How to argue "Games aren't art."

[Gankytim]

The standard arguments are all easy enough to level, "How can it not be art when it's comprised of assets everyone agrees is art?", "Define art and explain how Video Games don't fit." Things like that.

I've realized that the only real argument I have against people who say games aren't art is the Metal Gear series (Sons of Liberty specifically but the others are applicable, Ground Zeroes being the easiest to understand and 4 being too convoluted to understand) and Journey. TLoU need not apply, waiting for the remastering.

So what are some games I HAVE to play in order to argue against "Games aren't art"?

 

[Tom_green_day]

Games move. Does the Mona Lisa move? Exactly.

 

[Hateren47]

It's not art in the same way that Chess, Soccer and the act of war isn't art.

A chess board and it's pieces can be very beautifully crafted, a soccer player can invest the same effort a ballet dancer can into their field and few things provokes emotions in the same way war does. But the events themselves are not art they are games (if you can count the politics of war as a game, at least) with winners and losers.

But you can view video games as art if you want to. They are the realized version of the creators visions in the same way a piece of music or a painting is, after all.

 

[Hagi]

None, really.

You can't argue against someone who doesn't believe games are art with games. Because that person has already decided they aren't art and isn't going to view them as art. To them Metal Gear Solid will just be a horribly convoluted mess of plot, needless fan-service and god knows what else.

If you truly want to argue against them, which I honestly wouldn't recommend, then the subject under discussion must not be games but instead their definition of art.

 

[Directionless]

How does metal gear stick out as self explanatory art, exactly?

 

[Terminal Blue]

First step, recognize that it's a false argument (or at least, a pointless argument).

People who argue that games aren't art aren't generally terribly concerned with definitions of art (a concept which pretty much impossible to define anyway), instead they fear that classifying games as art will make gaming as a culture too "highbrow" or stop it being "fun".

You know, kind of like how film being classified as an artform meant that we never see mindless big budget blockbuster films any more.

 

[Zhukov]

"Define art and explain how Video Games don't fit."

Hang on, how on earth is that not sufficient?

Because that's pretty much exactly what I came here to say.

If you are arguing with someone over whether or not X is art, then it follows that you should find a definition of "art" that you both agree on. Otherwise the argument is meaningless.

 

[Gankytim]

How does metal gear stick out as self explanatory art, exactly?

Jesus I'm about to write a fucking essay.

Well, MGS2 was the first video game to attempt the idea of post modernism, and in some ways Kojima was thinking ahead of his time when he wrote MGS2. (There are a lot of references to passing on information in the digital age, but the internet hadn't quite caught on yet.) MGS2 really blurred the line between video game and reality and in a lot of ways Raiden serves as a reminder of who the player is (whereas Snake is who the player WANTS to be when they turn on the game) This can be examiined by the way Snake calmly handles every situation wheras Raiden is nervous, jumpy and hesitant. Snakes gruff but handsome look in comparison to Raidens pretty-boy look. The fact that Snake in MGS1 had Naomi and Mei-Ling practically melting in his arms with his casual flirting wheras Raiden is struggling to maintain his already established relationship. Snake berating Raiden for using "Virtual Mission Simulation" calling it "War as a video game" strengthening Kojimas intended relationship between Raiden and the player. And just look at their health bars when you team up at the end, Snakes is, well, bigger.

And that's just Raiden. There's tonnes of other themes in MGS2 that are supposed to get the player thinking. The big theme of MGS2 though, was MEME, The DNA of culture. The information passed on from person to person, the ideas a person leaves behind in their children that could possibly one day shape their civilization or their culture, and this is where the internet kicked into the plot, this black-hat shadow orginization "The Patriots" was attempting to use the internet to establish what memes they wanted to be accepted into culture. (Yes, I know, this is literally the plot of MGS2, Memes going on the internet. This was a 2002 game, when was the first time you heard the phrase "Internet meme" I guarantee you it was around 2007 or soon after.)

This guy explains it a lot better than me.

http://www.deltaheadtranslation.com/MGS2/DOTM_TOC.htm

Edit: I FORGOT THE ONE BEST THING. I HAD ONE FUCKING JOB.

Basically, at the start you're asked to enter a name onto your dogtags, the player goes with their own name in most cases. Now, here's the stark evidence MGS2 is art. Raiden has just been berated, realized he's not in control of his own life he's under someone elses control (the patriots in the context of the story, but it's no leap in logic to assume it's truly the player controlling Raiden. Now Raiden looks at these dogtags after the final boss with the players name, birthdate and nationality written on them. Snake asks raiden "Anyone you know?" Raiden then casts the player aside symbolising him rejecting the control over his life.

The character literally refused to be the protagonist at that point. He walked away from the story. He essentially gave the middle finger to you, the player.

 

[Nieroshai]

It's not art in the same way that Chess, Soccer and the act of war isn't art.

A chess board and it's pieces can be very beautifully crafted, a soccer player can invest the same effort a ballet dancer can into their field and few things provokes emotions in the same way war does. But the events themselves are not art they are games (if you can count the politics of war as a game, at least) with winners and losers.

But you can view video games as art if you want to. They are the realized version of the creators visions in the same way a piece of music or a painting is, after all.

You reference a nonexistent precedent for something not qualifying as art if it is also something else. The art of the tea ceremony produces a beautiful yet potable cup of tea. The art of war involves deadly competition. The art of chess is less the board as the players' mathematical and geometrical dance to victory. Martial arts are as beautiful to watch as they are dangerously functional. An expertly forged sword is the most beautiful thing I own. Rarely prior to the age of affluent boredom that the Renaissance produced did art ever begin to exist for its own sake and not as part of some greater function. If you were to ask a medieval master of any practical art, he would probably say what you created just to be pretty was a visually pleasing utter waste of time. Even music had a purpose other than to sound nice.

 

[Gankytim]

"Define art and explain how Video Games don't fit."

Hang on, how on earth is that not sufficient?

Because that's pretty much exactly what I came here to say.

If you are arguing with someone over whether or not X is art, then it follows that you should find a definition of "art" that you both agree on. Otherwise the argument is meaningless.

People want examples. specifics. Personally, even though I use it I think asking someone to explain how video games aren't art is kind of disengenuous. I beleive they're art so it should be up to me to convince someone them, not the other way around. Burden of proof and all that.

You'd think my above MGS2 ecample would be sufficient.

 

[Gankytim]

It's not art in the same way that Chess, Soccer and the act of war isn't art.

A chess board and it's pieces can be very beautifully crafted, a soccer player can invest the same effort a ballet dancer can into their field and few things provokes emotions in the same way war does. But the events themselves are not art they are games (if you can count the politics of war as a game, at least) with winners and losers.

But you can view video games as art if you want to. They are the realized version of the creators visions in the same way a piece of music or a painting is, after all.

Where, at any point did artist all gather round, stroke their big artist beards, smoke their big artist pipes, and mumble their big artist agreement that if you can lose it's not art

 

[Directionless]

Right. I'll take your word for it, lol.

If you're looking for something heavy in philosophy (Something i never really thought metal gear was, as all i've ever heard is people berating how cheesy it is. Obviously made the wrong assumption.) i'd recommend Planescape Torment. It's and old PC RPG similar to Baldur's Gate. Certainly not Meta like MGS2 though.

Deals with what can change the nature of a man, if anything. Gameplay is meh, but it's story, characters and universe are the best i've ever experienced in the video game medium.

 

[Lieju]

I just ask them what they mean by art, and then ask questions like "Are movies art?" or "If books are art, is Twilight art?"

I find the people who generally say things like that haven't really thought about the question and have a very limited idea of 'art', it being boring black-and-white movies, opera and Mona Lisa.

 

[Directionless]

I just ask them what they mean by art, and then ask questions like "Are movies art?" or "If books are art, is Twilight art?"

Well, obviously the only argument that is actually valid and the one most perpetuated by people is the fact that games are interactive. That's the big difference between games and any other medium. The author's vision is subject to the whim's of the player.

 

[MeChaNiZ3D]

In my opinion art is just anything that was created to inspire some sort of reaction, because it's hard to argue any more specific meaning. I've long since given up excluding things from art and resigned to having personal opinions of how good the art is. What are your arguments for games not being art? Financially driven? So is a lot of art, artists have to make a living, whether it's jewellery or commissions or portraits or poster art. Player involvement? There are plenty of exhibition-style pieces that involve a lot of elements and require the user to interact or observe it not from a fixed position, and if I were to be a wanker, having a response of any kind to a piece of art is interacting with it so seeing a painting is the same process of projecting values and thoughts as playing a game where you're given choice over what to do. Playing a game a certain way is no less a distortion of the creator's intention than viewing a piece of art through your own subjective mindset, and that's practically guaranteed to happen. Lack of artistic direction? Wait, you wouldn't argue that, that's blatantly untrue. Collaboration? Happens with other art forms as well. I gather that your stance is more of a "you're making the suggestion, you provide the case", which is fair enough. So the case for games being art is that the person or people who made them made them a specific way in order to inspire a reaction from the gamer, and whether or not the reaction is the intention of the creator, it does happen. Every mechanic and detail has some effect regarding who you are, methodical, risk-taking, morals in some cases. There are varying degrees of it, a linear shooter with set dialogue and little player agency is on the low end of the spectrum, but just because it isn't very good art doesn't make it not art.

Unless you'd like to provide a stricter definition for art that includes all of what is in galleries, in which case I'll argue the point, or a stricter definition that excludes some of what is in galleries, in which case you need a reason for your restriction of terms, but if it's valid then fine. Considering a lot of what passes as art by my definition I doubt it'd be much of a loss.

 

[Fdzzaigl]

The biggest problem I have with calling certain games art, is the fact that they're simply made and remade for commercial gain or some notion of fun, and little else.

While many works of "art" have also been produced for commercial gain, I feel that before something can be called art, it should aspire to be more than the sum of its parts. It should speak to our humanity, capture some base spirit of the time it's made in and the author who produced it.

Secondly, art is a very personal experience. Even though there are many universal aspects to it as well. It's a good right of a person to find that games are not art, or vice versa.

 

[Gankytim]

Right. I'll take your word for it, lol.

If you're looking for something heavy in philosophy (Something i never really thought metal gear was, as all i've ever heard is people berating how cheesy it is. Obviously made the wrong assumption.) i'd recommend Planescape Torment. It's and old PC RPG similar to Baldur's Gate. Certainly not Meta like MGS2 though.

Deals with what can change the nature of a man, if anything. Gameplay is meh, but it's story, characters and universe are the best i've ever experienced in the video game medium.

Yeah i picked that up on GoG a while back and forgot it, impulse buy and all, made the mistake of buying Kings of Dragons Pass with it and got hooked.

People berate Metal Gear's cheesiness from a lack of understanding, they play one game it all falls apart and they smack talk it without really knowing what it's about, who it deals with.

This stuff I stated about MGS2 is all pretty much more or less confirmed in interviews. Especially the MEME thing.

The original four Solid themes are GENE, MEME, SCENE and SENSE as confirmed by Kojima, though Sense made the least sence.

That's the big difference between games and any other medium. The author's vision is subject to the whim's of the player.

Well the authors vision is always open to misinterpretation in any medium. Go on fanfiction.net and look at all the Superwholock smut which exists for some reason.

The moment a fan has any control over anything the entire shebang falls apart and misinterpretation runs rampant.

 

[mjharper]

Having not played MGS2 (never owned a console), Super Bunnyhop's video of it (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T-2YuPGYabw) did a pretty god job of convincing me that it probably counts as art. And I recently watched Matthewmatosis' videos of ICO (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-nr_hw0oQg) and Shadow of the Colossus (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOXFEBC509w), and came away feeling that these count as well. Again, not played any of these, but it seems like they could be good ammunition for a 'games-as-art' discussion.

I'd also try pointing out that what 'counts' as art is usually culturally determined by the establishment, which is something we should question, because the establishment is, by its nature, conservative. I don't think pointing to bricks in a museum is the best way to illustrate that idea, though. Rather, it might be worth pointing out that until the 18th Century, music was not taken seriously as art, whereas landscape gardening was.

If someone is claiming that 'games are not art', they may mean that 'no artistic game has yet been made'. If so, that is trivial to dismiss, because even if that is true, the categorical statement 'games are not art' cannot be deduced from the statement 'because none have been yet'. That's much the same as stating that 'all swans are white' because all previously observed swans were white. It was true, until the first black swan was discovered (even if it took them 100 years to recognise it to actually be a swan.)

If, on the other hand, they are claiming that 'no video game could ever be art', then the onus is on them to identify some specific characteristic of video games which prevents them from being art. That characteristic cannot be cultural, since cultural values change, as with the point about music I mentioned above. It must be intrinsic to video games themselves.

And commercialism cannot be raised, since plenty of artists have lived and worked under the patronage system.

So: the argument that 'no video games have ever been art' does not allow you to conclude that 'no video games are art'; and the argument that 'no video game can ever be art' requires some intrinsic, non-cultural, and non-financial characteristic which prevents them from being art.

 

[Fox12]

"Define art and explain how Video Games don't fit."

Hang on, how on earth is that not sufficient?

Because that's pretty much exactly what I came here to say.

If you are arguing with someone over whether or not X is art, then it follows that you should find a definition of "art" that you both agree on. Otherwise the argument is meaningless.

People want examples. specifics. Personally, even though I use it I think asking someone to explain how video games aren't art is kind of disengenuous. I beleive they're art so it should be up to me to convince someone them, not the other way around. Burden of proof and all that.

You'd think my above MGS2 ecample would be sufficient.

You would be better of explaining how video games are art, than by offering specific example. Video games allow creators to interact with their audience, and make them explore ideas and themes on a personal level in a way films and books can't. If you need examples, look at spec ops and mass effect. In spec ops the player accidentally murders civilians. Not the just the character, the player. This makes the full weight of the act fall upon the players shoulders in a way that watching civilians get killed in. A film can't. In mass effect you can basically commit genecide. Even if its an accident, it's still your fault. This forces the player to question their preconceived notions of right and wrong, and even forces them answer the hard questions about what they would do in a hard situation. They may not like what they find. As a result, gaming is the first medium that can allow for direct dialogue with the player, and can further explore the human condition. And what is art, if not a vehicle through which to explore the human condition?

 

[1066]

Here's a spiel I've done a few times on the subject. Oddly, you're generally arguing philosophy in a weird way.

Flipping gears a little:

Question: Is X perfect?

Define perfect: Without flaw.

Define flaw: A fault (esp. in design.)

Basically, you wind up in a long, protracted debate on whether or not a flaw can exist without context and without purpose. Followed by whether or not a flaw can exist without similar context, etc. It becomes a debate about abstract concepts.

To avoid the religious: Would a perfect food be something that would provide for a person's entire lifetime of meals so they never had to eat again? It would serve the nutritional purpose, but also render itself useless in one shot. Or would it be something that tastes so good that you couldn't stop eating, yet filled you up not at all so you could continue eating it forever? Thereby serving little purpose, save the purpose of being eaten, which it would do better than anything before it.

Not looking for an answer, but it's the same spiel:

Define art.

There are two answers I've found.

1) dictionary: the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

In which case, yes. Games are art, or at least a few of the extraordinary ones are.


2) Personal: An emergent property or quality of a piece, accomplishment or skill that registers emotionally beyond the learned skill (though requiring great skill) required to perform or create it. There's a permanence argument in here, as well as an understanding of this being a profoundly personal or cultural thing.

If you've ever been reduced to tears or felt a swell of pride by a song, a dance or a kata, you understand this.

I would argue, then, that intentional manipulations don't count, nor do jump scares, or anything that can be put to a chart and learned. As such, I personally believe that acting, music, drawings, etc. up to and including the finished products of movies, books and games - all things with artistic merit - are actually artisan work, not art. They are created more or less on command and become the livelihood of the people who create them.

That is not to say that some of these pieces don't achieve the level of art, but that the lump sum is created as something else. Just the same, as a rule, I don't tend to consider most things I could buy in a store as 'art.'

Journey, actually, I'd argue is a game created to be art, or at least with effort made to that effect. Check out Extra Credits' video on it for some good insight, but the short version is that they did most of the monomyth properly, which is rare, and made the player play through most of it without realizing. The second playthrough stuff is impressive.

MGS is something of a bad example most because the biggest complaint to be levied against it is that it's really not something that should be defined as a video game, but is trying much harder to be a movie. The 'joint medium' thing is something many people would argue as an artistic endeavor.

Honestly, Skyrim would be your better example. Enjoy the game all you want, and I for one love it for what I'm about to say, but the core arguments of the creator's vision hits hardest in games like that. Little Big Planet is much the same. In both, though at different times, there's neither a solid narrative nor a pure simplicity (IE: Tetris) to the goings on. Add in the modding community and your have an intentionally half-finished picture to scribble on.

Final Fantasy 2/4 and 7 can be argued as having weak narratives and a slipshod setup due to the whole 'plot death' thing that betrays the mechanics of the world as established and can be argued as the worst version of deus ex machine, and so are of little to no merit due to unfair manipulations.

Games like Thief, or even older Marios, can be argued as having no true merit within real-life experience because of the save options and that death isn't final, or even real, robbing it of any emotional or artistic weight. Actually, the only game I can think of right now where those deaths are actually in-narrative is Dark Souls.

Again to Super Mario, especially 3 and World, can be argued as having no true or cohesive narrative since each level is self-contained and has no importance to the overall game as reaching the 'end boss' at any time and under any circumstances yield the same ending/resolution.