Friday, September 28, 2012

Game vs. Art

A game is interactive and allows for movement, players, rules, and strategy. A game may very well have a style and purpose to it. A game is relative to new media and how creativity can be taken to a different level. The games we played in class included artistic means, such as the use of photography, perspective, and color. A game can be played by one person or multiples, just like art can be created by one person or in a group. There is also a history behind, both art and games. Art and games have evolved over time, yet they are still played, viewed, and discussed.  Both games and art can also be documented and planned out.

However, a game is also very different from art that we may see or create for a gallery space. For example, an artist can create a video, drawing, or a sculpture. It already has an essential purpose and meaning created by the artist and is interpreted differently among viewers. The art piece remains the same, unless changes are made to it in the future. These forms of art are not very interactive or are influenced by viewers after they have already been created, unless it is an interactive installation. When I say influence, I mean manipulated or altered in some way. A painting is concrete and within reach. A game can be replayed and have different outcomes and possibilities. Art has an aesthetic quality to it and can often be defined by one medium or mixed media, as well.  Art and games have similar qualities, but can also be viewed in your own way.


  1. There is definitely something to be said about the games using artistic elements and that games and art can be made or created by multiple people. I feel that these elements came through most in process. We had to start with our idea, just as we would with an art piece, and then we collaborated, edited and revised our ideas. This process occurs with most art that we make her at school, and I'm sure in the working world as well. I find that documentation was the most important factor in the games that we played, and while I usually ignore that part in my art making process, I really should pay more attention to documenting my ideas and outcomes to constantly be improving.
    I think you make a great point in saying that art is usually not influenced by viewers once it has been created, unlike the games. I feel like the viewer can interpret an artwork anyway that they want, but a games outcome is more controlled.

  2. I said the same thing as far as the differences between game and traditional art. Games are never static, or tangible things. The thing that makes games what they are is their randomness and kinetic qualities.

  3. I see your game and I raise you a video game.

    What if, per-say, a game ends the exact same way for everyone and the process of going through the game is the same for everyone. (assuming some minor level of deviance is still there) Now has the game been changed by the prescience of the player, or is it static like a video? Would it then still be a game, or would it just be interactive art?

    I am interested in your thoughts.

  4. i believe that if we want to think of this in the way andrew is, then we can get to our roots of "art is.."

    in fact, I'm sure we have all heard of people or artists or whoever saying that anything can be art. so maybe Everything is art. so if we use that same distinction, can we say that anything can be a game as long as we label it as one? an artist painting on a canvas could say that "looking at my art is a game, and everyone wins AND loses....mwahhhahaha"

    you're welcome america :)