Are Video Games a Form of Art? Yes… and No
If you’ve been reading up on your gaming news over the past few days, you’ve probably read Roger Ebert’s latest comments on why he thinks video games are not art. In turn, you’ve also probably seen thatgamecompany president Kellee Santiago’s rebuttal, with both sides making some excellent points. But when looking at the facts, can we really disagree with Roger Ebert?
I am honestly remorseful at the idea that I can’t really disagree with Mr. Ebert, but there are two small words that gamers and naysayers alike seem to overlook in his argument… ‘in principle’. These two words, in all honesty, are the reason why Ebert is essentially off the hook, but only to an extent.
Both Ebert and Santiago have gone back and forth regarding how real art is defined through a unique type of experience. Well, at this point, the definition of experience is called into question. Santiago used Wikipedia’s definition of experience:
Experience as a general concept comprises knowledge of or skill in or observation of some thing or some event gained through involvement in or exposure to that thing or event.
Through this definition, Santiago will inadvertently prove herself wrong. A video game cannot just be experienced, as you must perform an action (i.e. gameplay) in order to get anything out of it, controlling what happens, although one could argue that screen caps could be used as a form of art, but that’s a different story entirely.
This is where Ebert, essentially, is correct that video games, in principle (and those are the key words), are not art. Ebert chose his words very carefully in his most recent article, because he knew that using the word “never” could, at some point, prove him to be wrong if video games were to take the leap into virtual reality, thus possibly rendering something that could be experienced without the need for action.
However, when looking at the dictionary definition of experience, Santiago gains a bit more leeway.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
something personally encountered, undergone, or lived through
From The Random House Dictionary:
to have experience of; meet with; undergo; feel
The key word here that exonerates Santiago from being incorrect in her assumption is the word ‘feel.’ The Random House Dictionary’s definition for ‘feel’ does not specify whether or not the word is referring solely to tactile forms of feeling or if it does, in fact, include emotions and changes in the way one thinks due to outside influences, whether brought on naturally or through action/reaction via a video game.
Santiago also gains more ground when we look at the definition of art.
From the Merriam-Webster Dictionary:
the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects
There’s no doubt that when one sits down to play a game such as Flower or Braid, one will be immediately struck by the artful utilization of 2D and 3D rendering to create an aesthetically stimulating experience, with the player’s personal tastes and interests taken into account, of course. So theoretically, the same thing could be said for any other type of video game.
In the end, are video games art? Well, yes and no. In principle, no, video games are not and cannot be art in their current state–not yet, as they cannot be experienced without action from the gamer. But by definition, yes, video games are most definitely art, as they can invoke strong emotions, feelings, and intense aesthetic stimultion in those who partake in them, on a scale that few other mediums can match, especially today.
One cannot deny the reasoning behind Ebert’s argument, as it is most definitely sound when one considers how art is perceived through experience. Conversely, video games can, by definition, be defined as art through the feelings and emotions they invoke on a daily basis for millions of gamers. So before you knock either side of the argument, take the time to consider what art really is.
Do I think video games are a form of art? Yes. It really is hard to dismiss such an idea when looking at games like Flower and the immensely serene feeling that it conveys when one is playing, but until we can establish a factually sound basis for what is and what is not considered art, the debate will go on and on. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but can art be as well? I’m sure we’ll know soon enough.
19 Responses to “Are Video Games a Form of Art? Yes… and No”
my question is who cares if its art or not? its one of the most popular forms of entertainment , becoming more popular than watching a tv show or putting a movie in.
i think they can be yes, why not?
lol I thought it was an old lady on the left pic.. XD
this is like apples to oranges… you can find anything to explain A to B if you look hard enough, like pixel art = art, so pixel game = moving art… but in the end their not art
No doubt, it’s Art. they don’t call me a CG Artist for nothing.
what some people view as art, isnt the same for every person… Braid and Flower to me , were not ‘artful’ games.
Video games are something beyond art. Interactive art. Case closed!
Video games falls under the animation type of art. So yes, video game is art if you are going by the different types of art style
let’s face it people have different definitions of art. I have seen pictures that look like 5 yr olds have done them but people say that is art. but let’s not overlook in the music industry singers are called artists because they create something for others to experience. so to say video games are not art is alittle obscure since someone has created them for us to experience. and please don’t quote me definitions of words. like f.a.g. South Park said it best it no longer means a g.a.y couple but to the them it meant extremely annoying harley davidson riders who went around town just showing how loud their bikes were. words have different meanings to different people
@Paulmichael
And, of course, interactive art is already here! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art
Take a look at the examples there, any of those things could be in a videogame, so yeah.. The difference gets thinner!
Just out of curiosity…
“video games are not and cannot be art in their current state–not yet, as they cannot be experienced without action from the gamer”
So just out of curiosity…how long does one have to commit to no action but just say looking at a scene in a game before it could be theoretically classified as art. What I’m saying is this. When I look at video games I tend to see many still pictures, just as I do a movie…kind of like a flip book. So in that respect is Ebert thinking that art say the Mona Lisa is art because it doesn’t move and therefore can be enjoyed on that level. If you want to get technical couldn’t you just say make a nice scene before the game starts that someone could admire while the game is loading and therefore then call it art, or what about in game, say a person standing by a cliff overlooking the sea on a rainy windy day…as long as your not doing anything does that not constitute art…
Wait by that same token, are movies considered art, and what about music. I mean video games in all their right are just pictures you can play. Granted most video games are just shitty versions of art. But say Heavy Rain would be a prime example of what I would consider art. Besides if you want to use movement as a argument, what about people that are considered live art…or is it not art because I have to interact with it?
First I’d have to know what or if He or anyone considers movies, and music an art…I do and I can see video games as the same thing. Granted I don’t think all of them fall into this category only some.
Anyone agree or disagree with me…
Why in the world would it not be art because it requires interaction? Is a sculpture not art, because you have to walk around it to see the whole thing? Standing in one place, you’re just looking at a 3D image.
Whatever man. Some of the stuff I’ve seen in video games is certainly more artistic than a lot of “art”. That’s my opinion, and it’s the only one that matters to me.
“video games are not and cannot be art in their current state–not yet, as they cannot be experienced without action from the gamer”
But how can a picture be experienced without action from the viewer? So if I stair at a Mona Lisa picture for an hour am I doing any actions? No I’m just looking at it, but its still art. So why would a gamer playing and looking at the screen be any different?
If pictures are art, video games are art because they are moving pictures.
I agree with Greay, completely.
This one is quite simple.
Video Games like all forms of expression are art.
Now whether you like the “art” or not is a personal opinion however to say it’s not art is simply ignorance.
However i wouldn’t expect any thing more from the simple minded Roger.
Take a game like guitar hero, you have music that has been pre-written and some one performing the music. Now it may not be art to the musician but to the audience it is.
So taking this into account as sound logic, his argument of semantics, it may not be art to the “gamer” however, the friend of the gamer watching, it will be as he/she does not have to interact.
The interaction as to not being art is simply nonsense. All art in it’s final form does not require interaction this is true. It can simply be observed, but that’s the beauty of video games, one has the opportunity to actually be part of the creation. One does not have to know the other creators involved, and now these days we can all create online to make beautiful master pieces one round at a time with people all across the world.
I was once told by an aging jazz musician.
“A true artist is an artist who can find good in any art.”
My personal opinion:
I find Roger to be a hack who likes to go around telling people how they should improve there self expression, and remember where these opinions come from.
They come from a child too afraid to express himself in anyway.
So he tells other people how to.
Why would we accept the opinion of someone who doesn’t make movies?
Why would we accept the opinion of someone doesn’t make any art?
I think he is doing this as a vain attempt of regaining his 15 mins of fame he once had.
Long story short.
Don’t feed the troll.
I thought roger ebert was a woman in that picture until I read his name, then it hit me who he was hahahaha. He looks like a really old Martha Stewart. I think art is far to broad of a subject to pinpoint what is and what it isnt, which ends up putting me in the art is up to the mind to determin what it is and isnt. I think video games are a form of art.
The Legend Of Zelda : Ocarina Of Time
Half Life 2
Shadow Of The Colossus
Resident Evil Series
Fallout 3
Assassins Creed Series
I don’t need to explain myself, I just know that those games qualify as art. I’m not going to come up with an ignorant statement like “Its not art if the gamer moves.” If you’re going to make asinine statements like that then i think me not even justifying my statement is good enough of a point.
For God sakes, I’d even consider Gears Of War a form of art. I’ve seen the first commercial “Mad World” , I’ve played with the unique intricate third person mechanics, I understand the kind of sad, depressing and hopeless theme that they tried to create within the player. Its a damn great game and as an avid reader (just to prove my attention span isn’t that small) I do consider games a form of art. I wouldn’t hang up a game case beside a copy of the mona lisa, but I can safely say I enjoy video games in a different kind of way. I find much more enjoyment in playing video game consoles than staring at a single picture that may have took weeks to create.
Are video games art? Well, according to one key point in Roger Ebert’s opinion there is no such thing as art. In order for it to be art, according to him, it must not require any action from the audience to appreciate it. Well, in order to appreciate music you must listen to it. Listen, an action. In order to watch an artistic movie or gaze upon a painting you must watch or gaze upon it. Watch & gaze, more actions. In fact simply doing nothing at all is an action.
And looking to dictionaries for a source of definition is a waste of time as well. How can dictionaries give an accurate term if experts can hardly ever agree as to what is and what is not art?
Instead I give this simple explanation.
Art is any abstract work or work reproducing a previous occurrence in part or in full. That shows reasonable technical skill in it’s creation (reasonable for the time of creation by the creator as agreed upon by the general public and the general expertise) and evokes a subconscious (and often emotional) response from the audience.
By that definition (which does not target any specific agreed upon art from) it is completely possible that some video games are in fact art.
Contrary to what some hack movie reviewer thinks. After all, I have to make a conscious decision (thus action) to watch a movie so they must not be art either.
I think Roger Ebert like all critics thinks that the world looks forward to listening to he’s garbage and would eat he’s crap if he asked though this “disease” is getting contagious, Cliff Bleszinski has become the first games develepor to get this disease.
The Overego disease is worst then cancer!