Are Videogames Art?

[Atarinvader]

Below is an article I've just written for some on-line magazine or another. May try to get it published a few places....

 

Are Videogames Art?

 

The study of Videogames as art is something that for a long time has been the realm of research and study by pretentious forward thinking iMac touting scholars, and little has been written on the subject for the videogame playing layman. Why, however, is not very difficult to understand, Videogames have not yet been accepted in the world of academia because of it’s relative youth compared to that of Film or Television, with only any real kind of narrative being recognisable in games in the last 10 years. But does that mean that games aren’t art?

 

If you ask most people if they think Videogames are art they will probably say ‘some’, with obvious responses being Ico, Viewtiful Joe or Rez. By why would some games be art and others not? What is the deciding line that needs to be crossed before a Videogame can be classed as more than a child's toy? When it imitates styles of other media? Peoples comparisons between Rez and Disney’s Tron were well founded - even down to the hacker trapped inside a computer story line, but why then isn’t The new EA Lord of The Rings game purposed in the same breath? It seems more to be based on favouritism more than actual logic, similar to a Film or Art critic denying a piece any credit because of personal opinion on its aesthetics . Perhaps it’s time for the industry to move on and gain a sense of respect for itself? After all it’s regularly trouncing Hollywood dollar for dollar.

 

Dictionary.com gives the definition of art as ‘[a] human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature’. What that means I don’t know, however Andy Warhol’s definition of art was slightly less vague, he stated that anything that had a basic design was art, including even urinals. The implications of this view-point are far reaching, however a much firmer definition of art is needed than this.

 

For many, art is a work that portrays some emotion, meaning or just some vague sense of narrative, for others, art is defined in a much more classic, or rather archaic,  sense of a painting or sculpture. The latter carries little weight in a modern world of ‘disposable media’ and videogames fit neatly in to the description put forward by the former, except perhaps in the sense of conveying emotion.

 

Who can think of a great Videogame love story? Ken and Elisa from Street Fighter? Mario and Princess Peach? Or even Sonic and his sometimes-squeeze Amy? It isn’t exactly Gone With The Wind, but perhaps this goes back to my original point on the infancy of this particular section of the media industry. Videogames haven’t yet had their Casablanca. Perhaps in Japan, where dating games and their older brother in the form of Hentai are all the rage with the more embracing people of the East, but the Western kids aren’t ready for love (or sex) in their games, but prefer to opt for violence and guns. Maybe this is because of the lack of translated dating games in the West? The industry just accepts that we don’t want that, not yet at least.

 

Unfortunately we seem stuck in a Catch 22, until Videogames get recognised as a viable form of art then the scholars won’t study, and until the scholars study then Videogames won’t grow-up. Where an industry is based on target audiences and research groups as heavily as this one is then the passion and creative story telling won’t flourish. However, all isn’t lost, with lots of Universities offering courses in Videogame Design it shouldn’t be long till we see a new generation of smarter - more in-tune - game designers popping up ready to create the greatest interactive story ever told.

[Ze_ro]

I think it's an oversimplification to say "all video games are art"... after all, most people would admit that movies and video could be considered art... but do documentaries or simple archive video clips count as art? Rez may count as art... but Madden NFL 2004?

 

I don't really see much point in trying to classify video games as "art" or "not art" anyways. The only benefit I could imagine is some kind of "freedom of speach" nonsense arguements.

 

--Zero

[+kisrael]

I always thought that "Art is what you can get away with" so for the meantime, no.

 

A lot of games would seem to be most similar to other narrative art forms, books and movies. But by their nature, games tend to be a little shallow, with the dictates of making a world you can interact with via a joystick and a few buttons running counter to the deeper emotional and intellectual engagement that art hopes to achieve.

 

Also, video games are inherently a kind of second person narrative. "you do this", "you do that". Even if the view is third person, you're still in control. Most other art forms have trouble pulling off 2nd person for very long, it's more of a gimmick. (Come to think of it when a movie does a "first person view", it's actually more of a second person view, in a way...) So I think it's a big challenge to pull off.

 

On the other hand, I see more and more electronic art in galleries and what not, so there is some acceptance. But basically, there has to be a cultural shift that does to Mario 64 what Andy Warhol did to Cambell's Soup Cans and Brillo Boxes: put it in the right context so that people will see the artistry and engagement the developers put into it, free from the blinders of "it's just what kids play"....in short, it's often the frame that makes the art, and so far, that frame hasn't been around very much.

[liveinabin]

Yes they are art. Heck, anything man-made (or at least manipulated by man) with some aesthetic purpose is art.

Now whether they're GOOD art, that's another question entirely.

[Mr.FoodMonster]

The way I see it, just about anything you see/hear/feel ect. IS ART. The trees are art, the clouds, cars, music, everything. The big problem seems to be if people THINK its art. Then from there, if its GOOD art. Sure, videogames can display emotion, and all those sorts of things. So could a painting that I made in 30 seconds, but if its good enough is different. Rez is art. Good art. E.T. is art, but just not terribly good. Its in the eye of the beholder, really.

[+Random Terrain]

Yes they are art.  Heck, anything man-made (or at least manipulated by man) with some aesthetic purpose is art.  

Now whether they're GOOD art, that's another question entirely.

I agree with that post.

[Atarinvader]

A lot of games would seem to be most similar to other narrative art forms, books and movies. But by their nature, games tend to be a little shallow, with the dictates of making a world you can interact with via a joystick and a few buttons running counter to the deeper emotional and intellectual engagement that art hopes to achieve.

 

The problem with interactive narrative is that it's extremely difficult to compare with conventional narrative rules (Todrovs etc), but with some stretch of the imagination they can be, but that is dependent on how you choose to interperate them. That is something that is a completely different subject and very difficult to explain here. If you trawl through the archive here you should be able to find an early draft essay I wrote on the subject about 3 years ago.

 

But since the invent of modern art – some would argue - that narrative is no longer an essential element of art. Something completely abstract can be art based purely on aesthetics, however it’s an interesting subject none the less.

 

An easy mistake is to compare with other media or art forms too easily, it's as if comparing a newspaper to a film - the narratives work in completely different ways. The games industry need to realise that and start to develope it's own unique open ended (to some extent) narrative, moving away from the linearity of Tomb Raider and Resident Evil and in to Shenmue and finally in to some completely organic, user decided, narrative. This however, would only become possible through mass-multiplayer games like perhaps PSO.

 

On the other hand, I see more and more electronic art in galleries and what not, so there is some acceptance. But basically, there has to be a cultural shift that does to Mario 64 what Andy Warhol did to Campbell’s Soup Cans and Brillo Boxes: put it in the right context...

 

Remember that the context of film never changed, yet since this 50's has been one of the most viable art forms. Before that actors acting in films were considered lesser than their more traditional thespian peers, often actors would change their names on film credits as to not be associated.

 

The more tradition art forms (as mentioned in my article) will eventual reach out and grab from the Videogaming culture (in some ways it already has). Intertextuality between media and art forms is what makes for the richness and diversity of the current society we live in.

 

Once Videogames have lost their 'new thing' stigma then people’s acceptance to them will be changed. Essentially in a strict sense Videogames are art, what this argument is about is when or how they will be seen as so and not if they are.

[+kisrael]

But since the invent of modern art – some would argue - that narrative is no longer an essential element of art. Something completely abstract can be art based purely on aesthetics, however it’s an interesting subject none the less.

Yeah, it occured to me that it's no longer considered essential, but since most games have SOME level of narrative, often a large one (especially new games) than that's what it's going to be compared with.

An easy mistake is to compare with other media or art forms too easily, it's as if comparing a newspaper to a film - the narratives work in completely different ways. The games industry need to realise that and start to develope it's own unique open ended (to some extent) narrative, moving away from the linearity of Tomb Raider and Resident Evil and in to Shenmue and finally in to some completely organic, user decided, narrative. This however, would only become possible through mass-multiplayer games like perhaps PSO.

I don't know if that would neccesarily be better than what we have now, though it is a promising line of game development. I thing GTA:VC is getting there. (Incidentally, in terms of official recognition as art, GTA:VC won some BIG award for visual design)

On the other hand, I see more and more electronic art in galleries and what not, so there is some acceptance. But basically, there has to be a cultural shift that does to Mario 64 what Andy Warhol did to Campbell’s Soup Cans and Brillo Boxes: put it in the right context...

 

Remember that the context of film never changed, yet since this 50's has been one of the most viable art forms. Before that actors acting in films were considered lesser than their more traditional thespian peers, often actors would change their names on film credits as to not be associated.

but to a certain extent, it got judged as art when arty films started being made. Obviously a lot of movies that come out aren't considered art...I guess it's a question not "is it art" but "can it support art", and that's probably a less controversial question.

[sigma]

I think it's an oversimplification to say "all video games are art"... after all, most people would admit that movies and video could be considered art... but do documentaries or simple archive video clips count as art? Rez may count as art... but Madden NFL 2004?

 

I don't really see much point in trying to classify video games as "art" or "not art" anyways. The only benefit I could imagine is some kind of "freedom of speach" nonsense arguements.

 

--Zero

I agree with this post the most.

[shep]

I think it's an oversimplification to say "all video games are art"... after all, most people would admit that movies and video could be considered art... but do documentaries or simple archive video clips count as art? Rez may count as art... but Madden NFL 2004?

 

I don't really see much point in trying to classify video games as "art" or "not art" anyways. The only benefit I could imagine is some kind of "freedom of speach" nonsense arguements.

 

--Zero

I agree with this post the most.

 

ditto

[Ze_ro]

Yes they are art.  Heck, anything man-made (or at least manipulated by man) with some aesthetic purpose is art.  

Now whether they're GOOD art, that's another question entirely.

 

By that definition, the way I arrange my room is art. I put things in specific places with specific purpose in mind... but I certainly didn't have art in mind when I did so (all I was really thinking was how to arrange things so I could have the maximum amount of video games hooked up).

 

I think to be considered as art, stuff has to be made with aesthetic purpose and presentation as the primary (perhaps only) consideration in it's design. I mean, my monitor was designed with aesthetics in mind too, and has it's own curves and such, but it's certainly no sculpture.

 

"Art" is extremely vague though. It's all subjective, and one persons masterpiece is another persons pile of trash. I very much doubt anyone could come up with a "perfect" definition of what art is.

 

--Zero

[Dones]

The argument about narrative is only one part of the puzzle (no pun intended). To understand videogames as art we also have to take into consideration its interactive properties.

 

Movies, music and books are non-interactive, videogames are. When you watch a movie you are seeing carefully scripted visual scenes. Everything is planned, from the order of the shots to what the actors say and do. It is done specifically to make the audience think or feel in a certain way. In videogames, the audience is not a passive entity. Unlike a movie, you are part of the ride. You are the star and take control. In videogames, it is not so much about what happens, but how it happens.

 

It's also about letting you explore places at your leisure, something that movies and books can't provide. Goldeneye is everyones favorite example, and with good reason. While the movie let you see a story of Bond running around different locales, in the N64 game you actually got to explore these places. Everyone who has watched the movie after playing the game can tell you the unusual feeling of familiarity they sense this time around. You could say that in a way, you were actually there!

[+Random Terrain]

Yes they are art.  Heck, anything man-made (or at least manipulated by man) with some aesthetic purpose is art.  

Now whether they're GOOD art, that's another question entirely.

 

By that definition, the way I arrange my room is art.

That is art. The way you clean your house is art. Everything we do is art. It's self-expression. Your life is art. Even the clouds in the sky or bubbles in your bathwater could be considered art. The universe is art. You can find art everywhere.

[+kisrael]

That is art. The way you clean your house is art. Everything we do is art. It's self-expression. Your life is art. Even the clouds in the sky or bubbles in your bathwater could be considered art. The universe is art. You can find art everywhere.

This definition is so vague as to be pretty much meaningless.

 

I'm not going to argue your central point, "every dam thing is art" in at least one sense, if you accept that we're using a more specific if still hard to pin down definition, something involving deliberate manipulation of materials or actions assembled with a purpose, most often to invoke an intellectual or emotional response in a viewer (even if that viewer is only the artist him or herself)

[Atarinvader]

People seem to be tending to look at games that are heavyily lead by narrative. How about Space Invaders? Yes it has a narrative, but it is extremely weak.

 

...but to a certain extent, [films] got judged as art when arty films started being made.

 

This is a bit of a chicken and the egg scenerio. How could 'arty' films be made when peoples interpertation of film as art were not yet defineded? Peoples understanding of subconcous semiotics didn't develope in a film sense as soon as someone said 'let's make an arty film', it was an evolutioniary process.

[NovaXpress]

Art is creative expression. Those who design video games are indeed engaging in such creative expression.

 

So games happen to be participatory? Well back in college I acted in some plays which were based on improv with the audience. The audience member had to participate and alter the production in order to find value in it. So was this art? Anyone involved in the art of theatre will tell you that it is. What about books? You can stop anywhere, speed up or slow down, skip to the end, read backwards. It's totally interactive. And it is art. If I play a musical instrument, am I not creating art? I didn't create those strings or that neck, it only creates art when i interact with it.

 

Video games are such an art form. It only becomes a complete work of art when YOU get involved with it. That's the beauty of this unique form of expression. It is a collaborative effort encompassing other art forms (animation, visual art, music) much like a motion pictue. But unlike a motion picture, this art form deliberately leaves out one step in the process. That step is taken when you push the start button.

 

 

Unfortunately we seem stuck in a Catch 22, until Videogames get recognised as a viable form of art then the scholars won’t study, and until the scholars study then Videogames won’t grow-up.

Excellent point. Comic books were not popularly recognized as an art form until a body of critical work was built. A school of criticism needs to develop for video games as well. Who can make that happen? You're all looking at him in the mirror, bub.

[Dones]

The videogame industry is about 30 years old, so you could say it's still young and growing. I wonder how many decades will it take for a 'body of work' to be considered. Slashdot.org posted an article about the academic efforts to introduce video games as a field of study.

[+Random Terrain]

That is art. The way you clean your house is art. Everything we do is art. It's self-expression. Your life is art. Even the clouds in the sky or bubbles in your bathwater could be considered art. The universe is art. You can find art everywhere.

This definition is so vague as to be pretty much meaningless.

 

I'm not going to argue your central point, "every dam thing is art" in at least one sense, if you accept that we're using a more specific if still hard to pin down definition, something involving deliberate manipulation of materials or actions assembled with a purpose, most often to invoke an intellectual or emotional response in a viewer (even if that viewer is only the artist him or herself)

Art doesn't have to be manipulated by a human or other living creature to invoke an intellectual or emotional response in a viewer. You can see some amazing things in clouds and other things but I'll stick with clouds for this example. The images are not created by anyone, it's just the observer's mind running with the random material. For art to exist, only an observer is necessary. So, games should be considered art from the static parts to the random parts to the parts that change with the actions of the player. If the game invokes an intellectual or emotional response in a player, the whole experience is art.

[homerwannabee]

Art I believe is in the eye of the beholder. In my eye, video games are indeed art. Even the atari 2600 video games I consider art. This people have spent months if not years of their lives creating visual expression that can be appreciated by the masses. Anyone who spends that much time on their is considered in artist in my book.

[+kisrael]

Art doesn't have to be manipulated by a human or other living creature to invoke an intellectual or emotional response in a viewer. You can see some amazing things in clouds and other things but I'll stick with clouds for this example. The images are not created by anyone, it's just the observer's mind running with the random material. For art to exist, only an observer is necessary. So, games should be considered art from the static parts to the random parts to the parts that change with the actions of the player. If the game invokes an intellectual or emotional response in a player, the whole experience is art.

I think that's a lot more reasonable than the "everything is art" line we've heard here. I think what you say goes along with my idea that "the frame makes the art"...in the case of clouds, it's not just that there be an observer, but there has to be an observer who thinks of it as art. I don't think you can have art w/o an observer, even if the only observer is the artist.

 

I still think there are further subdistinctions to be made, "found art" vs "made art" (with the former being more dependent on context) and "art" vs "craft" (the latter is a useful way of having different categories for, say, "Lost in Translation" vs "Torque") and that the original poster is probably more interested in those distinctions than in the broader categories we're talking about here, but still, I don't really disagree with you.

[Clock]

What is art?

 

The answer will vary from person to person, I personaly am not sure if a game is art but it will contain many forms of art to make the whole.

[Dones]

If we as gamers are not sure of it being considered as art then how can we expect others to take it seriously?

[MegaManFan]

Responding only to the first post and not the rest of the thread (my apologies I skipped it) it seems the author missed out on the "romance" of great video game RPG's altogether. Cloud and Aeris, just for starters. C'mon.

[+kisrael]

If we as gamers are not sure of it being considered as art then how can we expect others to take it seriously?

"Being an artform" is not the only criteria to make something worth taking seriously. You can have beauty, elegance, creativity, and fun, and never achieve "art", depending on your definition.

[Happy_Dude]

I don't know art, but I know what I like.

And I like Video Games

 

Just look at the Homebrews being produced now and tell me thats not an Artform.

It takes a lot of creativity to make a good game. Sure thers a lot of Soup cans

on the market now but theres also some really inspiring works aswell.