BBC Debate: Games Aren't Art ... Yet

[Axyun]

The definition of art is unclear and every interpretation I've read boils down to making art a subjective matter. Borrowing from ye olde Wikipedia:

"Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect."

Therefore a cup of coffee can be art since it engages the senses (taste and smell) as well as emotions (relaxing). Only elitists harp about something having to be intellectually engaging to be considered art. I've seen plenty of works of art that are purposely repulsive and/or meant to engage very base emotions (fear, anger, hate, lust) but are in no way intellectually stimulating.

 

[ms_sunlight]

I've yet to encounter a game with a layered story, or one that actually deals with such important questions of life. A lot of games have tried for both. A lot of japanese-based games try to evoke the profound life questions throughout the game, but it usually just comes off as pretentious bull coming from an unlikely source. Like some spikey haired man-teen saying how the good must sacrifice in order to stop the bad, right before they mow down an army with a sword bigger than a car. It's all rehashed dialogue we've heard before that sounds pretty but doesn't say a lot. Even Bioshock was just an Ayn Rand novel/Republican Tea Party talking point. But even if a game has profound dialogue, all of its profoundness is lost the moment you start walking the streets with a rocket launcher, or mowing down waves of enemies. In games, no matter how great the artistic tones or exposition or presentation, it's the gameplay that sets the emotional tone of the game. And, for almost all games, that tone has to be fun.

It's hard to evoke serious life questions and keep the player having fun at the same time.

"What can change the nature of a man?"

Planescape: Torment was the first game I ever played that did make me think about important questions. It was the first game where I played through and thought what the protagonist's experiences would mean to me as a human being. That game has layers upon layers, too, some of them incredibly subtle. Importantly, you cannot get to these meanings through passive observation (it's not pretty pictures or pretty cut scenes or a forced, branchless narrative - any of these would be examples of other art forms with in a game). You need to play and choose in order to experience them.

I'm pretty sure that everyone's answer - not the choice in the game, but the answer in their mind - when Ravel Puzzlewell asks, "what can change the nature of a man?" is subtly different.

Other games have affected me that way since, though few so completely.

 

[SwishiestB0g]

Honestly, go play the Witcher for a game that can make you question who you are, the world around you, humanity even. No good, evil, right or wrong.

Is it okay to kill something because it's not like you. Something we're struggling with even today, racial, societal and cultural acceptance. That game makes me think and question how we deal with those issues.

Though that's just my opinion.

Since the witcher is based off Andrzej Sapkowski novels and short stories, which aren't themselves considered art, so why would the game be? What is with the obssession of Games ARE art, anyone who say otherwise is wrong, what is so special to be labelled art? Is it because this is a gaming website and its the favoured media? All games have been inspired by books, films, music and art movements. I can honestly say I have not played a game which was completely original or moving which I haven't already seen elsewhere in another form.

This is a kind of arguement where fans of darts, snooker, curling call their activities sports. I still prefer Clarkson's definition of art "for something to be art, it must have no purpose other than itself, no function"

The girl in the Mona Lisa is not art by herself yet that painting is one of the best examples of "art". The inspiration of an idea should not be a reason something can't be better than what is inspiring it.

The obsession with games being art is more to be accepted in the form of media. Your point of games only copy what other media have done while it can be true, the same media games "copy" have been copying for centuries. Why wouldn't games follow suit?

 

[Crazycat690]

In a world where you can put a rusty can on a table and call it art I'd say you can call games art. Still, you can't call everything art, the Mona Lisa is art, a rusty can isn't, MGS is most certainly art while CoD is far from it. Get my drift? That's my opinion atleast.

 

[newwiseman]

I'd say MineCraft is as much 'Art' and a bucket of paint. Take your side after thinking about that for a bit. In the mean time anyone who says "games are not art but they could be" clearly hasn't played enough games; unless they think movies are not art yet.

 

[gigastrike]

If we're trying to determine whether or not an entire medium is artistic or not, why are we looking at individual games? Why would it matter if some are and some aren't? If the potential is there, it's an artistic medium, and how people use it has absolutely nothing to do with it.

The weird thing is that he sees this potential, yet still denies the entire medium.

 

[oktalist]

Oh look, someone else who thinks they have a valid definition of art that excludes certain items.

 

[marurder]

I agree, many games are not art. And many don't try to be. There are some gems in the masses, but not many at this time for reasons stated by all the critics who have made movies here in the past.

 

[Okysho]

I will point this man to Extra Credits' episode on enriching lives. ME2 is a good example as is shadows on the colossus and FF7 for those who think deeply enough into it.

Problem with the debate when you get into more specifics is that it's up the the reviewer's opinion whether or not it's art. If "art" means reflecting on your own life then yes, many games can and should be considered works of art. Not everyone stares at "The Scream" (see the image attached to the article) and says "This piece says so much to me and has made me reflect on my life!" or something to that effect. In fact some (like myself) say "Those proportions are tragic and I learn nothing."

Tl/dr: games are art, if you dive into specifics then it's opinionated.

 

[Phuctifyno]

Really? This again?
Every other week someone's gotta say it, and someone here's gotta write about it. At this point, only the converted are being preached to and everyone's running in circles. It all sounds like "kablaaahhh, hurr-urr, ghgkgghk, squeeee!!!".

Games "as a medium" have been art since chess was invented.
It's not a debate. Put it to bed, please.

 

[redisforever]

Well, at least he admits that he doesn't hate games. I'd agree that most games aren't art yet, but there could be some, but I can't think of them now. Some might say Braid is art, or Heavy Rain, or Half Life 2, or whatever, but no one can agree.

 

[Sigmund Av Volsung]

See, this is why I like living in Britain.
The BBC arent saying games are art, but at least they're not rejecting the possibility,, unlike Fox.

 

[faefrost]

There is one thing that always troubles me in these discussions. They go on and on about whether games are art? They go on and on about these standards of what art is. Such as this wonderful statement from one of this debates participants

"I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."

Well using that definition, exactly how much of what we commonly call "art" is in fact art? What separates "Art" from decorative architectural accessories? Because it would seem that 99.9% of what is commonly viewed or bandied about as art, be it physical art such as paintings, sculpture etc, performance art be it stage, film, song, or freaky chick giving birth in a museum, just really isn't art. At least not anymore than Grand Theft Auto games are.

 

[RJ Dalton]

I wrote a short essay on Deus Ex that disagrees with that. Can't link to it though.
It really depends on your definition of art. I consider anything which is created to evoke specific emotions is a work of art.

 

[hexFrank202]

Why exactly does the bar for what counts as art need to be so high? If something requires creativity and imagination, it is art. If something makes the person experiencing it ask profound questions, it is profound. There. Problem solved.

 

[GeorgW]

I don't really care about the games as art debate, but to choose Minecraft as an example seems like a bad choice. Sure it could be argued it's art, but there are so many more artistic games out there. I'd pick SotC in a heartbeat, and I'd say it fits Eshun's definition of art very nicely.

 

[XDravond]

After all "art" I've seen(like "modern art"), I have my conclusion and belief: Some games are art! End of story.

 

[MammothBlade]

Many games are art. A sensible person would have realised this quite a while ago.

Though this is a major concession; originally, the art snobs would have scoffed at merely the thought of mentioning games and art in the same sentence.

Games which place a high value on aesthetics, atmosphere, and story are definitely art. Deus Ex for one. Considerable attention was placed on getting the game just right. Similarly, Bioshock visualised a new world, it had an artistic vision embedded in Rapture and its steampunk aesthetics. Videogames comprise another dimension of creativity which puts alot of "contemporary" art to shame.

I'd suggest that the things we really consider art are the things that allow us to ask profound questions about who we are, how we live and the state of the world around us. I think most games don't get to that place, and it's important to set that bar quite high."

Even with that silly purist definition of art, there are many, many games which have the power to make people ask deep questions about many things. Deus Ex, for example. The game is filled with social commentary and piercing dialogue. The criticales elite don't seem to grasp that the artistic value of games is embodied with the game experience, within details big and small.

I don't care how generous they are trying to be, if art critics want to narrow that down to "pure" art then they're being closed-minded and foolish philistines.

 

[Marudas]

This is getting silly. I'm not sure why anyone should care whether or not the big boys have let us into their club yet.

There are hundreds of games with millions of frames that you could take a still of, stick it on a wall and any number of people would call it art, but somehow when you take all the frames, a score of brilliant music, deep storylines in an interactive experience, it no longer is. Presumably because its fun to participate in or something.

Art, as I choose to understand it, is a deep, unique, thought provoking experience. Though I don't claim to spend dramatic amounts of time in museums or theaters, I can still say unequivocally that I've found tons more of said experiences in video games than I ever had in other forms of art. Not all of them have been winners, but the same is true of other mediums.

In the end, while societal recognition of the medium would be neat, I don't think we need to be waving our arms around trying to explain it. Anyone that doesn't recognize the parallels is either incredibly thick, or purposefully ignoring them. We should simply take pride and joy in that which our favored industry has already created.

 

[Clonekiller]

Well, I'd agree with this to a point. IMHO, Myst IV: Revelation was totally art. The puzzles, the characters, the environments, the game mechanics, all of it formed an enthralling and immersive story impossible to capture in a movie or book. Battlefield 3, not so much. Im guessing the "art" aspect will change based on game to game, just like with movies, cause some games are purely artistic, and some are just entertainment. (I mean, there is no way "Dumb and Dumber" was classified as art)