about the cause of the behavior. Kamiya probably achieved his status long ago before this industry started to reflect a more diverse range of backgrounds, before the audience expanded due to a lot of social and technological factors beyond its scope, and his game design to me does feel very rooted in an old-school design philosophy when it comes to sort of the skill-based aspects of the gameplay and the absurdly fun over-the-top narrative vibe of many of the games. Since he was established and had his identity as a game designer so reinforced in that day and age, I bet he's having a lot of difficulty with people challenging his self-perception, especially since he achieved it probably at the same time in his life that I explained earlier -- kind of the mid-20s to mid-30s age range where I think many people become open to the formation of their adult selves. There's a part of me that greatly appreciated his work when I was younger and still exists today -- I still contribute to Kamiya's ongoing success, even though I'm unafraid to be openly critical of how his style can run against some of my personal perceptions about the world now. I think it's okay that Kamiya is still doing well, and I still love playing his games, even if they don't cater to the real-world ideals I've adopted, but I think it's perfectly okay for me to say so without trying to get Kamiya banished out of the industry or failing to inspire him to change at all. He does, however, seem to be the type to double down and feel threatened any time someone tries to criticize him, and that can be problematic to an audience that's growing in such a diverse and rapid way -- that much is undeniably apparent in the OP's webcomic, and it's a shame.
But I think he's missing the point. He's just another social media curmudgeon that's come under some criticism and scrutiny and kind of entirely misunderstood why.
He's created entertainment media perhaps with no overt intention of harming anyone, and just being self-indulgent in his interests, but I think he's missed the point that games have gotten much more ubiquitous than they were as many of us audience members grew up with them and creators grew alongside the industry as well, and with the huge new following and with people growing up and maturing alongside the medium, there's coming an inseparable link between our adult lives and the media we desire to continue consuming.
That's to say, men and women are becoming far more socially conscious -- and not in a social-justice-warrior way, I mean from a level of actual adult interactions and experiences -- of their interactions with other people. The entertainment is still there to provide a reflection or escapism from whatever we've been dealing with in our adult lives, and I think that's why a growing consciousness for games-as-art has come about -- because the industry as a whole has largely advanced in age and those themes and ideas being explored as part of our growing is resonating a lot.
Now, I wish I had statistics to cite this, and I can really only cite anecdotal and flawed data, but it seems to me like I run into a lot more people on the 'net that are in their 30s or 40s and still discussing games with almost feverish enthusiasm. Sure, there's still a lot of younger folks than that, but I remember when I got my start in games discussion by way of GameFAQs, the old-school and then-not-taboo subject of "A/S/L" yielded a lot of late teens and early 20s any time it got asked -- and the tone of conversation tended to reflect that age group and what you might reasonably expect from people of that age and level of life experience. I think it's just around 23 or 24, as people tend to leave college or kind of hit that age where they're very much coming into their adulthood independence, that people tend to start to have a shift to higher levels of social consciousness, either by understanding their need to get better at certain types of interactions or starting to have enough experiences interacting with other people that they start to understand what they're doing right and what they're doing wrong when it comes to winning over social favor, and it starts occurring in a far more dynamic and arguably empathic way. That, or it's the age where you double down on your perceived social strengths and decide that it's for sure the type of person you want to be -- either way, that type of person probably had pause to be challenged and had to make a decision to continue or change.
Speaking personally, I grew up a military brat and within a pretty conservative social bubble, which was then overlapped with sort of the early-2000's-"gamer" persona, i.e. the type of crowd that had its mind blown when Mountain Dew was running Halo code promotions and thinking it was a clear sign that gaming had "gone big." In other words, kind of the foul-mouthed, socially unaware, stereotypical jerk bag. I mean, it didn't completely define my personality, but that's how I tended to present myself to other people as I was just breaking into internet forum discussions about videogames. Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is a game that would very much have appealed to my late-teenage tastes, but being 31 years old now, I have a difficult time interacting with it. So what's changed since then? I left home at 18 to attend college, experienced something of a culture shock, realized that my "full-stop nerd" presentation was so small and insignificant to the larger culture I had found myself moving into, I bumped into people that had life experiences so far removed from my own that I started to grasp with concepts and experiences that I had never been capable of imagining before (some positive, some horrifically bad), and all of that continued as I stayed away from that bubble I grew up in for 18 whole years. I'm still learning stuff about people and what they have to go through that's entirely different than what I did, and I feel like it's personally enriching to me to listen and to understand and I enjoy expanding the scope of my empathy. Not everyone digs that, but I know for sure I'm not alone in that notion. See, growing up the way I did, it was very much the sort of "alpha male" personality that was taught and expected of me, and despite my interest in games and anime growing up, I tried to apply those concepts to the entertainment I consumed, and the violent power fantasy was always there to sort of back up and reinforce that in videogames and the type of anime I watched. It was my idea of male identity and male success. It's also a culture, I learned, that did a pretty good job of suppressing and hiding the horror and hurt of sexual harassment and assault, because I had grown up around a lot of domestic violence and possible sexual assault (hate to say it, but seemingly not uncommon in military circles) -- domestic violence was actually a part of my household, too. SHAMEFULLY, I grew up for about 14 years just thinking this was typical man controlling the household behavior. One particular bout of domestic violence between my parents when I was 14 shook me and made me feel genuine fear that the entire illusion snapped. I held that experience to myself and tried my hardest to cope (often failing and giving way to depression) until I left home. At 18, running into other people with a wide range of really positive experiences and really negative experiences like mine kinda helped me establish a way to redefine myself, and I was really blessed at the time that a lot of game developers seemed to be trying to explore more narrative possibilities that either brought kind of a sense of hurt to all of the violence on display or tried to explore things beyond violence all-together. Now, I'm not saying that games made me a violent person, but they kind of reflected and reinforced the ways I was taught to view violence and its place in adult life as I was growing up, and I don't think it ever, ever came from a place of game developers trying to mind control the masses or anything, but rather it just came from a place of them not really having an opportunity in their lives to run into other types of experiences and understand that it's not all as heroic and cool as we think.
That said, I think my own story there is just ONE TINY part of a bigger movement that's kind of just caught on as other people that partake in this industry have also found opportunities to grow as people, and that comes from both the audience and the development side of things. I think God of War 2018 might be one big indication of that, going from a high-octane, extremely glorified romp of masculine power fantasy when I was just getting ready to leave for college to a story about that kind of man trying to grapple with the pain of the violence of his past and the threat it poses to his current circumstances with his son, a loss he can't endure to suffer again. Cory Barlog went from expanding upon Kratos' then-hyper-masculine icon status to turning him into a desperate father on a quest to honor and protect the only family he's got left in pretty bold creative contrast to Kratos' origins, and I don't think that's an accident -- I think Cory (and much of his team at SSM) had a slew of adulthood experiences that shifted him as a person over time. That's just the most recent example I can think of, I think older-running series like Yakuza have continuously grappled with these ideas since they debuted on PS2, and I think that lends a huge part to its cult following and new-found wider appreciation -- Kiryu was always young and impressionable to his ideal of the Yakuza in the early games but had to constantly face various other interpretations and life experiences of Yakuza that threatened his own well being and challenged his notion of what it meant to be Yakuza over the course of the series, and I think audiences absolutely understand what that's like, because that's just adulthood if you find yourself having to live outside of your known comfort zone and bumping into other people all the time.
There's a lot of talk about how gaming social culture is very male dominated and there's been obvious backlash to the idea of inclusion in some circles of gaming culture that seems to hope to preserve that good old notion so that it can just continue to almost exclusively pander to those tastes. On one hand, I can kinda get why the culture might resist growing up -- because when I got culture shocked into being exposed to people from vastly different backgrounds with different income levels, experiences, etc... It was not comfortable to feel so insignificant after all. People latch to the escapism of games so hard and it's typically been very reinforcing of masculine domination that for some people, especially people who are perceived as "nerdy losers," it might be the only constant outlet of comfort and support for their belief system. You get a whole lot "incel" types that fail to realize that their own social failures are their own inability to adapt to the presence of other personalities that come from entirely different experiences, and there's a sort of "persecution" to being a nerd that backs up their need for a comfort zone, which games more than often tend to provide -- again, not out of malicious intention in most cases, just that I think many developers themselves lived through those types of experiences and probably never really ran into alternatives. I mean, think about your college's computer science or computer programming program about 10-15 years ago -- probably not super diverse, or if you lack data, you probably don't THINK of it as super diverse.
It's not an apology for their behavior, just a theory about the cause of the behavior. Kamiya probably achieved his status long ago before this industry started to reflect a more diverse range of backgrounds, before the audience expanded due to a lot of social and technological factors beyond its scope, and his game design to me does feel very rooted in an old-school design philosophy when it comes to sort of the skill-based aspects of the gameplay and the absurdly fun over-the-top narrative vibe of many of the games. Since he was established and had his identity as a game designer so reinforced in that day and age, I bet he's having a lot of difficulty with people challenging his self-perception, especially since he achieved it probably at the same time in his life that I explained earlier -- kind of the mid-20s to mid-30s age range where I think many people become open to the formation of their adult selves. There's a part of me that greatly appreciated his work when I was younger and still exists today -- I still contribute to Kamiya's ongoing success, even though I'm unafraid to be openly critical of how his style can run against some of my personal perceptions about the world now. I think it's okay that Kamiya is still doing well, and I still love playing his games, even if they don't cater to the real-world ideals I've adopted, but I think it's perfectly okay for me to say so without trying to get Kamiya banished out of the industry or failing to inspire him to change at all. He does, however, seem to be the type to double down and feel threatened any time someone tries to criticize him, and that can be problematic to an audience that's growing in such a diverse and rapid way -- that much is undeniably apparent in the OP's webcomic, and it's a shame.
He's so mean to his followers. Love his work but he's just an asshole. He's even got rules for your to post on his timeline. Aways threatening you with a block. A true display of auto control.
Depends on the invidual imo, someones art could be others entertainment (or trash lol) or even both or none.
As in it depends on a personal basis.
As in it depends on a personal basis.
All that is true for almost all music, films and books as well. Filmmaking is dictated by outside factors like budget, trends, studio demands etc. Famous painters and sculptors made paintings and statues according to the wishes of their costumers. Famous playwrights wrote commissioned plays or plays aimed at specific audiences so the performances would draw a crowd and make money. Artists need to think about who will buy or support their stuff because they need to make a living. A piece of art is also a product.
So basically, nothing is art. ;-p I guess the difference between art and non-art is pretentiousness.
To him, games are not art.
That's fine. They are to others.
Many filmmakers do not see film as art, but only as entertainment.
That does not mean that films are not art.
I know nerds NEED to categorize everything neatly, but this one's just not going to be a tidy definition y'all. The definition of art is subjective and always changing in a cultural context. Many things that people now agree are art without question didn't used to be.
In addition, creators are not the authority on what is and is not art any more than the people consuming it are.
That's fine. They are to others.
Many filmmakers do not see film as art, but only as entertainment.
That does not mean that films are not art.
I know nerds NEED to categorize everything neatly, but this one's just not going to be a tidy definition y'all. The definition of art is subjective and always changing in a cultural context. Many things that people now agree are art without question didn't used to be.
In addition, creators are not the authority on what is and is not art any more than the people consuming it are.
Ex-fucking-zactly.
To say otherwise doesn't make any sense at all.
Lol at everyone taking it so serious. He doesnt even care if its art or not the dude drew a picture looking at titties.
Lmao.
Yall really are the third panel
Lmao.
Yall really are the third panel
Kamiya is one of those people who roleplay edgy twitter trolls right?
I'm over it. That stuff isn't fun anymore since one of those became president.
I'm over it. That stuff isn't fun anymore since one of those became president.
Why would people buy a game with a 90+ on metacritic and incredibly positive word of mouth? So confuzzled by that idea. No SURELY 2B was the main selling point.
Score on MC is not exactly relative to sales. It helps, but is not the selling point. COD/FF/etc will sell even at 70+MC.
Developers wish it was the case though.
Just like some games from Clover/Platinum that have better MC scores than Nier Automata, and yet sold a lot worse: Okami (93), Bayonetta 1 (90) and 2 (91), Viewtiful Joe (93). Or plenty of other examples...
:lol
Kamiya is awesome. I think this comes down to a semantic argument over what classifies as "art" and what doesn't (I have a fairly liberal definition, so I tend to come down on "games are art"), but I respect and admire his ability to make games, and also his ability to effectively troll people on twitter
Kamiya is awesome. I think this comes down to a semantic argument over what classifies as "art" and what doesn't (I have a fairly liberal definition, so I tend to come down on "games are art"), but I respect and admire his ability to make games, and also his ability to effectively troll people on twitter
I define art as the product of human creativity.
A painting can entertain someone who likes paintings, so it's entertainment. A painting is the product of human creativity, so it is art. A bug running across someone's hand can be funny or enjoyable to watch, so it's entertainment. A bug running across someone's hand is not the product of human creativity, so it is not art.
A video game, to me, falls much closer to the painting than the bug.
A painting can entertain someone who likes paintings, so it's entertainment. A painting is the product of human creativity, so it is art. A bug running across someone's hand can be funny or enjoyable to watch, so it's entertainment. A bug running across someone's hand is not the product of human creativity, so it is not art.
A video game, to me, falls much closer to the painting than the bug.
Seriously lmao, people getting pissed to the point of calling him "a shitty person" just because he doesn't care about his work being seen as art. I'd lose all interest in the conversation too if people reacted like irrational nerds at every little thing too.
Right. As the majority of video games are not intended to be art by default, most of them are designed :V as products of entertainment. It's the public that ultimately dictates what they will make of them at the end.
As someone said "If everything is art, then nothing is art."
Honestly that's the interesting thing about it, anything can become art if somehow you apply significance to it.
are people calling him an asshole and a shitty person for his opinion on what video games are or has he done something that's actually shitty in the past? Some people here are saying that now they have to separate the art from the artist because of this tweet?
I'm really confused.
He say's "to me". That is to say, in his opinion, video games are not art. Don't most people on this forum argue about allowing people their personal opinions?
I'm really confused.
He say's "to me". That is to say, in his opinion, video games are not art. Don't most people on this forum argue about allowing people their personal opinions?
To me it seems excessively broad, and yet it fails to cover architecture, AKA the first art, unless you stretch the definition even further.
People get really, REALLY defensive over this particular topic, which is why I stopped taking it seriously years ago.
You have very weird definitions if you say something can't be art.
I don't know about you, but the feelings I got playing through Mass Effect 2 and Majora's Mask, definitely made me rethink how much value there is in games on an emotional level.
If those feelings can't be considered art, I don't know what can.
I don't know about you, but the feelings I got playing through Mass Effect 2 and Majora's Mask, definitely made me rethink how much value there is in games on an emotional level.
If those feelings can't be considered art, I don't know what can.
I think it's because that line of thinking seems, for want of a better word, a bit nihilistic.
It a) means anything is (rather than can be) art, which makes the label meaningless in terms of distinguishing it from anything else (which are what labels are for), and b) turns the term 'art' into a synonym of 'good', which also makes it redundant.
It's not nerds, man, it's human nature.
Late to the thread but he is 100% spot on. Games are not art, they are mass market consumer entertainment products (and yes, that goes for indie games too). That's not to say games CAN'T be art, but right now, they just simply aren't.
That's not to say that the people who make games aren't highly talented at what they do however. It's like a car; each component is designed to perfection by some of the most talented designers and engineers on the planet to create something that works incredibly well, but you would not call a car art.
That's not to say that the people who make games aren't highly talented at what they do however. It's like a car; each component is designed to perfection by some of the most talented designers and engineers on the planet to create something that works incredibly well, but you would not call a car art.
He could have provided his "opinion" without mocking those who have a different opinion than his, maybe?
How does that definition not cover architecture? It's a visual creation using imagination and technical skill, and it's meant to be appreciated for its beauty in addition to serving a practical purpose. Of course it's broad, human creation is broad. The only good definition of art is a broad one.
If anything some of the reactions in this thread are proving him right.
That's what he did in his first tweets before the mass of reactions he got later on, which led to that quick comic edit.
If there was any kind of creative input, it's art.
Video games are art.
TV is art.
Movies are art.
Porn is art.
Sports are art.
Comedy is art.
It's all art.
- Status