Video Games as art (or aren't they?)

[Jisho23]

I'm posting this assuming that the topic has already been made and this will be condensed to it. Otherwise, I'm starting it now:

I'm curious what everyone's opinion on this topic is. I'm very much in ebb regarding my exact opinion (mostly I feel some games and developers do more harm then good for the cause of "video games are art").

[Kyle15]

I see video games as art just as much as I do films and other mediums of creation. Games are unique in that they're visible on the screen like a painting, but can be controlled and manipulated by their audiences. We, as the "manipulators", can delve into the experience and make it our own, just as one can mentally dive into the universe of a single painting.

We wouldn't have video games if it weren't for creative processes themselves, of course. You've got writers, background designers, character designers, sound-effects men, musicians, and most importantly, the programmers themselves. Individuals of many different artistic backgrounds come together in order to create these unique worlds and special places. Be it a simple text-based game, fighting-game, or text-heavy RPG, each is its own place filled with its own unique moods and feelings that all stem from every single tiny little thing molded into itself by the creators-just as in a film, painting, or sculpture. (The last two don't exactly sound like anything of course, but we find our own way to define what they could sound like if possible.)

When I play a game, I fall into its special place. When I watch a movie, I fall into its special place. When I look at a painting, I fall into its special place. The latter have moved me, and so have video games. Even Mario has the ability to make someone feel something in some shape or form, be it as simple as what he and his world look like. When we least expect it, memories are being formed. Clues of the visual and audio variety stick deep within our minds. (Even the most simple!) Connections are formed on many different fronts. Then we jump back to personal manipulation; we really become a part of that special place we cherish and maybe even love dearly. Just as actors act, singers sing, and dancers dance, we complete the art that is a video game. They aren't complete without that final piece, and that is our involvement. We don't just see or hear, we become.

I don't expect everyone to feel extremely passionate over a simple game of Tetris, of course. Tetris is its own thing that everyone experiences and feels differently. The same goes for everything else, just as other forms of art.

Sorry if I layed it on a bit too thick. I don't mean to sound preachy, or like "that creepy art guy" and I'm sure I did sound that way, but this subject is way too interesting to give a simple "yes/no" explanation. I'm not forcing my opinion on anyone as well. If you disagree, doing so is absolutely fine in my book. That's the joy of art itself; not every art is art to everyone.

[TonyTheTiger]

I've been way too long winded on this topic in the past. I'll try to keep it short:

If video games are art they'll still be just as good/bad as they are. If video games are not art they'll still be just as good/bad as they are. There's not much to gain from waving "art" like a badge of honor. It's just a word with the vaguest of meaning.

[j_factor]

Games are certainly art. Art is any crafted/designed work with subjective quality. I don't understand why it's even considered debatable, if we readily accept that film, music, architecture, and comics are all art.

[Spartacus]

The thing about art is freedom of expression. That freedom of expression is defended and protected the world over no matter how controversial or even distasteful it may be.
The thing about video games is that they are highly censored. To equate the two is ludicrous in my opinion.

[j_factor]

There is no US law providing for the censorship of video games. There are such laws in some countries, but those countries don't have absolute protection of freedom of expression. For example, Germany censors games, but they also prohibit Nazi imagery, hate speech, and denying the Holocaust.

[G-Boobie]

The thing about art is freedom of expression. That freedom of expression is defended and protected the world over no matter how controversial or even distasteful it may be.
The thing about video games is that they are highly censored. To equate the two is ludicrous in my opinion.

If we're talking about the chilling effect that market focused capitalism has on a product (which art most certainly can be), then sure. Then again, those mediums are regularly subjected to the same kind of "censorship" that video games are. Musical artists regularly release 'clean' versions of their albums to sell in Walmart. As much as it pisses me off, many classic books have been altered to make them less offensive to morons, or have been taken off the shelves entirely. Film is cut and overdubbed for television. Video games might not go as far as some of the more established mediums with pushing boundaries and questioning values, but the medium is young.

I've been as interested and gripped by a game as any book or film I've read or seen. Just this year I had a game scare me in a way that no other piece of media ever has (Amnesia: The Dark Descent). I've been so immersed in a game world that I couldn't hear my girlfriend asking me a question three feet behind me (Stalker: Call of Pripyat). It also led me to research the Chernobyl nuclear disaster and led me to discover the books of the brothers Strugatsky. That's art, baby.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'll follow Tony's form. The topic has been discussed here at length.

At best, games are an off-shoot. Art has to be able to be experienced in entirety on the perceptual level by the observer. Games present a player with a challenge and barriers and you don't get to experience anything further unless you overcome them. The interactive element makes it very different, while retaining elements of Art in the proper sense.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Yes.

This topic has been discussed to death, but as long as people are giving their abbreviated opinions I'll play too.

Art from an academic standpoint holds a lot of cultural and generational perspectives.

50 years ago you wouldn't find many studio/gallery artists, academics or critics who would consider the comic book to be a legitimate form of "art".

Now, many artists, academics and critics have grown up reading comic books and have a different perspective on the medium. That generation (who have become artists, academics and critics) have subsequently dubbed the "graphic novel" (which is still just a narrative comic book) "art".

in the late 1800's around the invention of celluloid film and motion pictures, you similarly wouldn't find many who were willing to grant "movies" the same credit as other forms of accepted visual arts, but now, over 100 years later, we clearly consider films to be art.

The argument of "games as art" is too challenging for our generation to have right now. Despite the yearly exponential growth that the medium has taken on since the late 70's the medium is still very much in its infancy.

In 100 years, I don't think there will be any question as to video games being accepted as "art" by those who largely shape the landscape of those rules/definitions.

Of course in 100 years people will probably be far more caught up in debating whether hyper-intelligent, sentient nano-bots are art.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The argument of "games as art" is too challenging for our generation to have right now.

I have no problem with the question. I can define my standards and terms. I guess I must be a marooned time traveler with amnesia. LOL

[Polygon]

No need for a lengthy explanation. I, personally consider it art. However, the art community would not.

[Lanzo]

I would definitely consider it an art. From the game itself to the box it comes in. I always enjoy being sucked into the world and experiencing the emotions conveyed through the game and the accompanying soundtrack. Of course some games do this differently. Mario Kart and Star Ocean are both very different games.

[Jisho23]

Glad to see there can be a good discussion on this (even if done to death). My actual opinion... is long. I usually keep my opinions to myself on forums--this time I won't.

Almost everyone starts this argument (even some designers) by believing that there must be an emotional connection. The discussion always falls to the same debate of an emotional experience, implying that is vital for something to be art. Although it is silly, I do like to quote Ebert's response to that "A bowel movement can create an emotional experience but that doesn't make it art (or something to the effect)." On a personal level I find the "sucked into a world" idea to be completely bogus, with all due respect. And we can't compare games to film, painting, sculpture, etc. because they are all different on fundamental levels.

Also, arguing "cultural impact" is also somewhat stupid: the "Backstreet Boys" had cultural impact.

I think the reason why video games are still difficult to take completely serious as art is because too much of the debate focuses on trying to qualify video games as art in a traditional sense. Detractors always focus on one key problem with games: the game designers (and creators) give away too much of their independent narrative for the sake of the interactive part of the game--although modernophiles will quickly look to modern art and music and find plenty of examples of such that do just this. It also goes without saying that when looking for a narrative, atmosphere, room for individual interpretation, or that "transported to another world" feeling, it can be very hard to find in something like "Tetris."

My hypothesis is that games CANNOT, therefore, be evaluated as art in the traditional sense. Rather then video games being art, there is instead an art to game design itself. This kind of explanation addresses more abstract games (think almost every puzzle game ever made) and those that are not about having a narrative (games that predate petty things like story lines). Evaluating games in this regard also address one key detail that a simple "ITS ART" evaluation does not: the actual game aspect. If a game is sloppy, bug ridden, repetitive, or just boring then we can fairly easily qualify it as bad art or at least poorly constructed. If something has that spark of originality, attention to every detail, then we look at that as "good" design (or good art).

The artistic element of a game therefore comes from how we interact within the parameters of the game itself. Other elements, of course, play a role. Graphics, audio, etc are all important but at the end of the day they are "non-essential." If they were essential, then we must disregard all games that are antiquated.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

I have no problem with the question. I can define my standards and terms. I guess I must be a marooned time traveler with amnesia. LOL

While there is certainly great support for the argument that "games are art" in our generation, I've seen no evidence that there is a level of acceptance that would constitute a majority/universal acceptance by gamers or majority/universal acceptance by the academic/societal establishment(s) that ultimately make the clandestine decisions as to what is or is not art.

The short short of what I'm saying is that I suppose if necessary, the argument can continue to take place, I don't strictly have a problem with that. It's just going to take a few more generations for the level of acceptance that some seem to be looking for NOW after only a 20+ year presence of the medium.

Thankfully "art" is completely subjective and if you personally consider something to be art right now, no person can take that opinion away from you.

[kupomogli]

If someone ever states a video game can't be a work of art, then they've never played Shadow of the Colossus.

Other than that, I think anything back to 8bit can be considered art. There are a lot of visually appealing games, others with storylines, and a lot with very beautifully composed music, all of which draw different emotions. I can't really see anything prior to an 8bit release as being art, as they all had almost no music, most basic graphics, and on the games themselves no story.

[The 1 2 P]

I don't understand why it's even considered debatable, if we readily accept that film, music, architecture, and comics are all art.


Yes.
50 years ago you wouldn't find many studio/gallery artists, academics or critics who would consider the comic book to be a legitimate form of "art".

Now, many artists, academics and critics have grown up reading comic books and have a different perspective on the medium. That generation (who have become artists, academics and critics) have subsequently dubbed the "graphic novel" (which is still just a narrative comic book) "art".

in the late 1800's around the invention of celluloid film and motion pictures, you similarly wouldn't find many who were willing to grant "movies" the same credit as other forms of accepted visual arts, but now, over 100 years later, we clearly consider films to be art.

In 100 years, I don't think there will be any question as to video games being accepted as "art" by those who largely shape the landscape of those rules/definitions.

You two made my response alot easier. But to give the OP my official answer--YES. And my answer is sponsered in part by the most prestigious art musuem in the world. (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=139034)

[Rob2600]

Video Games as art (or aren't they?)

Better question: why are things like a men's room urinal, a can of human feces, and a blank white canvas considered art?

[Kyle15]

I can't really see anything prior to an 8bit release as being art, as they all had almost no music, most basic graphics, and on the games themselves no story.

Take Piet Mondrian's later work for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian

I'd classify anything prior to 8-bit as minimalist, both in concept and execution.

[Jisho23]

Take Piet Mondrian's later work for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piet_Mondrian

I'd classify anything prior to 8-bit as minimalist, both in concept and execution.

I agree, you can't discount games that a pre-8bit. While there was a lot of nonsense made (there still is) some games do a great job displaying their creator's or studio's creativity. And to have a unique style on technology so archaic says something.

[Zama]

Video games are beautiful in their own unique and creative way :bigmac:

[Icarus Moonsight]

While there is certainly great support for the argument that "games are art" in our generation, I've seen no evidence that there is a level of acceptance that would constitute a majority/universal acceptance by gamers or majority/universal acceptance by the academic/societal establishment(s) that ultimately make the clandestine decisions as to what is or is not art.

The short short of what I'm saying is that I suppose if necessary, the argument can continue to take place, I don't strictly have a problem with that. It's just going to take a few more generations for the level of acceptance that some seem to be looking for NOW after only a 20+ year presence of the medium.

Thankfully "art" is completely subjective and if you personally consider something to be art right now, no person can take that opinion away from you.

Well, if the standard of something being true or not is universal acceptance (truth by universal consensus), then nothing is, will be, or has been art (or even true or false for that matter). Those are the consequences of that line of thought, and many do accept it. Thankfully however, that thought discipline itself is not universally accepted, and thereby, inconsistent by it's own standard. In a duel of rational arguments, the most consistent theory will always win in regard to truth. A person accepting that victory or defeat is another matter entirely! LOL

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Well, if the standard of something being true or not is universal acceptance (truth by universal consensus), then nothing is, will be, or has been art (or even true or false for that matter). Those are the consequences of that line of thought, and many do accept it. Thankfully however, that thought discipline itself is not universally accepted, and thereby, inconsistent by it's own standard. In a duel of rational arguments, the most consistent theory will always win in regard to truth. A person accepting that victory or defeat is another matter entirely! LOL

Yes, well, I did also say majority. Universal being an unachievable extreme I just put it in there for emphasis.

If I had to boil my entire position down to one or two sentences it would be

"I, like many of us think games are art in the here and now. The majority of those in the position to include the medium in galleries, academic texts and history books will likely agree with that position in 50 to 100 years."

That's all I've got.

[Icarus Moonsight]

Oh, but we were having it out pleasant and clean! You are actually helping me think through some stuff I have back-burner'd for sometime. If you don't want to go further though, no big deal, but just in case...

Alright, we'll apply the revised standard. Dialing the standard of truth down to a majority consensus. That boils down to a mere arbitrary negation of all minority positions. It's empirical that minority (down to a single individual) theories and positions have prevailed today and in the past. In fact, nearly every majority position was once a minority position. The standard simply can't hold. Also, it can't be a valid standard rationally because the agent(s) of argument and the validation standard used are essentially the same unit. A fallacy similar to defining your terms by using the term itself.

I'm being led to accept that art is solely about expressing values. Either the piece reaches an observer and harmonizes with their values (art an observer likes, enjoys and does or wants to understand), registers as valueless (doesn't speak to the observer in any meaningful way -- leaving them ambivalent, confused or indifferent about the artists intent), or it creates a dissonance of values (observer is repulsed). That might be what people term the mystical or subjective value of art, the varied reactions two people can have to the same piece. If you look at it this way, it's firmly objective, once you've established a standard and the principals to explain all outcomes.

Rob brought up some samples of non-value expressions of art. It fits the above theory. One could call those things art if their values harmonize with excrement, ammonia odor, and no-talent non-effort works. Poor things.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Oh, but we were having it out pleasant and clean! You are actually helping me think through some stuff I have back-burner'd for sometime. If you don't want to go further though, no big deal, but just in case...

Alright, we'll apply the revised standard. Dialing the standard of truth down to a majority consensus. That boils down to a mere arbitrary negation of all minority positions. It's empirical that minority (down to a single individual) theories and positions have prevailed today and in the past. In fact, nearly every majority position was once a minority position. The standard simply can't hold. Also, it can't be a valid standard rationally because the agent(s) of argument and the validation standard used are essentially the same unit. A fallacy similar to defining your terms by using the term itself.

I'm being led to accept that art is solely about expressing values. Either the piece reaches an observer and harmonizes with their values (art an observer likes, enjoys and does or wants to understand), registers as valueless (doesn't speak to the observer in any meaningful way -- leaving them ambivalent, confused or indifferent about the artists intent), or it creates a dissonance of values (observer is repulsed). That might be what people term the mystical or subjective value of art, the varied reactions two people can have to the same piece. If you look at it this way, it's firmly objective, once you've established a standard and the principals to explain all outcomes.

Rob brought up some samples of non-value expressions of art. It fits the above theory. One could call those things art if their values harmonize with excrement, ammonia odor, and no-talent non-effort works. Poor things.

No no no no no no no nothankyou.jpg.

Sorry, I'm not interested in debating that with you (or anybody).

My opinions on the matter are my own, they are only opinions, I make no claim to be authoritative on the matter and you need not agree with any of them them.

I've morbidly peeked in on the Politics and Religion threads here and the debates that go on typically make me want to hurl myself out a window like Charles Durning at the beginning of The Hudsucker Proxy.

I take absolutely no joy whatsoever in debating these things to microscopic levels or over the intricate mechanics of semantics.

If I read it correctly, this thread was about "are video games art?", not "what is art?". I believe that I've sufficiently and concisely stated my position as related to the subject of the thread (I believe that position was not in direct response to or diametrically opposed to anybody else's opinion), and I have no interest in pursuing a debate that expounds upon literally thousands of years of existing (and more importantly unresolved) debate, discussion, rhetoric, etc. on what "art" IS or IS NOT.

You're welcome to your position, and of course welcome to share by the public nature of this forum, but I'm not going down this route today. Thanks.

[Robocop2]

The problem with the games as art agrument is that they are products developed for mass consumption. Sure one could argue that cars, comics, music, and film are in the same category and you're right. Though I suppose there are the occasional car or film that are made purely as an artistic exercise without any desire to mass market it. One off custom cars come to mind immediately to me. What I'm really saying is while SOME games could be considered art; not ALL games are art. It's the same theory as any of the above things I mentioned.
A Ford Escort is not likely to be considered art compared to say a Viper. Likewise compare say Mozart to Lady Gaga or a film like Neon Maniacs to say Gone with the Wind.
I seriuosly doubt years from now anyone will be appreciating the drivel and chaff that comes out in any medium as art though I can see the argument for some games to be considered art as valid; you can't simply consider them all art

[Icarus Moonsight]

No no no no no no no nothankyou.jpg.

Sorry, I'm not interested in debating that with you (or anybody).

My opinions on the matter are my own, they are only opinions, I make no claim to be authoritative on the matter and you need not agree with any of them them.

I've morbidly peeked in on the Politics and Religion threads here and the debates that go on typically make me want to hurl myself out a window like Charles Durning at the beginning of The Hudsucker Proxy.

I take absolutely no joy whatsoever in debating these things to microscopic levels or over the intricate mechanics of semantics.

If I read it correctly, this thread was about "are video games art?", not "what is art?". I believe that I've sufficiently and concisely stated my position as related to the subject of the thread (I believe that position was not in direct response to or diametrically opposed to anybody else's opinion), and I have no interest in pursuing a debate that expounds upon literally thousands of years of existing (and more importantly unresolved) debate, discussion, rhetoric, etc. on what "art" IS or IS NOT.

You're welcome to your position, and of course welcome to share by the public nature of this forum, but I'm not going down this route today. Thanks.

Absolutely, your prerogative there man. It is an extremely deep and rich subject. Why else would I be putting it off from my "to think" list if it wasn't so, enormous. These threads sort of tease it out of me, but even I'm put off by it to some extent. Out of all life offers, it's a thing closest to the core of being human. Thanks for the honesty and integrity. My respect to you and your opinion.

[Rob2600]

According to Merriam-Webster (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/art):

"art (noun):

4a. the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also : works so produced"


So, are video games developed through the conscious use of skill and creative imagination? Are they aesthetic (beautiful, pleasing in appearance)?


And for what it's worth, the dictionary makes no mention of "feelings" or "emotions" when defining "art."

[TonyTheTiger]

What I'm really saying is while SOME games could be considered art; not ALL games are art.

I generally don't feel comfortable with that, though I readily admit that it seems to me most people share your sentiments.

Reason it bothers me is that it sounds pretentious. Just look at the types of games people talk about as art. Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, etc. You don't hear people listing games like Madden, Call of Duty, Dragon Ball Z: Budokai, or even downright crappy games like Rise of the Robots. Does a game have to be mechanically good and functional to be art? Would people consider Ico art if, all other things being equal, it were glitchy?

It gives the impression that there's "high art" and "low art" or some kind of line drawn in the sand where a game, or anything for that matter, has to meet certain criteria to attain a higher level of artistic value.

I don't know what to make of that with video games because there is an extra layer of necessary functionality on top of whatever creativity goes into the product. I think it's easy to say games contain art. And if the game is good then that's allowed to shine through. But if something basic like the save function doesn't work or the game locks up or your character regularly falls through the floor, does that essentially poison the product as a whole? Now what could have been art is no longer?

[Robocop2]

I generally don't feel comfortable with that, though I readily admit that it seems to me most people share your sentiments.

Reason it bothers me is that it sounds pretentious. Just look at the types of games people talk about as art. Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, etc. You don't hear people listing games like Madden, Call of Duty, Dragon Ball Z: Budokai, or even downright crappy games like Rise of the Robots. Does a game have to be mechanically good and functional to be art? Would people consider Ico art if, all other things being equal, it were glitchy?

Depends on the criteia I suppose. A game can be absoultely terrible and yet visually beautiful and vice versa. I can see how that statement might come off pretentious but honestly I don't see how one can consider EVERY game ever made to qualify. Remember we're talking about a mass produced entertainment product designed for consumption. They aren't obviously all going to be winners or even unique creations. You can't just make a blanket statement like ALL games are art because it just doesn't fit to me.



I don't know what to make of that with video games because there is an extra layer of necessary functionality on top of whatever creativity goes into the product. I think it's easy to say games contain art. And if the game is good then that's allowed to shine through. But if something basic like the save function doesn't work or the game locks up or your character regularly falls through the floor, does that essentially poison the product as a whole? Now what could have been art is no longer?

Maybe it still would be art but I think that you would have a hard time saying it was on the same level as a game that had all of the same pluses but none of the negatives. The problem with games unlike most other mediums is the interactivity necessary to experience it to the fullest. Not to mention there are layers to the whole experience you have the visuals; the music and voice acting; and even to a certain extent the gameplay its self. They all come together to make the overall experience.

[Gameguy]

I really haven't read through every post in this thread as there already was another thread on this subject in the past, but I'll respond to what I have read in this thread.


Reason it bothers me is that it sounds pretentious. Just look at the types of games people talk about as art. Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, Okami, etc. You don't hear people listing games like Madden, Call of Duty, Dragon Ball Z: Budokai, or even downright crappy games like Rise of the Robots. Does a game have to be mechanically good and functional to be art? Would people consider Ico art if, all other things being equal, it were glitchy?

It gives the impression that there's "high art" and "low art" or some kind of line drawn in the sand where a game, or anything for that matter, has to meet certain criteria to attain a higher level of artistic value.
It really depends on what the creator(or creators) wanted to get across with their work, did they actually want their game to make people think or feel a certain way about something or to see something in a certain perspective? I doubt Madden wanted to do this, they're basically sports simulators that get an updated version released every year made to make money, the same like companies putting out updated tax software every year.


I don't know what to make of that with video games because there is an extra layer of necessary functionality on top of whatever creativity goes into the product. I think it's easy to say games contain art. And if the game is good then that's allowed to shine through. But if something basic like the save function doesn't work or the game locks up or your character regularly falls through the floor, does that essentially poison the product as a whole? Now what could have been art is no longer?
I guess it could still be art, but it should function well for it to be considered good. It's like if a painting had good subject matter and a good idea for what the artist wanted to depict, but was very poorly painted and looked awkward. It's the difference between a valuable piece of art and something clearly done by an amature with no technical skills.


A better question would be asking whether art could be represented properly using video games as a medium. Photographs can be art, or they could be used to visually document something such as with crime scene photos. Literature can also be considered art, but would that include restaurant menus or instruction manuals? There is nothing that says art is based on the medium used, not all photographs are art just as not all games are art. It's not all or nothing.

[TonyTheTiger]

It's like if a painting had good subject matter and a good idea for what the artist wanted to depict, but was very poorly painted and looked awkward.

Ever been to an art museum? :D

I kid, I kid.

But seriously...ever been to an art museum? :-D

I guess I've always seen games as something like a container. They're amalgamations of a lot of different things. Take a bit of computer code, a bit of sound, a bit of artwork, a bit of story if applicable, and wrap it up with principles founded in traditional board games and real world games/sports and you get an end product that needs all the gears working together properly to ensure the end user has an enjoyable experience.

It's almost like the game itself is the gatekeeper. The game has to be properly functional and mechanically coherent first and foremost before whatever art within can be appreciated.

[Gameguy]

Ever been to an art museum? :D

I kid, I kid.

But seriously...ever been to an art museum? :-D

I guess I've always seen games as something like a container. They're amalgamations of a lot of different things. Take a bit of computer code, a bit of sound, a bit of artwork, a bit of story if applicable, and wrap it up with principles founded in traditional board games and real world games/sports and you get an end product that needs all the gears working together properly to ensure the end user has an enjoyable experience.

It's almost like the game itself is the gatekeeper. The game has to be properly functional and mechanically coherent first and foremost before whatever art within can be appreciated.
It's been years since I've been to any art galleries or museums. I think I was still in school when I last went, I believe it was a for a field trip to the McMichael art gallery(it was a nice trip). I believe I also went to the Art Gallery of Ontario but I can't remember if it was before or after the McMichael gallery.

I was mostly refering to art pieces that I see at the local thrift store. I remember different paintings, some bowls of fruit or kittens. They were trying to be realistic but they were slightly off, they looked like the work of students. I don't mean Impressionism or Abstract art, these were amature works that didn't turn out properly.

To me for games to be art they can't just be entertaining, they have to have further meaning behind them. Plenty of things can be entertaining, like gambling at a casino or monster truck shows. I don't think those are art either. For games to be art you have to be able to put yourself in the role of the character you're playing as or feel attached to the main character that you play as, and feel what they feel and/or feel what the secondary characters are feeling. If you don't feel any emotional attachment, how can it be art? I feel the same way towards movies or theatrical works, though for these to be considered art I think you really need to feel deep emotions and really be moved. It can be very difficult to pull off, especially with games. I think back to the poor voice acting in some games that completely ruin any immersion into the game I was feeling, if it's ruined I can't get too attached to what's happening to anybody in it. The plot wasn't that great either so it's not like it was just the poor voice acting that did it in, it just finished it.

For art, I also consider the purpose of a piece. Can furniture be considered art just because it's visually appealing? Is a chair or couch art as long as it's not hidiously ugly? For me anything that has a secondary purpose isn't necessarily art. A chair may look good but it's also meant to sit on, to me that's not art unless it also makes you feel certain emotions because of it(there are chairs that count as art). As for paintings or photographs, they don't have a secondary purpose. The only purpose is to look at them so feeling emotions isn't necessary for them to be considered art, however this doesn't mean that all paintings or photographs are good art. To be good or great art you have to feel something meaningful behind a piece, to be visually appealing isn't enough.

[Jisho23]

I think we are now arguing what makes something art. I think instead, we need to acknowledge that there is such a thing as "good" art and "bad" art. Those tacky pieces of art you see in a thrift store would be bad art, but they are still art. Its why I think that emotional response is seldom the most important aspect (although it is still important) of art: its the craftsmanship, thought, and effort that went into producing a work of art that matters most, no matter what the artistic medium.

[Icarus Moonsight]

It's a fair and essential question. "What is art?" comes directly out of "Are video games art?" If you haven't established what art is, at least to your own mind, you can't even begin an answer to the latter at all. If I'm wrong there then, "Are video games bacon?" is just as valid a question.

The answer is: Of course, and it's crispy!
To which question? Pick one.

[Rob2600]

It's a fair and essential question. "What is art?" comes directly out of "Are video games art?" If you haven't established what art is, at least to your own mind, you can't even begin an answer to the latter at all.

The definition of art has already been established in the dictionary.

[Berserker]

When people ask whether or not video games can be considered art, it seems to me that what they're really asking is whether or not video games can occupy the same space that other more established forms do. My answer to that starts with a question: Why should we want them to?

Why should we want to try and jam a video game into the same mold that a film or a painting occupies, when it has the capacity to occupy this whole other area that most of these other forms couldn't hope to touch? Where the observer is made into a participant, where the third party is not only welcomed but expected to express themselves within someone else's creation, and where the creation is not only expected to respond to feedback, but to respond to that feedback with more feedback to be responded to - to carry this back-and-forth as long as necessary, and to do so in a way that's as engaging as possible?

I think the desire to ask this question comes partially from a desire to prove the legitimacy of gaming's capacity to touch the same part of our imagination that a great film or a beautiful painting does. But think about it: as a gamer, do you yourself really have any doubt of this? Or of its ability to go beyond it? I love movies, but video games have affected me in a way that no film can - that complete sense of immersion, of getting lost in a strange world, of imagining more than what's on the screen, but most importantly? Of being a part of it all. Of having a real, tangible effect on it.

In film, we're able to observe someone else saving the world, or slaying some monster, or exploring some alien landscape. But in video games, we're able to do all of these things ourselves - WE swing the sword, WE walk these strange lands, and WE save the world.

So rather than falling over ourselves trying to come up with a suitable explanation for people like Ebert as to how a video game can affect us the same way a film can, why aren't we tasking Ebert to come up with an explanation as to how a film can impact us with the same sense of immersion and participation that a video game can? Because frankly, I have my doubts.

[TonyTheTiger]

When people ask whether or not video games can be considered art, it seems to me that what they're really asking is whether or not video games can occupy the same space that other more established forms do. My answer to that starts with a question: Why should we want them to?

I agree that this seems to be what it's mostly about. I think "art" gets brought up as shorthand for a more general idea of consistent professional and academic respect.

When people compare games to film as an argument in support of games as art, it's it's not really about movies being art or not. It's about film being a viable medium in academia while games currently are not. So rather than get bogged down in yet another "what is art?" debate, maybe we should reframe it. Assuming we're talking about "art" as anything that has a similar kind of academic/professional/historical viability, as it seems most people are edging toward that anyway, do video games meet that standard?

Removing the subjective idea of "art" from the equation, if you frame it more pragmatically then I don't see why the answer wouldn't be yes. But, then again, I also don't see why it wouldn't be yes if we replace video games with board games.

[j_factor]

The problem with the games as art agrument is that they are products developed for mass consumption. Sure one could argue that cars, comics, music, and film are in the same category and you're right. Though I suppose there are the occasional car or film that are made purely as an artistic exercise without any desire to mass market it. One off custom cars come to mind immediately to me. What I'm really saying is while SOME games could be considered art; not ALL games are art. It's the same theory as any of the above things I mentioned.
A Ford Escort is not likely to be considered art compared to say a Viper. Likewise compare say Mozart to Lady Gaga or a film like Neon Maniacs to say Gone with the Wind.
I seriuosly doubt years from now anyone will be appreciating the drivel and chaff that comes out in any medium as art though I can see the argument for some games to be considered art as valid; you can't simply consider them all art

Generally speaking, not "all" of anything is truly art. A painting isn't art if you just slapped random paints on a canvas. A sculpture isn't art if you just squeezed a big mold of clay in a couple random places and called it a day. Random background noise is also not art (although it's not really "music" either, so perhaps all music is art due to how we define the word "music"). That says nothing about the status of these as art forms.

So, I really think evaluating individual works is kind of irrelevant to the question of whether a category of work is art. I don't really see how mass consumption is relevant either (and even then, if you insist on going that route, plenty of games aren't). It also doesn't matter if anyone appreciates it.

I'm not sure what your comparisons are supposed to mean. Is music less of an art form because of Lady Gaga? Or is the only factor making it an art form the works of classical composers (and music wouldn't be art if Mozart didn't exist)? I'm not really sure what you're trying to convey here, but Lady Gaga's music is just as much "art" as anyone else's.

As for why this matters... Just to play devil's advocate, it can be true even if it's completely inconsequential. People argue over trivial things all the time. You can be right or wrong about a question that makes no difference to anybody.

But I do think this matters. Maybe not a whole lot, but it matters a little. I think back to that Columbine RPG, and the controversy around it. A lot of people disapproved of that, but it was his right to make it. My (or "our") understanding that there is a right to create things like that is grounded in the assumption that it's art. If it ceases to be "art", then perhaps creators of games, being non-artists, have no particular right to create, to comment, to express, to address controversial subjects. We can pass draconian censorship laws on games because, hey, it's not like we're censoring works of art here.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I think most the confusion stems from advancing technology constantly being applied in the field. All fields grow in complexity as technology gets integrated and sometimes, like in art, the tech gets adopted and moves faster than our understanding on how it is affecting the field applying it. If a game plays exactly like a film, it's not really a game. We all know this. Why? Because the interactive/skill requirement has been eradicated. That part is essential to being a game. So, that's where we start when placing games in the art field. Interactive art is more narrow and specific than art proper, but it's not less for it. That is simply what it is. Art proper should have no physical barrier between piece and observer except for the perceptual capacity required to experience the piece. It's the most simple and sometimes most profound. That is just to explicitly define that it's the base, not the best, and also required for the rest. Sculpture is a little more complicated, but a non-sighted person can still touch it and if placed out of reach one could still see it. Stone gargoyles perched on ledges of 10+ story buildings are then kind of a non-issue to a blind person right?

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

Generally speaking, not "all" of anything is truly art. A painting isn't art if you just slapped random paints on a canvas. A sculpture isn't art if you just squeezed a big mold of clay in a couple random places and called it a day. Random background noise is also not art (although it's not really "music" either, so perhaps all music is art due to how we define the word "music"). That says nothing about the status of these as art forms.

*SIGH* While I really don't want to get into a debate on any of this, the repeated thought by those who have shared it in this thread that there is some type of quantifiable determination of what IS or IS NOT "art" and what art "IS" or "IS NOT" should understand that it is not a debate that has ever been resolved by those in the most appropriate position(s) in the art world to do so.

Like debates on politics or religion, speaking in absolutes about it, or even generalizations is typically problematic, and any reader of this thread should have an understanding that every time somebody has attempted to qualify what art is "good" or "bad", and what art "is" or "isn't", any time those statements have attempted to be affixed to any aspect of the field of art, there have been "movements" within the art world, by artists to effectively destroy those constructs.

The modernist and post-modernist movements are completely legitimate from an academic standpoint (which, if you're not going from a completely personally subjective position on what "art" is - is what one would typically default to) and products of artists in those movements (we're currently still in post-modern from a timeline's perspective, though some would call it "contemporary" since nothing new has really happened movement-wise) would not only challenge the notion that "random paint slapped on a canvas is not art" or "a lump of clay squeezed in two places is not art" but I can guarantee that there are already thousands of examples of such descriptions that have been legitimized by artists, critics, galleries and art historians. (expressionism, neo expressionsim, installation art, conceptual art, minimalism, etc. say hello to your explanation)

When discussing "art" regardless of our strong desire to classify things in and out of it, a system has been created that has been repeatedly deconstructed and re-built by those who work within its confines.

There are many that believe that anything has the potential to be art, and there are those that believe that art is a very carefully, intentionally constructed thing that adheres to a set of classical rules.

Ultimately, nither side are wrong.

My position on the matter, while admmittedly non-authoritarian (I don't write any books on the subject and nobody solicits my opinion on the matter), comes from close to 15 years as an accredited artist with two degrees in the field (graphic and fine art) who has worked as a commercial artist for companies such as Marvel Comics, and done gallery installations, as well as taught art on a high-school level, so I'm not just spouting off based purely on my personal opinion.

I've been immersed in the culture of contemporary of art for quite some time.

Attempting to shoe-horn "art" into a category or a set of rules is a losing game IMO and I can't help but disagree with most attempts to do so based on years and years of graduate level art history classes. (History, if we don't pay attention we're doomed to repeat it, ya know?)

Though, of course as a viewer of art and a participant on that level you're ultimately entited to your own opinion of what it is on any and every level. I believe it's completely and totally subjective, even if the majority and/or the history books have the say at the end of the day.

[Jisho23]

We need to really stop drawing comparisons between video games and music or painting or film or...

Video games are a DIFFERENT medium. By drawing comparisons we are hurting the argument. We need to as a community of gamers, academics, and other artists decide what it is that makes a video game stand as a work of art on its own without bringing other mediums into--or at least not directly-- the discussion.

[Frankie_Says_Relax]

We need to really stop drawing comparisons between video games and music or painting or film or...

Video games are a DIFFERENT medium. By drawing comparisons we are hurting the argument. We need to as a community of gamers, academics, and other artists decide what it is that makes a video game stand as a work of art on its own without bringing other mediums into--or at least not directly-- the discussion.

The "art world" is typically challenged by embracing new media into the text and history books and/or immediately accepting it as "legitimate", especially when it's highly contemporary and primarily a commerical medium. All of the people in the positions to make those decisions are very critical/judgemental by their nature.

I've said it a few times over now, video games are at most 30 years old.

That's a blip on the timeline of art.

Just give it time and they'll be accepted.

It's this mad rush for acceptance as art NOW that's hurting the argument more than anything.

Things like the arrival of some classic games/systems into history museums, the persistence of gallery shows like "I am 8-Bit", and even the endless stream of "promotional materials" and "licensed merchandise" for game related things (t-shirts, lunch-boxes, posters, etc.) are all part of the process of sealing the deal, but it needs to simmer for another couple of decades at least.

[Jisho23]

Well, I think the "rush" is to prevent video games from devolving into being something that has no true intellectual value, which is where it's heading. Thats why I think--for myself in particular--I'm trying to really critically evaluate the games I'm playing and decide what sort of merit they have.

Its not an easy task, but we do need to find a way to codify what makes some video games better art as opposed to others. And I'm probably very outside of the mainstream thought on this one: I don't feel "Shadow of the Colossus" is all that artistic, especially when compared to "Ico."

[Icarus Moonsight]

The market will sort it out huh? I'm inclined to agree.

[Emuaust]

Art is a subjective medium and something that is really only defined by those whose eyes you're looking through. In saying that IMO its stupid to think that some games dont fit some preconcieved mold of what is to be considered "art".