Art is art, no matter the form. While this may sound simplistic, when the term “art” is applied to video games, too many people don’t see it that way. Why is that? The problem lies with the definition of what “art” truly is. Before I go any further lets make things clear, this is not a call to change people’s perceptions, this is a thoughtful look at what defines art and why I feel video games are a legitimate art medium.
The best place to start is defining what art is. According to Webster, art is defined as:
“The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects… decorative or illustrative elements in printed matter…”
When referring to the form of art, the definition is slightly different:
“A form or medium of expression recognized as fine art… an unconventional form or medium in which impulses regarded as artistic may be expressed…”
Now that art has been defined, I also need to define video games. Again from Webster:
“An electronic game played by means of images on a video screen and often emphasizing fast action.”
To define art, as it applies to video games, I am going to combine several of these definitions into one. Video games as a medium for artistic expression should described as:
“The conscious use of creative imagination in the unconventional medium of fast moving images on a video screen which are regarded as in a recognized form of fine art.”
I will attempt to explain my reasoning regarding this definition as best I can, if you have any thoughts please leave them in the comments. My hope is the discussion will continue beyond what I have placed here.
“The conscious use of creative imagination…”
Game design is an iterative creative process that encompasses many facets or traditional art. There are early sketches of characters, clay models that are scanned into the computer, the music that plays in the game, and the voice-acting that bring life to the characters. From the beginning to end of developing games there are numerous examples of art in video games. This art does not spring from nothingness; it is consciously brought out and refined through a process of collaboration. There have been games recently that were well-known for their creative imagination, Braid being a great example. Almost every frame of the game can be a work of art. A single snapshot could be enlarged, printed, and hung on a wall. Another example is Auditorium. This delightful flash game allows you to create your own symphony of music and colors as you play. Every play through the game results in a different musical piece produced as it is impossible to play the game that exact same way twice. These are only two examples of unique, artful games out of the vast number available.
“…in the unconventional medium of fast moving images on a video screen…”
This might cause some discussion, because I am defining motion on a screen as unconventional. Let’s step back for a moment to put this into perspective. In all of history how long has the moving picture been a part of the human experience? The answer is simple: nowhere near as long as most other forms of art. Thus justifying the definition of moving images on a video screen as unconventional. However, this is not as unconventional as some might define it. A moving picture is simply the passage of still images with minute variations at a rate that is perceived as motion. So where do these images come from? This takes us back to the first part of the definition. If the motion is clean and the images rendered in an artistic manner, they can individually be art by the traditional definition. This is the same leap that causes movies to be defined as an art form.
“…which are regarded as in a recognized form of fine art”
This part of the definition requires an understanding of what the “form of fine art” really is. Webster defines fine art as,
“Art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects.”
Referencing the first two parts of the definition, each frame can be viewed as a painting that when combined with the rest, form a beautiful object. Under these circumstances the defining of what is beautiful and what is not is left up to the individual. I can personally appreciate the beauty in truthfully portraying the miseries of human experience in both movies and video games. There are numerous examples of paintings that are not referred to as beautiful by the majority of people, but are beautiful when viewed through the lens of the creator. I can name pieces of music that I would never define as beautiful, nor pleasing. On the other side of the coin, there are individuals that think how the notes intertwine produce a priceless work of fine art.
This brings us back to the root of the issue, how art is defined by you as an individual. No matter how much you think something is beautiful, the person next to you will look at it as junk, not worthy of being called art. One person’s junk is another’s art medium, literally. There are fantastic sculptures that were created using junk from landfills. It all comes back to perception. Through this you have hopefull gotten a glimpse of mine, so please share yours. I will do my best to respond to comments directed my way and invite you as readers to continue this look at video games as an art medium.
I don't think anyone can argue with this.. Video games ARE art!
Video games contain art, and they are not art in themselves. When a beautiful building is be constructed, are the construction workers who erected the monument considered artists? Art is something that has no specific use other than to be looked at and talked about. The only way the building can be considered art in itself, is if the building is not being used for any other purpose than to be looked at and talked about.
People think a new medium has to follow the rules of the old ones. Video Games are not movies, paintings, music or writing. Video Games are Video Games, and by that fact they are entitled to their form of entertaining and are unique in their affect on an audience. Video Games have to be an art form, because their is work in Video Games that truly show merit, through ideas or emotion, games have brought all this to our minds, in the past and will in the future. Games have made us think things, like things, dislike things and flinch at things. Video Games are most certainly a medium, and all mediums call their excellent products art. Video Games should be entitled to the same right.
I'm gonna start the flame war… lol
I think it should be "Video Games are a FORM of Art". Just as music, movies, writing are FORMS of art. I don't consider music, movies, etc to be art in it's traditional most core sense. Even by the definition above: The conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic OBJECTS… decorative or illustrative elements in PRINTED MATTER…
Video games aren't printed or tangible items save for the actual disc or cartridge that the game comes on. The fine art drawings and illustrations and sculptures that go into making a game could count as art, the final game then isn't art. Not as I think. Though I am an art school grad using the term art in a very traditional sense.
Art can be objective to many people and thus defined in many ways. But just saying video games ARE art (or aren't) isn't quite correct. When in fact you talk about each frame being viewed as a painting, then it is no longer a video game anyhow. Now print that frozen screen out and hang it on a wall…
you should ask an artist what art is.
@CrAppleton
Allow me to regurgitate an argument I made yesterday:
Games have been around for at least a millenium. At no time has any successful argument been made in their favour. Along come video games, and people who've grown up with them want legitimacy. They want recognition – their hobby is not just mindless entertainment! Video games are merely an evolution of sports, board games and playground activities. They've adopted the aspects a game must have: fun/challenge, a set of rules and objectives etc. and put them into digital form.
The argument made for Braid is that each frame could be printed and hung up on a wall. Sure it would look pretty, but it'd be shallow beauty, not art. What meaning could a reasonable person discern from each and every frame of Braid? Similarly, people dissect films like this, claiming that each frame is majestic. A film isn't meant to be looked at as a series of photographs, even if that's what it is composed of. In fact, if it's made out of cleverly framed shots with *just* the right lighting, it's probably a mechanical monstrosity devoid of life. If art is as simple as something that is visually pleasing, why bother arguing about it? A lot of games/products/films/books/music are made using "creative imagination" and a degree of skill. Art is meant to be a prestigious label. If you want artistic legitimacy for something, don't strip the word down to encompass almost anything and everything. Games are first and foremost made for profit and for entertainment. If a *game* is frustratingly bad, controls poorly or fails to engage, it has failed as a game. A game has no room to comment on the human condition when it is preoccupied with zombie slaying.
Which brings us to a definition of art I've always loved:
"1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."
from http://www.answers.com/art
I grant that it seems somewhat vague, but it looks to me like a definition that simultaneously establishes a noble purpose or intention to create (as opposed to simply being creative), removes the artifice of stories and characters (as opposed to emotions, moments and people, which this definition supports) and encourages understanding by making art relatable to all (nature and human relations are experienced everywhere as opposed to commentary on a war or violence experienced by a subset of people).
I don't think it's enough to simply make you "feel" something. Clever manipulation (e.g. Hitchcock) can make even the manly men weep, but that's puppeteering, not art. "Clever" metaphors don't make something art, either. I'd argue that they hinder it. We're taught semiotics at school, but doesn't it seem like an overly simplified approach? Even in artworks with no metaphors, these people will find them so they can decode the meaning and be able to pat themselves on the back. Braid takes the metaphorical approach – substituting what could have been actual comments and ideas for stupidly simple images and actions that are supposed to represent those comments and ideas. I don't know, to me, it seems like cheating for both the creator and the interpreter.
I mean, you say it's all about perception, but isn't it logical to, when seeking prestige, look at art as something special that should be strived for, rather than something simple that almost anything can claim? If not, then know that a distinction must be made between pretty products (a synonym of art by this watered down definition) and "high art" (art that can help us understand human emotion, human relations and the world around us), which is something Pong or Tetris could never achieve.
"I can personally appreciate the beauty in truthfully portraying the miseries of human experience in both movies and video games."
If a video game does this and rids itself of distractions or detriments to that truthful portrayal like killing monsters or scoring points – things that destroy the overall artistic message – then it ceases to become a video game. There are a few creations that have achieved this, or at least come close, and two of them come from Fumito Ueda and Team Ico.
I'm probably fighting the wrong people, because I have a feeling we may agree on some points. The interactive medium (which video games are apart of) has as much artistic potential as all other media, if not more. I just think that an interactive work has to break past the boundaries of games and entertainment if it wishes to be respected, and we've a long way to go.
You make an amazing argument, but the bottom line comes down to your definition of art;
"1. Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."
That statement right there supports the fact that video games are art in more ways than you may ever know. Does that definition apply to all video games? No. But it applies to many, many, many games.
Do me one favor, go on the PlayStation Network, or go to a friends house who has it, or for that matter simply Google the PlayStation Network game "Flower", and watch a few videos. It is 100% nature, it is 100% human effort to imitate a work of nature. While I wasn't particularly impressed by the gameplay, as many others around here were, it is a masterpiece.
I do however agree that not all games fall under that category, but at the same time, if you're saying that video games aren't art, then neither is an artists painting, because in all reality, that's all developers are doing, is painting a picture, conveying a story, retelling a lifetime. In some way, shape, or form, these developers can relate to what they are making, and THAT my friend… THAT is art.
Oh that's right, flower! I have that. That's art, but I suppose I never considered it to be a game. As with Shadow of the Colossus, you've got "objectives" that coincide with the meaning or the narrative in more than just a superficial way, where the killing of a colossus weighs down on the Wanderer, robbing him of his humanity (greying hair and clothes tearing), rather than being a simple obstacle that must be overcome and nothing more.
In flower, you have nature rejuvenating sterile cities and fields. To be brief and to fail to do it justice, it's "the power/superiority of nature." It's simple, but anything that draws attention to the wonders of the natural world is deserving of praise.
It's not all as black and white as I like to make it out to be – a video game can contain artistic moments – but from where I'm standing it's not the game itself that has anything to do with it. Take an advert. Its job is to sell you a product. If it manages to tell you something about human nature tangentially related to the good advertised, it's not necessarily adhering to the nature of an advert. Likewise, the game's contributions amount to providing structure and mechanics (objectives, gameplay). Those elements that counteract, imitate, supplement etc. are interactive, but they're not dependent on that structure – they have to overcome it. I think that sort of work needs a different name. "Video games" is often assumed to be synonymous with the medium, but interactive creations can be much more than just games.
As for developers making art – any hollywood blockbuster can convey a story or paint a picture. Perhaps, in a roundabout way, the writers and directors can relate to Shia LeBouf beating up giant robots. A lot of stories can be well written and be full of twists the same way a lot of scenes can be breathtaking. I don't think that it indicates artistry (unless we're using the everything goes definition, which I find counterintuitive).