Show differencesHistory of post edits
Posted 19 August 2012 - 01:20 PM
Games are NOT an art medium, because it is definitely NOT like drawing or painting. My best analogy is Monopoly. Yes, Monopoly has art on the board (visual), the digital version has audio art, the game has sculpture art, but is Monopoly art? No. You do not want things to become art, because art is awful and stupid. If people consider games art, they will become a not-fun waste of time. Look at real art. Yes, 500 years ago, it was the greatest of the great. Starting in the 20th century, art has an "abstract expression" meaning that makes dirty canvas tarps masterpieces, blue sheets of cloth tear summoning, and urinals reverenced work (seriously, go look it up, that is all at MoMA). Let's consider that games become widely considered as art in the next year or two. People (especially those clowns we call "modern artists" now) would go pick up something like Unity (nothing wrong with it), and they would PRE-DEFINE what they made as art, and it would be something stupid but "artistically brave" like boxes moving around with ambient music in the background. A lot of people who think that games are art tend to use games like BioShock and Shadow of the Colossus as examples. While their music, visuals, and story were superb and most definitely superior to lots of mainstream books, paintings, and music, I don't think they are art. Games are fun. Nothing more. Just like you might call a fancy baseball bat hand-painted in Louisville art, the game of baseball is fun, not art. Sorry for going on an extremely off-topic soap box, but I just felt compelled to share. I'm sorry, OP.
If games are to become a true art medium (Roger Ebert may be correct about the state of it), everyone needs to be free to create them, and it needs to be as simple as picking up a stick and drawing something in the sand. Then, who's to say, what possibilities ANYONE can come up with?