Games

No he wasn't and fuck him anyway

Caring about what is and is not "art" is reactionary defense of the elite. My mind will not be changed

Gamers yearn for validation so much that some dude with a tiniest bit of authority blurted out a shit argument about what is art 20 years ago and gamers still argue with his ghost

Anything and everything is art

Source: Have an art degree

"Is X art" is usually a question that ends in elitist bullshit that reinforces "true" art as solely the realm of the finicial elite. The only "true" art disciplines also happen to be ones which require the artist to have an independent source of income or risk destitution. "A gentleman never works". Meanwhile any art that serves a practical function, that is easily with in the reach of the lower classes, is shunned. You don't find many nepo trust fund babies doing wedding photography or sculpting miniatures or drawing weird porn (An extreme example, but the truth is that furry commission you just finished will probably bring the owner more actionable joy than anything they will ever see in a gallery).

This goes beyond the commiditification of art, although it is exacerbated by it, this is about practicality. Demystified art, that is still tied to its use value and serves a function, is a threat to the idea that art is somehow elevated beyond the realm of mere trade and is instead a mystic priesthood caste.

Trade artists are treated as lepers both by the backstabbing art grant gladiators fighting over the coins the government tosses into their gutter and by the "serious" working world. This is why we see industries like game development chew these people up and spit them out.

to be honest i agree with the article where the vast majority of the discourse was driven by gamers seeking validation by attaching their hobby to the prestigious title of "art". i remember people were going buckwild for anything that might indicate games have a positive effect. they improve your reaction time your socal skills your problem solving etc etc. on one hand yes it's juvenile but on the other hand games were still treated as for kids essentially, and by extension gamers were treated as juveniles so why would anyone be shocked that the reaction to it was also juvenile?

also some of the arguments don't make sense to me. im not an art philosopher so i particularly don't care about this stuff but if everything is either art or can be art, i don't see how that is a useful label at all.

Games are art. Not even just in the everything is art way but in that way too.

Maybe it's possible to make games that aren't art too but many are art.

too long have we asked "what is art" and have not engaged in our own systems of critical thinking in regards to the art we interact with. To be a critic in the sense that you will define what something means to you, and why something does or doesnt resonate. To view a piece critically, not just accepting it "as is" but also questioning the system in which it was created and what led or informed it's creation. Being a critic is an art in an of itself, your critique of art could resonate with other people, and bolster their own theories of art.

Not every game is art, the same way not every movie is art, and the difference usually comes down to bourgeoisie elitism.

One of my favorite films An Elephant Sitting Still. There are few people that would argue that movie is not art. But sometimes I want to watch Crank 2: High Voltage in 3d. Who fucking cares

Roger Ebert gave Cars 2 a 3.5/4 stars

In the online discourse it seems to be two camps. There are the people who reflexively appeal to authority and intimate towards some institutional or academic notion of art. Then there are people who skip to the end by saying everything is art and view you as problematic if you try to specify it at all. It's obvious that the idea of art is heavily poisoned by centuries of being defined by those who could afford it. Also the chauvinism that art is made by only Western cultures. People want to push back by opening up the realm of art to cover all the neglected categories, genres, techniques, and mediums. But I find it specious to say everything is art based on it's existing lack of exclusivity. Maybe "art" is just a limited concept for what we're trying to describe. Luckily there is a third way!

I'm a huge believer in craft vs art. It seems that craft is what most people like more than art anyways. Craft is more Marxist than art because it focuses on actually making a thing rather than how it exists in the mind or heart. I'm not saying the two don't coexist in pieces that we all agree are art, but craft is my favorite child and the more noble pursuit. Also no big coincidence that you see a huge push in craft in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Also, also art academia pushed indigenous and non-Western art under this category, hmmmmm.

Games undeniably have craft and I think that's what most people mostly respond to that. When I see arguments like this blog saying "rules are art" without really expanding on that, I just assume she means rules are art because it's a crafted experience. That's the key word, craft, showing up to give us a clue. When people are saying games are art they really mean they enjoy the craftsmanship of certain games and want to celebrate it by elevating them to art. Crafts are just fine and we should instead work to elevate craft.

Corporations more often operate in the space of art because it's easier to tamper with concepts, reactions, and ideas of art than it is to fool someone on the material craft of the product. These companies have advertising, marketing, PR, and run influence campaigns. That's why these entities are completely on board with calling games art and stressing that in the media. Once everyone accepts games are art then it's only a matter of using the media you own to declare your products art and give yourself awards. Now you have a new marketing claim against your competitors.

It's much harder to operate in a space where craft is important. Craft demonstrably declines over time as companies cut costs and squeeze labor in favor of profits. Just as a heuristic, it provides a much better space for the game consumer. Even if a billion dollar company creates a well crafted game, that's okay. If every game company did that then gamers wouldn't dwell on this art question so much.

(I did read the article)

::: spoiler art makes you feel things *farts, wistfully*

lol this great man theory liberal thinks one person made the rules to soccer.

i don't fuck with the maximalist position, if hopscotch is art then the category "art" is completely useless

Some video games are not art. We didn't possess the language to understand this till we had to explain how some video games are just gambling with extra steps. Other video games are art that sucks. Which makes it hard to analyze. Some are sports, which can produce art in the playing but is not itself sufficent to be called art.

Gamers being generally terrible will not be able to verbalize their emotions on thrbmatter unfortunately

Thanks for reminding me that I survived that shit stain on history that was 2009 to 2014. Seeing this pop up everyday on Reddit as well as the astroturfed support for every colour revolution going including Kony 2012.

I don't think Ebert was right about video games not being art, rather they're an art form still in its awkward adolescent stage at this point, but I have to admire how he absolutely bodied the nerds he argued with