Games as Art?

[jameseightbitstar]

So, what's your stance on the issue of whether or not video games should be considered "art"?

Personally I'm kinda against it, but I'd like to hear your thoughts.

[YourAverageJoe]

Sure, games can be art. Just look at Killer7, which is too artsy for the mainstream, or the Guilty Gear series, with its deep gameplay that's easy to get into.

[necromaniac]

Planescape: Torment, Okami, ICO, Shadow of the Colossus, Psychonauts, Katamari Damacy, Silent Hill.... etc, are deffinetly "artsy", even more so than most "artistic" films are.

[Scylla]

I absolutely believe games are art, and I think it's preposterous to suggest otherwise. There's nothing static and objective about video games. Every minute aspect of a game is someone's creative vision, whether it be the obvious artistic aspects such as the music and the character designs or the very concepts behind the gameplay.

I've always had this stance, but I acquired an even better sense of it when I became a computer science major. Spend one day programming and you'll realize that a program isn't created in the same sort of way that one would add 2+2. There are no "steps" to programming; it's all about however the programmer sees fit to doing it. And when I finally advanced enough to be able to create small games and such, I went hog wild. :) Programmers are some of the most creative and artistic people I've met, easily just as much as the drama/music/art majors.

[dartagnan1803]

if movies are considered to be art,
then why not games?

Especially when you take into account the process of creating the story [if any], characters, levels, animations, and play mechanics.

The big question is whether or not it communicates ideas.
But that's beside the point, as the notion is still supported by succubus' point about the sequence of the code.

[ReyVGM]

1) "Art is a result of human creativity which has some perceived quality beyond its usefulness, usually on the basis of aesthetic value or emotional impact"

2) "Art is the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others"

3) "Art is the result of creating something beautiful"

Taking into account those quotes, video games and anything else that requires skill to make and that provides an aesthetic value is Art. Regardless of what Roger Ebert says.

The problem with Art is that it is subjective, meaning that what you think is beautiful will most probably be ugly for another person.

It took a while for movies to be considered art, it's only logical that VG will endure the same process, especially considering how primitive it started, what the target audience for it was (children) and that the people in charge of branding things as 'art' still think of it as child's play.

[vysetd]

Video games are a work of art. Nuff said.

[YourAverageJoe]

If I remember correctly, Shigeru Miyamoto got the title of Knight in a well-respected french art community. I think that's kinda proof that the rest of the art community is steadily taking a liking to games.

[Weasel]

dartagnan1803 said:

The big question is whether or not it communicates ideas.

Of course it does - Metal Gear Solid, anybody?

[ReyVGM]

Anything can communicate ideas, it doesn't have to be art to do that.

[kal]

I'm with Dartagan in that if you say movies are art then so are games. I can't personally see how you'd argue it otherwise. Infact if you take the fact that it's programmed and *rendered/arted* then it's actually 2 kinds of art in one.

[klausien]

Games have become an art form, but most people miss the mark by evaluating them based upon the parts of the whole that are art forms in themselves. The visual, aural and literal arts are only parts of the greater gestalt. Gameplay and programming are unique concepts and actions that differentiate games from the other classical forms. Many "games as art" articles or discussions focus on how well a title displays eminence in another form, storytelling for instance, rather than the true aesthetics of the video game form. A game needs to balance all facets of what makes a video game exemplary in itself, and then apply a unique, indescribable imprint to the entirety that raises the experience to one of true contemplation and awe. I sound a little fruity here, but I think you understand what I'm getting at. I am not talking about stirring emotions with the death of a beloved character. It is about the attempt to evaluate a form using an established aesthetic criteria unique to said form.

Another distinction the form has is the fact that it generally requires a symbiotic group effort to realize a vision as opposed to the singularity of many traditional art forms. There are many exceptions however.

I'm a bit biased, but I consider the cream of the crop, original Treasure IPs, like Gunstar Heroes, Silvergun, Guardian Heroes, etc., to truly be video games as art. The gameplay, graphics, art design, sound and programming prowess on display take the form to a whole new level. In a way, they are almost like an art movement in themselves.

I also consider the Miyamoto classics from before the days when Nintendo started truly pimping out their franchises to truly be art. ICO & Shadow of the Colossus, Okami and Rez are all artistic masterpieces from the ground up as well.

In terms of the earliest games, Asteroids took the idea of shooting objects that break into other smaller objects and raised it to the level of art through interesting play mechanics, physics and the effective use of simple, black and white vector graphics. The vibe of the original arcade machine is indescribable and is something lost on the post-PSX generation. Sad really. I also see Pac Man in a similar light. Many of the early arcade games are extremely beautiful and pure in a gaming sense. It is also interesting that most of said classics were done by one person.

Also, not to bash a series loved by many on the boards, I need to say that I do not consider the Final Fantasy games to be art. Some of them are truly great video games, but they are also overly garish and melodramatic in their use of the visual, aural & literal. The play mechanics also do not hold up to an artistic standard. It is a bit like classical music snobs not considering any other genre to true art music. I think the play mechanics need to go beyond sifting through menus and pressing one button to be artistic. I am not saying I'm right; just voicing an opinion. They are summer blockbusters, much like the Metal Gear series. There are incredibly artistic and artful things about all of these games, but they are not renaissance masters or Beethoven symphonies.

Madden football, or any sports game for that matter, can never truly be "art" as their perfection is found in letter for letter simulation of something that is clearly not art. You simply arent going to convince me that football is art. It's sport. Case closed.

For that matter, anything simulation, such as a flight simulator or Gran Turismo cannot be art. They can be excellent video games, but not art. Actually, one could argue that anything that seeks to be a perfect simulation is, by definition, no longer even a video game. That is a topic for another thread.

Regardless, being a snob is not cool. Take what I say with a large grain of salt. When it comes down to it, art appreciation is an extremely subjective, even rhetorical endeavor. Nothing is black or white, and most certainly, no one can be irrefutably right.

[joesteele]

dartagnan1803 said:

if movies are considered to be art,
then why not games?

Bolded for truth.

Of course, that doesn't mean every game can be art, just like how every movie isn't art. As much as we might think American Ninja 2 is awesome, I would hardly consider it art (sorry Rasa).

Like movies, its usually to personal taste to decide what is art and what isn't....but if ppl can say Movies (and TV shows, and paintings, and any other form of media) is art, then VG's absoluetly have the potential of being art.

[jameseightbitstar]

Klausien, you said a lot of things I was thinking. You also said a few things that feed into my belief that video games should NOT be art.

Namely at the end of your article, when you say that video games which attempt to be accurate simulations can not be art. That is one thing that turns me off of the idea of video games as art--either people focus exclusively on one genre they feel is outstanding, or they specifically exclude a genre they feel should not qualify for some reason that initially sounds logical but once you get down to it, really isn't.

For example, I really don't understand why you say sports and any sort of simulation game are automatically excluded from being art. I should just leave it at that, but what I'm about to say further proves my point--I want to point out sports games that add a fantasy element, such as Mega Man Soccer or Mutant League Hockey, or ask why Wing Commander should be overlooked just because its a flight sim (an outer-space one, sure...)

Already, I am driving myself crazy because I'm succumbing to the exact same symptom I described earlier--the arbitrary drawn lines of "this can/this can't." I'm sorry, I just can't do that--either ALL genres can qualify, or games simply can't be art.

I have a LOT of reasons for disbelieving in the idea of "games as art," that is just one of them.

[kyouki]

I just can't see video games as art. It's very hard to compare them to things that we've collectively considered art in the past: music, film, literature, "artwork" (paintings, sculptures) because even the most linear game is too chaotic to really be compared with something that is a result on one person's artistic vision.

Unless one's definition of art is "anything someone makes" then I just can't see games as art.

I read somewhere that that art is creation, but it is a specific form of creation that is meant to help the creator understand his or her own creation, or the creation of mankind in general. That's one definition of art I guess. I'm sure there are many others of course, ranging from that to "anything anyone makes for any reason."

Is a self-help book a work of art? How about an instruction booklet for a video game? Is a CD you've burnt with your choice selection a MP3s that are a reflection of your personal tastes a work of art? How about a speech you give at a reunion, or a presentation you've slaved over for work? How about a program written for work that allows users to look at car parts in a database?

If not, then what is the difference between the parts database and the video game? Is it because there are drawings and textures in the game?

We are well past the days of a guy in his garage doing an entire game from scratch with no consideration for commercial success. I would be more likely to call those kinds of games art. It's hard to "make some art" when you are being told what to do by a manager and have to share the creation with a team of hundreds.