Are Games Art? Oh God…

By: Derek Yu

On: October 27th, 2006

Man!…ifesto Games is scheduling an IRC chat to discuss that most horrible of questions, are games art? Well, we all know what Roger Ebert thinks… what do you NHP–TIGS readers think?

Personally, yeah, I think you could consider video games an artform. Why not? How is it hurting anybody to call games art? The fact that it’s a commercial business, that games are mass-produced products, makes no difference to me. Why should it? Every other artform is commercialized – packaged and repackaged for a mass market.

Video games have altered the way we interact and the way we think. They are an inexorable part of our every day lives, even if you don’t play them. They can be socially conscious, poignant, visually beautiful… hell, even Grand Theft Auto is social commentary if you see it as a reflection of an urban culture obsessed with sex and violence. They make people talk.

And in response to Ebert’s quote that video games “represent a loss of those precious hours we have available to make ourselves more cultured, civilized and empathetic…” I would say tell that to the young Chinese kid who bonded with his dad through Zelda, who understood the power of visuals and music by watching the snowy intro of Final Fantasy VI, who felt genuine despair when Nei battled Neifirst in Phantasy Star II… and who basically became inspired to create himself because of the games he played as a kid.

Posted in Community, Games and Art?, Social Impact

Dan MacDonald

The only thing that makes me wonder if games really are art. Art doesn’t have to be entertaining, games, typically do. You can make a game that isn’t entertaining and isn’t fun to play and call it art. But is it really a game anymore? a bad one I guess.

Art tends to have a full range of expression, from Schindlers List to The Sound of Music. Games tend to be confined to the realm of entertainment.

That said, the act of creating good interactive entertainment is clearly an art. So if you experience it, are you not experiencing the designers art?

I think there’s a reason this question never gets answered conclusively. :|

I liked your take on it, it doesn’t hurt anyone if games are art :)
Teeth

IMO

There are two ways to answer the question “Are games art?”; the simple way is to say that the question doesn’t make sense as it is a hopeless generalisation to which there will always be very obvious exceptions, and the other way would be to rephrase the question as “Do a subset of video games qualify as art?”, or more explicitly, “May video games be art?”.

These questions of course rely on asking for a definition for the term ‘art’, to which it’s conceivable that every person on the planet might have a different reply. Naturally games *contain* art; designing them could be considered *an* art; there’s possibly a certain art to programming games. The product itself is in question, however.

Things become art in at least a couple of different ways. The first is the creator of the work presents it as such, and the second is a work elevated by weight of public opinion to art status. So, under the above terms, one could create a video game as an artistic installation and have people experience it, thereby rendering the answer to the question as ‘yes’. Has anyone done this? Possibly, I don’t know.

A third way to answer the question, and my favoured choice, would be to posit that the relevancy of the question is void. There’s enough debate about whether *ART* is art, let alone any other form of media. Video games are potentially too young to have evolved enough culture to be high art yet. Early films, take that as an example. How long until films were considered art? The art of film-making. Shakespeare was not considered high culture in his day, writing as he did mass-market, universal-appeal kind of stuff, but he is almost the epitome of it now.

So I think it’s too early to call it, and really the question itself remains pointless in eternity.
Derek

EDIT: Whoops, Teeth… you slipped your post in before me. This is a response to Dan!

Art doesn’t have to be entertaining, but it can be. That is to say, things that are entertaining can fall into the realm of things that do not have to be entertaining.

Also, movies generally have to be entertaining, and you can make the same case that if a movie isn’t entertaining, is it still a movie? Yeah. It’s a bad movie.

I’d say that Schindler’s List and The Sound of Music both fall squarely into the realm of entertainment, so I’m not sure I follow your second point. If you’re talking about having a full range of themes and “voices,” then I think games do a good job of that. Just compare a few random games and you will see that there is an enormous range.

The problem with defining games as art is that you naturally compare them to paintings, movies, literature, and music, when they are wholly their own thing. But art should be able to encompass “new things.” That is, if you can only strictly define art based on what’s already been done, then it’s not art, imo.
Dan MacDonald

For me, entertainment is something that makes me feel good. Think “Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift”, I guess you could consider that mindless entertainment.

For something like Schindlers List, I don’t find it to be entertaining at all. Emotional, impactful, and sobering yes, but I didn’t derive all that much entertainment value from watching it. I have yet to see games as a medium for that level of “artistic” expression.

–Sure there was that one point in FF7 where a major character dies (don’t want to spoil it for anyone) and it’s a very emotional sequence. However, even there the story is conveyed in a cut scene and not in the actual game itself.–

This question is a little bit unanswerable, just because we don’t have the game equivalent of Schindlers List just yet, doesn’t mean it can’t exist. It has more to do with the audience then the medium.
NO!

Art is the expression form of an idea or message, most games are products made to be sold, to sell they gotta be fun before expressing anything. Artists involved in creating a game gotta PLEASE an audience not their souls, so there’s not much freedom.

Most -lifeless- people that say games are art base their beliefs in really stupid arguments like ‘but there’s pretty images’, ‘there’s neat music’, ‘there’s great stories’, etc. OK, all of those are art kinds by themselves, they existed before games, but what new expression forms have games brought to be considered art? None that matters, really.

Also, games are interactive, unlike music, movies, paintings, etc. So that makes’em belong to a whole different league: One that’s not called art.

True, it doesnâ€™t hurt anyone if games are art, but neither does if they aren’t. It’s just that stupid virginal geeks, that have nothing else in their lives but games, want to consider’em art, and that pisses us, normal game fans, off. So knock it off dweebs. Games ARE NOT art, sorry if I burst your bubble.

P.S. FF7 sucks, was the game that killed the whole series, that was its only ‘art’.
dessgeega

the debate about whether games are art is circuitous and holding back games discourse.

nothing is art. carry on.
Ryan A

Just my opinion:

I don’t think games are art. But obviously, there is art contained IN the games, and that’s why I think some people come to the conclusion that games are art. Story lines, music and graphics, etc. are all an art form. But the ‘game’ aspect- high scores, Game Overs, physics, and control scheme aren’t art in my opinion. Soooooo yeah, if you could understand my incoherent rant that I am too lazy to write to make clearer, I congratulate you.
NHP

what the hell, why is TIGSource turning into another TGQ? Or are you all from that ‘all talk no action nonsense’ site?
dessgeega

publishing a print magazine four times a year doesn’t constitute “action”?
Bo

“Also, games are interactive, unlike music, movies, paintings, etc. So that makesâ€™em belong to a whole different league: One thatâ€™s not called art.”

I have to heartily disagree here; the whole point of art is that it engages the viewer/listener/reader and is thus anything but passive. An interative medium provides a unique opportunity to do just that. (Though we may not yet have seen this realised as it might be).
crackers

Man these ‘games are art’ debates are an exercise in subjectiveness.
MedO

There is far too much disagreeing over what “art” is supposed to mean to come to any form of conclusion here.
Alsy

Games are art. Period.

Next topic?
mushu

art = stuff that humans make that isn’t necessary to their survival

The different factor that games present is interaction. The way the interaction is defined is the artistic difference from say a movie to a game. What you are allowed to do and how the game responds to your input is defined by the game developer and defines part of the artistic message. Games can also integrate other forms of art into this structure, but just because they mix a number of art forms it doesn’t invalidate the whole work from being understood as one work of art. Just like a movie is considered a piece of art, even though its composed of both sound and visuals.

Games can be entertaining, but they don’t have to be. At the core they have some goals and presumably some measure of challenge. Just because the main focus on games now is an entertainment industry that has to make money, doesn’t mean that games can’t be created that are focused on trying to be something other than fun. What if they did make a Schindler’s List game? Where you live as a concentration camp prisoner, and your goal is to survive or escape or take your own life. Yeah, its tough… its emotional… its prolonged and boring. Its nearly impossible to survive or escape. But it would be a hell of a cathartic experience if it was done right. It could be like living through a piece of someone else’s life.

Its like how you can either read comic books or go to the art gallery to check out some abstract art. Obviously Marvel isn’t going to be publishing “Abstract Man”, because it doesn’t make business sense. But that doesn’t mean Marvel comics aren’t art, or that Art Gallery art is better art. Though they have different motivating factors, they are both by definition art.

The real annoying question is, what is “good” art. That’s where things get subjective and pointless.
Derek

Ah… I love this topic. So fruitless and yet fun. :)
NO!

The problem with interaction is that it may be a BURDEN that prevents people to even RECEIVE (not understand or appreciate) the message. When a game’s too hard you won’t be able to even receive it complete and you can’t appreciate it. That’s the problem. Art is about feelings NOT about being skilled. A 1 month old child can LISTEN to music and it’s said they can even grasp the feeling of it, but could he grab a controler and play? No art form expect people to have knowledge or skill on areas that are non essential in their every day life, cause that would be a hindrance to deliver the message and in games you need to learn rules, movements and practice to get enough skill, etc. Games alone, video or not, are NOT art (baseball, basketaball, board games, etc).

“art = stuff that humans make that isnâ€™t necessary to their survival” BULLSHIT, worst definition EVER. So if I pee on your mouth, that’s art? Acording to your definition it is.
NO!

“Just like a movie is considered a piece of art, even though its composed of both sound and visuals”
Yes, but movies are an art form independently if they are being supported by visuals and sounds, they have their own language: Camera shots, edition, etc. When games don’t.

“Games can be entertaining, but they donâ€™t have to be.”
No, games are JUST AND ONLY about entertaining. That’s EXACTLY their reason to exist. Unless you are a ‘preofessional’ player and are just playing’em for money, but that’s not the case for most of us; that’s not the people games are made for.

“But that doesnâ€™t mean Marvel comics arenâ€™t art, or that Art Gallery art is better art.”
Comics ARE NOT art, they are even a LAME narrative form. That’s why they are only read by kids or geeks that lack imagination and know shit about art. Just mention a single master piece that has been originally narrated through a comic book? NONE. ‘normal’ books > comics, movies (animated or live) > comics. Comics are fine to illustrate manuals or kid stories, but nothing more.

The thing is, why in the hell you wanna call all your stupid hobbies art? If it’s something stupid but you have fun with it, FINE, that’s the point. Don’t want to raise its status to ‘art’ just because is the only thing you like and cause you don’t appreciate real art and don’t wanna be called an ignorant. That’s plain stupid. It’s OK to have no art taste, to be an un-artsy person, but don’t try to change the world just so you and your hobbies fit in a place you don’t belong.
Yezide

It all depends on how you define ART and GAME. Having a discussion without doing that is pointless.

Also, what is the purpose? I mean, do you want to have some tax reduction or what? Games are part of the culture and I think no one can argue that. Is that not enough?

*sigh*
mushu

NO!: Ever read Maus?

“Yes, but movies are an art form independently if they are being supported by visuals and sounds, they have their own language: Camera shots, edition, etc. When games donâ€™t.”

Games developers have a language too. Its still being defined as the art form is still in its infancy. But there are terms and practices used to define the types and levels interaction in games. People are starting to explore how to study games as an art form in universities.

The idea of using the term “masterpiece” points to your stuck up nature. If something isn’t old enough and recognized by enough old people, its not legitimate. Of course there are no recognized “masterpieces” of games or comics, both art forms aren’t old enough to have classics yet. (and there are a lot of people like yourself to throw around pointless insults in attempt to prove your point)

I guess we just have to wait for all these stuck up critics to die before we can actually discuss these things in a useful way.

I agree with Derek, I don’t see the harm of recognizing that games are an art form. The benefit is that it allows for valuable discussions about what the art form is, what it means and what it could be. This would lead to more interesting experiments in game design.

But for some reason, people cling to this notion that TRUE ART (TM) can only be books and paintings. Its silly. Its the pathetic human tendency to try to avoid change and growth at all costs.
moshboy

Personally I look at it like this:

Some movies are art, some aren’t

Some music is art, some isn’t

Some games are art, some aren’t

There are obviously game developers that take their work extremely seriously and work on perfecting every last detail but this doesn’t really constitute a game turning out as an artwork.

It’s sortof more like there is mindless pop music and different thought provoking music, which actually makes an effort to do something new. The thought provoking stuff is more likely to be considered art.

Same with movies: there is thoughtless romance and action movies and more thought provoking, powerful movies that actually try new techniques. As above the latter would more likely be considered art.

In the case of videogames, there are game developers that make no effort to try anything new, whether they be commercial or indie. Then there are developers that are always trying something different and new. The latter game releases are more likely to be considered art.
mushu

See the thing is more are we debating whether games are an art form, i.e. a medium capable of producing art or whether games as they exist today are Good Art.

The second question is subjective, and bound to lead to a lot of pointless name-calling. The first question seems to have a very obvious logical answer. If society comes to respect the medium and invest time in actually thinking and discussing what defines games and how they affect people emotionally (for example), some work would be done on developing games that are quite different from most games made today.

That said, I don’t think there’s anything particularly _wrong_ with games today and I have no problem calling them a form of art. Not very many of them are _Good_, however.

I also don’t see that games _have_ to be entertaining. Yes, games that are made in the market today have to be entertaining to sell, but that doesn’t require that the core medium be entertaining. I’d be interested in playing a game that simulated something painful and horrible and was actually very difficult and not terribly fun to play because it would be cathartic/interesting, which are different reasons as to why I would want to play the latest Super Mario Brothers game.
NO!

Change and growth is good, but let’s just see games:
a) They were born as products NOT as an expression form.
b) As time passes they get more and more stupid and commercial.
c) Games in general have been as old as music, literature and dance and have never been considered art cause their objective IS NOT TO EXPRESS ANYTHING.

When a game expresses something it’s THROUGH other art mediums (images, cinemas, music, literature). Videogames lack an expression language of their own.

The language I talk about in movies it’s an EXPRESSION language, what you see on screen, not the names or terms, you don’t have to know how the shots are named or anything, certain shot can make a character look diabolical or innocent, changes your perception.

With masterpieces I mean something very good, I don’t need an old timer to recognize it as such. What’s so good in comics? Superman? Batman? That’s crap, they get killed and when they need to sell more they bring’em back to life, they are commercial products, can’t you get that?

Games don’t pretend to be art, even Hideo Kojima has stated that he DOES NOT consider games to be art, why couldn’t you admit it too?
herpe

Those who can’t do, talk about it.
mushu

Again, there are “graphic novels” (comic books) like Maus, that deal with issues in the same way that a movie would. Its not like Batman. Read it? Works like this are proof that comic books are a valid art form, even though there are numerous shitty commercial comics produced.

Yes, games express ideas through mediums, but they also express meanings through how the interaction is defined. i.e. What the game allows you to do. Its a very complex and subtle way to portray a set of ideas, but they do form meaning. Just because we haven’t invested the time to fully understand what the rules are and how they work, doesn’t mean that the potential isn’t there to create something with intent.

I don’t think there are many games that qualify for being aimed at creating a message through interaction yet. That doesn’t mean that they don’t portray unintended messages via the same means.
NO!

Graphic novels, graphics + novels, a mix of existing arts but not an art by itself. Or what, is rap a new art form cause it is poetry + music?

You are talking about potential, a possibility only, not a reality. So if you’ve got potential to be an architect should they give you a degree just like that? Potential or not, you gotta prove what you are worth first.

But, OK, let’s say tomorrow some art authority declares games as art, how would that change your life? Would you feel complete? fulfilled? Satisfied? I mean, what’s the point?

When has a game made you feel something via a medium not already considered art?

Art has been VERY important in human history, games are yet too crappy to belong there, and seeing the way they are heading I doubt they will ever be considered art.

All previous art forms got a non-commercial, strong start; Games became shit too soon.

The best paintings, songs, books, movies have had a non commercial origin, games, in the other hand, are created to sell, that’s what motivates their creators: The fucking ca$h.
The Truth

Holy crap. This ‘No!’ guy is a real asshole.
http://www.streetcornerarcade.com Faunis

First of all, to all people criticizing TIGS for mentioning this and saying “it’s all subjective”: everything’s pretty subjective; if subjectivity invalidated discussion, we’d be in a ton of trouble as humans.

Second, to respond specifically to NO!: I pretty much agree with The Truth here. Your conception that “all other art starts as non-commercial” is not true; movies began as highly commercial parlor tricks, essentially, and most other established art forms you’re mentioning – music, visual art, etc. – formed so immensely far back in history that commercialization as we know it didn’t even exist. Also, Hideo Kojima disagreeing with games as art doesn’t destroy the discussion either; his writing deals more with the subjective nature of culture and how that interferes with art, which is a whole ‘nother discussion.

And to answer the question – I think we see games right now that are scratching the surface of games as art. I think the term “video game” ends up being a bit misleading; not every video game needs to have high scores, winning/losing, power ups, and other cliches. CAN games have them? Absolutely. Can games have them and be art? I see no reason why not; those mechanisms communicate a certain set of ideas. But are games LIMITED to those concepts? Absolutely not. To look at it from a game perspective, every artistic piece consists of a set of processes – competing ideas, competing perceptions, etc. – and games just add a new process, which is the viewer. This, in effect, is what a video game is.

Ebert and most game critics fall into a pitfall logical fallacy – games aren’t art because they’re interactive? Video games are essentially interactive art, so their claim is “Interactive art is not art because it’s interactive.” If there was some logic beneath this, it could be debated, but as is, the critics are redefining art in order to support assumptions they are afraid to question.

The concept of interactivity on such an unprecedented scale is, undoubtedly, a huge change in conceptions of art in general, but to run from the idea as being weird or new is the wrong response. As Derek said, “That is, if you can only strictly define art based on whatâ€™s already been done, then itâ€™s not art, imo.” Game art isn’t just about “stories” and “graphics,” (the idea that a narrative can be art is controversial itself) but rather that the art lies in new ways of communicating ideas that didn’t exist before. That’s pretty exciting, as I see it.
http://d-s-i.blogspot.com Chill

“Holy crap. This â€˜No!â€™ guy is a real asshole.”

More accurately he’s a troll. And judging by some of the other comments, a pretty good one.
Teeth

NO! is a valuable part of this community IMO
http://null/ NO!

Definitely more than some people…
Tony

It’s not up to the painters to decide whether their painting is art. It’s up to the general public, other artists, historians and intellecuals to decide whether it’s art or not.
Video games aren’t art because artist don’t think it’s art, intellectuals don’t think it’s art, and the general public doesn’t think it’s art.
And yeah, tards that go to sites like this will think so…but chess club members would think playing chess is an art too. Who gives a crap what you think…you’re extremely a. bias and b. most of you haven’t a clue what high art is. <--although it is abstract...it isn't so simple either. However, photography has recently been considered an art. But then again, photography has generally changed recently too...from commercial to expressive, personal and deep. Maybe games will change in the same artistic way someday. But as of now, games are a business. Business is the exact opposite spectrum to art.
Tony

but yeah, if games want to be art they first have to stop trying to be entertaining all the time and being more thoughtful and expressive.
But games that try to do that don’t sell (duh…gamers aren’t classy) and fail at their petty efforts anyway.
Tony

I agree with No!.
Games are like Tv. It started commercial and it isn’t leaving that realm. It started crappy.
The history of games and tv is extremely lame crap and the nostalgia is the only thing keeping all those things alive. Every once in a while someone thinks of something new be it reality tv or resident evil. Then 1000 other thoughtless nostalgic trippers decide to go that route for 10 years.
Yeah, there’s the occasional HBO…but they’re going against the grain.
NO!

WTF with the phony NO! from the previous post? fuck you, OK, get your own ID asshole…

Like Derek said, this topic WAS fruitless and fun, it is still fruitless but not fun anymore.

I already stated my point of view and you stated yours, none is changing their beliefs, so case closed.

I’ll only leave a link for the TIGSource staff: http://www.simplemachines.org Set up a forum already guys, you install that shit in 5 minutes and we won’t have to tolerate fake clones of ourselves anymore and stuff.
KNau

For the record, all films created within the studio system are done for commercial purposes. That includes Schindler’s List. It is a business first and foremost. The first thing anyone did with the medium of film is commercialize it and charge a fee. It didn’t linger for years as “art”, it was a business at birth.

I don’t think it’s the commercial aspect that devalues “art” because all artists have to pay their bills. In the old days an artist had to cozy up to a king or the church for their money but that doesn’t make it any more noble of an edeavour.

What throws people is the interactive nature of video games. A movie, novel or painting is a one-way course from the artist to the audience. A video game is at best a “conversation” between the artist and the audience. If video games are “art” then so are board games and card games – adding a movie sequence and flimsy plot doesn’t change anything.

Lastly, you Zelda and FFVII people need to get over it. You’re looking at the game through the rose-coloured glasses of “I was 10 when I played that”. They aren’t as great as you remember and god help you if you’re a grown up who gets all choked up at that crap. If so, it’s time to take a step outside, away from the console.
http://www.streetcornerarcade.com Faunis

KNau: I agree that adding FMV’s and plots to games is, on it’s own, not enough to make the game art. But video games have fewer limitations than board and card games in terms of interaction. Why does the process of interaction uniquely disqualify a medium of art?
nullification

Re: art as non-commercial and/or personal and/or deep:

Michelangelo’s painting of the Sistine Chapel was a commercial endeavor, as was most art of that period. It was paid for by the Vatican, which also chose the subject matter: illustrations of Biblical stories.

Would you call primitive cave paintings “personal” or “deep?” What about the formal paintings of the ancient Egyptians depicting the Pharaohs? In fact, you would not be able to tell which individual produced most of these paintings without some supporting evidence. The painters, who were nonetheless very skillful, followed what was essentially a strict “style guide.”

Even during the Renaissance, there were a few recognizable giants but the vast majority of paintings are what you might call “clones” or “knockoffs.” They were still regarded as “art.”

I am NOT defending the position that “games are art.” I have always been quite fine with games as games (since, you know, I actually LIKE VIDEO GAMES). I am pointing out a problem of classification.

Words, in order to be useful as tools of communication, must have some clear definition. “Art,” at present, does not. It did, more or less, prior to the 20th century. The refrain nowadays is that “Art is whatever.” If so, the word is meaningless. Imagine some moron declaring, “Food is whatever.” Would you eat your own shit because, well, it falls under the new definition of food?

The problem is compounded by the fact that our other term, “video games,” encompasses such a wide range of products, the creators of which may have an equally wide range of intentions. Tetris, Super Mario Bros. and Snatcher are all “video games,” but are they even comparable except in the broadest sense?

Some video games are mass-marketed, others target smaller niches. Some are made by huge teams with multimillion-dollar budgets and tailored to specifications set by corporate sponsors. Others are made by individuals for personal satisfaction and given away for free. The variety is astounding if you really think about it.

In other words, video games already defy neat classification. Even if the word “art” still meant something, asking, “Are video games art?” would be like asking, “Is food high in fiber?” Some of it is. So what?

If I enjoy a game, I’m happy. I feel no need to call it “art,” nor do I want a game that is unplayable because the creator was “challenging our fundamental assumptions about player control and comprehension,” or some such self-indulgent nonsense trying for praise from elitist pricks.

Making a good game requires skill, effort and patience. It’s nothing to be ashamed of. Besides, I’d rather be a great game designer than a great “whateverer.”
http://null/ NO!

What the fuck is with that impostor above? Of course this is still fun. I love diving into piles of shit and throwing it at everyone else! What else would give me a purpose in life?

Kissing g-? Oh, well yeah… of course I still kiss girls. Here I go now. Yep. Going. To kiss a real girl.

Gimme a sec here, K? Geez.
NO!

(Kisses mommy)
(poops pants)
http://www.streetcornerarcade.com Faunis

To ignore the NO! impostering and respond to nullification, I really do feel the rammifications of what you’re saying. The last thing I want is for the video games industry to be run by elitists who just want money, and I agree that the art label is hard to assign or define.

I guess this whole debate is just a mask over the real issue, which is whether or not this whole wide range of things we call video games is a valid form of self-expression. Nobody in the know, I think, would argue that a game doesn’t take skill to make. But self-expression with them is limited (at least in terms of sharing what you’ve expressed) by perceptions that they’re just commercialized time-wasters and can never be anything more. So the people who argue for games as art are, I think, generally trying to get people to stop looking down at what they create as sub-everything else.

But I guess some of the people posting are right when they say that it’s not going to be in the debates that the issue is decided, but when artistic games take off on a wider scale on the basis of their merit. All the more pressing the need to stop talking and get creating, then!