Are video games art?

[DoogieT]

I wrote an article for Canada's National Post about my personal struggle with games and whether or not they're art and they ran it today.  Yay!

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/douglas-trueman-video-games-level-up-to-become-modern-art/

[Gainsdalf the Whey]

Very nice article!  I've had the debate many times myself and my personal conclusion is that some are, some are not.  Shooters typically I would rule in the "are not" category, they're rehashes with greater graphics (the only component of them I would call art) but as a whole they are not.

 

However, there are games that are clearly art.  "Shadow of the Colossus" is always the first that leaps to mind for me. That was art in motion, not a single word or line of text in the game except for the title, yet somehow fully engaging on a variety of levels (emotional, competitive, curiosity).

 

There's been many more recently with the Indy game market that I unfortunately have not the time to dive into, but my brief interactions with it have been quite nice.

 

 

[Tanktimus the Encourager]

I liked your article.  As for your question I would say that's like asking "Is painting Art?"  I purport video games are a medium, and each individual game needs to be judged on its own merit, just as paintings are. 

[SkiBlue]

Interesting and enjoyable article! I had no idea MOMA had done that. After all the hash that gaming has received over the years (like you pointed out in the article), it's nice to see that people are being more open-minded and not as judgmental.

 

I liked your article.  As for your question I would say that's like asking "Is painting Art?"  I purport video games are a medium, and each individual game needs to be judged on its own merit, just as paintings are. 

 

I couldn't have said it better myself. 

[Jakob Kopfeld]

I wrote an article for Canada's National Post about my personal struggle with games and whether or not they're art and they ran it today.  Yay!

 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/03/15/douglas-trueman-video-games-level-up-to-become-modern-art/

Awesome that the Post published you article! Great read, I hope you get the chance to write more puiblished works in the future  

The article focuses to much on mainstream preception of video games, not on the aspect of it being an art. Please bear with me through the next couple paragraphs!

 

 

I think to actually discuss this, there needs to be a distinction. Is the end product the acutal 'game' what you consider art? Or is what the end user does with an incredibly complex game art? Sadly the above article focuses entirely on the first aspect.

 

 

In the first case it argue against, because it is an inanimate dead experience. It is scripted, and will always follow the rules that have been imposed upon it. It is a static, that cannot change, it has no 'soul'. A game like Super Mario Brothers would not be art by my definition. It always follows the same path, there are no variables and there is an obvious most efficient way to solve the problem.

 

In the second case, let's say someone who spends alot of time playing said game. Not just fooling around and killing time, actually trying to devise the best possible way to win the game, a progamer as the scene calls them.Like in a game of Chess the endproduct, the endless hours of thinking and practicing that went into it, produce an iteration of that game, that could be considered art.

 

 

A perfect game of chess, is art, just as much as an unexpected comeback would be. It has to be relateable to the viewer in some way. The comeback and win of an almost certainly defeated contender, is relatable for me, therefore I would consider it art. Not as graphics rendered by an engine, not as pieces of the game moving around, but as result of all the effort put into an incredibly hard process.

 

In this second appliance, it is just as it is with paintings. Your average 4 year old kid, could, by accident, draw something that looks like a picasso on a napkin, in a pizzajoint while waiting for a plate of spaghetti. Is that art? Some would say yes, others no. I myself would write it off as coincidence and move on. Would the same set of pencil strokes, deliberatly placed on a canvas be art then? I would probably answer yes to this question.

 

 

 

What I want to say is, that it probably depends a lot on what kind of game it is. Mass Effect is not art by my definition. Starcraft 2 would be (the multiplayer part, the player vs player aspec of it). But it only becomse art in capable hands. Hands that know what they are doing, why they are doing those things. This is a highly fascinating topic, I hope we can get an awesome discussion goin.

 

TL;DR No. If you want to talk to me about this, have the decency to read my post!

[Raikas]

Nice article, DoogieT!

 

 

Is the end product the acutal 'game' what you consider art? Or is what the end user does with an incredibly complex game art? Sadly the above article focuses entirely on the first aspect.

 

In the first case it argue against, because it is an inanimate dead experience. It is scripted, and will always follow the rules that have been imposed upon it. It is a static that cannot change, it has no 'soul'. A game like Super Mario Brothers would not be art by my definition. It always follows the same path, there are no variables and there is an obvious most efficient way to solve the problem.

 

Why "sadly"?  The traditional view of art is the end product after all (and the impact of that end product on the audience).   A painting or sculpture or film is static, an operatic score is fixed even though it’s  open to production design interpretation when it comes to performance.   Caravaggio's The Musicians or Handel's Giulio Cesare or David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia are not going to change, but that hardly takes away from the artistry.
 

Which isn’t to say that I disagree with the artistry of action, because I’m very much a fan of that as well – I just don’t think it’s as simple as one taking precedence over the other.

 

 

What I want to say is, that it probably depends a lot on what kind of game it is. Mass Effect is not art by my definition. Starcraft 2 would be (the multiplayer part, the player vs player aspec of it). But it only becomse art in capable hands. Hands that know what they are doing, why they are doing those things. This is a highly fascinating topic, I hope we can get an awesome discussion goin.

 

I agree with the idea that a fabulously played game is like a fantastic goal or new chess strategy in that it involves innovation and
performance and is therefore certainly art.  That said, I think in this example Starcraft 2 is not in itself art - it's the pencil that
the artist is holding, the pitch that the athletes are playing on or the board and set that the chess master is playing with (and that's purely in this context - a chess set can be art in and of itself, Starcraft II may be art, an interesting pencil design may be art).

 

Mass Effect, is obviously not open to that innovation, but I would argue that while that means the gameplay is not art, it also means that the game itself is.  And frankly there were parts in Mass Effect 3 that I felt were as moving as anything I’ve seen in opera or film.

[Jakob Kopfeld]

Why "sadly"?  The traditional view of art is the end product after all (and the impact of that end product on the audience).   A painting or sculpture or film is static, an operatic score is fixed even though it’s  open to production design interpretation when it comes to performance.   Caravaggio's The Musicians or Handel's Giulio Cesare or David Lean's Lawrence of Arabia are not going to change, but that hardly takes away from the artistry.

 

Which isn’t to say that I disagree with the artistry of action, because I’m very much a fan of that as well – I just don’t think it’s as simple as one taking precedence over the other.

Sadly because the second option is much worthier of discussion. It is like comparing the person manufacturing a pencil or a brush or mixing colours to Carvaggio painting the Musicians. Yes the utensils are essential, no brush, no painting, but when comparing the two tasks making a brush and painting a masterpiece, it should become apparent why one is art and the other is menial.

The opera does not belong with those other examples, every time it gets played, the actors, orchester and director influence the overall work, even if it's just at tiny personal note.

 

Yes the movie is art, as is the painting. But it is lifeless and static. The outcome of the movie isn't going to change, no matter how often you watch it. It loses it's appeal if you watch it over and over again. The dynamic piece stays interesting because it's different every time.

 

 

 

I agree with the idea that a fabulously played game is like a fantastic goal or new chess strategy in that it involves innovation and

performance and is therefore certainly art.  That said, I think in this example Starcraft 2 is not in itself art - it's the pencil that

the artist is holding, the pitch that the athletes are playing on or the board and set that the chess master is playing with (and that's purely in this context - a chess set can be art in and of itself, Starcraft II may be art, an interesting pencil design may be art).

 

Mass Effect, is obviously not open to that innovation, but I would argue that while that means the gameplay is not art, it also means that the game itself is.  And frankly there were parts in Mass Effect 3 that I felt were as moving as anything I’ve seen in opera or film.

No the game itself is not art, it is the medium the artist uses to express his emotion and thoughts, you are abosultely right here. Everything and anything can be art, if the amount of effort going into it is high enough to reflect the creators emotions in the piece. 

 

Haven't played the third part yet, but in the first two no matter how you make the decisiouns you're faced with, gameplay stays linear. If you compare what happens in Mass Effect to a game like Eve Online, or Terraria, where what happens is entirely up to the player, the same distinction between static and dynamic, scripted and open becomse apparent. The true art behind the opera, is that it gives the people acting it out a stage, to let their personal influences flow into it, to keep it evolving and improving. Which is, in my opinion, the more interesting aspect of art. 

[Raikas]

Yes the movie is art, as is the painting. But it is lifeless and static. The outcome of the movie isn't going to change, no matter how often you watch it. It loses it's appeal if you watch it over and over again. The dynamic piece stays interesting because it's different every time.

 

Except that people do watch the great movies over and over again. they reread their favourite books.  They queue up to see paintings they've seen before, or listen to recordings of the same music repeatedly.  I would argue that the static piece that can hold up to that is just as powerful as any dynamic or active artistry.  The classics are classic because they do keep their appeal.

 

 

The true art behind the opera, is that it gives the people acting it out a stage, to let their personal influences flow into it, to keep it evolving and improving. Which is, in my opinion, the more interesting aspect of art.

 

 

Fair enough, we're all interested in different things, but having a preference hardly disproves the artistic merit of a linear game (or other static art piece).   And having seen some horrible productions of good operas and decent productions of operas that aren't to my taste, I would disagree that the production is the true art - it can be, certainly - but at least in a terrible production of a good one you can close your eyes and concentrate on the score. 

[Jakob Kopfeld]

Except that people do watch the great movies over and over again. they reread their favourite books.  They queue up to see paintings they've seen before, or listen to recordings of the same music repeatedly.  I would argue that the static piece that can hold up to that is just as powerful as any dynamic or active artistry.  The classics are classic because they do keep their appeal.

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, we're all interested in different things, but having a preference hardly disproves the artistic merit of a linear game (or other static art piece).   And having seen some horrible productions of good operas and decent productions of operas that aren't to my taste, I would disagree that the production is the true art - it can be, certainly - but at least in a terrible production of a good one you can close your eyes and concentrate on the score. 

I would argue that consuming the same story over and over is only possible a finite number of times. Whereas consuming a piece of dynamic art in different iterations always has the same shiney new feeling to it. I love Starwars more than any other piece of screenplay I have ever encountered, I still watch the original trilogy whenever I get a chance. But the 100th viewing won't be the same as the first. It can't even compare. By the 250th I probably would get bored, on the 500th watching I'd be sick. 

 

That is what makes dynamic pieces so exciting. You can never know what it is you'll get. It could be awesome. Or it could be so horrible you'd want to scrape your eyes out. 

[Raikas]

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that a dynamic experience can be exciting - I just don't believe that you can say that a static object or story is not art because of its static nature.

As an aside, I think multiple readings/viewings/play-throughs aren't necessarily precursors to boredom. As we experience life our worldview shifts, so over time you can look at the same painting or book or game through new eyes - that static thing can become something new when you change the angle at which you examine in.

[guest439437484421]

IMHO anything that is either made or altered by a human is art.  From a simple log made from chopping down a tree to the bear carved out of said log.  a pencil is a piece of art, someone had to design it, we've just automated the process.  the concept of a piece of art must distill emotion is somewhat skewed.  if i looked at a #2 yellow pencil i instantly remember a lot of the times i used one in school.  so, is that not art?

 

the problem with trying to define what is "art" is that people look to be exclusive, rather than inclusive, in their definition.  i argue that there is absolutely no difference in a game like super mario bros and shadow of the colossus, other than age and limitation of the technology of the time.

[Jakob Kopfeld]

If everything is art, nothing is art aswell. Let us not get existentialist here though, because that train of though, while worth entertaining to some degree, really leads nowhere but into apathy.

 

Do you really consider the machine manufactured pencil art? Sure it holds a lot of memory for you, but as a natural scientist I like things to have at least some fracture of objectivity. The same pencil for me is just that. A pencil. Just as a wall painted in industrial white is just that. A Wall. White in colour, but still an ordinary wall. I think for something to be art it at least has to inspire some kind of emotion in the viewer. The pencil doesn't it reminds you of memories which do. But the pencil itself is a cold, dead pencil. No emotion about it

 

This is my definition of art aswell, something, anything, that inspires some kind of emotional reaction in the viewer, is art. Short, concise, probably wrong. Still my definition

[guest439437484421]

If everything is art, nothing is art aswell. Let us not get existentialist here though, because that train of though, while worth entertaining to some degree, really leads nowhere but into apathy.

 

Do you really consider the machine manufactured pencil art? Sure it holds a lot of memory for you, but as a natural scientist I like things to have at least some fracture of objectivity. The same pencil for me is just that. A pencil. Just as a wall painted in industrial white is just that. A Wall. White in colour, but still an ordinary wall. I think for something to be art it at least has to inspire some kind of emotion in the viewer. The pencil doesn't it reminds you of memories which do. But the pencil itself is a cold, dead pencil. No emotion about it

 

This is my definition of art aswell, something, anything, that inspires some kind of emotional reaction in the viewer, is art. Short, concise, probably wrong. Still my definition

 

well to be honest that piece of canvas is just cloth with colors on it, it's cold and dead just like the pencil.  the only difference between a painting and a pencil is that we percieve that the painting is art because we tell ourselves that it is art since it was made in a specific way.  for example, if i took that pencil and then framed it, is it still just a cold dead pencil?  or is it now art all of a sudden because i changed the context of your perception?