Video games are art.
It’s boring, it’s been said, and it’s been argued against. But it’s true. Game developers are this generation’s unnamed Ansel Adams and Andy Warhols. The video games they work to create are their own unique worlds imagined and they bring to life these visions with precise direction and immense effort. By any definition, the entire process is an art form; writers weave a story out of nothing, artists turn barren worlds into illustrated societies, and coders bring it all to life in an interactive formation.
The entire process is undeniably art–almost magically so.
I’m saying things we already know as gamers, but for some reason never admit–at least not out loud or in a tone above a whisper. As much as video games have evolved in the past decade, we haven’t really as gamers. We’ve continued to imply video games are just a release and a hobby; that they’re something cheap and homely, meant to give us a bit of entertainment like a gossip magazine or a soap opera.
Honestly, gamers and their attitudes are why video games aren’t perceived as art–even if we’re why they exist in the first place.
When cornered by famous film critic Ebert back in July, video gamers lined up to argue for their favorite titles as an art form. Unfortunately, their arguments quickly became concessions and admissions of failure. We mostly concluded that games were just beginning to become art, offering up titles like Flower or Braid as proof of the genre’s eventual potential. Much like how if we gave a thousand monkeys typewriters they’d accidentally type a line from Shakespeare, we told Ebert that if we gave a thousand game developers time, they’d eventually create something that might be half of the Mona Lisa. We never even thought that they already may have.
Influential developer Kellee Santiago became a video game apologist when she argued that video games were art because they were like the primitive chicken scratch on a cave wall thousands of years ago. She told Ebert that [games] had a ways to go, but then again, they were just starting their journey–much like the cave drawings1.
And that’s so wrong, so very wrong. Santiago is a smarter woman than I, but her words made apologies where apologies shouldn’t have been made. In my art history courses and studies, I’ve seen the time period of drawings she compared current gaming to–they were inventories of food and people, hunting reenactments, and even battle plans. They weren’t interactive art forms, they weren’t the Source engine and its thousands of ingenious modifications or the way the rain looks in Grand Theft Auto IV. For some reason she implied that videos games aren’t already a high art when they already are. She implied that they were in infantile stages as art and that as gamers we should apologize to Ebert for not having something better to show him of our culture.
Thus our defense of our games accidentally discredited them as a whole. It’s part shame, part cultural stigma, and wholly a polite nature we’ve bought into. Much like how we’re told all gamers are nerds, losers, and virgins; much like how we downcast our eyes a little when we tell people we work in the video game industry; much like how we bite our lower lip when we mention we’re game journalists, we don’t stand up and fight the good fight for video games. We make apologies. We make excuses.
We don’t let them stand alone without us holding them up from the sidelines. Worse, we don’t see that we’re actually holding them back with our words instead.
We let video games be blamed for Columbine, we let video games be degraded by being called less than movies, and we let Ebert tell us that our gaming creations were somehow equivalent to antiquated scribbles on a wall at their very best–even when the artwork created for them is so far beyond that let alone the actual video game. Apologetically, we tell these dissenters that we’re sorry our video games aren’t quite there yet but we’re working on it. We’re working for an approval he will never give us, his last words on the subject on video games that he can agree “that gamers can have an experience that, for them, is Art.” As if games are only art because we experience differently than society at large or we reach hard enough. Why would we drop video games onto this level, seeking approval from someone behind the times?
Confidence, most likely. For some reason, we’re not confident in the games of yesteryear. We’re not proud of this year’s releases, either–as art or otherwise. Instead, we let society dictate what a video game is and what it should be.
But we shouldn’t. As gamers, we should be proud, confident, and certain. Video games are beautiful and ugly and deep and shallow and they stand on their own if we let them–as art, as stories, and as individual worlds both close and far from our own. This year’s releases of 2010 are pieces of art and the year isn’t even over yet; we haven’t even seen Civilization V or Fallout: New Vegas.
In this year alone, Mass Effect 2 brought a galaxy to life that rivals Star Wars. StarCraft 2 created one of the most strategic multiplayer sequels of our time, a modern love song to the game of chess. Final Fantasy XIII, for all its flaws in the ludic and narrative sense, painted the prettiest pictures our generation has yet to see. And Red Dead Redemption captured a time in America when the prairies expanded endlessly, not unlike how entire art movements critiqued centuries past and their political landscape for a few immature laughs.
But to admit that ME2 is on the level of Star Wars and that a good SC2 match takes as much skill as chess to perfect, we would have to first admit that the timeless are not immortal. We would have to admit that cultural icons and their significance are always changing. We would have to admit that art is an imitation, that everything has been done before many times over–that movies imitate stories from Shakespeare’s time and that video games can do it just as well in their own, different way. Sadly, this is something that’s easier to do decades later as an afterthought rather than a contemporary declaration.
Admitting that Far Cry 2 was our generation’s look at Apocalypse Now from the 1970′s which was in turn that generation’s look at Heart of Darkness by Joseph Conrad from the 1900′s, would be admitting that our generation looks through the lens of a controller and a console. It would be admitting that our Kurtz is created by Clint Hocking instead of Conrad or Coppola.
I’m not afraid to admit that. I’m also not afraid to admit that I’m a video gamer, I work in the video game industry, and I write about video games for fun sometimes. I don’t mind calling video games art–a high form of art at that–or saying that Half-Life and its sequels are as important to our culture as the works of Dante even if you don’t particularly like them. I believe that John Carmack, creator of the id engine, is a modern day Renaissance man. And one day, I will work on a video game that I believe in and I will tell you that this is art and you will agree without question.
But for now, I’m just going to tell you on my blog that games are art and video game development is an art form. I’m only twenty-three, I can afford that luxury–just like how Ebert is nearing seventy and can afford to avoid playing video games.
1. The post in which a lot of the apologies happened. Many posts–while disagreeing with him–said gaming was reaching art or becoming art, rather than acknowledging they already are art.
2. Post was inspired by hearing lately about how video games are just starting to be an art. Initially didn’t want to post about it in a sea of posts, but after a month of retrospect, find myself with words still to say about the whole incident.
Half Life is all well and good, but I would argue that Portal is more along the lines of what will be remembered as the most influential piece of art created in the first half of the 21st century. It was a triumph. I’m making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It’s hard to overstate my satisfaction. I’m being so sincere right now.
But, you see, Portal wouldn’t exist without Half-Life… have to pay tribute and dues to the roots, and to the engine :)
I do agree, though. Portal as a game was extremely artistic and intriguing, the gameplay wasn’t confined to what we would normally expect. In a word: refreshing.
Switched actually just published an article about Wabash College in Indiana making Portal a mandatory “reading.” It is being used to “augment traditional reading.” Portal was a fantastic game and I hope it will be remembered as an “influential piece of art created in the first half of the 21st century.” It certainly has the substance for it.
The whole article can be read at: http://www.switched.com/2010/08/23/valves-portal-now-mandatory-reading-for-college-freshmen/
I agree with you that gamers shouldn’t be apologetic, but as a lifelong gamer and I can’t agree with most of your examples. Red Dead Redemption and Mass Effect are hardly what I’d call impressive works of art. The social “commentary” of RDR is typically juvenile as it is in all Rockstar’s work, and saying Mass Effect “created a world” is hardly impressive. So does Twilight. :P
I have no problems saying games are art, but what no one seems to mention in this debate is that “art” is quite personal, something different to all of us. My Kurtz was NOT created by Ubisoft, thank you very much. I just read Heart of Darkness, and Far Cry II doesn’t even come close to doing it justice. Not because “games can’t be art” but because the developers failed to make it art.
When a filmmaker makes a bad movie, we don’t blame movies. We blame the filmmaker. I think most games are not art, but that’s obviously not the fault of “games”. It’s the fault of (some) developers, of their small imaginations, bad taste in fiction, or generally low level of exposure to a wide range of other art forms. Just because Ebert is an idiot doesn’t mean all the shit we make is good. If we are under the impression RDR is “art” just because of its snarky bullshit attitude we’ve clearly got a long way to go.
I actually pretty strongly disagree with your assertion that art is up to the beholder. I think something is art whether or not you personally like it–and that’s why it’s unfair to say that some games aren’t art.
I don’t like the Mona Lisa. I don’t know why. I’ve never had a thing for it. I still understand it is a painting and is thereby art under the definition. It influenced generations and still stands today. I wouldn’t dismiss it as not art nor dismiss painting as a whole as not art because of it.
I would also never call Conrad’s book a piece of art if it were subjective qualification. But it’s not. I wrote a lot of essays about that damn book, I found his racism disgusting and I found a lot of his ideas dismal. But I understand again, it influenced a generation, much like how Apocalypse Now did or even Far Cry 2 did. It’s art in that degree–someone’s take on retelling an influential in an allegorical way and that in and of itself is an art.
I think all games are technically art, some to less degrees than others–the degree of which can be defined subjectively from person to person. The act of creating a world that’s interactive, of giving it dialogue and actions, of giving it its own style really makes it an experience. Every game has its own art direction, whether we like the direction or not, and is thus inherently artistic. Honestly, whether a person likes the experience or dislikes it becomes irrelevant because the initial piece is art.
The medium has potential for art–and thus what it produces is art. That’s as objective as you can get, the subjective parts of you might classify one piece of it as “true” art and another as “bullshit” art, but it’s kind of like how some movies get Oscars and others win at Sundance and some never get made even if they should have been. The screenplay alone is a piece of writing to tell a story in a certain style, isn’t it art?
In college, again, I took art history classes. I was told that chicken scratch was impacting art and, defined as such, it is art. It’s just not very meaningful to me. But I don’t disqualify it because I feel it’s nothing more than scribbles on a napkin a bored caveman did; I acknowledge the world accepts it as an art medium.
I would like to see games acknowledged as an art form. Whether or not you like Rockstar’s sometimes insipid commentary is subjective to you, but the sunset on Liberty City or the art drawn for the game or even the music composed–is that not a form of art?
I think you misunderstand me, because we basically agree.
“Art” is a silly, imprecise word, and not a terribly useful one, as this entire debate shows. When I said “art” is subjective, really what I meant was that what we consider “good” or “bad” art is subjective. Obviously anything that involves creativity and expression is “art” by a certain definition, which is why stuff I drew when I was 4 is just as much “art” as the sunset in RDR. But “art” is a tricky word in our contemporary discourse, and a lot of the confusion in this debate stems from our inability to define what we mean when we say it. As much as we’d like it to denote the presence of creativity alone, it tends to have additional, complex baggage in mainstream cultural discourse, where it tends to suggest a certain kind of “validity” within our current culture’s hierarchy of taste. In practice it is hard to completely shed this connotation, which is why I prefer to avoid using it altogether.
But if I must use it, then sure: games are an art form. I, like you, believe this is obvious. But I still feel the “art = good” stance creeps into your rhetoric when you imply that–just by being games of a certain level of craftsmanship–games like RDR or Mass Effect ought to be taken seriously. If all games are art, then them being art doesn’t make them special, does it? Are they good art? That’s the real question, and that’s what’s subjective.
I don’t think any of us need to apologize for what we like, but we should be able to explain why we like things beyond big blanket statements about games and gaming culture. Just because Clint Hocking cites Conrad as an inspiration for Far Cry 2 doesn’t mean it achieved the same level of cultural penetration, and that shouldn’t be our measurement for whether or not its “good art” anyway. If you think Far Cry 2 was as good (or better) than either Coppola’s film or Conrad’s novel that’s fine, but that’s your take on the game, not necessarily other people’s.
In terms of Heart of Darkness, just to answer: I don’t think Far Cry 2 had the cultural impact, but I believe this is largely because of the stigma put on gaming by people like Ebert or even gamers themselves. Which is why I think people should stop being apologetic on the whole for what they like or dislike. If I find Mass Effect 2 to be fine art (and I do), I shouldn’t bury it in, “Well it’s just a game,” or other rhetoric as it is common place for gamers to unfortunately do.
But, out of the three, regardless of the whole cultural impact and such, I would have to say Apocalypse Now probably impacted me the most. Conrad’s words were too thick and the racism too prescribed to break through–though it had its moments–and Far Cry 2 didn’t have enough of a plot to really keep me glued to it even though its ludic elements helped me explore the concepts I’d only read and watched prior. Still, I’d say it was similar to those two, for the same inspiration and basis, and is video gaming’s Heart of Darkness. Whether it achieves a higher level of art than the other two mediums is simply subjective.
Thanks for the thoughts.
I don’t think Jackson Pollock is that great, but he is considered one of the finest artists or the century and his paintings sell for tens of millions of dollars. I would have to agree with your point, here, but I will also disagree that you think the games failed to be art just because you did not enjoy them. I could look at a painting by Edward Hopper all day. Also, I could watch a movie like MOON or Donnie Darko for a week non-stop. I can also spend 3 days on finals week spending every waking hour playing all the way through Mass Effect 2 and trying to get that 100%. Anyone can look at paintings or books and say “Well this just feels like it’s paint on a canvas. Not that impressive at all.” Or “This isn’t even anything I can understand. Why would the writer write in this kind of slang?”, but then again, if you would say that about them, then it would seem as if it wasn’t made for you.
It’s a matter of taste and what speaks to you. You probably have one game that you adore, if you’ve been playing games for a while. Use that as your basis.
Also, it’s more of the process that’s art really. It’s like a collage. Except you can play this collage.
Thanks for this line, really liked it.
It is interesting that you mention Jackson Pollock at the beginning of your post then talk about process at the end. I say this because a widely held interpretation of Jackson Pollock’s paintings is that they aren’t the art, instead the process is the art, and the painting is merely the evidence of the process. Jackson Pollock made many video recording of himself creating his paintings, if you haven’t seen any, I recommend checking them out.
For videogames, the idea of the process being the art takes on some interesting dimensions. For example, while the process of making the game could be the art. What about the process of playing the game? This of course ties into thepost-modern art movement’s tendency to physically involve the subject in the work of art.
Your comments regarding being apologetic about ‘our’ art form, are right on the money. Thank you for putting that into words.
I read that Ebert story a couple of months ago. It was both infuriating and depressing. I did not like Ebert’s stubbornness nor Santiago’s reasoning. The comparison to a cave painting does games no justice.
Not only do games look breathtakingly amazing today, but they have such detailed environments and realistic particle effects. Thanks to widely used physics engines like Havok and PhysX, you can literally do anything to the environment in games. Some games have incorporated authentic physics into their engine like EA’s Frostbite for their Battlefield games. You can destroy almost any part of the environment and watch buildings realistically crumble as their structural integrity gets compromised.
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed had an amazing environment. You could break the windows inside a starship and watch enemies get sucked out by the vacuum before the emergency shutters activated. I was captivated. Some of them would even attempt to save themselves by holding on to objects.
There’s no denying that these rich, interactive environments should be considered an art form.
Of course art encompasses a bigger multitude than mere graphics. There have been games with incredible stories and scores. Listen to the opening song of Chrono Cross and tell me that isn’t a beautiful thing.
Fundamental problem I’ll forever harp on = People’s definition for art itself has always been flexuous and horrifically flawed. They think it’s something that can generally be exclusive to their personal world view. Anytime you have a word of dissent akin to ‘this is not art’, it almost always falls in line with a LONG history of people overrating their cognitive interpretations as somewhat special. They’re not.
There’s no concessions with standards and the same arguments and dialouge can still be had otherwise (i.e. if they were considered en masse to BE art), but all this argument (if you can call it that) proves is that people simply want to eschew meaningful discourse out of some egotistical need to assert themselves somehow (and sometimes it doesn’t even matter for them to what end that is).
Great article! Couldn’t have said it better. It’s aggravating if you know someone that still perceives gamers as losers and/or nerds. Geeks maybe, but not nerds. :)
Thanks for reading Tim, always awesome to see you drop by from your busy schedule of work, work, and more work :)
Thank you for that comment on the reality of it all. It is beyond me that anyone can look at games and say, that is not art. One of the reasons I love games is that they incorporate most of the traidional art forms, while making all interactive. Paintings, sculpturing, acting, film- making, music – everything is in there; and everything is interactive!
Games is a unique medium for telling stories. Stories that are elevated because of the format, and not in spite of it! And I love that I am still young, and will experience much of what this genre has yet to give.
Art is the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings.
If movies is art, then video games is art. If music is art, then video games is art. If story telling is art, then video games is art. If drawings is art, then video games is art.
I find that video games fit the description of art perfectly. Video games in the end is a combined art form.
I believe that work which is created with aspirations of becoming art is art, based on the producer (or the artist) creating it with that intent. The critical distinction here is whether it is successful or not. For me Red Dead has elements which could be considered art, but when seen as a whole it ultimatley fails to hold that illusion. That said, it is my preference, successful art is an entirely subjective process, there is no rule book which says either way.
Anything has artistic potential, people just sometimes forget that.
Yeah, it’s definitely our preferences, which is why I think video games ARE art, it’s just critics/people’s preferences can blind them. Which is why I like your comment, it sums up how I feel to a degree.
I think you underestimated how many people didn’t apologize, but were realistic. Most of what is created is junk and doesn’t deserve to be remembered like it is. As for games being art, they’ve been art and created works that will last for a lot longer than just the last few years. You go as far back as Half-Life 2 in your examples, but I would go further back, PoP:SoT, Ico, Dues Ex, Baldur’s Gate, Ocarina of Time, SMB etc. We are so far past the cave paintings of the Atari 2600 it’s not even funny. But realistically we are only baby steps beyond them. Games are juvenile and we seem to be stuck in a cycle of that, if E3 was any indication. Every year, we’d be lucky to get one or two titles that matter, while other mediums get laundry lists enough that they have to hold awards ceremonies to figure out who “better” than everyone else.
Yes games are already art. Fl0wer and Braid are not the potential, they are the realization. What people don’t realize is that they are not the only realization. They are one form in a wide variety that we have not tapped and I worry may never tap.
In any case, I’ll add this post to the master list.
I guess I don’t agree that we’re just baby steps beyond them, I really feel like comparing Pong to even Zelda: LTTP is a world apart. A lot of art was juvenile, so I don’t know if I qualify whether or not they’re art by maturity, but I do think it would be easier to see as an art form if it evolved. Disappointing, in the least.
Thanks for adding it to the list :)
Eric: I can’t figure out from what you said whether you believe the problem is the developers, the market, or the medium itself.
Erbert is just trolling everyone. The concept of “Art” has always been an elitist one, something that a closed group of people can enjoy, and feel entitled to be above of the rest society, sitting on top of an ivory tower, and looking down on everyone else.
Games are always about being popular, as it’s not a form of expression, but as a form of market that thrives on sales, therefore, popularity translates into sales, and said popularity won’t let it become “art”.
Nice proxy, you might want to learn how to hide your real IP a little better.
Not sure what you mean by that. I’m not hiding behind a proxy (unless my ISP does something fancy I’m unaware).
On the other hand, I don’t have anything to hide either. Do you think I’m a 4chan troll?
From my experiences and studies with art, while you can’t define art, if you even have to ask whether or not something is art, then it is art.
That said, I do think most major videogames are at about the same level as summer blockbuster movies: they’re most definitely art, but in most cases they lack the characteristics of what is currently widely considered to be highbrow art. This, like in hollywood, is a consequence of how expensive it is to create a top tier videogame. Of course, just like with movies, if you start looking around at indie videogames it becomes much easier to find games that have those properties of what is currently considered to be highbrow art.
I’m sorry if I’m being vague, but I’ve found that when talking about art, it is best to not get into specifics because well, art as of yet hasn’t been defined despite over 2000 years worth of attempts.
Well, I think all video games are art. Whether it is “good” art or not is another question entirely.
It doesn’t matter how pretty a game is; it’s about the fundamental idea at the core of the game. This is the same for books, for films, for comics…for everything that is art. Some things are just all surface. Some things manage to go a little deeper than that but still don’t have a solid core idea that they want to impart to an audience. And this is okay. Sometimes it’s nice to watch some shallow tv or read a space opera with no real emotional depth. In games, sometimes I just want to shoot things and sometimes I want an actual emotional experience.
I’ve just finished playing Final Fantasy XIII this weekend. It was a lot of fun since I love taking down beasts 100x the size of myself. But as art it was all surface. The characters were two dimensional, the philosophy was shallow and the plot didn’t line up very well with the action. Does this mean it was a bad game? Well, it probably means that it isn’t one of the best but that doesn’t mean that I didn’t ENJOY it.
Compare FFXIII to a game like Bioshock or even The Passage. Those 2 games had a core idea and both imparted it to the audience in surprising ways that created an emotional resonance. In my opinion, they are better art than FFXIII. But does this mean that they were more fun to play?
Art and fun don’t always go hand in hand. Have you ever tried to read Gravity’s Rainbow? Praised to the high heavens and very clever but my god is it a slog to read. Once you’ve played The Passage and said “ooo, that was rather clever” are you going to replay it? Probably not. (I actually feel this way about Flower – I just didn’t like the gameplay)
Basically, games are art. Whether they are good art or not can be debated on a case to case basis. When a game manages to both be good art and have good gameplay then you’ve got gold. But art and gameplay aren’t dependent on one another in the same way art and writing, art and painting, art and film etc. etc. aren’t.
Yeah, everything can be labeled “art” as long as you point a finger at it and say “art”. It’s a rather subjective and/or personal thing.
For example I hated the LOST ending. It destroyed the appeal of the show by not providing answers. But it also made me think of the entire 6 years of entertainment as art. There’s lots of depth in that discussion which I won’t go into right now at 2am but I do think it’s art, which doesn’t make me hate it any less.
So what I’m trying to say is that just because one likes something and claims to be art, it doesn’t quite mean it is (or isn’t), it’s about what the intentions of the “piece” were and what it means to you as an interpreter, just as everyone else is interpreting. Sometimes opinions converge and everyone points finger and says art, sometimes not.
I often feel this way about music. I like electronic stuff from the late-late 70s through to now, so I’ve come to know that most everyone thinks of stuff from the 80s as having this artificiality that makes it unimportant (“not art” or “bad art”). Of course, the majority of people making these accusations don’t listen to that kind of music. And whenever I tried to show someone a song that demonstrated depth beyond what they assumed, the filter of what they assume of the 80s colors their listening of it.
In effect, you just can’t change some people’s minds. I used to apologize for liking “bad” music, but now I just assert that I have different tastes that many other people share for SOME reason. Replace 80s electronic music with video games and you have that whole argument again.
Which brings up the point of games being compared to film instead of music. The arguments for games’ similarity to music are far more convincing than anything likening them to movies. People always brought up the Citizen Kane of games when discussing games’ validity as art instead of our White Album. Now, I’m not crazy about Kane or classic rock, but people should recognize that we’re talking about the idea of works like them; the games-as-art discussion was muddled with way too many semantic arguments.
This is maddening. I agree with much of what has been said here, but think we might all be better off just ignoring words like “art”, “good and bad” entirely. The word “art” is broad and vague. “Good and bad” don’t really lend themselves to useful discussion.
The right questions to ask are “what is this game trying to do?” and “In what ways is it successful”. We tend to use the word “art” to refer to a work that is not merely attempting to entertain, frighten or amuse, but to bring about an emotional or intellectual response.
To me, it’s silly to ask whether “Uncharted 2″ is a work of art. I mean, if you showed the view from the hotel pool in Nepal (I think it’s Nepal) to a renaissance painter you’d better have a tarp and a mop handy, because their head is going to explode. But all together, the game is “merely” intended to entertain, amuse and excite, at which it is extremely successful, for a variety of reasons.
Where we tend to get tied up, is applying the “art” label to games like Flower, or Ico or some-such. The question really should be, are these games trying to do something beyond entertain (yes, duh), and how successful are they at that. If they’re meant to elicit an emotional or intellectual response, do they? How strong a response? How complex/layered?
This is what we should be talking about. Leave “art” out of it.
Honestly, I am very mixed on the subject — but I feel Jeremy Clarkson sums it up best: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQ8xDia5RNY
Really, the whole car = art thing is very similar to games being considered art.
Wow. Really fantastic article that expressed a lot of my lingering issues with the “games as art” ‘debate.’
I think the one thing I missed was a bit of pontification of the medium as art. It is driven by innovation. No one involved is satisfied with the results, because they only see ways to improve the paints or the canvas. From a technological level specific to the medium’s own standards, a cave wall is a bit more appropriate an analogy.
However, I’ve had experiences with the simplest of games and concepts which rival any inside an art gallery. The control scheme of Super Mario 3, for example. A code-driven interaction that created such an impact on me emotionally that many games nowadays (halo) try to mimic that same general formula of hang-time vs. momentum.
This is the sort of thing where even the makers have fallen down on the job. You get a multidisciplinary team together, and few have the perspective to analyze what they’re really doing and what it means. They care about things like “fun” and “playability,” without much way of quantifying the transcendent properties of their own chosen medium.
But this article gave me some hope for more of that. So cheers:-D
The entire debate is arbirary and subjective, so enjoy your Sisyphean effort!
I love video games. Always have.
But I can’t accept calling them art. They are entertainment. They are fun. But what is there to ponder and debate? What comment do they make?
Take your examples. Comparing the universe in Mass Effect to the universe in Star Wars does not make it art. It’s not what makes star wars art. If you wanna call star wars art, call it art for characters and ideas, not the world it put you in.
And Star Craft to Chess!? Chess is a game. Not art.
The visual’s in FFXIII I would compare to a great landscape. A landscape can only be considered art if it is painted/photographed/whatever with a purpose in mind, with meaning behind it. The scenery in FFXIII is just that, scenery. Beautiful, but not art.
High art is created as a commentary on society and the human condition. It should force you to question what you believed was true and evoke deep emotions you did not know you had. Now, you can argue video games do this, and sometimes they do, kind of, but it is lost in the medium. Yes, in Bioshock you are given a choice to kill or save those little girls, but at the end of the day, did that make you see the world differently? Did it change your life? Because that’s what art should do. It should effect you, deeply, and I have never had a video game do that.
Gone Baby Gone did.
Watchmen did. (the comic, not that god awful movie)
Crime and Punishment did.
I understand the love, and the anger when people disregard video games as stupid and meaningless. I get that, and that is not the point I am trying to make. But come on, I have heard so many examples of games people want to call art, and I can’t justify any of them in my mind.
So here’s a gamer who won’t be on your side.
But I’m always down for a game of mario kart.
Sorry chris, but I’m feeling argumentative today.
“If you wanna call star wars art, call it art for characters and ideas, not the world it put you in.”
You deny that world building is an art? Assembling politics, cultures, religions and landscapes into a coherent backdrop for the grand ideas and interesting character is every bit as much art at the believable characters
“A landscape can only be considered art if it is painted/photographed/whatever with a purpose in mind, with meaning behind it”
Is beauty and aesthetic appeal an adequate meaning? “”I had been able to realize a desired image: not the way the subject appeared in reality but how it felt to me and how it must appear in the finished print,” is what Ansel Adams said. How is it fundamentally different from building a lush backdrop for a video game?
“High art is created as a commentary on society and the human condition. It should force you to question what you believed was true and evoke deep emotions you did not know you had”
So now it’s high art vs. low art. What’s a comment on the human condition? Pollocks paint splatters or deciding whether or not you’re enough of a bastard to kill a little girl for power? Were you moved deeply and emotionally by Warhol’s silk screens? Because many people were moved deeply by the death of Aeris. The opening of Heavy Rain is enough to send a jolt of too-familiar fear down anyone who’s had a kid wander away on them.
And what’s the division between high and low art. I suspect, and I could be wrong, that you fall into the camp that a commercial endeavor cannot be art. That something that aims to make money is inherently inferior than that created by a starving artist. But this makes most art illegitamate. Michaelangelo did not approach the Sistine Chapel because he wanted to inspire.He did it because he felt forced to. He resented the time it took away from his sculptures. Does that make the Sistine Chapel low art?
I’m feeling less argumentative, but bored at work, so allow me to refute.
“You deny that world building is an art? Assembling politics, cultures, religions and landscapes into a coherent backdrop for the grand ideas and interesting character is every bit as much art at the believable characters”
Ok, but again, I look for a reason behind every decision to consider it art. The star wars universe was dreamed up throughout Lucas’ whole life. He spent his childhood sketching aliens and landscapes and eventually created this universe. Now I will not deny the creativity behind it, (nor the creativity of video games) but is it really art? I suppose this is were the whole conversation is up in the air, and there is certainly no correct answer, but again, I need the meaning behind. Star Wars is a fantasy world, not necessarily an expression of an idea.
“Is beauty and aesthetic appeal an adequate meaning?”
I don’t think so. This is somewhat where i diverge into high art and low art (not that I said low art, you did, but I will use your term). Because if I create something just for the sake of making it beautiful, that’s all it is, a beautiful creation. If I create something beautiful, and the beauty of the creation expresses a greater idea, that is when it becomes a higher form of art.
This is why bring up the idea of high art. Every kid in school has art class, and makes what could be considered art, but it has not taken that next step, does not posses that extra idea and careful consideration of even smallest detail that let something become high art. So my division between high and low art is not at the division between commercial and personal like you suggest, but when the art piece, whatever it may be, becomes more than what it is. However, it would be false if I were to tell you I don’t believe commercial “art” to often be of lower standards, because the commercial world stifles art, but this is another argument entirely.
Ultimately, the decision to save or kill the girls in Bioshock was added to give the game an added dimension of morality that a lot of games have been playing with. But it is a simple choice, did not affect me personally (I lost no sleep after murdering every one of those children), and really was added to the game for the sole reason of adding to gameplay.
I need to wrap this up and get back to work, but I hope you get my point. Video game creators aren’t trying to make art, so it’s not art. Like a good essay has a strong, single thesis, high art has the same sort of single, powerful point. Video game creator’s don’t have that sort of strong idea in mind when they create a game. They are creating a fun, innovative game first, and then maybe they sprinkle a few pokes at morality on top.
And is the Sistine Chapel low art? Eh, yeah kinda. It’s just beautiful and famous.
I’ll admit that I cringe every time I hear that stupid cave painting comparison. Because there is no doubt that the cave paintings are art. And not unevolved proto-art from the days before paint and technology. The forms are amazing. The sense of motion is wonderful. There was thought and skill that went into these images. So as soon as games are compared to cave paintings in that apologetic way (maybe someday video games will be as good as renaissance art!) it reveals an huge bias about what art should be.
I think that ultimately the debate is less about video games and they’re nature as art, but the definition of art itself. And that’s a debate that has ranged for millenia and will never end. (My personal view is one espoused by Scott McCloud – anything that isn’t directly necessary for survival is art.)
Play Shadow of the Colossus. If that’s not art then I don’t know art.
As others have said, I think part of the problem is that “art” isn’t a well defined term. I believe art can loosely be divided into two overlapping categories, which for lack of better names, I’ll call decorative and evocative. Decorative art aims primarily to be aesthetically pleasing or entertaining, and I’d put a lot of movies into this category, along with things like the paintings/photos you’d typically see on someones walls. Evocative art aims to evoke an emotional or intellectual response from the audience, and contains the type of things people typically bring up to “prove” video games aren’t art. Art can of course belong simultaneously to both categories.
Due to the necessity of entertaining, by it’s nature the video game medium is primarily decorative. This is why I think people make the argument that video games can’t be art – because they’re talking implicitly about the evocative definition. While video games do have the occasional evocative bits, they’re often lost amongst a much larger amount of time immersed in the decorative gameplay.
From the perspective of evocative art, I do think the state of affairs is closer to what you described in the “On Morality…” post, as morality does seem to be the most popular means of evoking an emotional or intellectual response. While video games have involved moral choices, all too often the consequences of those choices are insignificant, or in cases like your example from Red Dead Redemption, there are simply too few choices.
Has there been a video game that’s primarily evocative art? I can’t name one, but I do have high hopes of Six Days in Fallujah (a game based on the experiences of soldiers in Iraq), and hope that it will see the light of day instead of being buried by controversy. Incidentally, the controversy surrounding this game shows the stigma you mentioned is actively hindering the development of games as evocative art. While it’s true that a game can trivialize the experiences of these soldiers, it seems like people often feel that it must do so because it’s a video game. Had this been a book or a movie, would it have met with controversy prior to it’s release, or would it have been judged on its merits, and possibly lauded for it’s insight?
Just to briefly quibble. I don’t think that “decorative” does us much of a service in terms of describing games. But let’s look at your question, “Has there been a video game that’s primarily evocative art?” I guess I would just ask what exactly you mean by “primarily”.
My own educational background is with novels, so I would illustrate my problem with your claim/question by way of an analogy to literature. Take an example like “Crime and Punishment”. At the time it was written, C+P was work of highly commercial art. Obviously, in our time high school kids are forced to read and analyze the hell out of it. However, it is, after all, a sort of scandalous crime drama. It was, I would submit, meant primarily to be entertaining. However, there is no question that it was also meant to be evocative.
So, I think the question of what games are meant to be “primarily” evocative is wrongheaded. In the history of art, I dare to say that there have been relatively few works that are meant to be “primarily” evocative.
What we should ask is to what extent a game is supposed to be evocative, and what it’s supposed to evoke. As long as we’re talking about RDR, I would actually suggest that most, if not all of Rockstar’s games are meant to be evocative. RDR is a total mess, in my opinion, but I don’t think you can doubt that the final chapter of the game is meant to evoke emotions in the player. Likewise with GTA IV. That the evocation of emotions is meant, I think, to serve the primary purpose of the game, which is to entertain, doesn’t detract from that.
And really, RDR and GTA IV are examples that I specifically because they are not especially “artsy” games, and they are not particularly successful at evoking emotions. The fact that they undeniably try is what is important. Eventually, they’ll get better at it.
Finally, to echo Simon, play Shadow of the Colossus. “The Brothers Karamazov” has yet to be developed, but we’re closer then you think.
I don’t particularly care for the term “decorative” either, but I couldn’t come up with a better label.
I guess the best way to describe what I mean by primarily evocative would be to say that the evocative elements are an integral part of the gameplay experience. As it stands now, the evocative elements are often interspersed in between much lengthier gameplay elements that have little or nothing to do with the evocative message. While I don’t believe this diminishes the message in any sense, it does diminish the visibility of the message. Taking GTA IV, I’ve played it, but not to completion, and so the strongest evocative content is hidden from me. This is perhaps an issue unique to video games as a medium because of the length of the games, as this exacerbates the fact that if someone isn’t sufficiently enthralled by the “decorative” elements, they won’t have the opportunity experience the “evocative” ones. In this sense, I think we as gamers lack something we can point a non-gamer to and say “Look at this and tell me it isn’t (evocative) art.” Instead we have to say, “Look, if you get through these long gameplay parts, which you might not find interesting, you’ll find (evocative) art in there.” I admit I haven’t played Shadow of the Colossus to completion either (it’s on my to do list), but I get the feeling this applies to it as well. I may be wrong, but it seems like the evocative “payoff” will occur primarily at the end, but compared to other mediums, the amount of time spent to get there is greater, and the importance of the actions along the way to that “payoff” is less (i.e. had there been less Colossi, would the message have been weaker?).
This is why I have high hopes for Six Days in Fallujah, as I can see the core experience of the game being about putting you into the shoes of the soldiers. In some ways I think the opening level of the original Medal of Honor accomplished this. It was quite literally the opening sequence of Saving Private Ryan in video game form, and in some ways I think it was more powerful than the movie because there is the realization that the only reason you survived was because you jumped back in time to a save after dying about a dozen times, whereas in the movie there is a distinction between the heroes (stars) that you follow and the casualties (extras).
Finally, a minor quibble of my own, I don’t like asking what a piece of art is meant to do, but rather simply what it does. I think the phrase “meant to” implicitly suggests that the intentions of the artist somehow matters independently of the merits of the art itself. For example, even if Dostoyevsky had meant C&P only to be an entertaining “scandalous crime drama”, that doesn’t change the fact that we can find deeper meaning within it, or diminish it’s value as art in any way.
I’m going to let most of this pass because I don’t think it’s productive, but I do want to say two things. One, you’re quite right to say that intent isn’t the point. Two, that your last comment seems to indicate that you missed the point. The point is that art is not either aesthetically pleasing and entertaining or emotionally and intellectually rich. It can be both. I chose C+P because it’s a book that I happen to love, and know a lot about, and the point is just to say that thought we now regard it as a great work of literature, it was, at one point just regarded as entertainment.
Hmm… I think the problem is we have similar ideas, but have gotten hung up on each others choice of words. I never meant to argue that decorative and evocative were two categories in which we place a work of art. Rather, these are two categories by which we can judge a work of art, and while video games excel in the former, they aren’t as well developed when it comes to the latter.
To try to steer this discussion back to something hopefully more productive, let me frame my question in a better context: I am curious if there is a game we can show to art critics of “traditional” (meaning non-video game) media where they would easily perceive the evocative value. I do think this is an important question because I believe a lot of the opposition to mature content (violence, etc.) in video games is driven by the perception that they’re nothing more than mindless entertainment, and that they’re intended primarily for children. This misconception does have an effect on the video game industry. If Roger Ebert had defended the value of video games as art instead of declaring that they could never be art, I wonder how far that would have went towards dispelling that misconception?
Art is subjective. Saying something is undeniably art is forcing your opinion onto others. Art is like religion, many people have differing views on it, and sometimes people get hurt over. It reminds me that there are people who feel that murder is an art.
That being said, I really enjoy games. At one point of time I am a fanatic. Now I play in moderation but it is still an integral part of my life. I enjoyed, I experienced, I submerged myself in different world. Do I feel its art? I honestly have no idea. I have never tried or wanted to make the comparison.
I feel nobody should. I feel there should be no “sides” to this debate. But now that there are, I feel that both sides should just let the argument die out and go back to their own lives.
“Art is subjective. Saying something is undeniably art is forcing your opinion onto others. Art is like religion, many people have differing views on it, and sometimes people get hurt over. It reminds me that there are people who feel that murder is an art”
…………. What?! I….. I don’t know….. I just…. What?
Look, did you actually read any of the commentary? Art is definitely a tricky subject, very broad, very vague, maybe even subjective (whatever you mean by that). But that’s not to say that people shouldn’t have lively discussions about it.
[...] This good article on Hellmode has sparked a lively conversation. Can’t remember if it was Cliff Bleszinski or Leigh Alexander who ignited it. [...]
Everything is art, it’s a non-issue.
The discussion should be about what games are commenting on, evoking, saying, what they reveal about us as a (sub)culture, what they say about ‘the human condition’ and so on. Art isn’t static, it’s a conversation, with some things being a response to other things. Approach Heart of Darkness with a post-colonist reading, and it’s racist, dehumanises the ‘natives’ and so on. Read it with authorial intent in mind, and it becomes a comment on the duality of human nature and the darkness within everyone. A critical reading of it tends to formulate a response in the reader – what it means to them, and then they go ahead and express it.
So GTA4 can be art, but it can still be incredibly problematic from a feminist reading (or not). The point is we need to have those discussions, we need to approach games critically, as social commentary, and not solely as entertainment.
Too much of game commentary focuses on mechanics, and not enough on what the games are actually saying.
[...] Video Games Are Undeniably Art (hellmode.com) [...]
Could not agree more. Art is simply self-expression and video games are definitely a form of that.
Well, everything can be art – the thing that has to change for our beloved games is the focus of the market on industrial crafting of games instead of actual work on narratives and mechanisms that are unique.
Then we can talk about the game in general being art, when the artists are no longer, well, just wheels in an industrial machine. Back to the roots, to small teams, I would say.
I make a point of not talking about games as art, because while I’m convinced that they ARE, I’m also aware that it ultimately doesn’t matter. We have meaningful experiences in imaginary worlds; the form, medium and cultural status of those worlds are largely irrelevant. If you decided one day that videogames were actually a kind of sandwich, the ending of Metal Gear Solid 3 would still make you feel like an asshole.
That being said, I’m coming out of my cave just once to say that everything you’ve said here is correct, eloquent and awesome. You have a new regular reader. :)
Except the comparison is apt. Most videogames are analogous to “inventories of food and people, hunting reenactments, and even battle plans”. There are entire genres based on the same kind of activity. Are games different because of the context applied to them?
Games as art is a tired and spent argument for some of the reasons you’ve mentioned, but in the end what’s it all for? If they haven’t yet, they’ll gain the legitimacy anyway whether by attrition (both sides too tired to argue), stubborness () or backdoor rethoric (games are as much of a cultural product as art; they also have an impact on our lives; they also show craftmanship, ingenuity and creativy, therefore…).
Even inside the “games are art” group, there are disagreements. All one has to do is look at how many still cling to the idea that “indie” games (and then, is it legitimate to continue calling them “indie” when so many of them are finding more and more support, financing and infrastructures to support them? another can of worms for another day, perhaps) are more qualified as “art” or more representative of the medium’s potential to be recognized as art. There’s no consensus: some people told Ebert to play Shadow of the Colossus to find “art” in videogames, while others pointed to games such as Flower. What makes them art?
On one hand, we disagree that someone other than a “gamer” dictates that games aren’t art; on the other, we claim videogames are art, which by association, means any game could have been suggested by people to dislodge Ebert’s idea. Then why only specific games? The reason is we’re sheep that bleet in the opposite direction. We do not suggest Call of Duty (“too Hollywood”), we do not suggest Another World (“too old and unforgiving”), we do not suggest Rez (“too pretentious”), we do not suggest The Void or Cosmology of Kyoto (“too… I never even heard of them”) – we suggest games that the media itself, from both academic and journalistic sided, have elected to discuss, appreciate and recognize as art.
We don’t accept it that someone claims games aren’t art, but we eagerly accept being told which games are “more art” than others. Or at least, which games should be more discussed on those terms. And in the same way, we disagree games aren’t art even if someone has valid points to make, but will freely indulge in the notion games are art without so much as explaining why we think so.
And games can’t simply be art by virtue of mimesis. Is Mass Effect 2 art because it emulates an entire universe found in another art form? Is Red Dead Redemption? That imitation exists across all mediums is a non-negotiable truth, but we should consider just why these games are often seen as art. Imitation can’t be it, otherwise Bioware would reign supreme in their “adaptations” of other settings, from Wuxia to Middle Earth to… Wherever Star Wars takes place, I can’t for the life of me remember.
I’d posit that what makes something “art” is how it addresses the specifity of the medium it’s on. Why are we so quick to devour games whose creators are so very afraid of games themselves? The creators of Flower said it was “like a poem”. It’s not. Fans of Metal Gear Solid compare it to a literary masterpiece but, even we excuse Kojima’s heavy handed symbolism and crippling cutscenes, it’s not literature. We look back at what the 90′s videogame industry produced under the guise of “interactive movies” and we point and laugh. The irony is we’re still not much better nowadays.
All art is a form of communication. Paintings communicate via color and shape. Literature communicates through the power of the written word. Film communicates through a deep, lasting, visual impact. What distinguishes games from them is how they communicate through… A bit of all of them, but primarily through interaction. Why, then, do we insuferably hold games as “art” because they’re aping film? Why do we compare them to a poem? This is particularly insulting when we realize no other art form was ever comparing their works to Citizen Kane. And it becomes embarassing when most of us don’t even know why Welles’ film is being used as an example, when or why we should use it, if at all (prime example: IGN pointing to Metroid Prime as the CK of games for reasons too juvenile to post here).
By and large, it’s interaction that singles them out. And it’s the precise element so often neglected. We don’t even treat games as art, we treat them as soap, as something that becomes disposable after it serves a need, as something that’s better off doing the same as something else.
If a game designer creates a control system that hinges on players being mindful of how they play (Resident Evil’s “stop and shoot” instead of all guns blazing); if they use perspectives in a way that elaborates upon the very setting or way we interact with games (Syndicate’s refusal to show a skyline emulating, perhaps accidentaly, many works of cyberpunk fiction which talk of polluted or corrupted atmosphere); if a game forsakes technical prowess in favor of technical ingenuity (Vib Ribbon); how do we react? We cry fowl, complaining about pretention, outdated design. We urge them to “improve” when we don’t even know why certain design decisions were made, when we actually mean “please play like every other game out there so I don’t have to learn a new control scheme”. How does one “improve” something that may not even need to be improved? How does one tell the difference?
Even videogame critics are damned in this. Some months ago a Eurogamer writer claimed Heavy Rain sparked, and I quote, “a dialogue among gamers about “emotional engagement, artistic sophistication, and alternative approaches to interactive storytelling in videogames”. Heavy Rain is a pimped out Choose Your Own Adventure, and that’s kind of insulting to CYOA’s. But regardless of its merits, the importance is clearly overplayed. Even with the slightest of searches on the internet, I can find a father talking about how Bioshock 2 made him think about his relationship with his children; how Dragon Age mods brought inadverted commentary on homosexuality; how X-Com’s hidden movement was a lesson in fear through mechanics and minimalistic presentation.
These discussion have existed for years, except most don’t pay attention because it’s not had on IGN on Gamespot; rather, it’s been in the domain of thinkers and developers on the fringe.
It just happens we treat history (of art, and of games) like a disease, best buried under the rug. We have no sense of memory. We don’t want to remember, or discover to remember in the future. All that matters is that a game flexes is graphical prowess (why?), that it receives high scores (how is an 8.4 better than an 8.3?), that it reaches some new benchmark (why is Marathon’s benchmark for shooter forgotten in favor of Halo’s benchmark for shooters?). It’s idiotic, to put it nicely. Even critics don’t help much. Criticism of art has never widely accepted, that much is true; but a certain level of acceptance (even if accompanied by indifference, unfortunately) has found its way in other mediums. Except, the only criticism gamers at large provide or accept is “man, that upcoming game is so different from other past games in the series, it will suck”. And then proceed to trash anyone with a different perspective.
There are so many things to explore in videogames. The mechanics themselves, like simple movement, communicate meaning; engagement is to be had whether we look at them as a simple “jump to save the princess” or as a means of friction between controls and player, between character and world. It’s not the same kind of meaning one finds in Bioshock’s story, spread around lazilly in recordings or told through an NPC. And it doesn’t have to be. Playing Final Fantasy we all share the same moments. Playing Shiren the Wander we only experience the same frustration, novelty and wonder: part because it’s a roguelike, part because it’s intent on letting the story emerge from the rules and how we operate under them. Yet, we have wikis dedicated to stories we already know, characters we’ve already talked to.
Games need to be like The Story of the Woodcutter without the cutscenes to show it, the high profile voice acting to tell it. They need the right kind of gameplay to let us play and feel it.
Maybe it’s a question of preference, of course: one choose to see art, another doesn’t. One chooses to see CoD 4′s narrative and ways it messes with expectations as something entirely positive and forward thinking in a usually barren genre; another chooses to dismiss it on account of achievements, its “war is cool” aesthetic, its shooter heritage.
Maybe one prefers to subdue and kill the aspects which make videogames unique; maybe one chooses not to do so.
Of course, what we constantly seem to be doing is the former.
Videogames are undeniably art? Maybe, but we seem just happy enough to repeat it rather than understanding it.
[...] Check out this link too: http://hellmode.com/2010/08/21/video-games-are-undeniably-art/ [...]
I think most people are too caught up with narrative in games as the focal point of the are games art argument. Which leads them to believe that games are not quite there yet as art.
Personally I think it is a generational thing. Eventually it will be ‘considered’ art.
One point I would like to make is unlike music or movies, video games have things thing with people ‘growin out’ of them. Those that grew up pac man when they were young, might not be gamers in their 30′s. Nor do they go back to play ‘classic’ games that they played when they were young(unless they stayed as a gamer). Why is that?
[...] Ashelia over at Hellmode finally writes her piece on Ebert and his so called apology and the apologies in the gaming community. [...]