NationStates Jolt Archive

Credit to [EDIT.] Galloism [/EDIT.] for opening up the debate on his thread. So here's the appropriate thread, and we can stop threadjacking him. Discuss!

Not inherently so, no.

But they can be, if they are more than just entertainment.

This thread needs a poll.

Occasionally; generally not.

I think they certainly can be. There's nothing that prevents art from being interactive.

Not to appeal to authority, but TLOZ: Ocarina of Time, along with many other games, have already won (http://plaza.bunka.go.jp/english/festival/1998/) art awards.

This thread needs a poll.

... How do you do that?

I think being a game most likely precludes something being art.

If movies are still considered art after things like Jacakss The Movie, then video games are art.

I think being a game most likely precludes something being art.

Why would that be? Why can art not involve interaction?

If movies are still considered art after things like Jacakss The Movie, then video games are art.

^^This^^

Originally posted by kajex
Saying music, story, acting and visual originality combined into a game do not count as art collectively is disregarding the artforms behind the game.This. ^

Yup!

^^This^^I think critics and certain politicians are simply unwilling to admit that games offer anything to society.

I think critics and certain politicians are simply unwilling to admit that games offer anything to society.

Anything positive, anyway. They love to credit games with basically inventing violence.

I think critics and certain politicians are simply unwilling to admit that games offer anything to society.

Lieberman can suck my cock.



Are they art? Only the good ones.

Anything positive, anyway. They love to credit games with basically inventing violence.Yes, regardless of what they see on TV/the Internet, it's always the video games fault for being "overly violent".

If you've played games like Fallout 3, Shadow of the Colossus, or Okami, then you can plainly see video games can unequivocally be called art. These games show visuals and invoke emotions on a level that rivals the greatest works on canvas or in the music halls.

A common reason for saying that games aren't art is that the players aren't doing anything that's an art. That reason is stupid because listening to music isn't art, reading a book isn't art, watching a movie isn't art, and looking at a painting isn't art, yet Picasso and musicians are called "artists". The reason doesn't make sense.

If you've played games like Fallout 3, Shadow of the Colossus, or Okami, then you can plainly see video games can unequivocally be called art. These games show visuals and invoke emotions on a level that rivals the greatest works on canvas or in the music halls.

It's amazing how much games like that can get to you. I've been playing Fallout 3 recently, and I actually yelled at the screen in anger/sadness when my father died after I had spent the entire game up to that point in search of him.

Games are a medium, just like film or paint or stone or words or sounds. If artists/writers/animators/programmers use them artistically, then they will produce art. I see no reason whatsoever why games cannot deliver art or why art cannot be a game.

Games are a medium, just like film or paint or stone or words or sounds. If artists/writers/animators/programmers use them artistically, then they will produce art. I see no reason whatsoever why games cannot deliver art or why art cannot be a game.
The components of games can be artistic, the graphics, the music, maybe even the story. But what sets games apart from galleries of CGI prints is the playing of them, and I don't think that's artistic. Someone could build a beautiful backgammon board, to steal an example from the other thread, but me rolling the dice and moving my checkers is not artistic, no matter how hard I try to make it.
So to cut to the chase, I can see a video game having art in it, but I wouldn't call the game itself a work of art.

The components of games can be artistic, the graphics, the music, maybe even the story. But what sets games apart from galleries of CGI prints is the playing of them, and I don't think that's artistic. Someone could build a beautiful backgammon board, to steal an example from the other thread, but me rolling the dice and moving my checkers is not artistic, no matter how hard I try to make it.
So to cut to the chase, I can see a video game having art in it, but I wouldn't call the game itself a work of art.Reading a book, watching a movie, or staring at a painting are not artistic, either.

If books are art, movies are art, and someone puking on a canvas is art.

Video games are art.

Reading a book, watching a movie, or staring at a painting are not artistic, either.

Yes, but I am still not interacting when I read a book or watch a movie; I personally am not determining what happens.

Reading a book, watching a movie, or staring at a painting are not artistic, either.
Many post-modernists would disagree.

The components of games can be artistic, the graphics, the music, maybe even the story. But what sets games apart from galleries of CGI prints is the playing of them, and I don't think that's artistic. Someone could build a beautiful backgammon board, to steal an example from the other thread, but me rolling the dice and moving my checkers is not artistic, no matter how hard I try to make it.
So to cut to the chase, I can see a video game having art in it, but I wouldn't call the game itself a work of art.
Well, you're wrong.

Art is not static. Theater is art. There is lots of interactive theater. Music is art and widely interactive, as well as open to extreme blurring of the distinction between audience and performer. Dance is art and also open to interactivity just like music.

If you play a piece of music on your piano at home, does that make the music not be art anymore? If you dance to some music, does that mean dance is not an art? If you attend a play with interactive element and participate in those elements, is the play not art?

There is such a thing as kinetic sculpture. If you make the kinetic sculpture move, is that sculpture then no longer art?

I and another artist collaborated on a sculptural installation project that spanned a couple of years in which we built an environmental installation and invited random viewers to write notes interpreting it. Then, in another show, we used that viewer input -- which was pretty amazingly creative -- to build an expanded "chapter 2" of the same installation "story", and we collected more viewer interpretation. That additional input fueled a third installation, which brought more viewer-suggested expansions of the artistic fiction that was being interactively created. Over the next couple of years, I will be spinning off books from those installations and viewer interaction. That project was, essentially, a game, but it was still art, too. (And it's not really over yet.) (EDIT: In fact, we had some brief talk about developing an online game out of it.)

Reading a book, watching a movie, or staring at a painting are not artistic, either.
Also, this. ^^

Yes, but I am still not interacting when I read a book or watch a movie; I personally am not determining what happens.
Aren't you?

I once did another art project in which I explored the question of what makes some people want to ban, censor, or burn a book that others find wonderful or even just innocuous. I did an experiment of reading a book and copying down every single word/phrase/paragraph that particularly struck me, emotionally, but without stopping to think about it. I wrote the words down on a pad in the order they came up. When I was done reading the book, I looked at what I had copied down. What I had copied formed its own book -- a complete narrative with beginning, middle and end -- that was completely different from the book I had been looking at. I made an illustrated book of those excerpts and exhibited the original as written and the one altered by my act of reading it side by side. I invited viewers to read both books and repeat or expand the experiment.

Art is a form of communication, and communication is always a two-way channel. The listener contributes as much as the speaker. The reader as much as the writer. If you have a working brain, then you are interacting -- and affecting the work -- no matter how passive you may think you are being.

<snip>

Also, this. ^^
Couldn't you say, though, that if we accept interactive theatre, dance, sculpture, etc., as art (as I think we rightly should), then there's a case to also accept the reading of books, the listening to music, etc., as art, for they too are interactive?

In reading a book, an individual is interacting with the author's work, interpreting it and expanding it (via imagination) to something fuller; much in the way an individual interacting with a kinetic sculpture is.

EDIT: Scratch that, it's exactly what you're saying.

Couldn't you say, though, that if we accept interactive theatre, dance, sculpture, etc., as art (as I think we rightly should), then there's a case to also accept the reading of books, the listening to music, etc., as art, for they too are interactive?

In reading a book, an individual is interacting with the author's work, interpreting it and expanding it (via imagination) to something fuller; much in the way an individual interacting with a kinetic sculpture is.

EDIT: Scratch that, it's exactly what you're saying.
:D I kind of broke up my points there, sorry.

And further on this point: When we play a video/computer game, we are acting as a piece of the artwork the creator(s) are presenting.

In a closed game -- one of those basic multi-level, run-the-course games that a person can win at the end, a real "game" game -- the creator is controlling. He sets the style, the tone, the story, the emotions, the stress levels. He determines what your experience will be in order to get his idea across to you. You (the player) experience his artwork in a very direct and visceral way (provided the creator has any talent). It is puppet theater -- he is the puppeteer; you are the puppet. He tells you a story, but by making you do it, not just watch or listen to it.

In an open-ended MMO-type game, that is less game-y, the player exists within an artwork, which is the interactive world set up by the creator(s), and everything the players do in that environment becomes part of the moving, shifting artwork itself. How the players use the world and how they interact with each other becomes the art. Personally, I think of MMORPGs as a kind of improv theater where the environment sets the improv theme.

Anyway, that is how I see games working -- console games, MMOs, even board games -- and they can feel like that, too, if they are good.

Aren't you?

I once did another art project in which I explored the question of what makes some people want to ban, censor, or burn a book that others find wonderful or even just innocuous. I did an experiment of reading a book and copying down every single word/phrase/paragraph that particularly struck me, emotionally, but without stopping to think about it. I wrote the words down on a pad in the order they came up. When I was done reading the book, I looked at what I had copied down. What I had copied formed its own book -- a complete narrative with beginning, middle and end -- that was completely different from the book I had been looking at. I made an illustrated book of those excerpts and exhibited the original as written and the one altered by my act of reading it side by side. I invited viewers to read both books and repeat or expand the experiment.

Art is a form of communication, and communication is always a two-way channel. The listener contributes as much as the speaker. The reader as much as the writer. If you have a working brain, then you are interacting -- and affecting the work -- no matter how passive you may think you are being.

I really need to come see you at one of these exhibits. I'd set one up for myself but my stuff is all industrial.

:D I kind of broke up my points there, sorry.
Nae worries.

<snip interesting post>

Anyway, that is how I see games working -- console games, MMOs, even board games -- and they can feel like that, too, if they are good.
Most certainly board games.

I'm thinking especially of games such as Go or Carcassonne, where, at the end of the game, the players are left with what could be called a piece of art; a set-up of game pieces that is aesthetically pleasing, both in the confines of the game's mechanics, and in itself.

I spend several minutes after each Go game, admiring the stones as won or lost territory, but also as a (sometimes patterned) display of art.

I really need to come see you at one of these exhibits. I'd set one up for myself but my stuff is all industrial.

My work is all about externalizing mental processes that most people are not even aware they are using/doing/whatever. I try to make people think, and also be aware that they are thinking, and think about what they are thinking and why they are thinking it. My work freaks a lot of people out, but I have some fans, too. :D

Because of the nature of what I do, all my artwork is games, in a surrealist kind of way.

My images are experienced like puzzles, even if they aren't necessarily designed that way. My exhibitions almost always have some interactive element that challenges the viewer to account for their relationship to what they are looking at. I build toys like a tiny little box that appears to have multiple universes inside it that you can roll around inside another universe, like one of those get-the-BBs-in-the-clown's-eyes toys. That one freaks people out. I recently started doing bizarre little objects and dioramas inside matchboxes. I'm planning to start building dollhouses and board games.

I have a serious interest in building an MMO, but I lack the skills for that.

Nae worries.


Most certainly board games.

I'm thinking especially of games such as Go or Carcassonne, where, at the end of the game, the players are left with what could be called a piece of art; a set-up of game pieces that is aesthetically pleasing, both in the confines of the game's mechanics, and in itself.

I spend several minutes after each Go game, admiring the stones as won or lost territory, but also as a (sometimes patterned) display of art.
I agree completely. In addition, I think there is a remarkable drama to gameplaying that is art also, in and of itself. It's the transmutation -- or maybe, rather, the realization of life as art. Living as an artistic act. The ability to observe oneself that way gives pretty amazing experiences. That cultural aspect of Go is what I think raises it above many other games, but it's a factor present in all games and play.

In fact, that's another in-development art project of mine -- the development of art as lifestyle. In my case, of course, it will be surrealism, and it would require people to make a game or a satire of pretty much everything they do -- like write letters, for instance.

So I guess, in reference to the OP:

Q: "Are video games art?"

A: "They will be, when I get my hands on them." ;)

I have a serious interest in building an MMO, but I lack the skills for that.Not to mention the two to five year development and the insane development cost.

My work is all about externalizing mental processes that most people are not even aware they are using/doing/whatever. I try to make people think, and also be aware that they are thinking, and think about what they are thinking and why they are thinking it. My work freaks a lot of people out, but I have some fans, too. :D

Because of the nature of what I do, all my artwork is games, in a surrealist kind of way.

My images are experienced like puzzles, even if they aren't necessarily designed that way. My exhibitions almost always have some interactive element that challenges the viewer to account for their relationship to what they are looking at. I build toys like a tiny little box that appears to have multiple universes inside it that you can roll around inside another universe, like one of those get-the-BBs-in-the-clown's-eyes toys. That one freaks people out. I recently started doing bizarre little objects and dioramas inside matchboxes. I'm planning to start building dollhouses and board games.

I have a serious interest in building an MMO, but I lack the skills for that.

I have the basic set of skills to build a MUD, but not an MMO. Most of my limited work is do to my limited resources, and I am shamed to say I have never been good at crafts or drawing (I'm decent at cartooning, but its a different style if you know what I mean); I work well with wood and metal, but I can never assemble them into the finished product... I tend to view each piece as a work itself and end up with a lot of beautifully made pieces and a crap product...

Not to mention the two to five year development and the insane development cost.
I've got all the time in the world -- until I die. I'm not in any particular rush. It's just annoying to have to pick up an entire new skill set. I'm hoping to be able to put together a team someday.

I've got all the time in the world -- until I die. I'm not in any particular rush. It's just annoying to have to pick up an entire new skill set. I'm hoping to be able to put together a team someday.The time isn't the real problem, it's the development cost. If you're looking at a serious game, like Everquest or WoW, you're talking about a $20,000,000 price tag.

But, then again, Runescape does amazingly well for having so many F2P players.

Credit to [EDIT.] Galloism [/EDIT.] for opening up the debate on his thread. So here's the appropriate thread, and we can stop threadjacking him. Discuss!

Of course. Duh! (no sarcasm btw)

I have the basic set of skills to build a MUD, but not an MMO. Most of my limited work is do to my limited resources, and I am shamed to say I have never been good at crafts or drawing (I'm decent at cartooning, but its a different style if you know what I mean); I work well with wood and metal, but I can never assemble them into the finished product... I tend to view each piece as a work itself and end up with a lot of beautifully made pieces and a crap product...
You should follow what you think is good in your work and see where it takes you. Let it lead you for a bit, rather than try to make it be or do something. Maybe you'll have a breakthrough.

I can't draw for shit. I used to be good with charcoal and pen and ink, but I lost the touch somehow. I never even sketch my sculptures in the planning stages.

The time isn't the real problem, it's the development cost. If you're looking at a serious game, like Everquest or WoW, you're talking about a $20,000,000 price tag.

But, then again, Runescape does amazingly well for having so many F2P players.
Yeah, that's the conventional wisdom. I think a lot of creative projects are built by people who are used to getting grants to do things while in college and don't really have an idea of how to self-fund. Everything I have ever done has been entirely self-funded, and trust me, I can work on the cheap. But it requires a very, very different way of working than most people go for.

I'm not really worried about money. I'm worried about the doing of it at all.

EDIT: When I think of a game like WoW -- and a lot of other creative projects nowadays -- I think the people involved in them wanted to be big more than good. They got good (sort of, in a way, maybe not really), but I suspect they would have felt like failures if they hadn't also gotten that big. "Good" was not the primary goal. When I look at the vast heaps of failed WoW-wannabes -- and the whole fucking universe of swipes, rip-offs and pathetic immitators of other people's work -- I think a lot of people are spending all that money to be the next "big thing", not trying to say something that they had on their minds. I see a lot of good ideas lying dead and abandoned because the people who failed were judging success by how big they could get, not how good they could make the work.

Good can be reached for a lot cheaper than big.

I'm worried about the doing of it at all.Invest the time to learn how to do it and you'll get it done. I don't see you as a person who'd give up on a project easily. :p


EDIT: *snip* Blizzard made WoW to make money, and their certainly doing that. That's for sure.

Invest the time to learn how to do it and you'll get it done. I don't see you as a person who'd give up on a project easily. :p
Oh, but I'm horribly lazy! It's truly shocking. :D

Bone-ass laziness + vast ambition = sigh, oh well.

Oh, but I'm horribly lazy! It's truly shocking. :D

Bone-ass laziness + vast ambition = sigh, oh well.You sound just like me!

But I'm working on the laziness part. Slowly, but surely. :p

I think a lot of creative projects are built by people who are used to getting grants to do things while in college and don't really have an idea of how to self-fund.


For instance, Maya Lin designed the Vietnam Memorial (the wall in DC) FOR a college class. Look what happened.

As far as MMORPGs go, the magic for me is the world (big, beautiful, immersive), and the tons of other people to play with. Playing computer games can be a very lonely thing to do, but MMOs feel like you're with a ton of people.

For instance, Maya Lin designed the Vietnam Memorial (the wall in DC) FOR a college class. Look what happened.
Yeah, look how it got installed in DC and all.

Um...what about it?

As far as MMORPGs go, the magic for me is the world (big, beautiful, immersive), and the tons of other people to play with. Playing computer games can be a very lonely thing to do, but MMOs feel like you're with a ton of people.
I agree that the MMORPG immersive worlds are very pleasing, and they have the biggest potential for social interaction since board games. I like the whole idea of them.

The time isn't the real problem, it's the development cost. If you're looking at a serious game, like Everquest or WoW, you're talking about a $20,000,000 price tag.

I submit the following link as evidence of what a dedicated team/community of amateurs can achieve. Don't know what the budget was, but I'm doubting it was 20 mil.;)

http://www.wesnoth.org/

Not an MMO, but a damn fun game. And I'm sure their are more examples. This is just the one I'm most familiar with.

I submit the following link as evidence of what a dedicated team/community of amateurs can achieve. Don't know what the budget was, but I'm doubting it was 20 mil.;)I didn't say that you couldn't do it. Just that the big names in the MMO-world also have really BIG price tags. :p

Except Runescape. They do pretty well.

Yeah, look how it got installed in DC and all.

Um...what about it?


Yes. It got built. I was making a point of the fact that projects in college can have public results.

I didn't say that you couldn't do it. Just that the big names in the MMO-world also have really BIG price tags. :p

Except Runescape. They do pretty well.
I guess the point of my earlier rant was that wanting to be the next Blizzard or EA Games is one thing and wanting to make a good artistic game is an entirely different thing. One might require $20mil in capital. The other really doesn't, and if you run it right, it could eventually turn a profit. I don't need Blizzard-money. I'd be happy to settle for Muravyets-money. Maybe 5 digits someday, years down the line, as opposed to 6 digits.

I didn't say that you couldn't do it. Just that the big names in the MMO-world also have really BIG price tags. :p

Then they're wasteful idiots. Besides, I suspect most of that goes to voice actors, overpaid "professionals", and of course, advertising.

Yes. It got built. I was making a point of the fact that projects in college can have public results.
I never said they couldn't.

I never said they couldn't.

And I was providing a reliable example that has relevance to art?

And I was providing a reliable example that has relevance to art?
Reliable, sure, but relevant? I said that "a lot" of people in creative work don't know how to work without huge funding, beyond what they can lay out of their own pockets. What does that have to do with Maya Lin's memorial? EDIT: I mean, did she pay for the entire thing herself?

I looked it up. Maya Lin's design cost $8.4 million in 1984. I doubt she footed the bill for it as an independent project, especially as it was a public artwork, commissioned by the federal government, so... they being the client...they would have paid for it.

Now, what was I saying about a lot of people in the arts not working out of their own pockets? Oh, yeah, that's right... So Maya Lin's memorial is an example of what I was talking about. Except that it kind of isn't because I wasn't talking about artwork commissioned by clients or municipalities/governments. I was talking about people failing in private creative projects because they don't know how to budget small for big results.

Wait, you're planning on going into video game making, Muravyets?

I've gotta see this. Anything you make'll probably be extremely fun to play.

Wait, you're planning on going into video game making, Muravyets?

I've gotta see this. Anything you make'll probably be extremely fun to play.
Oh, thanks. :D But don't hold your breath. It's just something I'd like to do someday. But I appreciate the vote of confidence. :fluffle:

You know, I wouldn't mind getting to be Game Master of the Matrix Online, then maybe the storyline could make sense...

the potential is definately there, and there's certainly a lot of real art in some of them.

For now, there are certainly some beautiful and intelligent pieces of video game design out. There have been some "offshoot" games that tend to get a lot less press than "Madden OMFG IT'S THE SAME SHIT AGAIN 08" like Ico and Okami and a large sample of niche-market games.

But those look to be on the edge of oblivion. EA has bought up rights to loads of video game developers, even your mom, and it looks like 2K, Atari, et al. are at least trying to follow suit.

Now, hopefully, I'm wrong, and Ebert will be proven wrong. But this is the way things are trending - towards commercialism, rather than satisfaction of niche markets.


...

In an entirely unrelated note, fans of EGM and 1up, I weep with ye. (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=21759)

http://img368.imageshack.us/img368/7193/simcityslimesf6.png

Now, I'm not M. C. Escher, but...

I think for any claim that video games aren't art to be logical, first it would have to clarify what it would mean in distinguishing entertainment from art, then it would have to state what makes video games as a medium non-art...

It's odd, though, some claim that video games aren't art because they're too passive, others because they're not passive enough. (Remember the Roger Ebert "games need player choices, movies don't" argument?)

I can't help but think that what's really going on here is that people will think less of a medium not for what's inherent in the medium but what is associated with the medium. We hear this about people who claim that "rap music" inherently promotes violence, drugs, and promiscuous sex, no matter how many examples of otherwise are given to them; I get the impression that there's a similar reaction to video games.

I think the following video said it well: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BeaBbxrVMzM

At my university, many would consider them art. I think I believe they are art if they have artistic intentions.

Have you played Planescape:Torment, TLJ, Dreamfall?

If these aren't art, nothing made in the last decade is.




Inherently, just like canvas doesn't make any stain on it art, so games aren't "inherently" art. Nothing is. Out of games, most are plain toys, only a minority is art, but it's not a small one.

Have you played Planescape:Torment, TLJ, Dreamfall?

If these aren't art, nothing made in the last decade is.




Inherently, just like canvas doesn't make any stain on it art, so games aren't "inherently" art. Nothing is. Out of games, most are plain toys, only a minority is art, but it's not a small one.
Again, it depends on what one claims the distinction is.

A common reason for saying that games aren't art is that the players aren't doing anything that's an art. That reason is stupid because listening to music isn't art, reading a book isn't art, watching a movie isn't art, and looking at a painting isn't art, yet Picasso and musicians are called "artists". The reason doesn't make sense.

Yet making wine is a craft and tasting it is an art.

Wierd. :confused:

Yet making wine is a craft and tasting it is an art.

Wierd. :confused:
I don't know much about these kinds of distinctions (crafts vs. arts. vs. entertainment) but these things sound kind of arbitrary to me.

Aren't you?

I once did another art project in which I explored the question of what makes some people want to ban, censor, or burn a book that others find wonderful or even just innocuous. I did an experiment of reading a book and copying down every single word/phrase/paragraph that particularly struck me, emotionally, but without stopping to think about it. I wrote the words down on a pad in the order they came up. When I was done reading the book, I looked at what I had copied down. What I had copied formed its own book -- a complete narrative with beginning, middle and end -- that was completely different from the book I had been looking at. I made an illustrated book of those excerpts and exhibited the original as written and the one altered by my act of reading it side by side. I invited viewers to read both books and repeat or expand the experiment.
That sounds really interesting. I did something sort of like that when I read Ulysses. I wasn't going to understand it, so I figured I may as well write down things that stuck. Most of them were about food for some reason.
Which book did you read?

Art is a form of communication, and communication is always a two-way channel. The listener contributes as much as the speaker. The reader as much as the writer. If you have a working brain, then you are interacting -- and affecting the work -- no matter how passive you may think you are being.
I think someone can be active without being interactive. I can read a book and my own personality will affect what I get out of it, but it won't affect how my neighbor reads it. (Unless I talk to him, of course.) But suppose we both play the same video game but do different things in it. Suppose I lose the game. It's not the same thing to us, it would be like if I not only brought my own preconceptions to a book but white-out and a pen.
I can sort of imagine a computer generated world explored through hand controls being art. I wouldn't classify that as a video game, but maybe I just haven't seen the one that will revolutionize the medium.

I think someone can be active without being interactive. I can read a book and my own personality will affect what I get out of it, but it won't affect how my neighbor reads it. (Unless I talk to him, of course.) But suppose we both play the same video game but do different things in it. Suppose I lose the game. It's not the same thing to us, it would be like if I not only brought my own preconceptions to a book but white-out and a pen.
I can sort of imagine a computer generated world explored through hand controls being art. I wouldn't classify that as a video game, but maybe I just haven't seen the one that will revolutionize the medium.

Ah, but there are even some theatre performances that can be changed depending on the audience. But if you and a friend see different performances that turn out in different ways, that doesn't make the play "not art." I would think that's comparable to getting a different ending in the game, no?

EDIT:
In fact, I would even say that all true art is interactive on some level, if only on the level of what conceptions each viewer brings to it. You could say, then, that games have that much more potential for art because the viewer can impact it that much more. As games mature more and more, and are taken more and more seriously, expect to see this fact better utilized to make artistic masterpieces.

That sounds really interesting. I did something sort of like that when I read Ulysses. I wasn't going to understand it, so I figured I may as well write down things that stuck. Most of them were about food for some reason.
Which book did you read?
A book about medicine because it is, arguably, the most controversial subject of all time. The Human Body by Dr. Logan Clendenning (great name), 1927. It was about both basic human biology and physiology and the history and (then) state of the art of medical research. It was written for a lay readership and was very informative and very entertaining, as Dr. Clendenning had a unique voice as a writer.

The book that went into my brain was about medicine, health and medical history. The book that came out of my brain was about musing about life and death, souls, ethics/politics, and trying to balance the idea of the self with the reality of phsyical existence.

The book that went in was The Human Body. The book that came out is called Morbid Anatomy. That phrase is also excerpted from Clendenning. It is the title of an 18th century treatise on anatomy and dissection which he talked about in some depth, and I chose it for my title because the word "morbid" means something very different to a doctor/anatomist and to a lay person. I felt it kind of represented the entire experiment, the work, and the issue it was about in the first place.

I think someone can be active without being interactive. I can read a book and my own personality will affect what I get out of it, but it won't affect how my neighbor reads it. (Unless I talk to him, of course.) But suppose we both play the same video game but do different things in it. Suppose I lose the game. It's not the same thing to us, it would be like if I not only brought my own preconceptions to a book but white-out and a pen.
I can sort of imagine a computer generated world explored through hand controls being art. I wouldn't classify that as a video game, but maybe I just haven't seen the one that will revolutionize the medium.
I think you're just being obstinate. You have been given examples of interactive artworks that remain art even though the audience/viewer/user does stuff with and to them. You choose to ignore those examples rather than try to reconcile them with what you are saying. But that refusal doesn't actually give credence to your claim that the fact that you do stuff in games makes them not-art. This may be your personal experience, but that does not make it a valid statement about the artistic potential of games.

I refer back to my first statement in this thread: Games are a medium, just like film, paint and stone. They are art if artists make art with them. I stand by that statement.

Ah, but there are even some theatre performances that can be changed depending on the audience. But if you and a friend see different performances that turn out in different ways, that doesn't make the play "not art." I would think that's comparable to getting a different ending in the game, no?

EDIT:
In fact, I would even say that all true art is interactive on some level, if only on the level of what conceptions each viewer brings to it. You could say, then, that games have that much more potential for art because the viewer can impact it that much more. As games mature more and more, and are taken more and more seriously, expect to see this fact better utilized to make artistic masterpieces.
Good point. Plays, musical performances, etc. can and do mutate from performance to performance.

Also, my whole point was that even an artwork that, itself, does not change -- like a painting or sculpture -- will be experienced differently by different viewers/audiences. One person looks at a painting and thinks it's sad. Another thinks it's funny. Another thinks it's politically provocative. Another thinks it's obscene. Another thinks it's religious. Etc. Do those vastly different experiences make paintings and sculpture not-art?

Arguments like NL's make me think that some people don't really have a clear idea of what art is, or maybe they just don't know what it is they want or expect from art.

*snip*
I've never heard if that but it sounds good. I'm a little surprised it was a non-fiction book, I usually don't think of those as being "Literature" with a capital L. But great writing's great writing, I guess.
I think you're just being obstinate. You have been given examples of interactive artworks that remain art even though the audience/viewer/user does stuff with and to them. You choose to ignore those examples rather than try to reconcile them with what you are saying. But that refusal doesn't actually give credence to your claim that the fact that you do stuff in games makes them not-art. This may be your personal experience, but that does not make it a valid statement about the artistic potential of games.
Well, yeah. Where would be the fun in agreeing with people?
But I see your point, and as embarrassed as I am to admit it, you and the other forum folk have changed my mind some. I think I can still say I do not know of any existing games I would call art, but I don't know what the future holds. I also don't know that many existing games, which may have helped in the confidence I held in my earlier opinion. Nothing strengthens conviction like ignorance.

Arguments like NL's make me think that some people don't really have a clear idea of what art is, or maybe they just don't know what it is they want or expect from art.

This is very true. In my defense, though, I think plenty of people have trouble knowing what to expect or want from art, even those who study it.

I've never heard if that but it sounds good. I'm a little surprised it was a non-fiction book, I usually don't think of those as being "Literature" with a capital L. But great writing's great writing, I guess.
I never said I read a work of literature. I just said I read a book. And like I said, I picked medicine because no subject is more controversial. I don't think there has been a single year in the entire history of civilization that has not seen at least one big medical controversy. Also, I did not write a work of literature out of it. I made an art object -- what we in the art racket call an "artist book" consisting of text and images (more art-speak).

Also, I got the original book for $1.00 out the "as is" bin at a used book store. It's binding was falling apart, and that's why I picked it, because I wanted to cannibalize the original to make the artwork. In the end, I didn't for that particular artist book exhibition because I decided to show them side by side instead, for the sake of the thematic experiment.

Well, yeah. Where would be the fun in agreeing with people?
But I see your point, and as embarrassed as I am to admit it, you and the other forum folk have changed my mind some. I think I can still say I do not know of any existing games I would call art, but I don't know what the future holds. I also don't know that many existing games, which may have helped in the confidence I held in my earlier opinion. Never strengthens conviction like ignorance.
Fair enough, and in your defense, I am talking about the artistic potential of games. I also have seen very few games that I think have any artistic merit, and none that would satisfy me as an artist. But maybe I'll change that someday. ;)

This is very true. In my defense, though, I think plenty of people have trouble knowing what to expect or want from art, even those who study it.
That is also very true. It's a condition I tend to have little patience with -- though I guess you noticed that, sorry. I especially get annoyed with it when it comes from people who do study art -- or even claim to practice it!

I never said I read a work of literature. I just said I read a book. And like I said, I picked medicine because no subject is more controversial. I don't think there has been a single year in the entire history of civilization that has not seen at least one big medical controversy. Also, I did not write a work of literature out of it. I made an art object -- what we in the art racket call an "artist book" consisting of text and images (more art-speak).

"Text?" "Images?" "Book?" Honestly, why can't you bohemians speak normal English?
That is also very true. It's a condition I tend to have little patience with -- though I guess you noticed that, sorry. I especially get annoyed with it when it comes from people who do study art -- or even claim to practice it!
No worries.

"Text?" "Images?" "Book?" Honestly, why can't you bohemians speak normal English?

No worries.
Fuck that shit. If we spoke intelligibly (high Scrabble score on that one) about what we do, we'd NEVER get paid. :D

Credit to [EDIT.] Galloism [/EDIT.] for opening up the debate on his thread. So here's the appropriate thread, and we can stop threadjacking him. Discuss!

Yes.

Art i've paid for on occasion, due my interaction with it, which is a common reason for people to pay money for someone else's interpretation and representation of something.

Evidently the curators of the State Museum think so (http://www.slq.qld.gov.au/whats-on/exhibit/cur/game-on)