Video Games: Art or not?

[_]

Mmmmm.

Got into a rather heated argument with my roommate a few weeks ago (ending with him telling me to shut up and that he didn't want to listen to my 'bullpoo', but he was just cranky because he skipped sleep (literally) to read a new book all night/early morning long.)

Anyways.

We were chatting about the fact that he read the book all night, and I was like (all quotes from here onward recreated as accurately as I could. Even if not worded the same, I convey the same meaning), "I couldn't even play a game all night, let alone read."
He responded, "Well, I could read a book, because it's art. A game isn't really art."
lolwut. I, of course reply, "Video games are as much of an art as paintings, movies, books -- you do consider stuff like music and movies art, right?"
"Of course I do."
"Well, then, why isn't a game art?"
"Because, in a game, you control what's happening."
"Why is that a bad thing? What makes that instant disqualification?"
"Well, with real art, the artist is trying to convey a message, or make you experience an emotion."
"And some of the newer plot-driven games couldn't? You're the one that borrowed Mass Effect from one of our neighbors -- don't you think that's emotional enough?" (as an aside: He hasn't yet gotten to the point where someone he has on his crew dies.)
"No, because you're controlling what the character on the screen does."
"So what? You're still experiencing a story, even if you are 'acting it out'!"
"Yeah, but with art, the artist has a certain idea that he wants the viewer to get, or an emotion to experience."

It was at this point I double-take'd. Wait a moment. So art is only art if it is closed to interpretation? You have to see something the artist wanted you to see? I'm sorry, my high school art classes taught me that most artists paint/sculpt with the intention of simply bringing about an emotional response -- while they have a target, they wish for the viewer to feel however they will about the piece. Any 'artist' who watches viewers, telling them what to experience or what they should feel, isn't an artist.

It was at this point (after pointing out, in not so many words, the above -- true art is about the viewer having his own reaction ) that my roommate had his sleepy temper tantrum, and I dropped the argument.

But it's bugging me for days. I've asked people I work with, other people in the dorm, and most of them claim the same thing -- games aren't art. They cite stuff like FPSs. "Oh, yeah, all the 'story' is is a way to get you to the next level so you can shoot/kill/cast spells on (depending on game) more evil creatures." I hate artistry of some games being tarnished with that brush. I also hate my roommate's argument, which seemed to come about quite a bit -- player control 'ruins' the artfulness of something somehow. I don't think so. I think that, when they get to the point where they're executed perfectly, that a good game will basically be an interactive movie -- you control the character/whatever, and you control the outcome. You can go exploring, you can do whatever mission you're given, you can choose to go weekly-tv-series style and just do a bunch of random poo every once in a while. I'm sorry, I don't understand HOW this isn't art.

I'll concede that people who are 'purists' -- who, for some reason, only attach 'art' to paintings, sculptures, and any other static imagery -- will never change their opinion (hence, the option above). But anyone who expands the definition to include film (TV, movies), theater, and music must, by extension, include video games. Whatever definition you choose -- "created to cause an emotional response", see blowing up Megaton in Fallout 3; "to convey a message" -- hello, Mass Effect, I see you want to talk about humanity's insatiable desire of power? -- video games are art.

Thoughts, MPH?

[phazonelite]

Like I said earlier, I find that most games that people cite are money grabs that become integrated into popular culture. Games that depict violence and gore just for the sake of showing violence and gore are not art in the eyes of most people. It's definitely possible that someone can easily see war or death as art (I mean, we have shit like death metal and sceamo music, and yet they're accepted for the most part). When they cite some sort of game that could be interpreted as "not-art", perhaps you should cite a game where it could be considered art in response.

I mean, there either must be some sort of dividing line (which is irrational and stupid, hence popular culture and most people's mindsets) or the acceptance that games as a whole is art.

[Youne]

^ Same as Phazon said.

And I also feel that the reason why people do not consider video games art is because of how time consuming they can be and hence garnering the statement "Get a life" because one relates to playing games 24/7.

Someone can argue me on this, but I would say that RPGs carry the most emotional weight, and also sometimes an incredible impactful soundtrack, but the time one puts in to develop the character development and complex story elements are what turns off many people and thereby stating that games are not art but time consuming 'hobbies'.

[PopTart]

I completely agree with everything you said, Tiger. Video games very often convey emotion, whether it is finding enjoyment in completing tasks (such as many old-fashioned games) or something more complex than that. Many video games nowadays have in depth storylines and aim to make you become attached to your character. You are encouraged to think as if you were in this character's shoes. As a result, you can often feel sympathy toward another character's misfortunes, surprise when you are betrayed, fear when you are presented with frightening situations, sadness and anger when a partner is killed (or even when YOU are killed), etc. etc. etc. Players become immersed in games as a way to enjoy being in another reality, in a sense, and it can be easy to become attached emotionally in some way or another. This isn't necessarily the case for everybody, but it is certainly the case for many people.

I can say, for example, *SPOILERS??* that as I finished room 19 in Portal and was then being escorted to a firey death arranged by GlaDOS, I suddenly began to sympathize for my character and knew I did NOT want to die, and I was trying to frantically find a way to safety. This wasn't fair, GLaDOS trying to kill me. I had thought she was my friend, and she betrayed me. I felt used, like I was some part of a sick experiment for GLaDOS' personal enjoyment, and once I found a way to safety I was resolute in finding GLaDOS to end this insanity once and for all.

Aspects of video games are open for interpretation too, like most art out there. To me, "interpretation" for video games has a broader meaning. Making your own decision when there are many ways to complete a task is an example of personal "interpretation". This could mean going to the left versus the right in Frogger, turning the long skinny piece in Tetris horiztontal versus vertical, or sniping from the rooftops versus running into the fray in Call of Duty. Often you are forced to interpret storyline if you are given only small details. Portal is a wonderful example of this, as you are provided with only a skeletal storyline. You pick up certain clues in the game, but you can only understand the true "facts" of the story so much. There is much debate on the internet about the true meaning of GLaDOS' actions, whether she was realy trying to kill you or if she was playing a psychological game and was really wanting for you to escape and kill her in the end the whole time.

In my opinion, it is a different and very unique form of art, but art nonetheless.

[kacelano]

Ignoring the fact that this poll is bias (if you were to ask a bunch of skater punks, us video game enthusiasts, if skating, video games, was art then you would get the same response)

ANYWAY, I believe that video games are not art. They are not art because they always boiling down to a competition. Whether it be competing to beat another player or competing only to beat another level, video games are all about winning. Video games are more closely related to sports, such as football (or skate boarding), because of this. Granted there are artistic aspects to any sport, a play in footall equivical to a movement of a symphony or a portion of painting, but the desired result and main outcome is beating the oppenent. Anything can provoke an emotional response. Losing or beating a football game and losing (at) or beating a video game evoke the same repsonse. Plot twists in a video game are no differenent then when the other team scores in football. However, you cannot really lose or beat a symphony or a painting as you are mearly observing when you are experiencing (playing) it. Therefore, even though video games have artistic aspects, the main point of a video game is to be a game that you can play and beat.

Side note (didn't know where to put this):Art, however, has no competitive aspect and is made only for the satisfaction of the artist. Once an artist attempts to compete with another artist or if only himself, then the artist looses sight of real art. This is why cash-cows of movies and paintings, such as paid for portraits, are generally not considered as real pieces of artistry.

(taking other side on purpose)

[Rusty]

I feel it's art.

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Sounds a lot like graphics to me. People argue and critique graphics all the time, just like they do with art. The graphics are geared toward a certain style the creators of the game feel would be the most aesthetically pleasing to their player. If they don't fit the aesthetic needs of their audience ('good' graphics), they are subject to ridicule just like many artists were when they made art that the general population dubbed as 'not good'. The story I see more closely related to a movie than a sport. The story is contained mainly in 1 player modes, where much less competition exists. The story is written, also to please the audience's specific taste in style. Game stories have many genres, just like books or movies. People have favorite genres of video games, just like people have favorite genres of movies. Heck, most RPGs even have 'movie scenes'. The main difference between the 'story' of a sport, and a 'story' of a video game, is that the story is already set in stone for a video game. The story writer has control over all elements of the story line, just like with a book or movie. Sports on the other hand, the coaches and players have control to a degree, but the can't say 'I want us to win' and then go and have a 100% certainty and win.

Sure, there's a competitive element to video games, but there are competitive elements to art as well. There are art competitions all the time. The artist does lose sight of real art, but it's the same for a video game. When you go into competitive online play, the story is eliminated from importance (even though the graphic elements are still there).

I always thought that video games were sort of a kinesthetic art.

I do agree with Kace on the point that it's a bit biased to be asking us this question.

[Mr. Sub]

Some people say that to truely be art, the thing must have no other purpose. If you we're to agree with this (not saying I am or that you should) then Video games can't be art, neither can movies, cars etc...

But I'm not entirely sure I agree with this. Art can be whatever you wan't it to be, and can show whatever you are trying to show or put through whatever message you're trying to put through.

To contradict myself, I think that video games do lack a certain elegance connected to art in some ways, but that would be quite an old fashioned view on art. As i said in the previous paragraph, art can be whatever you wan't it to be.

If you look at CoD World at War, it may not be elegant, but it's putting through a message about how horrific the second world was was, be it a rather unrealistic one. But I wouldn't say that was the sole reason the game was made (If it even was a reason at all, which seems unlikely, thinking about the stereotypical audience those games are made for. People who wan't to have fun shooting people).

I know I keep contradicting myself here and I'm not really going anywhere, but the simple reason for that is I'm really not sure whether Video gaming can be called an art or not...

[Admin]

Mother 3. That is all.

Also Mother 1 and Mother 2 could EASILY be concidered as art too. Especially towards the end of Mother 2, it's up for interpretation. Even Itoi himself said that "no conspiracy over who or what Giygas is is false". This means that maybe the fetus conspiracies are true. Maybe he IS evil in spirit form. Maybe he a guy made out of gas (hense his name).

Earthbound got me thinking for ages after playing it. I haven't felt that way about a game for ages. Then shortly after Mother 3 got me thinking even more. And the ending made me feel uneasy initially, but afterwards I felt sorrow towards Giygas.

[Brongaa]

Hm...

Well, it depends, really. I definitely consider RPGs or games with good stories art.

But then again...

We have competitive fighting games and/or racing games or sports games and poo. I mean, are those REALLY an art. Sure, the graphics are, but the ACTUAL CONCEPT doesn't really seem like an art.

And I agree with kace on most of what he says.

[lih]

MOTHER 3
Braid
Shadow of the Colossus

also not all art is good

[PhantomTaco]

Anything can be art. That is all.

[buckyboy2009]

Video games are an art. No doubt about it.

As your roommate said, "real" art is an artist trying to convey a message and/or make you experience an emotion. Controlling what's going on shouldn't disqualify anything. I mean, when you look at a painting, aren't you trying to decihper what message it may be saying, therefore making you the "character"?

Also, video games can send a message and experience emotions. Emotions are motivatied by the wway the story is played out; played out BY THE CHARACTER. As Rusty said, graphics are something about video games that counts toward the "artistic aspect".

While some would say that AAA titles (the major game releases) don't have much artistic value, many Indie games (i.e. "Braid", "Blueberry Garden", "Eufloria") focus more on art than gameplay. Not so say the gameplay in these games are sub-par; they all are really fun to play.

But even in AAA games, there are some moments that use the emotional aspect to the max. A perfect example in is Call of Duty 4, when [**SPOILER**] after the nuke is detonated, and you control the character during the aftermath of the explosion.

themacgamer.com/wp-content/gallery/COD4/nuke2.png

Look at that pic and not try to show an inch of emotion. Sure, the audio helps bring out this emotion, but just by looking at this you can tell something horrible just happened.

Being in a storyboarding class while trying to earn a degree in video game designing, I can say in all honesty that a TON of art goes into creating a video game. So all this art goes into something that is not considered art, simply because you can "control what's going on"? Bull crap.

[RalDamage22]

What I have to input on this is that I do believe games are art. They're skillfully created from almost nothing, to present a world that comes alive at you fingertips. Its a unique experience, and would be nothing without art.

To be nit-picky about it, I'd say early games are the best example of art. Since they could not replecate realism (I'm looking at MW 2 for realism...), they had to rely on a distinct style to get the game across. Games such as Castlevania or Batman (Both are NES) create a vivid and beautiful world that is nothing similar to realistic. Even now, some games are a beautiful example of uniqueness, such as Street Fighter 4 or Borderlands. They create a world unlike our own, and breath life into it.

Now, to be nit-picky about being nit-picky, some games I agree can not be art. Personally, games that try to get the image of realism across are less of art. Why? Because the creators don't express themselves as much with a realistic image. Sure, some art is realistic, but if you look closely, you see the loving paint brushes from the artist. Sure (again), you could some-what say the same for a realistic video game, but I don't think as highly of it.

Now, for people who still don't agree that a video game isn't art, think about this. The stuff in and going into making a video game is art. All the concept sketches of enemies, worlds, weapons and more are art. Their drawings, so that counts. Also, music in games. The music qualifies as art, because music is art. The song of you roaming the fields in Oblivion, or you mowing down alien-scum is just as much as art as Betovan (I spelled that wrong, huh? ).

So, thats all I have to say on that. Any agree? Did I make a good point?

[Mr. Sub]

Dec 7, 2009 1:44:51 GMT -6 RalDamage22 said:

Now, to be nit-picky about being nit-picky, some games I agree can not be art. Personally, games that try to get the image of realism across are less of art. Why? Because the creators don't express themselves as much with a realistic image. Sure, some art is realistic, but if you look closely, you see the loving paint brushes from the artist. Sure (again), you could some-what say the same for a realistic video game, but I don't think as highly of it.

Yes! yesyesyes. Exactly! If the game, graphics-wise, isn't very realistic then you have to use your imagination, which is what modern art is all about. It's your unique perception of the piece or art. Be that a static painting/ sculpture, a video game or whatever!

Generally, with more realistic games, it's all given to you on a plate, so you don't have to use your imagination at all. Thats why older games tend to be more fun, too.

[Brongaa]

Maybe the creation is an art.

But playing a game like SSBB, multiplayer for example.

Do we give a shiet about the artistic value while we're playing?

Nope.

I give a shiet about winning the match. To win bragging rights over my friends. To bother them for a week if I beat them with over 5 stocks left in a 7 stock match.

In a competition game like this, where IS the art?

I agree with what you say on most games Tiger, but what about games like these?

[PopTart]

Dec 7, 2009 10:12:20 GMT -6 Mr. Sub said:

Dec 7, 2009 1:44:51 GMT -6 RalDamage22 said:

Now, to be nit-picky about being nit-picky, some games I agree can not be art. Personally, games that try to get the image of realism across are less of art. Why? Because the creators don't express themselves as much with a realistic image. Sure, some art is realistic, but if you look closely, you see the loving paint brushes from the artist. Sure (again), you could some-what say the same for a realistic video game, but I don't think as highly of it.

Yes! yesyesyes. Exactly! If the game, graphics-wise, isn't very realistic then you have to use your imagination, which is what modern art is all about. It's your unique perception of the piece or art. Be that a static painting/ sculpture, a video game or whatever!

Generally, with more realistic games, it's all given to you on a plate, so you don't have to use your imagination at all. Thats why older games tend to be more fun, too.

I agree with this. But note that realism is a form of art too. In a sense, maybe less imagination is being used, but the process of creation when making a realistic image is just as artful. A very large amount of work goes into creating realistic images and physical movements in a realistic game. Such time and effort put into making such a game and such refinement make these games fall well under the classification of art.

To attempt to answer LG's question, maybe competition games like SSBB fall under the art "criterion" of "interpretation". There are so many ways to reach your goal of defeating your opponent, it's all up to you how you want to play the game. Different characters to choose, different moves to choose, different combos to make, and it's all your decision of when you want to execute each move. You make your fighting style your own.

[kacelano]

I demand an expert definition for art due to the discovery by us collectively that the word 'everything' is in itself, and meaning, art. My lamp is art, my wall is art, my shirt, my porch, my hand is art. The channel is art, the newspaper is art, the team, the highway, the school, the game is art. If art is something man-made that has meaning or conveys a message or evokes an emotion then why do we dare try classify?

Or perhaps, they are all practical things, but then again, practicality is a form of art.

[PhantomTaco]

Dec 7, 2009 21:44:17 GMT -6 kacelano said:

I demand an expert definition for art

"the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

Therefore, everything is art.

[Rusty]

Dec 7, 2009 21:55:00 GMT -6 PhantomTaco said:

Dec 7, 2009 21:44:17 GMT -6 kacelano said:

I demand an expert definition for art

"the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

Therefore, everything is art.

And

"5. any field using the skills or techniques of art"

Making a video games requires skills and techniques of art

[PopTart]

Dec 7, 2009 21:44:17 GMT -6 kacelano said:

I demand an expert definition for art due to the discovery by us collectively that the word 'everything' is in itself, and meaning, art. My lamp is art, my wall is art, my shirt, my porch, my hand is art. The channel is art, the newspaper is art, the team, the highway, the school, the game is art. If art is something man-made that has meaning or conveys a message or evokes an emotion then why do we dare try classify?

Or perhaps, they are all practical things, but then again, practicality is a form of art.

I don't know why this made me think of Brick from Anchorman when the group is trying to define what love really is lolol.

Brick: I love......carpet.
Brick: I love.....desk.
Ron: Brick, are you just looking at things in the office and saying that you love them?
Brick: I love lamp.
Ron: Do you really love the lamp, or are you just saying it because you saw it?
Brick: I love lamp!
Brick: I love lamp...