Some time ago, I read an essay by someone (I can't recall who it was, though I believe it was Tom who linked it to me) about Video Games and Art. Earlier today, I was bored as everliving hell – mostly because I was doing manual labor for money so I can do additional nerdy things (Scars Prerelease? New York Comicon? Yes please.) Nevertheless, a nerd's mind never rests, and so I was also contemplating the conundrum that had been proposed by this debate.
Here's my opinion, framed – like all good arguments – with a distinction.
We should not be arguing if Video Games are Art. We should be arguing about whether Video Games CAN BE Art.
I'll be the first to admit that not all Video Games are art. No. I'm sorry, apologists. Pokemon is not art. Pokemon is a money-making scam of the highest order. It is addictive as hell, and perhaps exceptionally fun to play, but it is not art.
Hey! You! Yes, you in the turtleneck who just walked out of that movie theater. Don't look so smug! I know what you're thinking. You guys aren't immune to this. Movies aren't necessarily art either. Neither are books. Neither is music. Art is not an integral part of those. Perhaps Art is an integral part of GOOD books, and movies, and video games, but they are not inherently part of the thing itself.
Alright, so, let's think for a minute. What's the difference? Why is, say, Pokemon not Art? I would contend that it comes down to a fundamental difference between Art and Entrainment. The two have sadly become conflated in recent years, but ultimately, I think that in order to see this debate through to the end, we need to admit that they aren't necessarily the same.
I'm about to fail to resist the urge to define art. I want to say that Art is something made with the intent to move someone. Good art is something made with that intent that actually does it.
If we're going to use those definitions (and I think that's going to be the primary cause of argument on this post), then yes. Some things in the realm of Video Games are art: notably at the point where the gameplay starts to serve the story, and not the other way around... (RTS games suffer this a lot. “Commander, go do this! THERE WILL BE DIRE CONSEQUENCES FOR YOUR Nation/Loved Ones/Important Plot Thing IF YOU DO NOT.) The Metal Gear Solid series is a good example of this. You could make a movie out of this series with ease. Arguments about the strength of the plot aside, it was clearly made to tell a story, not just so you could run around and shoot things wantonly. In fact, one of the biggest complaints I've heard about MGS is that it doesn't feel like a video game as much as an interactive movie. (I use complaint here because that's how it was presented. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment.)
Note that so far, I haven't said anything about graphics, and their role. I'm going to admit freely that graphics do play a major role. I'm not likely to think that an 8-bit game is Art. The reason for that has little to do with the strength of the plot itself, and rather, much more to do with the fact that I would engage and sympathize much more with a more visually accurate character.
I don't think that I've come even close to addressing this issue. If I was going to do so, I'd need a much longer amount of time to prepare it, and frankly, today is not that day. However, I've committed to posting something every twenty-four hours, and so, this is all I can muster for today. I'll see you all tomorrow.
Whether games can be art is a more complicated question than a lot of people seem to realize, given that both "art" and "game" would seem to be essentially contested concepts. I've never heard a definition of either one that fully capture the term as it is commonly used.
ReplyDeleteI think what we usually refer to as a "video game" is not in fact a "game" at all but something else entirely, which involves an art component as well as a game component. These components are, in my experience, always distinct. Which is not to say they're not related to each other.
To illustrate what I mean, let's take chess. The "game" of chess isn't a work of art. Although you might rightly call a fancy chess set a work of art. The chess set's artistic function is related to the game function, in that the design of the pieces represents a hierarchy that translates into an actual game mechanic. They are related, but they are not the same. I think that's how it is in most video games (I hesitate to say "all", because I haven't played them all).
Anyway, your definition of art is way problematic. It chucks an awful lot of great painting and sculpture out the window, since often their primary goal is not to move but to illustrate. I'd say Ken Sugimori's Pokémon illustrations fall well into the category of "art," at least as well as comic book "art" or even renaissance painting. I'm not saying that they're of comparable quality, just that they're of the same category.
I feel like lots of gamers read "are games art?" as "are video games worthwhile and/or culturally significant?" and rush to defend the medium from what they perceive as a criticism. It's a pity, because it tends to distract from the fact that there's actually interesting grounds for discussion.