Community Forums => General Chat => Topic started by: Rivfader on July 26, 2003, 11:24:36 AM
Title: Why games are art.
Post by: Rivfader on July 26, 2003, 11:24:36 AM
A couple of years back when i heard Trans-Siberian Orchestra for the first time i went to check out their web site at http://www.trans-siberian.com/. There in the biography page Paul O'Neill gives the following definition of art: "The purpose of art is to create an emotional response in the person that is exposed to that art." I'm sure that you all have felt the rage after being beat by the last boss when he only have so much life left. And also, the happiness after beating the very same boss with ever so little of your own life left. To me that's a pretty big emotional response. So therefor games would be art by this defenition. I'm not thinking that it's something that's out to change the world, but rather to enjoy and make people feel good, but isn't that art to?
Title: RE: Why games are art.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on July 26, 2003, 01:32:18 PM
That would be one way to perceive art -- a response; the effect.
Bruce Lee says art is simply expression -- this concerns its actual creation. So, games can be seen as art when it's understood that a game is an expression of its designers.
But, Miyamoto-sensei once said he doesn't want to be called an artist because it might insult "real artists", whatever that means... *tee-hee*
Title: RE: Why games are art.
Post by: Rivfader on July 27, 2003, 01:57:48 AM
I think Miyamoto is too unassuming. To me A Link to the Past is as much a work of art as, for example, Gamma Ray's Powerplant. And real artists. Thats like saying you can't call yourself an author untill you've got a book published. If you're not high enough on the scale, you're not there.
Title: RE: Why games are art.
Post by: Raijin Z on July 29, 2003, 06:56:43 PM
You can't make a game without art, and if the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, games are art, and more than merely that.
