Smithsonian And National Endowment For The Arts Ends Argument: Video Games ARE Art

[The 1 2 P]

Several of us have had the "are games art" argument, but now the greatest art institution in the world steps in to rule in video games favor. The Smithsonian Art Museum will host "Art of Video Games" in 2012, running for six months. Although it won't take place in the actual Smithsonian, the American Art Museum is nearly as prestigious.

The reason why I put this in modern gaming as opposed to classic gaming was because the press release stated that the exhibit would showcase game art from the Atari VCS to the Playstation 3. Plus, the last two and current generation(in my opinion) have done more for the "are games art" argument than any other time frame.

I have a feeling that Mr. Ebert might sit this one out. Discuss your opinion about this upcoming groundbreaking exhibit that will showcase one of our favorite hobbies.

[vivaeljason]

Good to know the Smithsonian has come around to an opinion I've held for about a decade.

Now if we can just win Hideo Kojima over, we'll be set.

[boatofcar]

I didn't realize the Smithsonian was in charge making those kind of decisions. And not being in the actual Smithsonian is like running a musical off-broadway. Cool, but it's not in the big leagues yet.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm confused. Are they saying that games themselves are art or that they contain art?

I don't think it's ever been an argument that they can contain art. If this display is nothing more than a bunch of drawings of Super Mario and some screenshots from Okami I don't think that says all that much about whether or not the entire package fits the bill.

[jb143]

I'm confused. Are they saying that games themselves are art or that they contain art?

I don't think it's ever been an argument that they can contain art. If this display is nothing more than a bunch of drawings of Super Mario and some screenshots from Okami I don't think that says all that much about whether or not the entire package fits the bill.

That's what I was wondering as well. "Chronicling the development of art in video games" isn't quite the same as calling video games art in and of themselves.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I'm guessing Ebert will not be attending the exhibit...

While I view some games as having art like qualities, I still can't think of them as "Art". Love and appreciate them as I do. Someone explain to me how Cabela's Billy Big-Mouth Bass and Deercide Fest 08 qualifies as art and I might be on the verge of shifting opinion. Oh, and the Smithsonian... You're not the Louve, get over yourselves.

[The 1 2 P]

I'm confused. Are they saying that games themselves are art or that they contain art?

Here's what they have initially planned:

Many museums have explored art inspired by video games, but this exhibition will be the first to examine comprehensively the evolution of video games themselves as an artistic medium. From the Atari VCS to the Playstation 3, The Art of Video Games will show the development of visual effects and aesthetics during four decades, the emergence of games as a means for storytelling, the influence of world events and popular culture on game development, and the impact that the games can have on society. It will include multimedia presentations of game footage, video interviews with developers and artists, large prints of in-game screen shots, historic game consoles, and a selection of working game systems for visitors to play. In addition, the public will be asked to assist with the selection of materials for the show by choosing the games that they feel best represent particular moments in the overall timeline.

[Bojay1997]

I didn't realize the Smithsonian was in charge making those kind of decisions. And not being in the actual Smithsonian is like running a musical off-broadway. Cool, but it's not in the big leagues yet.

I'm guessing you've never actually visited the Smithsonian. It's a complex of different physical structures, some of which are in different sections of Washington DC and the vast majority of its collections are housed off-site at various storage facilities not open to the public. There isn't some sort of prestige hierarchy associated with which physical building the exhibition is housed in, it's all about the subject matter and the square footage required. The Smithsonian's American art collection has been displayed in the American Art Museum since it opened and contrary to your assertions, it is considered an equal part of the Smithsonian Museum.

I will never understand the loathing and self-hatred gamers have for the idea that something that now costs millions of dollars to create, involves teams of thousands of artists, sound designers and voice-over talent and generates as much or more revenue than the film industry is somehow not "art". In any event, this exhibition doesn't definitively settle that debate, but it is nice to see that the leading institution in this country is finally recognizing the importance of video games.

[TonyTheTiger]

I will never understand the loathing and self-hatred gamers have for the idea that something that now costs millions of dollars to create, involves teams of thousands of artists, sound designers and voice-over talent and generates as much or more revenue than the film industry is somehow not "art".

I don't think it's self loathing at all. Whether something is or is not "art" has no bearing whatsoever on its quality and value. The word "art" means nothing in terms of quality or lack thereof. It's just a noun or adjective.

Besides, I'm not sure what art is let alone if video games qualify.

[Aussie2B]

I just hope that if video games are finally being recognized as art that it isn't limited to the "artsy" games.

But seriously, if this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...an_CompRYB.jpg

and even this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29

are art, then certainly video games can be as well. Both of those are taught in the college art history course I'm currently taking, by the way.

[boatofcar]

I'm guessing you've never actually visited the Smithsonian. It's a complex of different physical structures, some of which are in different sections of Washington DC and the vast majority of its collections are housed off-site at various storage facilities not open to the public. There isn't some sort of prestige hierarchy associated with which physical building the exhibition is housed in, it's all about the subject matter and the square footage required. The Smithsonian's American art collection has been displayed in the American Art Museum since it opened and contrary to your assertions, it is considered an equal part of the Smithsonian Museum.

I'm guessing you disagree with my opinion so you're trying to make me look ignorant.

Classy.

The main buildings of the Smithsonian, the important ones, start with "National Museum of..." The rest, while technically part of the museum's structure, are farm teams compared to the big leagues.

Oh, and I used to live in DC and have visited the Smithsonian many a time. Not that I should have to mention that to the likes of you, but whatever.

[Bojay1997]

I'm guessing you disagree with my opinion so you're trying to make me look ignorant.

Classy.

The main buildings of the Smithsonian, the important ones, start with "National Museum of..." The rest, while technically part of the museum's structure, are farm teams compared to the big leagues.

Oh, and I used to live in DC and have visited the Smithsonian many a time. Not that I should have to mention that to the likes of you, but whatever.

I'm not trying to make you look like anything. You stated an inaccurate fact to support your opinion and I'm calling you out on it. The Smithsonian's entire American art collection is housed in the American Art Museum where this show is being held. I've been a donor to the museum for probably 20 years, so I get the quarterly publications and e-mail updates and I probably visit at least once a year.

All of the branches of the Smithsonian are considered to be equal and each individual museum facility specializes in a particular area. I will agree with you that maybe 10-15 years ago, this wasn't the case, but the addition of new facilities in that time has meant more specialization of each facility. There is no prestige hierarchy, it's all considered the Smithsonian collection.

[Zap!]

I said the same thing four years ago here and got laughed at. Video games are art 100%.

[TonyTheTiger]

My biggest gripe is that people make such a big deal of the whole thing. Why does it matter?

If I walk around with a basketball and claim "This is NOT round" people will just look at me funny and be done with it.

But if I walk around and say "X is NOT art" people will take personal offense and see to it that I burn in hell.

Why in holy hell is the "art" moniker treated as if it were a badge of honor? And why is the withholding of the noun/adjective somehow interpreted as an insult to the product? It's just a damn word. It says nothing of the value of the object itself.

If people can explain why they invest so much personal interest in "art" as a descriptor, when they fail to do the same with any other term in the English language, then I might stop looking at the whole debate with restrained cynicism.

[Aussie2B]

I'd venture to guess that it's because people take their creative expression seriously, and if someone tells them that what they're doing isn't art, it's akin to saying that you don't believe they put any creativity into what they did or that you don't respect their creative expression. It's all a very personal thing.

Granted it's different when it's directed at a fan rather than the creator him or herself, but it can have the same belittling effect.

[Icarus Moonsight]

The demand for art is a certain level. And the amount of artisans and their work output supply has always overblown that demand and always will. Calling every creative work "Art" sort of heals that wound of rejection, that they feel. The problem is, they are looking at it in the wrong way. Art needs no external validation. Anytime you create something, it should be for personal expression and fulfillment.

Basically, if you have to tell other people that it is Art, it's surely anything but.

[Bojay1997]

My biggest gripe is that people make such a big deal of the whole thing. Why does it matter?

If I walk around with a basketball and claim "This is NOT round" people will just look at me funny and be done with it.

But if I walk around and say "X is NOT art" people will take personal offense and see to it that I burn in hell.

Why in holy hell is the "art" moniker treated as if it were a badge of honor? And why is the withholding of the noun/adjective somehow interpreted as an insult to the product? It's just a damn word. It says nothing of the value of the object itself.

If people can explain why they invest so much personal interest in "art" as a descriptor, when they fail to do the same with any other term in the English language, then I might stop looking at the whole debate with restrained cynicism.

But it's a word that has the power to bring social acceptance and inclusion. As someone who has been an avid gamer for going on 30 years now, it has only been recently that playing games has been seen as something more than what nerdy little kids do in their bedroom. With the general public starting to recognize that like other media, games can be considered artistic or art, it reduces the level of stigma attached to being a gamer. That's the reason I care so much.

[TonyTheTiger]

But it's a word that has the power to bring social acceptance and inclusion.

Yes. And I call bullshit on that. It's not mine or anybody else's responsibility to tend to bruised egos based on arbitrary nonsense. I know I didn't declare "art" some sort of social badge of honor. Nor do I know who did. Why should I let that interfere with my hobby? If somebody out there thinks lesser of video games because they aren't "art" then that's on them. It has no influence whatsoever on any of our lives. I don't see the problem as being on people who deem X art or not art. I see the problem being on people who care about whether that person deems X art or not art.

Imagine this in any other scenario. Imagine if I were an astronaut training to go to Mars for the first time. Now imagine if a certain sect of people started saying how pointless that trip is because it's just a dead chunk of rock. What do I care what those people say? I want to go to Mars and those people aren't going to stop me. If I freak out about it then I'm the one with the problem.

It's the ultimate inferiority complex to care whether or not something is "accepted," socially or otherwise.

As someone who has been an avid gamer for going on 30 years now, it has only been recently that playing games has been seen as something more than what nerdy little kids do in their bedroom. With the general public starting to recognize that like other media, games can be considered artistic or art, it reduces the level of stigma attached to being a gamer. That's the reason I care so much.

That's a waste of time and energy though because regardless of whether something is deemed "art" it's just a matter of time before it's just "what it is." If I sit down to write something, which I do quite often, I'm not thinking that I'm trying to be artistic or "making art." I'm just doing what I want to do. I don't really give a shit what the guy next door calls what I'm doing. He can call it art if he wants. He can just as easily call it interdimensional travel if that's what floats his boat. It has no bearing on what I'm doing or whether or not I can make a buck or two on it.

You'd think that video games being a multi-billion dollar a year industry is far more important to the whole "acceptance" thing than whether or not Roger Ebert thinks Sonic Spinball is a work of art. And, again, "acceptance" means jack shit.

I just get tired of this constituency playing the martyr card, "Woe are we, games and gamers get shit upon once again," or the inferiority complex card, "We just want to be accepted by the whole world." It's a culture of butthurt.

I think the first step to any kind of acceptance is being secure enough to not care what this guy is saying or that guy is doing.

you wouldnt put dumb and dumber in the same pocket as you would eternal sunshine of the spotless mind or the truman show would you?

Considering that I find Dumb and Dumber to be the superior movie...and incredibly entertaining in it's own right...

But, to address what you're getting at, I do find the whole idea of "high art" and "low art" to be some of the most pompous, elitist, and pretentious nonsense I've ever heard.

hideo kojimas personal view on gaming not being art is regretable

Why? Why is his view regrettable but yours is not? Weren't you just saying it's a very personal thing? Not to point any fingers, but this is the kind of butthurt I'm talking about.

[SplashChick]

Video games aren't inherently art, but they are an artistic medium. Like music or painting, not everything created within the medium is art, but art can and does get created with it(for example, Rock & Roll Adventures is in no way art, but Mother 3 sure as hell is).

[Tallise]

It's about time I say. If you think about it A story is concidered a type of art, a picture is concidered a type of art, a movie is even concidered art. if you put every peice of a video game into a different jar you would see a story, pictures, audio, and many other things, individually they are art, together they are interactive art :3