![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kilroyOn the argument about games being "art" or not:
If the core of the argument is whether or not games can evoke emotions and/or make you think, then the answer is obvious: they can. But using that same logic, someone stabbing someone else in front of me with the intent of scaring me could be considered art. Clearly we cannot judge by end result alone.
And it must be admitted that the process of getting to that end is vastly different between games and traditional artforms. Traditional art is absorbed passively by people not creating it: you watch or listen. Games by definition are interactive, requiring those involved to make decisions. Art has no rulebook and allows every individual to react differently to the product; games follow a built-in system which sorts individuals into winners and losers. We are not comparing an apple and an orange here, we are comparing an apple and a steak sandwich. If you define your category broadly enough, they're similar; but if you look at the details at all, they're not very much alike.
It's interesting how the whole argument has taken on a tone of value judgment, as if being art was the only way to validate games. Exploring the intersection between the various forms of entertainment and creative expression is certainly an interesting philosophical exercise, but I somehow don't think that arguing about the label is going to make me enjoy games any more or less.
If the core of the argument is whether or not games can evoke emotions and/or make you think, then the answer is obvious: they can. But using that same logic, someone stabbing someone else in front of me with the intent of scaring me could be considered art. Clearly we cannot judge by end result alone.
And it must be admitted that the process of getting to that end is vastly different between games and traditional artforms. Traditional art is absorbed passively by people not creating it: you watch or listen. Games by definition are interactive, requiring those involved to make decisions. Art has no rulebook and allows every individual to react differently to the product; games follow a built-in system which sorts individuals into winners and losers. We are not comparing an apple and an orange here, we are comparing an apple and a steak sandwich. If you define your category broadly enough, they're similar; but if you look at the details at all, they're not very much alike.
It's interesting how the whole argument has taken on a tone of value judgment, as if being art was the only way to validate games. Exploring the intersection between the various forms of entertainment and creative expression is certainly an interesting philosophical exercise, but I somehow don't think that arguing about the label is going to make me enjoy games any more or less.