Video games are a serious art form.
Since we are on the subject of advices I'd like my opponent to know when someone is
providing actual debate arguments and when they are talking metaphorically or in imagery
in order to wrap up or emphasize the actual argument. I'll get to that in a moment.
Let's get on to rebuttals. In my conclusion I intended to give a broad overview over
the effects of art, but the initial definition of art, unchallanged by my opponent,
still stands as an argument video games can fit under. In the first example he states
that video games, just because they are interactive, are not art. That art must be
unchanging. I strongly oppose to this notion for a number of reasons. interaction
Firstly it implies that digital art is the only interactive art medium, which is not
true by a long shot. Interactive art has existed for thousands of years, and the most
basic example is theatre in which the audience can choose between several separate
endings or plot devices when the actors prompt them to. Same can be told on certain
novels and some films. Other medium, books for instance, leave the ending to be open
and giving the reader a choice on how to interpret the story: such as Life of Pie[2001].
Poems are also vague and open to a lot of speculation and interaction from the audience
and thus are changing viewer from viewer. a lot of art has utilized the audiences as a part of the art and/or produces different results and artistic forms depending on the time and position
of the person viewing the piece. To say that art must be static and unchanging is incorrect in a plethora of ways and in no accepted
definition of art will you find that to be a requirement. It also implies that because of the interactive
medium it always has a way to manipulate the narrative. This is also incorrect. No
matter how often you'll play trough a game you will in most cases end up with the
same narrative, the same ending, the same events. The game developer envisions how
the story unfolds and there is little the player can do to change that. He has a little
wiggle room but only as much as the developer wants him to have. Dear Esther[2012]
for instance gives the player no room to affect the narrative, it is arguably the
least game like video game ever released, focusing entirely on narrative. The audience,
just like with other art, can only interact with the art as long as the developer wants them to. No matter how quickly you managed to play
trough Silent Hill 2, no matter how many corners you cut, the main ending is still
the same: the storyline is still what the developer envisioned, you're still experiencing
an artwork as the artist intended. The desire to beat the game is just the same desire
as wanting to read the rest of the book. You want to see how the story unfolds, you
want to see what happens next and how it all ends. The missions are a bonus, as before
noted. Interactivity is not something art can not posses, and the fact that we must use a set of rules to advance the game
does not exclude it from being an art. I can create a game that places heavy critique on human society and in fact a lot
of games do that, intentionally or not. Remember, A video game, as with art, is whatever the artist wishes it to be. Not only does art not have to express no meaning at all and still be art (The Mona Lisa for instance portrays no message) but it can just as well be art on the base on the pleasure it brings to the viewer. Video games are programmed to
do what the designer wants them to do: If he wants to portray a message, so be it.
Co-operation of art Firstly, yes, Music has been influenced by video games often.[2,3,4]. As has other
medium of art[round 1 and source 5]. However I would like to note at this point that art does not have to be able to influence other medium of art. My opponent did deny he said that, but I'm afraid he did. “Video games do not influence
art forms.„ That is anabsolute statement. You said, without any room for changing, that
video games are incapable of influencing other medium of art. Even if we where to accept that this was an exaggeration it is still incorrect.
I'd like to note that video games have influenced film culture, produced countless
films, comics, merchandise, artistic videos, each other, and even reached into science
and biology (sonic gene, WOW plague, pikachurin e.t.c). paintings have been made after
games and so on and so forth. My opponent then attempted the following two points:
All music is instrumental It is tempting to drop this for music requires no form of
vocals to be art: otherwise you're dismissing next to every single musical piece ever produced. The
entire classical era, the orchestra he himself used as an example, four seasons by
Vivaldi and so on . Listening to for instance the piece I linked does not reveal that
it is a video game track, but could be considered artistic on its own. Music is intended
to set the tone of the environment, just as real music intends to set the mood for
the listener. It deserves more attention than an elavatior tune as it changes the
game completely. Turn the audio off for a game and play it. It is not the same experience,
just as watching 2001 without sound does not create the intended effect. About the
5 star orchestra, I'm dropping that, as it was an exaggeration to emphasize the quality
of the tracks, not a literal comment that I was unable to tell the difference between
the two. On the visual note: Does it have to do so? Is it comparible? This is art, painted by Picasso: You see that it is not the same style and arguably the same
quality as The last supper. I still find it to be art. But in what way is Braid not art? Here is a tricky one: is this a screen shot from a video game or eastern painting[7]?
The rest of the arguments: The “offer art to your door” was emphasize, not an argument. Dropped. Films entertain you. Why are
they less of an art? Books entertain you, poetry entertains you, pop music entertains you, they are all
medium for art in your definition. So far every single unofficial definition of art you have brought is fulfilled by several video games, this one included. As good
as refuted. The point with Heavy Rain was to show that games can and are often emotional,
they often have the power to make players question their own choices, to think and
wonder what would happen if they where in that situation. I've cried over a video
game, I've been strung along like a puppet and I've been immersed into a single dictated
feeling the game wanted me to feel. Art has the primary objective to be able to make a player Feel or Think. Games can do
that, just as all other art medium can. Suddenly the con suggest that games are not a High artform.So, it's an
art form, but not good art? Not only is this indirect concession to the debate, but it is wrong. So far the
only thing my opponent has done is comparing what he thinks are pinnacles of other
art medium, a cherry pick that really is worthless in a debate. The great gatsby is a
great book, all right. How about Twilight? Is there still no other game better as
art? How about Modern art where a blue canvas and white line is art? Would you not agree that Flower Is a much more enjoyable title to relax and look
at? How about anything C.L Dean does[6]? Is the Last of Us really a lesser art form? either all books are art or none in that logic, and so it is fallacious. Art is not a fixed boundry: con has failed to disprove without doubt that games are art: and in fact I have shown that it is an artform in its own right and methods, with
the ability to fit all definitions. Art is art, visually, skillfully, imaginative and audiovise: Art is the expression of skill, thought, emotion and ideas, and games are no exception
when it comes to creating the vision of the artist. http://en.wikipedia.org... http://www.1up.com... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...
http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl... http://goo.gl...
Pro vs. con view
Topic space view
