Topic: Are Video Games Art?

[Svevan]

What a terrible question.

Even worse is the question "which video games are art?" For whatever reason, people think that art is a compliment, and only some games achieve the status of art. Ergo, someone could claim that Zelda is "art" but Charlie's Angels is not, because one is successful (in terms of quality, not commerce) and the other isn't.

I understand the question, I really do. We call things "artful" which is apparently a compliment. And we believe there are such a thing as skilled "artisans" who create things with their hands. And the definition of what art actually entails is very difficult too. Here's some broad definitions I want to throw down, from Dictionary.com (which references multiple dictionaries). Please note that I had to pick and choose since the word has many, many definitions.

Quote
the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria

Quote
Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature.

Quote
The conscious production or arrangement of sounds, colors, forms, movements, or other elements in a manner that affects the sense of beauty, specifically the production of the beautiful in a graphic or plastic medium.

When most people say "I believe that this is art," they are really meaning that they believe it is "artful." A secondary definition of the word art is this:

Quote
High quality of conception or execution, as found in works of beauty; aesthetic value.

If something has art in it, it is beautiful or of high quality. But if something actually is art, then it is part of "the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria." There's a difference.

So I don't really have much of a problem when someone says "this is art," because I know they mean it is of higher quality than something else, even if they're saying it wrong. But when someone says "this isn't art," they're not just saying that it is "artless." They're demanding that the thing (be it a game or a movie) not be classified as art at all, and not be treated in the same field as other works that are "more valid." They're actually saying that discourse about this title be relegated to another area, that if we consider it "art" we have made a statement of endorsement and we cannot intellectually discuss its merits (or demerits).

This is an epidemic! All video games are art. I posit this statement as a fact, and I hope that it won't engender a giant discussion. Of course it will, and I probably won't dive too far into the ensuing rabble for fear of being argumentative and controversial. Let me just say that once we recognize that video games are of "the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria," then we know that we must always criticize them as works of art, meaning how they sound, what they look like, and how it feels (via the controller) to play them. All video games are made up of a combination of those three: sight, sound, touch.

The primary art of gaming, though, is control: what do I get to do, and what don't I? When do I get to do it? What are the effects (usually visual or auditory) of my actions? How does it feel to do the actions physically with a controller?

So yes, Superman 64 is art. It's not a compliment! There is such a thing as bad art. If you say a film is art, you're just stating the obvious. Let's move past the idea that some things are art and some things aren't, otherwise we will be mired in subjectivity and individualistic responses like "this is art to me," and "I feel like this isn't art." Relativism destroys nations, and right now our culture is being torn down from the inside. Art is one of the many things that is being destroyed by subjective response. In fact, with art, we've gone beyond subjective response and into subjective identification! So my opinion is that something is art, and no one can change that since it's my opinion.

Raph Koster (who's fairly famous) added fuel to this fire back in February, and I responded with a blog. The blog includes links back to Raph's original post, about a video game called High Delivery that was very "artful," and is definitely "art." Raph asked "is this art?" Most of the responses were "it's art to me!" And then Joystiq posted the most idiotic thing I have ever read on the Internet. Please read the post for links to that as well.

Well I'm sure I was too harsh and inflammatory with this post. Please know that I'm not trying to be a jerk, but that this is a problem that will forever set back games criticism and scholarship. If we don't agree, right now as a community, that games are art, then we will never hold our own against the other major art forms. If we wait for judges to decide for us whether our favorite medium is art or not, we'll be very dissatisfied with the answer they give us.    

[ShyGuy]

Nope. Miyamoto said they weren't and he knows more about video games than I do. I defer to his expert testimony.

[Mashiro]

I consider video games to be an art form. I don't care about what others think.

/threadend =P  

[Kairon]

Miyamoto was using a definition which, by nature, excluded mass-market consumer products from art. For example, by that definition, the movie Gladiator would not be art.

I like the way Svevan breaks down the question and his definition of terms is also useful. The distinction between artfull/artless and art/not-art I find to be so important in defining what exactly we mean when we talk about such things. Although we once again enter the same "everything is art" territory as some have often done before, I can understand this perspective now whereas before it produced conflict within me. Especially important to the discussion is the reminder that there is such a thing as "bad art" and that things are "artless."

As Svevan said in another thread, yes, Superman 64 is art. By the definitions we're using, it is. That doesn't imply it's good, it's tasteful, it doesn't imply it's worthwhile or enduring or important, it doesn't imply ANYTHING about the quality of the work. But that's the next question, the follow-up. And it's much more interesting and easy to explore once we acknowledge the first.

[ShyGuy]

Kairon, are you speaking for Miyamoto? That's Bill Trinen's job.

[mantidor]

I dislike people who use "ergo" ever since I saw matrix reloaded I kid, I kid, ok not so much

and yes games are art. I agree with your sentiment against relativism too(although saying its destroying your nation is taking things a bit far).

One of the main issues of movies and games is the huge ammount of resources they need, and add to that an inmense ammount of technical knowledge and skills for games. If you are feeling "artsy" and want to express yourself somehow you can take a pencil and draw something or write a poem, or sculpt something, you most certainly can't easily make a feature film or a specially a game to express that.

Then again, a long time ago people couldn't just pick up a pen and write, most people didn't even know how to read! I see in the future we will get more of this type of amateur art, and so it will stablish games as an art form.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Kairon, are you speaking for Miyamoto? That's Bill Trinen's job.

MUAHAHAHAHAHA!!! *goes out to learn some Japanese*

[Ian Sane]

In general I would consider any form of entertainment to be art since it's purpose to create emotions.  At the very least that's something videogames have in common with television, film and music.  If all music is art then I think all games should be as well.  Miyamoto might not regard games as art (ironic since his games usually are held as examples of gaming being an artform) but in the early days of film movies were just considered disposable entertainment and many films were destroyed and are now lost.  Miyamoto is the game equivalent of a movie-maker in the early 1900s so it's not that surprising he thinks that way.

Part of the classicifaction of art in my view is that it's very non-scientific.  There aren't rules and practices to make art.  I can teach someone the fundamental skills to make a house and if they have the talent they can make a house.  But art has an creative quality to it.  I know people who are amazing guitar players but aren't really artists in my mind because they never write any songs.  Give them a song and they'll play it just like the original artist but there's no real added personal touch to their performance.  They're just a guitar machine.  It's just a skill but not really art.  To design a game requires some creativity even if the result is a really lame idea.  So it must be art.

And honestly if we don't want the government censoring games we need to treat games like art.  If we don't want sloppy crap like screwed up buttons on Mega Man Anniversary Collection we need those making games to treat their work like art.  If we don't want some old games lost like old films are then we need games to be considered art.

[UERD]

Of course there is bad 'art'...or to be more specific, 'art' that does not fulfill its aesthetic purpose very effectively. Take a look at all the crappy novels that they sell at drugstores in the US, or most of the stuff on a public art website like deviantart, or Battlefield Earth. But those works ultimately try to accomplish the same goals as a Shakespearean play, the Mona Lisa, or a movie like...I don't know, Citizen Kane. They try to move your sense of beauty, like one of the posted definitions said. And while people's tastes are 'kind' of subjective (which makes the process of defining 'good' and 'bad' art maddening for people with the engineering mindset), ultimately enough people will be moved to say that Michaelangelo's sculpture of David, or the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, or Beethoven's Ninth Symphony are conclusively and objectively among the 'best' works of art that humanity has created. So, the OP is right. People need to make a clearer distinction between bad art and 'non-art'.

Also, artforms don't spring out of nowhere fully formed and ready to be embraced by critics and academics. For writing this really isn't that clear, because people have been composing written text since the beginning of civilization, but as Ian said, it's definitely visible when you consider movies. One of the big things, though, that games don't have as much as other 'forms of art' is general acceptance. Things are changing, but still novels, painting, music, and movies are regularly appreciated by a wide slice of the general population. Although we are moving away from this image (and have come a long way recently), a lot of people still think of games as glorified electronic toys played by delinquent adolescents at arcades. It doesn't matter if Miyamoto makes something that puts the classics to shame if the majority of the people who will even consider touching it are 12 to 24 year olds.

Quote
And honestly if we don't want the government censoring games we need to treat games like art. If we don't want sloppy crap like screwed up buttons on Mega Man Anniversary Collection we need those making games to treat their work like art. If we don't want some old games lost like old films are then we need games to be considered art.

This is a really, really good point.  

[bustin98]

I could have sworn we've had this conversation before... I guess it must have been another forum as this question has been done to death.

And the funny thing is, people always come down to one of two sides and never budge. Has anyone here ever said "I was wrong, you were right. I have changed my opinion."?

I think its fair to say not every painting is art. Look at my high school lunch room. A lovely shade of blue stripe. Ok, thats a joke, but I think there is a difference based on motivation. I believe the goal of art is to reflect the society around it and/ or invoke an emotional response. Artwork created for commercial purpose may not entirely fall in that category. Heck, I create artwork all day long, but I don't consider it art. My motivation is its what I'm paid to do for someone else. But if the mood were to strike, I could use what I know to create something that I would consider art.

So with games, I think we are at a point of calling them art and have been at that point for a while. Not all of them. Not the ones made purely for profit, but when you hear development teams saying 'we wanted to make a game we want play', or pretty much anything Denis Dyack says, thats art. In the same way that film is art.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Evan said it first, having different opinions of what is most important to you when you judge the inner beauty of things is what is tearing down this nation.  Not to mention you better believe GTA is an artistic masterpiece, there is no denying that or you are being a relativist! How about we judge games on the basis whether we derive enjoyment from them? I like that idea much better.

Regardless I want to sum up this thread with the following.

If you don't think GTA is art, you are destroying our culture. The end.

[LuigiHann]

Not every game is art, just like not every photograph is art, but I'd say Video Games are (or at least, can be) an art form.  

[darknight06]

Video games are design, not art.  I really wish people would stop trying to make more out of video games than they are.  

[bustin98]

Are you implying art is not the end result of design? Or are you saying games are unfinished pieces of art that can't be called art because its up to the player to finish the process of creating the piece?

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: darknight06
Video games are design, not art.  I really wish people would stop trying to make more out of video games than they are.

Wow...so... architecture? Fashion? Film?

[Mashiro]

Quote
Has anyone here ever said "I was wrong, you were right. I have changed my opinion."?

Believe it or not I've been known to on occasion =)

Quote
Video games are design, not art. I really wish people would stop trying to make more out of video games than they are.

To each their own, I mean people can splatter paint on a canvas and call it art. Maybe even give it a name like "anger" because it's red or something. Some consider it art. Others, like myself, don't.

I think anything like a video game, which (can) contain beautiful environments, rich characters, well thought out stories and a beautiful soundtrack should be considered art.

But again everyone has different views on what exactly is 'art' to them and in the end it's something that always ends up in an endless debate.

[King of Twitch]

*"Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

I agree with some of the points made above. But I would think the above definition would rule out superman 64 and Atari pacman and ET from being considered art, as it's clear the humans made little effort in their production.

I also think another definition should include something that aims at, and achieves, capturing people's attention, or enjoyment as Golden
Phoenix said. Nobody wants to play superman 64 for very long. Otherwise I could just throw a painted toilet seat into the street and call that art.


*Disregard this post; i just googled "toilet seat art" and apparently there are painted toilet seat museums across the country.  

[denjet78]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
If you don't think GTA is art, you are destroying our culture. The end.

I think 10,000 of my brain cells just committed suicide. Thanks so much for that.

You can't force people to accept your opinion of what is or what isn't art. That's why I instigated this whole thing in the first place by bringing up Superman 64. If all games are art then sure, I can admit that GTA is art insofar that it is a game and all games are art. But as for the artistic quality of the game, well I find it to be severely lacking in depth, emotion and thought. It's a reflection of the absolutely worst parts of modern society. If someone were to make a film about modern society in such a way people may applaud it as well, but for different reasons. For bringing to light the issues that we all struggle with and shining a light on the darker side of our culture. GTA though glorifies those terrible attributes and gamers seem to embrace it not only with open arms but with a fever that has rarely been seen before. I think that's actually it's biggest contribution to humanity. Showing us just how sick and twisted we really are. Or at least showing me.

So GTA is art, but I'd say it's about on par with games like Superman 64 or an incredibly tacky "B" movie. You want to see good art? Look for the small games that hardly get any attention. Play the games that also get bad reviews from the mainstream sites. Quit sitting there just playing the next big name title. If you ask me it is the complacency of people that is destroying our culture. Everything is subjective. One man's trash is another man's treasure and on that note I'd have to say that GTA is some of the worst trash that I have ever seen.

But of course all of this is just my opinion, something that I shouldn't even have to state.

[Mario]

who cares

[Mashiro]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
who cares

/threadwin

[that Baby guy]

Is selectively breeding puppies art?

[Mashiro]

If they look like this, then yes.

[KDR_11k]

Considering the standards of modern art ("anything you can make people pay you for") games are definitely art.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
You want to see good art? Look for the small games that hardly get any attention. Play the games that also get bad reviews from the mainstream sites. Quit sitting there just playing the next big name title. If you ask me it is the complacency of people that is destroying our culture.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I'M DOING!!!

...Finally... finally... someone gets me! /happy

Hey guys? One word. And one word only.

SPRUNG

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[Kairon]

Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Evan said it first, having different opinions of what is most important to you when you judge the inner beauty of things is what is tearing down this nation.  Not to mention you better believe GTA is an artistic masterpiece, there is no denying that or you are being a relativist! How about we judge games on the basis whether we derive enjoyment from them? I like that idea much better.

Regardless I want to sum up this thread with the following.

If you don't think GTA is art, you are destroying our culture. The end.

Why are you treating us with so much contempt? I feel... debased!