Comments on: “Art” Games. http://www.catchynamenews.com/2008/12/23/art-games/ More Shocking than a Dick Full of Electric Bees. Tue, 20 Dec 2011 12:42:25 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: raddevon http://www.catchynamenews.com/2008/12/23/art-games/comment-page-1/#comment-108 raddevon Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:05:47 +0000 http://www.catchynamenews.com/?p=202#comment-108 The artists call their works "games" to find an audience for them. "Interactive art" is simultaneously above the common gamer and below monocled art aficionados. Of course, I don't know this for a fact, but it seems like a reasonable explanation. The artists call their works “games” to find an audience for them. “Interactive art” is simultaneously above the common gamer and below monocled art aficionados. Of course, I don’t know this for a fact, but it seems like a reasonable explanation.

]]> By: Ninjapocalypse http://www.catchynamenews.com/2008/12/23/art-games/comment-page-1/#comment-104 Ninjapocalypse Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:09:00 +0000 http://www.catchynamenews.com/?p=202#comment-104 Well, I would by no means argue against the right of any piece of art, and they are art, to exist just because I personally don't care for them. If I did, Placerville, California would burn to the ground, and Thomas Kinkade would become a pariah. But you essentially are agreeing with the point I wanted to make (but took forever to get to and never really made CLEARLY because I wrote this whole thing in a Tylenol P.M. fit), which is that just because a work of art is done in the style of a game and is interactive does not necessarily mean that it is a game. Most of the pieces I complain about are perfectly valid expressions of art, and they are interactive, but they aren't games, and I just hate seeing them referred to as such. I just think "interactive art" is the term that should be used for them, and I don't think these people should be referring to themselves as "game developers" when they've never developed a game, and have never even tried. I also think that all games are art in one way or another, and that, after trying so hard for so long like so many other people have to get people to believe that games are art, to have some douche in a fedora and horn-rimmed glasses with fake lenses to come along and try and jump what he thinks is a new money/fame train by cranking out some interactive screensaver about some contrived emotion he doesn't care about is fucking insulting. Basically, I just hope that this whole trend of calling art "games" when it really isn't ends soon. I think that all of the creations that have come out of this trend are certainly art, and some of them are pretty neat, but I just feel like the definition of a game can't be stretched as far as they think it can. Honestly, I need to clean this article up some before it's published in Esquire. I was sick and on cough medicine. I could make it a lot clearer. But it's fun this way too. Well, I would by no means argue against the right of any piece of art, and they are art, to exist just because I personally don’t care for them. If I did, Placerville, California would burn to the ground, and Thomas Kinkade would become a pariah. But you essentially are agreeing with the point I wanted to make (but took forever to get to and never really made CLEARLY because I wrote this whole thing in a Tylenol P.M. fit), which is that just because a work of art is done in the style of a game and is interactive does not necessarily mean that it is a game. Most of the pieces I complain about are perfectly valid expressions of art, and they are interactive, but they aren’t games, and I just hate seeing them referred to as such. I just think “interactive art” is the term that should be used for them, and I don’t think these people should be referring to themselves as “game developers” when they’ve never developed a game, and have never even tried. I also think that all games are art in one way or another, and that, after trying so hard for so long like so many other people have to get people to believe that games are art, to have some douche in a fedora and horn-rimmed glasses with fake lenses to come along and try and jump what he thinks is a new money/fame train by cranking out some interactive screensaver about some contrived emotion he doesn’t care about is fucking insulting.

Basically, I just hope that this whole trend of calling art “games” when it really isn’t ends soon. I think that all of the creations that have come out of this trend are certainly art, and some of them are pretty neat, but I just feel like the definition of a game can’t be stretched as far as they think it can.

Honestly, I need to clean this article up some before it’s published in Esquire. I was sick and on cough medicine. I could make it a lot clearer. But it’s fun this way too.

]]> By: raddevon http://www.catchynamenews.com/2008/12/23/art-games/comment-page-1/#comment-103 raddevon Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:06:08 +0000 http://www.catchynamenews.com/?p=202#comment-103 There is a continuum stretching from art to games. Most traditional video games hang out on the "game" side of that continuum. Braid is closer to the middle; it still has many gaming conventions and is decidedly a "game," but it also functions as a piece of art on merits besides just representing what needed to be represented to make the game playable. Your example passage is much further on the "art" side of the continuum. Maybe it should be called "interactive art" or maybe something much more clever. I think there is room for anything on the continuum. Someone who is not comfortable with gaming might have no problems with an interactive piece of artwork. Conversely, a gamer may find the artwork lacking in the game department. Rambling... There is a continuum stretching from art to games. Most traditional video games hang out on the “game” side of that continuum. Braid is closer to the middle; it still has many gaming conventions and is decidedly a “game,” but it also functions as a piece of art on merits besides just representing what needed to be represented to make the game playable. Your example passage is much further on the “art” side of the continuum. Maybe it should be called “interactive art” or maybe something much more clever. I think there is room for anything on the continuum. Someone who is not comfortable with gaming might have no problems with an interactive piece of artwork. Conversely, a gamer may find the artwork lacking in the game department. Rambling…

]]>