Are Video Games Art?

[finalark]

We're all gamers here, we all enjoy sitting down after a long day and firing up our Wiistation 360s to play a few rounds of whatever you happen to play. But here's the question, will games every become more than just that, a game? Or what I'd like to talk about, are video games art?

Let's start with the definition of art. According to Dictionary.com it is

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

And now let's take a look at my own personal definition of what is "art."

"An art is a field that an artist uses to creatively express him or herself by using their skill and what tools are available to them in their artistic field of choice."

While a broad definition, I consider it to be a solid one. And by that definition, in my opinion, yes, video games are art. They provide a set of tools for the game's director or the development team to express themselves with, and the rest is up to skill.

But here's the part when things get interesting.

The above image is a basic Plains card from Magic the Gathering. Sure, the picture on the card is nice to look at and counts as art, but it isn't anything spectacular. Here's the thing, there's a difference between good art, okay art and bad art. And if video games are art, then how do you judge the quality of them as art?

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

Well, my art teacher always said everything is art. I used to disagree but really, if you think about it, it is. Everything has an Art characteristic, if it didn't it'd be nothingness. So maybe a worm hole isn't. (drum crash)

Really though, a game has several forms of art.

The story - which is determined, if it is a good story or not (like any art of literature) This would be very opinionated, but that is one art.

And the second would be the graphics - which is based on mechanical and technological things.

I guess a good example would be, in terms of art FFXIII was the bomb.

 

[finalark]

^I'm not sure there. When it comes to art I believe that "good art" is defined more by what the artist is expressing and how well their work does it. IMO, graphics don't always factor into that, however, story and game play do.

 

[Grizzmeister]

When I play drop dead gorgeous games like Otogi: Myth of Demons which brings together a deep and engrossing story with music worthy of Yo-Yo Ma I believe that video games are indeed art.

 

[Minato]

IMO, I don't think ALL video games are art. I think the video game has to excel in either graphics, story, or ideas (maybe I'm missing one more thing). I remember Roger Ebert saying that games aren't and will never be art. Gamers attacked back saying that games are/can be considered an art form. He responded with the question asking why gamers are even concerned whether games can be considered an art form or not which I found kind of interesting.

But yeah, I think games can be considered art.

 

[Fox_Rocks]

Personally, I don't think video games are truly art. Of course there is a lot of artistry put into them and one requires an artistic bent to make them, but the end product really isn't "art." To me, art is meant to express emotion, feelings, or ideas, which is kind of similar to what has been stated already. And there really aren't too many video games that do that. However, there are of course some video games which do indeed express deep emotion or display wonderful ideas.

But...most of the time, this is found in the story of the game. So it is not actually the video game itself "being art" - it is simply the art form of literature presented in a different context. Maybe you could argue that video games are a unique art form if the presentation of the story was truly unique or different (as is the case with say the stories of theater or cinema becoming distinct from literature through the use of live actors), but for the most part it isn't.

The same thing goes for any visual part of the game you would want to call art - a different presentation of an established art form.

So I guess I'm basically saying: video games are composed of many different types of art, but when combined, they do not create their own separate "art form." They are simply an amalgamation of other art forms.



One last note: this may or may not make sense to you. It's a hard idea to put into words, and it's late right now, so I'm not too sure how it'll come across.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

I get what you're saying. You're saying the story is art, but not the game, though the game and story are sort of one, so it's very debatable whether it is or not. It's a rough question.

 

[xLeafybug =D]

It's completely subjective. But personally, I consider games as something I do to waste spare time.

 

[kr3wman]

If the creator wants it to be, it is.

If you think it is, it is.

basically what leafy said.

 

[RuNNing Riot]

While I don't feel that all games are art (because most might be just plain lousy in terms of overall quality), I do think that sometimes a brilliant director who puts his life and soul into one game to make it good can come out with a game good enough to be considered art. In particular I'm thinking of MGS4 and Hideo Kojima. There's others, yes, but that's the combo I know best.

I don't know what you could use to judge the overall shade of how good a game is, as a piece of art, so I guess it's entirely subjective whether you think something's art. When I went to an art museum in London one time for a school trip, some of my classmates were... less than receptive to some of the stuff shown (one of the exhibits was a single rectangular piece of cloth with a slash in it, for example), but obviously somebody thought it was art enough to put it there.

So yeah, my two cents.

 

[Big-Cat]

I feel that videogames are art in the same sense that cooking is. Sure, the graphics, music, and story inherently have artistic merit by traditional standards. But for the gameplay, this is where I think the cooking analogy comes in.

With cooking, you're combining several different ingredients to create a product. We can compare this to the game engine, a good gameplay engine is like a tasty food. You must design it right where it is fun to play. If you put something in there, like random tripping in Brawl, you're going to have mess. To go further with this analogy, think of the game as a meal. Everything in a meal should be delicious and should all mesh together. If something doesn't fit, it's not going to feel right. Imagine hearing perky JPop while playing Gears of War.

 

[Fuelbi]

It's completely subjective. But personally, I consider games as something I do to waste spare time.

So your saying that anything that wastes time isn't an art?

I read to waste spare time and that's an art

I draw to waste spare time and that's an art

I play music on my guitar to waste spare time and that's an art

Who's to say that video games aren't an art because you just use it to waste time?

 

[Luigitoilet]

Video games are "design". They are art in the same sense that wallpaper or floor tiles are.

I think video games are weakest when they're trying to approximate artistic mediums. For example, the focus on cutscenes, graphics and narrative. Most games today seem to try to be more and more like movies. Only thing is, there is none of the depth that an actual movie presents. The stories are cliche and plain at best, and fall apart under the most basic analysis. Often times, the gameplay itself is dissected and seperated from the story. Games could be art someday, when someone finds the perfect mixture of game design and emotional expression. I would only consider one or two games to be actually mostly artistic (Majora's Mask, Silent Hill 2...maybe Shadow of the Colossus), but, honestly why do some people get so upset about it? Who cares if they are or are aren't art?

 

[CRASHiC]

Luigi, you fail to acknowledge the one main benefactor that games have over movies and other mediums, interaction. This might not seem like much, but when used properly it can reach to levels and to expressions that other art mediums don't.

Before I get into this, you seem to judge quality as a sign of weather or not something art, and focus entirely on the story elements. Then how do you judge if a piece of music is art if the album is without a word and void of all story? The quality of the art in no way relates to the question "Is it art." The two are unrelated questions. Simply because something might fail at obtaining true artistic merit does not descredit it from being art. The Room is still art, though be it bad.

Secondly calming them desings refers only to their technial aspect, and I don't feel truly represents all the elements of gaming. Design is regulated by strict rules, while art is free expression. Simply because a game must obeyed by the rules of programming does not corner it into design, other wise we could comment that paint is design as it is confined to a canvas, and a movie is confined to a TV screen. Video games have reached a level where the teams of people who make them can experiment and push the boundaries of those boxes.

Now, to return to my point about the value of interactivity on the person experiencing the game, I won't to provide an example that is void of story but full of emotional value, like many pieces of music. the example is Pokemon Red and Blue. Truly a masterpiece in gaming, far ahead of its time, what made this game so spactular was the sheer creativity of its game developers. They took their very limited box of the gameboy's specs and found some incredible ways to mess with the user.

All throughout the game, you find scattered poke balls containing items and sometimes pokemon. You are mentally adjusted to treat them as a delight when you find one. You rush over, pick it up, and receive your item. Then, about 2/3rds the way through the game where you now pick a pokeball with no spare thought, you encounter a pokeball laying in the wild. You go to it, when suddenly you are shocked and surprised to find yourself being attacked by a Pokemon. Now throughout this environment, while being worn down from attacking Pokemon you are weary of picking up any more pokeballs, despite the fact that you might desperately need it to help get through the area, this being a rather large area with a lot of strong Pokemon in diverse typing, and an area required to go through.

Here is something void of story telling, but full of emotional power, similar to many pieces of music. I could use Einstein on a Beach here. Trail 2- Prison conditions you for 12 minutes, making you think you can expect every turn the music can make, then when it turns round for another expectable turn, you get slammed with a dense wall of sound that shocks and surprises you.

This is just one of many examples that I could use for the benefits of personal interaction, there are many games that take advtange of it, some to a greater extent such as Majors Mask as you listed, Team Ico's games, Metal Gear Solid. Video games have more to express than just a narrative.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

^ Yeah the emotional impact a game has can defiantly relay art. Not just red and blue, but all pokemon games are like that, well except the few people who love the storyline so nevermind I guess...

Way I see it, games have narratives, games have graphics, games have game play, all 3 being art, and very few games have it all, which is thoroughly opinionated so it'd hard to discuss.

A lot of the NES games are how you described by the way, Crash. Lets go back to Final Fantasy 1, lol.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Luigi, you fail to acknowledge the one main benefactor that games have over movies and other mediums, interaction. This might not seem like much, but when used properly it can reach to levels and to expressions that other art mediums don't.

Before I get into this, you seem to judge quality as a sign of weather or not something art, and focus entirely on the story elements. Then how do you judge if a piece of music is art if the album is without a word and void of all story? The quality of the art in no way relates to the question "Is it art." The two are unrelated questions. Simply because something might fail at obtaining true artistic merit does not descredit it from being art. The Room is still art, though be it bad.

Secondly calming them desings refers only to their technial aspect, and I don't feel truly represents all the elements of gaming. Design is regulated by strict rules, while art is free expression. Simply because a game must obeyed by the rules of programming does not corner it into design, other wise we could comment that paint is design as it is confined to a canvas, and a movie is confined to a TV screen. Video games have reached a level where the teams of people who make them can experiment and push the boundaries of those boxes.

Now, to return to my point about the value of interactivity on the person experiencing the game, I won't to provide an example that is void of story but full of emotional value, like many pieces of music. the example is Pokemon Red and Blue. Truly a masterpiece in gaming, far ahead of its time, what made this game so spactular was the sheer creativity of its game developers. They took their very limited box of the gameboy's specs and found some incredible ways to mess with the user.

All throughout the game, you find scattered poke balls containing items and sometimes pokemon. You are mentally adjusted to treat them as a delight when you find one. You rush over, pick it up, and receive your item. Then, about 2/3rds the way through the game where you now pick a pokeball with no spare thought, you encounter a pokeball laying in the wild. You go to it, when suddenly you are shocked and surprised to find yourself being attacked by a Pokemon. Now throughout this environment, while being worn down from attacking Pokemon you are weary of picking up any more pokeballs, despite the fact that you might desperately need it to help get through the area, this being a rather large area with a lot of strong Pokemon in diverse typing, and an area required to go through.

Here is something void of story telling, but full of emotional power, similar to many pieces of music. I could use Einstein on a Beach here. Trail 2- Prison conditions you for 12 minutes, making you think you can expect every turn the music can make, then when it turns round for another expectable turn, you get slammed with a dense wall of sound that shocks and surprises you.

This is just one of many examples that I could use for the benefits of personal interaction, there are many games that take advtange of it, some to a greater extent such as Majors Mask as you listed, Team Ico's games, Metal Gear Solid. Video games have more to express than just a narrative.

You're correct. The interactive element is the primary reason I hold some games higher than others in an artistic regard. The vast majority of games do not utilize this at all. The Final Fantasy and Metal Gear Solid series, whilst I love MGS to death, their fatal flaw is cutscene heavy progression. Stop with the cutscenes! Let me play the game! Progress the narrative and thematics through the gameplay. MGS gets this right a lot of the time, but MGS4 for instance, is only artistic because it is aping the media of film.

I don't believe in a quality metric for art. There's good art and there's bad art. I just don't believe video games have reached a point where they can ever be qualified as either good art or bad art except in very rare situations, and even then it's negligible, because the "artistry" usually relies on approximating some other artistic medium.

I know you could say the same of film, I suppose, and I imagine people were saying the same thing about film 110 years ago. But truth is, film wasn't art then. It was craft, maybe, and design, mostly.

I don't believe your Pokemon scenario holds much artistic value. The "fear" the scenario instill ultimately stems from the fact that you're suddenly in risk of a game over. The extent of the emotional effect is "Gee, I won't be so willing to go after those item balls, I met get jumped by a bunch of Pokemon and die and lose."

This really hardly expresses any kind of deeper emotion beyond maybe "shock" or "uncertainty".

 

[RuNNing Riot]

whilst I love MGS to death, their fatal flaw is cutscene heavy progression. Stop with the cutscenes! Let me play the game! Progress the narrative and thematics through the gameplay. MGS gets this right a lot of the time, but MGS4 for instance, is only artistic because it is aping the media of film.

Assuming that the fifth last word there is a typo and is supposed to be the word '******'...

It looks to me that you believe that you can only judge a game as art depending on what the story is and how it's told. Yes, the MGS series is well known for a very cinematic style, but that's pretty much a trademark. You still get gameplay that lasts for much longer than those cutscenes, so it's still less of a movie than a video game. They could have entirely cutscene'd that fight between RAY and REX, but instead they went through the trouble of making it a completely controllable experience. *** yeah.

You gave the example that films would have been considered art back over a century ago, though in truth they just weren't. Fair enough. People think that they're art now. But then CRASHiC gives his Red and Blue case, which is almost the exact same as that situation. And Red and Blue came out nearly twenty years ago. Who's to say that video games haven't evolved in the same way that films have? It's not the same length of time, I know, but they say that we've had an insane amount of technological advancement in recent years compared to previous centuries.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Assuming that the fifth last word there is a typo and is supposed to be the word '******'...

It looks to me that you believe that you can only judge a game as art depending on what the story is and how it's told. Yes, the MGS series is well known for a very cinematic style, but that's pretty much a trademark. You still get gameplay that lasts for much longer than those cutscenes, so it's still less of a movie than a video game. They could have entirely cutscene'd that fight between RAY and REX, but instead they went through the trouble of making it a completely controllable experience. *** yeah.

You gave the example that films would have been considered art back over a century ago, though in truth they just weren't. Fair enough. People think that they're art now. But then CRASHiC gives his Red and Blue case, which is almost the exact same as that situation. And Red and Blue came out nearly twenty years ago. Who's to say that video games haven't evolved in the same way that films have? It's not the same length of time, I know, but they say that we've had an insane amount of technological advancement in recent years compared to previous centuries.

"Aping" means imitating, so no, not a typo.
No you don't. MGS4 has about 3-4 hours of gameplay and over 8 hours of cutscenes/codecs. There is almost an hour and a half of cutscenes after you beat the final fight. That is completely unacceptable.

Technological advancement =/= Artistic progress. The Red and Blue example simply isn't an artistic scenario, it's a design tool used to surprise players who are used to the game going in one direction. What's to say video games haven't evolved as much as film did? The video games themselves are the proof.

And it's not anything to do with "story". More important is thematics, emotional resonance, and utilizing the advantage video games have over other mediums: interaction, like crashic said. Coming back to Majora's Mask and why I consider it more artistic than many games. Termina is a living breathing world, it's more alive than any other Zelda overworld, and indeed more alive than most any other video game overworld. The 3-day time cycle is a device they used so they could populate this world with actual characters with actual personalities and schedules. You can choose to follow just about any NPC as they go about their every day routine. Furthermore, as you progress through the game, it has a real, tangible effect on the world around your character. Most everything you do actually changes things in this world. It's not exactly the "story" that makes me love the game. Rather, it's the immersion in this other world.

 

[Ryu Shimazu]

^ Yeah, Final Fantasy XIII was very bad in this regard. The older FFs had the perfect balance of gameplay and story to make it art. (Even 10 had the right amount, and 12 too I guess) But 13 under the graphics and story was a very linear game with little immersion in any sort of world.

Just because I'm a Pokemon fan I get Crash's reference.

 

[tirkaro]

"Art" is a bull**** concept invented by French f**gots around 394 BC because they were so f***ing bored with sitting around brushing their handlebar mustaches all day.

If something is enjoyable to you, so be it.

 

[RuNNing Riot]

"Aping" means imitating, so no, not a typo.

Oh, okay. Sorry about that.

No you don't. MGS4 has about 3-4 hours of gameplay and over 8 hours of cutscenes/codecs. There is almost an hour and a half of cutscenes after you beat the final fight. That is completely unacceptable.

In fairness, MGS4 had a huge amount of story to cover, given the number of loose ends left over from the previous games. It'd be tough to make an interesting game out of just conversations. But I suppose you're right. I still think the sheer amount of other content in what interactive portions there are in the game still earns it a better rating than a movie rip-off, though.

Technological advancement =/= Artistic progress. The Red and Blue example simply isn't an artistic scenario, it's a design tool used to surprise players who are used to the game going in one direction. What's to say video games haven't evolved as much as film did? The video games themselves are the proof.

And it's not anything to do with "story". More important is thematics, emotional resonance, and utilizing the advantage video games have over other mediums: interaction, like crashic said. Coming back to Majora's Mask and why I consider it more artistic than many games. Termina is a living breathing world, it's more alive than any other Zelda overworld, and indeed more alive than most any other video game overworld. The 3-day time cycle is a device they used so they could populate this world with actual characters with actual personalities and schedules. You can choose to follow just about any NPC as they go about their every day routine. Furthermore, as you progress through the game, it has a real, tangible effect on the world around your character. Most everything you do actually changes things in this world. It's not exactly the "story" that makes me love the game. Rather, it's the immersion in this other world.

Technological advancement gives you greater artistic freedom, though it more correlation than causation. I said earlier that not all games were art; maybe it was because they simply didn't take advantage of those resources. Games like Majora's Mask and Earthbound did the best with what they could. And I didn't actually say Red and Blue were art. I said they were considered the same as the films 110 years ago which you pointed out - thought to be art, though ultimately not so. Same story, which is where I got the idea that video games development into art would mirror the film industry's. I agree with you on what makes a game art, though, don't get me wrong.

And besides, if you don't look for story in a film, or how great the SFX are, what makes one think it's a piece of art? Kind of ruins the whole point(s) of watching them.

 

[Luigitoilet]

Oh, okay. Sorry about that.



In fairness, MGS4 had a huge amount of story to cover, given the number of loose ends left over from the previous games. It'd be tough to make an interesting game out of just conversations. But I suppose you're right. I still think the sheer amount of other content in what interactive portions there are in the game still earns it a better rating than a movie rip-off, though.



Technological advancement gives you greater artistic freedom, though it more correlation than causation. I said earlier that not all games were art; maybe it was because they simply didn't take advantage of those resources. Games like Majora's Mask and Earthbound did the best with what they could. And I didn't actually say Red and Blue were art. I said they were considered the same as the films 110 years ago which you pointed out - thought to be art, though ultimately not so. Same story, which is where I got the idea that video games development into art would mirror the film industry's. I agree with you on what makes a game art, though, don't get me wrong.

And besides, if you don't look for story in a film, or how great the SFX are, what makes one think it's a piece of art? Kind of ruins the whole point(s) of watching them.

Film is often much more than narrative. I'm fixated on the abstract, emotional effect more than the details of the story or plot. In fact, some of my favorite movies are ones I wouldn't be able to describe in in a literal narrative sense. Mood, characters, thematic are all much more important. In many cases, the story is coincidental, just a mechanic to explore the themes the artist is trying to convey.

But yeah, like I said earlier...it really doesn't make any difference. People who insist that video games must be art are just looking for a way to validate their hobby to art nerds.

 

[RuNNing Riot]

In many cases, the story is coincidental, just a mechanic to explore the themes the artist is trying to convey.

I've never thought about the story that way before. Thanks for the insight.

But yeah, like I said earlier...it really doesn't make any difference. People who insist that video games must be art are just looking for a way to validate their hobby to art nerds.

So... what's the final answer to the question that finalark posed? Some video games are art, but if you think all of them are art as well then you're just trying to justify a reason for artists to have a look at it?

 

[Fuelbi]

So if you have a game where you have to identify drawings and their makers (like one of them educational games), would it be considered art?

 

[Luigitoilet]

So if you have a game where you have to identify drawings and their makers (like one of them educational games), would it be considered art?

No. It would be an educational game like you said. If you go to a class that studies art, is that class also art? I don't think so.

As for finalark's question, it's kinda tough to say. I believe that in general video games aren't an artform. I think a select few games can qualify as art, so it's hard to compare those games to the rest of them. It's also unfair to compare them to other artforms like film or literature. I'm not really sure, honestly. The best analogy I can think up would be to compare movies like Crank, Ultraviolet, Transformers to most video games. These are entertaining movies that have only a little artistic merit, i.e., bad art. The focus is on immediate pleasure/satisfaction, and doesn't inspire reflection or deeper thought.

In this example, I believe that a game like Silent Hill 2 or Shadow of the Colossus is actually more artistically viable than Ultraviolet. These are games that work on the emotional immersion rather than fantastic visuals and explosions.

So, I guess my final answer is "some games can be art, but most of them aren't."

 

[finalark]

So, I guess my final answer is "some games can be art, but most of them aren't."

This more or less sums up my thoughts on the subject.

I'd say more, but Luigitoilet has more or less said everything I would say.

 

[Thrillhouse-vh.]

Video games are art with some of the most idiotic justifications set up by its followers.

I would only consider one or two games to be actually mostly artistic (Majora's Mask, Silent Hill 2...maybe Shadow of the Colossus)

Zelda and Team ICO games are two of the absolute worst examples anyone could pull for video games being art(but thank you for not pulling out Beyond Good and Evil, FF VII, and Portal tho)