Are Video Games Art?
BoomerHere's your chance to get a little highbrow with gaming discussion.
In March 2009, Kellee Santiago, founder of thatgamecompany gave a talk at TED addressing the question "Are video games art?"
Roger Ebert responded with by picking apart her talk. He presented his response just a few weeks ago.
And this was followed by a response from Kellee Santiago on Kotaku
Am I the kind of guy who takes on Kellee Santiago and Roger Ebert?
Yes I am.
What is art? I'll start at the same place that both Mr. Ebert and Ms. Santiago touched on, the definition, according to wikipedia. Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. That's sound like a resonable definition to me, and at this point I could end the discussion by simply asking: "Have you ever played a game that affected you?"
I think the root of their debate lies in the discussion of Aesthetics, not art. Both the critic and the developer have made a terrible case for themselves.
So, it's my turn.
Some games, including video games are art.
Anyone who has played video games can attest to being emotionally manipulated though music, story, and cinematics while playing video games. Mr. Ebert would probably say that THOSE elements are the art, and that we have made the mistake of confusing the game with the artistic elements.
When was the last time you watched a movie without a score? Combining artistic elements does not preclude the possibility that the game itself is art.
Instead, I propose that some video games are the most engaging form of art developed to date; because, for the first time in history, the "viewer" can participate to a degree comparable only to Dungeons & Dragons. And the only reason D&D doesn't win hands down, is that we haven't developed total submersion virtual reality with story authoring on the fly. Once that happens, I'll be the first to take up my sword again.
Some games, especially "sports" video games don't really evoke an emotional response, other than the thrill of winning. But others, like Myst, evoke creepy isolation. Resident Evil was a scary as any horror film.
My personal favorite is WoW; because, after two tours in combat zones, WoW was the only place I could find the same feelings of camaraderie and teamwork and frustration with a cunning enemy. Let me take the world of warcraft example a little further.
In movies and books, which we can all agree are a form of art, we sympathize with the hero. We understand his mourning for lost loves. We get exult in her victories. But in many video games, we need not sympathize. We ARE the hero. When I raided, my mistakes could cost my guild the raid. When I snuck around contested or enemy territory, I was on my toes, alert for danger. In PVP, nothing provides the joy of vanquishing a foe in a fair fight.
Mr Ebert seems to subscribe to Plato's idea that art should imitate nature. Guess what? Some video games do. Not all of nature is real creatures and real physics and real situations. We live with the reality of our emotions, our hopes, dreams and fantasies. Video games touch on those and try to capture them as Salvador Dali tried to capture the imagery of the dreamworld. We distort reality through our perceptions and our desires. A good video game is a lucid dream. Just as our dreams reflect our inner world, so do games.
He quibbles that "one obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game." I would say that "winning" makes games even more imitative of life than any other artform. Afterall, we live our lives with goals to accomplish, and one of the satisfactions of gamimg is the feeling that you accomplished something while you played.
Michaelangelo's David is a masterpiece of sculpture. But what does it say? To me, it's captured a strong young man at the peak of his youth and fitness. It reminds me of the timelessness of stone and ephemeral nature of life. But I get a lot more from a thoughtful video game, and I can only look at a statue for so long.
Ok, I've heard Eberts arguments for why video games aren't art. I will admit that i even agree with a few of them.
That being said, while video games may, or my not, be art, those that create them are at least artists.
Well said.
There is an old saying about beauty being in the eye of the beholder.
While some games, may not be pretty or well made they are all expressions of someone's creativity.
Thus, I feel that they are indeed, art.
If people can call paintings done with elephant dung, or pooping the contents of a paint enema onto a canvas "art", then video games should be considered a complex and high form of art.
But that's just my opinion.
I don't know, I've played a few games I would never call art *couhalogh*
Even Ebert has to admit there are movies out there that are not art. I may love Die Hard, but that shit is not art.
It doesn't matter what you or I consider to be art.
Art isn't art because someone tells you it is.
Building off your example, I don't consider Art films to be Art because they don't provoke anything in me. Typically they bore me. Making a crappy movie and calling it an "Art Film" doesn't magically make it great.
Die Hard on the other hand, going back to the first time I saw it, made me hate Hans, like John and made me wonder how he was gonna take out two bad guys with a pistol taped to his back and made me laugh when the limo driver took out the bad guys' truck with his limo.
While not "pretty" I feel that even Die Hard can be considered Art.
Going back to the poo Arts I mentioned before, I don't feel that they are Art, but other people feel that they are great, high forms of Art.
I don't consider Die Hard, art, not because art is suppose to be thought provking or whatever, but because I see when somthing is made to make money off me.
Again the people making the film/game/painting/anal ejection may be artists, but that dosn't always mean they are making art.
I think it's worth pointing out that there is good art and there is bad art...and we often hear the argument that something is NOT art...but what we mean is that it is BAD art. And since good and bad are entirely subjective, we see conflict over what is good art and what is bad art, but we couch it such a way that "bad" art is not art.
I beleive games are art because jkust about everything we see can be taken as a work of art. I mean it took someone both creative and brilliant to build the first piramids and the first sky scrappers. Can not the same be said for a work of art or even a video game? I mean Games are just as much art as Pictures, music, and movies. If not, they are more so because they combine various forms of artistic mediums and allow us, the viewers to be a part of the work.
I think Boomer articulated what I was trying to say.
But I still say that, though it may fall under the "bad art" section, even Die Hard can be art, Arkus.
Not high art, but art a few rungs above the paint enema guy, nonetheless.
It's like saying, is a porn movie art? It is technically a movie, like Citizen Kane. It takes cinematography, direction, and (usually) a script. There's even an awards show for the medium. But no one would consider it (as TommyJames put it nicely) "high art".
Much like one wouldn't normally equate Superman 64 and Heavy Rain - but it one is art, the other must be. It's just that one is shitty art.
Excellent, Roo!
I think that sums it up nicely.
Thanks, TommyJames. I was typing that out while multitasking and watching Chuck at the same time, so I didn't know if my brain was making sense out loud.
By the way. Chuck... that counts as art.
Sure does!
As long a Psych, Burn Notice, Royal Pains, and White Collar count!
Whats the difference between art and porn?
A goverment grant.
Everyone likes calling what they do art. But where's the line? Where does art end and bullshit begin? If we call everything art, then art starts losing it's impact. Would you call MLB the show art? No, you wouldn't. Just liek you wouldn't call a regular game of baseball art. I can only hope you're not going to argue with me that baseball si art, because that would be silly.
I'm not saying that games can't be art, I can even think of a few games off the top of my head I would consider art, Zelda, God of War, Fallout, Final Fantasy, Halo (and I hate that game), and many more. I also would call superman 64 art, but I would still call it a shitty game.
You know what tho, games don't have to be art. They are games, above and beyond. No matter what you or I say about what is or isn't art, they are games no matter what. That's all they have to be for us to enjoy them. You didn't pick up Zelda the first time thinking "This is great art!" You probably said something more along the lines of "This game sure is fun!"
I don't feel every game is art. I don't feel every movie is art. I don't feel every book is art...I would have to admit Twilight is art, and I'm not going to do that, ever.
"Whats the difference between art and porn?
A goverment grant."
I love that line.
No, I wouldn't say that sports, sports-related shows, reality TV, and the like are art, because they are more related to the broadcasting of chance, feats of strength, or voyuerism. Art is a very wobbly term that can mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Are blotches on a canvas art? If the artist set out with a plan to convey a story or feeling, or evoke an emotion, then I'd reluctantly have to say yes. And yes, I know that means Twilight would also have to count - but I'm prepared to make that sacrifice. The problem is that a lot of art is bullshit. I don't think the two are mutually exclusive - but sorting it out is what opinions are for.
And in my opinion, Psyche rules!
I have heard the "government grant" line before.
There's always the guy that says "I don't know art, but I know what I like."
Typically that guy is the one that purchases the painting of Elvis on velvet.
Not art to you or me, but it is to him.
So I go back to the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" statement.
You might not think so, but I think Burn Notice is a fine pice of art, even though it doesn't fall into the realm of "art films." Admit it, Arkus, anything with Bruce in it is art.
It's not for you to determine what I think is art, just like it isn't for me to determine what you think is art.
Just like everyone's got an arsehole, everyone's got an opinion.
I will admit anything with Bruce is art. And I/m not arguing if it's bad it's not art.
Let me run this idea by you and see if you understand where I'm coming from that games aren't always art.
Star Wars the Force Unleashed. It's a fun game. It makes me feel like a badass. ok story, kinda disappointed, but thast ok, not every has to be a masterpiece. It even looks amazing. It even has this epic soundtrack to go with it.
It's not art. It looks like art, sounds like art, take the disc out and smell it, it smells like art. It's not art, you brain is playing tricks on you. Just like when you put a pencil in a glass of water and it "breaks" Anyway, When FU...heh...was coming out they had a hugh media push for the game. Interviews, articles, videos, the works. We must look past a games "shell" I can call the apperance of a game art all day long and not blink about it, but games are more than their sum parts. They are more than looks and sounds, they also have mechanics. At the end of the day, FU was purly about the mechanics. They had finally gotten 2 new technologies for videos games to talk to each other, and it was awesome!
FU was just a glorified tech demo for Lucas games to show off. Does the mean that FU is void of art completely? No, I will say the work that went in would be art, backdrops, characters music, and story (as awful as it was)
My argument is the same but my conclusion is different.
I say that because individual elements (not necessarily all of them) can be considered art, that the whole, whether good or bad, is art.
In truth, the title of art is a supjective term that is, to me anyway, completely meaningless.
What one person might consider art, another would see as utter trash. TommyJames said he doesn't consider Art films art and he sees Die Hard as art. While he believes this, someone else might think the complete opposite.
To argue about what is art and what isn't is just pointless in my opinion because people see art differently. For me, I personally don't care about if something is art or not. I care about receiving an emotional response from it, hearing a good story, and following characters that make me feel for them. So, following that criteria, most video games are art (whether good or bad).
I also think that Ebert shouldn't dismiss an entire entertainment medium just because a small number of games don't fit his criteria of what art is.
Excuse me guys but porn is the highest possible form of art ever.
Now seriously, I don't really care about them being art or not to the eyes of other but I was thinking about something I think it would be interesting.
We are talking about art as human expression but sometimes that is not what people mean by art.
I live in Europe and in my country soccer is THE sport. We all agree on sports not being art but what happens when people talk about worlds best in a sport? That would be Zinedine Zidane in my opinion for soccer. People often said that watching him play was art. This was also said in ancient times about the best people in any craft like swordsmiths, etc.
I think that when I refer to Ocarina of Time being art for sure maybe I'm not saying its a form of expression (it is too imo) but just pointing out that it has achieved perfection in its own form. It has achieved the right to be compared with other arts.
That is in my personal opinion what high art really is. Not just being art because you exist as such but considered as valid as a piece of music by Queen or a painting from Salvador Dali (I'm so glad you mentioned one of my favorite artists Boomer)
With this being said I also think that video games are about fun. I love playing Street Fighter or MW2 as much as ICO, Bioshock or Monkey Island.
So the only point I'm trying to make is that only high art is worth debating.(In my opinion)