Are video games art?

[Robodl95]

The Art of Video Games expedition opening March 16th 2012 in the Smithsonian American Art Museum will explore the 40-year evolution of video games as an artistic medium. This has been a controversial debate as games have been getting more and more advanced with more complex stories but are they really art? For more information on the expedition or how you can help with voting check out this website: http://www.artofvideogames.org/

Roger Ebert (a film critic) has been one of the most vocal on the opposing party and I think his article could be worth a read http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

So, do you think video games art?

[Mistermook]

So, do you think video games art?
Yes I do.

[pinketamine]

I do too. They are probably some kind of "interactive art".

[HystericalParoxysm]

Some games are, definitely. The game that Ebert mentions in the article, Flower, on PS3, is -definitely- art. He puts it down saying it's nothing more than a greeting card, but the entire game is not sweetness and light, and it is stunningly beautiful and strangely moving.

[Mistermook]

A greeting card is art too.

People get entirely too stuffy about "what's art." If it has aesthetic intent, a message in the medium, it's art, whether someone likes it or not. Now, if someone were going to talk about "how much art is in this or that" I could get behind it. A can of Coke has art to it, from the Cola swoosh and the bright red color, but I'd hesitate to say it has the same amount of art going in and out as a Monet. I'm not entirely sure how that sort of appraisal is really relevant - advertising art's broader appeal makes it the clear winner by a lot of metrics anyone could measure, just like a Hollywood blockbuster like GI Joe makes money hand over fist even though my personal review of the movie was absolutely abysmal. And some people don't like paintings that aren't realism, and some people don't like rap music, but Kanye West sells albums and even I have work up in people's kitchens of little scribbly impressionist fruit so I'm just not sure if people's tastes are relevant anymore than things that might measure value by more concrete methods like financial success.

[Nekowolf]

Movies can be art. Books can be art. Why not video games? Sure, some may not be so much art as entertainment. But others can be very artistic. And yet others both entertaining and art. But the thing is, they are art more in kin with movies and books (and really? I'd say especially books).

[anothereyjana]

Sure, some may not be so much art as entertainment.
But the exact same thing could also be said of movies, yet they are considered art without question. I hear comments all of the time how video games are becoming more and more like movies, with the effects and graphics, better story lines, theatrical-style trailers for releases, etc. It has also now become common practice to shuffle graphic artists and such back and forth between video game companies and productions, and movie studios.

Not to mention the fact that there are many other forms of art and expression which have been barred from being considered "works of art" both now and in the past. According to today's "art standards" mediums such as tattoos, comics and graphic novels, and make-up effects (despite the fact that many of them incorporate or even are sculptures, and that designing the effect [typically in the form of a sketch] is an integral part of the process) and even body painting are also excluded as being official "art forms," despite the sheer amount of effort, creativity, and skill which is poured into them. I remember seeing an ad for an exhibition featuring quilts and other sewn works of art, which were just getting recognition. They had discounted them as art works in the past, allowing thinly-veiled discrimination against women and African-Americans, because historically they were barred from taking part in traditional art practices and used things like weaving and quilt-making as alternate forms of expression.
Technically, the modern art world still does openly discriminate somewhat, as, more likely than not, "fine art" only receives critical acclaim if the artist has a degree from a well-known institution (i.e., an expensive school), and it must be tailor-made for people who also have spent thousands of dollars to obtain a degree, and completely confuses (or is otherwise completely unrelate-able) to basically everyone else, otherwise, the person is considered a "hack." That's not to say that post-modern minimalistic style artwork (which is what seems to be dominating the industry at this time) doesn't have merits as well, or that everything has to be instantly relate-able to everyone to be considered, but, according to modern standards, a master painter of the old would have his work torn down and dismissed completely by modern art critics if they tried to make it anywhere today.

I remember having a similar discussion while going to school (I was minoring in "Fine Arts"), and how, virtually every art student (and even some teachers I talked to) all seemed to agree that there was entirely too much pretension in the current art world today, and that it would risk ultimately hurting the art world as a whole.

In my mind, there's no reason why video games or parts of a video game couldn't be considered "art" as well. Does anyone remember a video game called Ookami? If I'm remembering correctly it was loosely based on a Japanese legend, and the entire premise of it was centered on art/creating art.

[Nekowolf]

Ah, and that is the thing about art. It is so subjective.

[Mistermook]

Fine art is an artificial, modern construct though. It was designed as a reference purely to extend a sense of elitism in certain artists and distance themselves from artists they didn't approve of. It's like a bunch of capitalists turning their noses up at a bunch of entrepreneurs because they insist the two things are different, for no other reason except to promote that difference.

[_Hiatus_]

I think that video game are -absolutely- art. Like painting, or music, they can be tasteful or trashy. People will like some types of games, hate others. Ect. Ect.

[Robodl95]

Almost anything could be considered a work of art though (that lady right there is quite the work of art :deal: ). People make "art" everyday but most of it is completely ignored by the rest of the population. Do you think that games today will (or deserve to) have as lasting of an impact hundreds of years from now as that of Monet or Picasso does today?

That's the trickier question to answer I think. First off graphics are constantly improving, 200-300 years from now graphics will be so advanced that you won't be able to tell any difference from reality (I expect that to come in the next 50 years honestly), when they look back at games of today (much like we look at old games) they're going to look extremely outdated and any of the things that we take for beautiful now will pale in comparison. Unlike other kinds of art video games age and become obsolete.

Do you think that certain games have the ability to stand the test of time as a work of art?

[Mistermook]

Yeah, but you could say the same thing about cave paintings or 17th century chairs. Or decorative chamber pots. If they're able to be viewed as art, meaning we retain the capacity to demonstrate them, then they're art. I grew up watching arcades come onto the scene and exit in the late 70s and 80s. Sometimes the art of those old games isn't what we expect it to be when we first experienced it. For instance, I didn't think anything of pinball machines growing up, but now that pinball machines are mostly ancient history it's worth recognizing the art not of the game, but the backboards and lighting design - sometimes even the case. You take a game like Sonic and Donkey Kong that have provoked movies and comics and such, and whatever value in the graphics of the original game I think you've got to recognize the way that those games created a new mythology. Sonic isn't about those initial games, he's art that's from those games. Mario and Luigi have been slipped into all sorts of modern narratives, they wear difference faces for different stories and morality tales.

[Generic User Name]

I'm reading through the article and I notice that the webpage has a lot of content. The article couldn't have been that long and as I scroll down, turns out it really wasn't. Most of the content is coming from the many responses to the article, some of which, to be fair, have good arguments.

However, right now I'm thinking, who cares if this critic doesn't consider video games as an art?

Now, I don't mean to be negative or cynical, this is merely just another perspective in this debate. Clearly, we all have different opinions on whether or not video games should be considered art. A word has many definitions, most of which aren't even defined in a dictionary but defined by the opinion of individual persons.

Some of us believe it's an art, some of us don't. Personally, I believe that only a select few video games can be considered an art. It does take a lot of skill to put together a video game what with all the animation, the plot production and the programming but that stuff is all technical. It takes a lot more than that to create a video game with actual depth in order for it to be memorable and timely.

From what I see, though, there is no decisive definition of what art really is. And hey, I'm pretty sure movies once were (and probably for some individuals, still are) not considered art. It's all a matter of opinion.

[Shoosh Malooka]

Yes and no. A man turned a urinal upside down and now museums show replicas of it. A monkey named Congo splattered paint and they called it "lyrical abstract impressionism."

[Nekowolf]

Oh oh! I have one to add!

Almost anything by M. Night Shyamalan.

[SuicidiaParasidia]

im more inclined to say that they contain art, rather than that they are art...and i play a lot of video games.

possibly more than what is considered "healthy".

[whiterider]

One characteristic that sets science and art apart is the fact that scientific works are more valued when they are repeated or tested again, and art depreciates its own value when it's replicated.
I don't necessarily agree with this. There's only one original, yes - but a copy is not always a depreciating thing.

Poetry and plays are generally considered art, but the art of the thing isn't decreased if it's printed commercially - in fact I would say it becomes more valuable as art: how many people who today know the beauty and artistry in Lady Macbeth's monologue, would know it if Shakespeare's plays hadn't been copied? And sticking to the theme, which is "more" art - Shakespeare's original script of Hamlet, or Sir Patrick Stewart and David Tennant's performance of it several hundred years - and copies - later? In fact, isn't every rendition of any play a copy, copying from the playwright's original script and from earlier performances?
Is Goldsmith's London (poem, I detest, can't think of the other guy's name though) less art if you read it in a Penguin Classics book, than it would be if you read it from the dust of the original scribblings? I would say not.
Right now I'm listening to a very impressive rendition of the Czardas: the composition is definitely art, but it would be wasted had it not been replicated, communicated to David Garrett (whose version I am listening to), copied by David Garrett into the form of a fantastic performance, and then copied into digital form and copied to my hard drive via Spotify. The fact that it's a few copies old does not make it "less" art, and I imagine that, after listening to this rendition in the way I am doing so, other artists will copy it again and perform it themselves, in yet another iteration of the art of the piece.

It's true that many visual arts are less impressive when copied, but that's because the medium forms part of the art, and the medium is not copiable. A poster of the Mona Lisa is less highly valued than the original, because it doesn't have the exact same colours, nor the same brushwork, as the original. But digital art can be copied exactly, byte for byte: there's no degradation, and so I would say that a copy is just as valuable as the original: it is identical to the original.

[MaydayParade]

Video games are art. Period.

[Robodl95]

Shakespeare did not come up with very much original material of his own, Romeo and Juliet was based on some poem which Shakespeare then worked his magic on. And think of basically every Disney movie ever made, most are based on classic fairy tales but the Disney movies have done nothing but improve those stories (for the most part)

[Mistermook]

Show me a person who says they've created original art and I'll name you a liar.

[Shoosh Malooka]

Duchamp was a liar. Those that disagree are liars.

[Robodl95]

Show me a person who says they've created original art and I'll name you a liar.
Cave paintings?

[whiterider]

Yes, I'm sorry, Extensa - I was trying to distinguish from the refrigerator comment, because I misread it as "mass-produced" :p . The idea of mass-production implies much less individuality or inherent value than that of reproduction, to me anyway - and I think your last comment confused me too, I've already pointed out the distinction I see there between paintings and other examples.

[Mistermook]

Cave paintings?
Probably building on less successful cave paintings, based on stories told by others, describing things that had happened to other people, possibly for longer than we've been walking upright.

On the other hand, if you produce someone who has legitimately made cave paintings from prehistory, I'm willing to sit down with them and discuss it reasonably.

[malfoya]

Every game is made out of drawings and imagination, so yeah. Almost everything, besides raw materials, can be concidered art.

[TheLB]

This video is a good talk, and accurately sums up my opinions on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otyXtzLNxoI

[sayyadina]

I have come to a personal conclusion that our whole existense and creation (including the mineral world) is Art and "art in general". Mythic, mystic, surreal, legendary, illusive and somewhat epic. Original art is not a final product for others to view or buy. Its the process of creating it, the level of involvement and passion put into ones work. How other people later define and judge the product/end result is irrelevant from that point of view if transformed into a verb: Create. "Art" describes the action.

Objectively speaking, only a market of potential critics and buyers can and will define art as static and solid form. It makes no sense to say one of these stances are more true than the other.

Videogames can be seen and interacted with only through the imagination, not smelled or touched. No hands actually touch the medium. Its not pottery. But its still art.

[SeeMyu]

Im some ways they are.. depending on what game it is, and what you can do with it.
considering this, The Sims 3 would be a type of art sense people are able to make machinimas and apply some type of artistic connection.
But.. unlike some RPG's (Halo, Dead Space, Little Big Planet) < I don't think you could make something artistic out of that.. but I could be wrong.

So.. it really depends on the type of game.. and what it offers

[Robodl95]

I don't play Halo/Deadspace but I've seen some really awesome stuff made with LBP, one of it's main marketing points is all the creativity that you can put into the game... so yeah.

[DigitalSympathies]

I've seen great machinima made with all types of games.

Games evoke emotions in us because we ARE the character or we ARE the controller. Therefore, if it resonates, it is art.

[maxon]

Yes, I do. There are many definitions of art, none of them satisfactory. I tend to like (structuralist) notions like 'it's art because we agree it is.' Any art has a social function.

[SeeMyu]

So, pretty much.. if it's possible to use the game and make something out of it that you call art... it's art, unless it's pointless recording of nothing but gameplay..

[maybesomethingdunno]

Like many here, I definitely believe some (not all) video games are art, as are many books, film, paintings, and statues. I'm really only posting here because I saw this and thought of this thread:
"US government officially recognizes video games as art (http://news.yahoo.com/s/digitaltrends/20110508/tc_digitaltrends/usgovernmentofficiallyrecognizesvideogamesasart;_ylt=AvlIbR2mUSO8qqNVB6AqprcjtBAF;_ylu=X3oDMTN2bGVubzRoBGFzc2V0A2RpZ2l0YWx0cmVuZHMvMjAxMTA1MDgvdXNnb3Zlcm5tZW50b2ZmaWNpYWxseXJlY29nbml6ZXN2aWRlb2dhbWVzYXNhcnQEcG9zAzUEc2VjA3luX2FydGljbGVfc3VtbWFyeV9saXN0BHNsawN1c2dvdmVybm1lbnQ-)"

I just thought it would make for an interesting read or added tidbit to the topic.

[Shoosh Malooka]

So, Fallout: New Vegas is art? I see. It forced Steam on me as a symbol for my money evaporating. Then it patched 1.3 to represent the broken state of our economy. And the immediate dump to desktop is there to show me who is to blame. Yes, that is some deep, interactive expression they've accomplished. I think Obsidian was trying to emulate the movie SE7EN because it resulted in Bethesda firing much of them. And now that I've uninstalled F:NV and sold it it has gone full circle.

[Mistermook]

Just because something is annoying doesn't make it not art. Just because something is commercial doesn't exclude it from being art. Just because you don't appreciate the artistic licenses used doesn't prevent something from being art. Not being listed in a book about art as one of the forms of art doesn't mean it's not art.

What is not art:

A. Look! Over there is the sunset... pretty isn't it? Barring proposed divinities no one "made it" so it's not art. The moment I snap a picture of it? Art.

B. I could take a crap and call it art and it would be art because I intended it to be art, but normally me crapping is not art unless there is an artist following me around collecting my crap to use as art. Intent counts. This is why lying is just lying and lying for money is called acting. On the other hand, if you decided that lying was art and presented it as such then it is.

C. A beehive is not art even though it requires craft and intent on the part of bees, because bees are insects and ultimately not smart enough to do much more than they're genetically programmed to. However, a robot can make art because it will make something that a human programmed it to - though properly the artist is not the robot but the human that made the art of the art-making robot.

I can't think of any more exclusions. It doesn't have to be good, it doesn't have to have lasting value, you don't have to have talent or skill, or make money at it. No one has to like it or hate it or even recognize it as art besides yourself. That's what art is. And yeah, it's ridiculously inclusive - there are plenty of exclusionary valuations possible within art but ultimately art is a lot of different things. If someone wants to start a discussion on whether Pac Man contributes as much to the value of society as Degas, I think that's perhaps a more precise conversation.

[unalisaa]

So, Fallout: New Vegas is art? I see. It forced Steam on me as a symbol for my money evaporating. Then it patched 1.3 to represent the broken state of our economy. And the immediate dump to desktop is there to show me who is to blame. Yes, that is some deep, interactive expression they've accomplished. I think Obsidian was trying to emulate the movie SE7EN because it resulted in Bethesda firing much of them. And now that I've uninstalled F:NV and sold it it has gone full circle.
On the other hand, you could argue that F:NV is as much art as any book depicting the chaos of society when there are no rules, and the innocent people who are caught between battling fractions. Is this particular game art? I don't know. What is art? Is it art if it moves you and makes you think? Does the fact that it's entertaining make it less arty?
Personally, I think there's merit in making a player first feel the horror of arriving in a town where every single inhabitant has been killed and/or crucified, then letting them find evidence that suggests that maybe, just maybe, the town deserved it, and then allowing the player to question their own morals.
Of course, if that's not how it works on the player, then I guess it's not art. But I'd say that anything that makes people think is art. By that logic, yeah, I'd call NV art. It has gorgeous atmosphere, besides.

[Shoosh Malooka]

You don't understand. I was bitching about how F:NV patch 1.3 broke everything, and I mean everything - more ctd, more freezing, missing audio, endless intro screens, mods outdated, old saves not working, broken dlc, overall much worse stability, quests still broken, and the Community Bug Fix Patch won't work with it. What the patch accomplished outside the things I mentioned was to rebalance some weapons. Did I mention that I just bought the game and can't play it because it immediately patched to 1.3 because Steam is a Nazi?

On to your point: I can accept that F:NV is a limited and stylized, interactive story. Some audiences are capable of feeling the weight and context of the situation. I can't because there is not enough verisimilitude. Fallout 3 characters act too much like characters ( I can't speak for New Vegas ). F:NV can not dig into the more juicy parts of life, such as racism based on color of skin, sexual crimes against children, violence against women, organized exploitation of substance abuse, etc., without the X rating.

Also, the gospels of the bible are an account of a perfect human being who spoke in parables and foretold the future. It is also intended to make you 'see,' if you make the decision first to believe with all your heart what you are about to read. They are also stylized, and because of the way they were written and translated, can by interpreted differently ( meaning you can make them agree with what you believe ). According to that court decision it can be said that the gospels are art.

Where does it stop? Is a Choose Your Own Adventure book art?

[Mistermook]

Where does it stop? Is a Choose Your Own Adventure book art?
Yes. Someone wrote it.

EDIT FOR CLARIFICATION: You're not making art by playing a video game or reading a book, but since someone clearly intended Choose Your Own Adventure books to be entertainment, invested creativity and consideration into creating them, and all those wonderful things we clearly associate with "art" they're art.

Are they great art? Maybe not. I'm not a big fan of Meryl Streep. Does that mean she's not acting in her films? She's clearly intending to act. Just because I don't place a similar value on that acting that other people do doesn't invalidate her merits artistically, it just says she doesn't do a lot for me. And again, I think those sorts of discussions, whether Rockabilly is superior to Punk Rock or whether Thomas Hardy wrote simply to punish his readers or whether he fully intended the sort of pain he's inflicted on me each and every time I've been coerced to pick up his books, those discussions are entirely worthy of rabid jeering and cheering.

By denying that something is art all you're really saying is "I don't like this so much I don't even care to appreciate it as art," and that's a valid point of reference for your personal preferences but wholly uninformed and useless for consideration of the topic of what is art.