I think so too. Video games are just another medium, and there's nothing stopping someone or a group of someones from expressing their artistic interests through it.
Video games also involve gameplay design, which is an aspect that separates video games from other forms of art (and thus justifies video games as a distinct art form) and which is part of what makes a great game "great."
It's a perfectly good argument and I will admit that the distinction isn't particularly meaningful, but I don't consider video games to be art anymore than I consider basketball to itself be an art.
Video games make use of many arts, music, visuals, storytelling etc... but a video game is identified by the goal it sets for its player, its win condition, strategy, etc... the use of art is mostly to keep the player engaged and entertained instead of being the defining characteristic.
That said I also agree this may not be a particularly useful distinction and don't have very strong feelings about it.
Basketball is the same game played over and over. The objective is to make the court and gameplay setting as consistent as possible across different locations so as to set the best players against each other in a competition.
Some video games fit this sport-like criteria and are competitive in nature. Others are storytelling experiences meant to be enjoyed for the sake of enjoyment. It's an interactive art form and some of the talent that goes into some of the most well-designed games is extraordinary and should be recognized as such.
People fall in love with some games based on their characters and storyline. If making people fall in love with a creation isn't art, then I don't know what art is.
Consider that you can fall in love with those same characters and that storyline independently of the video game itself. In other words you can delineate between the video game and the story/music/visuals.
Someone could take that story and present it as a film, or a novel, and you'd likely still fall in love with the characters.
But few people would claim to fall in love with the video game in and of itself, for example what you would get after stripping out the story, the visuals, the music. No one feels an emotional connection to game mechanics, goal setting, a scoring system, strategy etc... at least not the same kind of emotional connection that one associates with other art.
So that's why I say video games use art, just like advertisements use art, but I don't consider advertisements themselves to be art nor do I consider video games to be art.
A lot of things use art without being an art form themselves, and I suspect video games are one such thing.
> Consider that you can fall in love with those same characters and that storyline independently of the video game itself. In other words you can delineate between the video game and the story/music/visuals.
You can pull Mario out and put him in a movie, but it's not quite the same, is it? The character was created for the medium. The original Super Mario Bros, for example: classic work of art. The music is iconic. The character animation and mechanics are a joy and clearly had a sweeping, long-lasting influence on society. You would not have had that emotional connection with a fat plumber from Brooklyn without that experience. It's inseparable from the medium.
You can also pull a character from a novel (or other art form) and put them in a video game. I just played Witcher 3 recently: A beautiful in-depth, expansive game with a gripping storyline that was pulled from a book series. Is the book series no longer art because it jumped mediums? Nonsense. The experience of reading the story and playing the story are completely different. I treaded thousands of miles in an expansive virtual landscape and played the role of Geralt as I did so. I experienced his romances, fought his battles, and shaped the story and outcome based on decisions I made in the game. And I experienced art (voice acting, cinematography, architecture, landscaping, character design, etc) that would otherwise not exist without the game as a package. It doesn't make the book any less of an art form. It's all art.
Anyways I could go on and on with examples. Clearly not all games are created equal, just as not all paintings are created equal. And they do not all fit into neat, sport-like or Pong-like categorizations.
This is literally true: Most of the salient features in Mario's visual design (cap, moustache, overalls) were intended either to make his movements readable on the primitive 8-bit character-cell-with-sprites graphical displays of the time, or to compensate for the difficulty in representing features like hair and a mouth on those displays.
He is a very deliberate design within very tight constraints, and thus a marvel of character design.
I buy the distinction you’re making, but not the conclusion. There is some art used in games, separate from the art that is the game itself.
> few people would claim to fall in love with the video game [...] No one feels an emotional connection to game mechanics
I think you’ll have a hard time convincing gamers of this line of thinking. Mario Bros, Doom, Kerbal Space Program, Worms, Secret of Monkey Island, Warcraft, Celeste ... and so many other games have delightful mechanics that people love. It is different than a story, but you’re using the idea that it’s different to invalidate mechanics as art. It doesn’t have to be the same kind of emotional connection. People don’t have the same emotion connection to Leonardo’s ornithopter as they do to DaVinci’s Mona Lisa, yet nobody would even attempt to make the argument that the ornithopter isn’t art.
Art is and always has been in the eye of the beholder, so my disagreeing doesn’t need to change your opinion, but FWIW games absolutely count as art in my book, and many others’. Not all games are good art, but a few games are great art.
The classic counterargument is that game design (or, more broadly, interaction design) is the art medium, not the game. The game is the result.
A basketball player might not be an artist, but the person who created the idea of basketball could be called one, under this premise.
Now, most computer games are way more complicated than basketball due to what their platform allows, but the argument remains that the rules of interaction and the responses of the game to player's actions are designed to provoke some specific response, or even used contemplatively, even if you were to change what actual medium those responses were in (for example, text-based dungeon crawlers versus something more visual like For the King).
Are movies art? It seems to me that these two things are pretty analogous. Movies make use of many arts: music, visuals, storytelling, etc...
Some movies are junk that people consume passively in the background or to have a laugh and/or escape their troubles for a bit while they eat some popcorn. Some movies are masterpieces that make their audience feel complex feelings or look at the world differently.
Some drawings are vulgar juvenile doodles. Some drawings are masterpieces that make their audience feel complex feelings or see the world differently.
I think the same things could be said about video games.
Video games have this as well — interactive cinematography and participatory narrative.
As just one of many excellent essays exploring these subjects, may I suggest Noah Caldwell Gervais on Kentucky Route Zero through the lens of participatory theater (spoilers, 1+ hr).
Sure, any precise definition I give can be argued against which is why I'm not giving a very precise definition. But usually when people present a video game that lacks a goal so as to give an example of how games can be art, they point to extreme outliers like so called "walking simulators" which may or may not be video games but at any rate are not what most people think of when they consider video games.
When you consider video games outside of the context of arguments about whether they are art, you usually think about Mario, Halo, Minecraft, etc... these are games that are defined by skill, goals, strategies, mechanics. They make use of visuals, music, storylines, characters, a host of various art forms but at their core, after stripping away the art that they make use of, you get something at the core.
What that core is, what I consider to be a game, isn't something I sincerely think most people would associate with art in the same way music or movies are associated with art.
We just have come to mix video games with art together that as a consumer we don't see the differentiation between the two. But I think as a game designer it's worth have a clear distinction between the "game" and the "art". I also think that good games develop those two things independently of one another with the art layered on top of the game.
Video games are one of the highest forms of art, in my opinion, because it's a blend of so many art forms. The architecture, level design, cinematography, character animation, storytelling, the music, the voice acting, the game play mechanics, etc. There are some beautiful games out there that have shaped culture and brought people together as a bonding experience. It's high time the world recognize that. I suspect it will more and more as digital natives come of age.
I honestly cannot think of a form that embodies the ideals of gesamtkunstwerk better than a video game. It's really the synthesis of all types of creation
Except that the artistic (in the sense of art as expression) quality of most video games is poor, and how else could it be, given the production methods? For most games it is somewhere between slot machines and actual high art. I have yet to play a game for the story, too. It seems possible...
I say that as someone who appreciates most kinds of art at least a little and does play video games.
Seriously. Despite the creative license in storyline and action sequences, you feel like you're in 19th century America in a way that no other experience I've had has captured.
Especially when you include things like posters, billboards, furniture, fast food, and all the other things that could be art or masterfully crafted, but more often are just functional. Some games are made to evoke emotions or thoughts. Some games are just made to be fun.
Katamari Damacy was an excellent choice for their collection. I have enjoyed a lot of games (Breath of the Wild!), but Katamari is the only one that comes to mind that felt like it had a message that was bigger than the game itself.
> the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
I would say that video games are inarguably "high art". The greatest thing about the increased ergonomics that Unity/UE bring is the ability for less specialized people to express themselves via video games. Visual expression, storytelling, sound, etc. It's all there.
I am not involved with Fullbright, but the game Tacoma (https://store.steampowered.com/app/343860/Tacoma/) I think is an excellent example of video games as art. For those curious, I would highly recommend taking a look.
Sports aren't an art. Sure there's an artfulness to the way high level athletes play their sports, but that doesn't make the sport (or any specific sport) art.
I appreciate all the arguments for video games being art. In fact I lean to that side of the discussion myself. But I can't shake the feeling that just adding a bunch of artistic things into a product doesn't make that product art. Art is meant to be viewed. A video game isn't...
I think particular video games can be pieces of arts in the context of what makes video games uniques, in the interactivity that only games can offer. Component part of video games (like architecture, visual composition, music, writing and storytelling) can be work of art in their own right, but that's the interactivity that make some video games art.
The best recent example I know of that knocks this idea out of the ballpark is Manifold Garden, which even without the puzzle part of the game, would on its own would be art. It uses non-euclidean space, where you can change the gravity 90 degrees when close to a wall, which can be done just about anywhere. It was originally named "Relativity" based on the art piece and it shows. The puzzles are great/challenging and the explorative world just perfectly rides that fine point between chaotic and beautiful without feeling too lost. And when you're lost, you're constantly surrounded by beauty.
I'm playing games since the early 90s and Bioshock (2007) was the first video game where I felt and knew this is something else. The story, the characters, the whole world and philosophy coming together on a higher level I haven't seen before. There are other examples as well of course and but when this topic comes up I think Bioshock has to be the leading sample.
Typical mandatory reading is teenagers reading books they can't relate to, because the books were written for adults (sometimes for adults living centuries ago). So at least this problem shouldn't happen with video games.
The difficult part will probably be writing a 10-page essay on how Manic Miner is a metaphorical criticism of 20th century mining industry...
I agree but I'm also a bit conflicted. A video games first purpose is to be a commercial product, where as art is something created for the sake of expression.
There are a lot of games which are definitely not created primarily to make money - or at least, it might be the artists only way of making money but from another studio it wouldn't be considered a commercial cashgrab.
Pathologic, for example, is not exactly a FIFA game
> a video games first purpose is to be a commercial product,
That rather depends on the video game.
> where as art is something created for the sake of expression
Quite a lot of what is universally recognized as art was created for commercial purposes by the artist; no small part of it was also shaped by commercial interests of those who commissioned it.
I don't see how that makes games different from other forms of media, you could apply the same argument to high budget blockbuster movies.
Games present more options for commercializing, but at the same time I think that games have a lot more moving parts that can be seen as forms of artistic expression
Somewhere between Muybridge's horse gaits and Citizen Kane, film went from technical novelty to unquestionably art. Somewhere between Pong and Journey, games made a similar transition.
I think games like Pong, Tetris, Asteroids etc are more ideal for making a case for games as a unique medium, because instead of deferring to cinematic or literary elements (as most art games are wont to do), they instead have a purity of form and function not dissimilar to a Josef Albers or Steve Reich piece.
Just to play devil's advocate: the argument in the negative would probably say that video games are consumer electronics. And therefore more formally belong in the design category. You can't separate the commercial aspect, from the medium. And no artist has yet arguably manifested a visionary work from a "game engine". It's just code and art assets after all. Looking at the History of Computer Art, digital images created from algorithms draw a direct line of descent from Sol LeWitt's conceptual works. Manfred Mohr considered his geometric plots a kind of "digital painting". Computer Games have existed since PDP-1 SpaceWar! (1962). Has there ever been a Computer Art Game?
There is also the question of preservation. A digital video of a Computer Art work can be transmitted forever using open codecs. But what are we referring to when we talk about Video Game Art. The visuals and sounds, or the game play itself?
TBH I actually wish MoMA took video games as first class citizens. In the manner of their excellent film and video wings. Rhizome, Bitforms, Ars electronica, even the Smithsonian Institute are all probably better staffed for emulation into the distant future ;)
Manfred Mohr, A Formal Language: Celebrating 50 Years of Artwork and Algorithms
> You can't separate the commercial aspect, from the medium.
What does this even mean? If you mean that all video games are produced for commercial benefit, that's certainly not true. Maybe most of them are, but you could say exactly the same about movies and books.
> But what are we referring to when we talk about Video Game Art. The visuals and sounds, or the game play itself?
Isn't this just trying to unnecessarily force games into the mold of existing media? A video game is an interactive composition that consists of visuals and sound and narrative and control mechanics and game logic, just as a painting typically consists of shape and color.
It's the old form vs content debate. The average movie goer probably won't purchase a ticket and sit through hours of Andy Warhol's "Empire" or Christian Marclay's Clocks. In same the way they would go see the Coen Brothers' Scarface re-make.
Film as Art is often considered under Auteur Theory. The entire body of work is investigated. To glean a unique vision specific to the director.
One of the more popular retrospectives at MoMA pre-lockdown was the films of Mae West. Depression era escapism for the audiences of those days. But nearly a century later, they have a very different impact.
In 500 years, Super Mario Bros may be more important than Hamlet. As a society, we are on the cusp of playing games directly with our minds (via Neuralink). It's not a question of the immersion or interactivity these simulations will have. But in how they advance our understanding of our humanity.
I know it all sounds a bit snobby and elitist. But looking at some games that attempted to transcend. Bjork's Biophilia for instance. Or the CD-ROMs of Theresa Duncan. I can't help but feel the pinnacle has not been achieved yet. And is still very much up for grabs ;)
Paintings are just oil and canvas, fibres and minerals.
>And no artist has yet arguably manifested a visionary work from a "game engine".
I can't imagine anyone comprehensively familiar with games claiming this. Even if you want to erroneously confine yourself to a definition of art as "single-developer/artist releases unified-vision under already-established game engine", look at Fragments of Euclid, or Superliminal.
Much of "art" is about exploration of abstract concepts. Games (especially those two above) give the ability to play with spatial dynamics and perspective unconstrained by narrative or the limits of conventional medium. They very literally challenge your preconceptions about how to operate in our "normal" 3-5 dimensions. If that isn't art I don't know what is.
Video games aren't art because they are use-objects. If using something is part of experiencing it, it's impossible to maintain the critical distance that partly defines art.
Games often have art in them in the form of assets. Chess is not art but a chess piece may be art. And it isn't a rebuke to say something isn't art, not everything worthwhile is art.
There are multiple views into the subject, but art is often described as a conversation between the piece and its viewer — that is, it’s interpreted by its audience, and given meaning by its audience (in the extreme, this leads to death of the author — art is only defined by its interpreters).
From that perspective, games reign supreme in their potential: not only are they interpreted, they are themselves changed by their interpretation. Not simply a conversation in a single point of time (by viewing the object under question) but an extended one, with both parties conversing with the other, and both even capable of changing their stance and topics as the conversation continues.
I personally don’t think you’ve ever needed “critical distance” to determine an object as art — because nothing is truly that distant, and beating someone over the head with a small statue does not change the status of the statue in regards to its “artistry”, despite the critical distance changing (the evaluation of the statue as a weapon may however not be an artistic evaluation).
And of course, Duchamp’s urinal is the primary counter-example to contend with.
If art is "conversation between the piece and its viewer" then art is something that one person makes that another person reacts to. Why isn't this sentence art?
We're playing the game of distinctions. Some things are art and some things are not art. One way to lose that game is with arguments like the one you've made, which make it impossible to say that anything is not art. If that's our conclusion then everything anyone has ever made is art and the world is a museum. To me, that is not a satisfactory place to end up.
The problem with the other interpretation is that we exclude things that are obviously art (a painting stops being art when you use it) and you have a massive gray area (a urinal, placed in an art exhibition).
By using interpretation, it becomes “closer” to correct — its art, when one treats it as such. A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers.
And then it becomes a question of if anything can be art, and anyone can interpret anything as art, then when isn’t it? And my answer really boils down to reasonable and group interpretation — it’s “art” when a sufficient number of people (a percentage of relevant population) considers it so, and it is generally treated as such when it holds certain qualities (an interesting statement, an aesthetic, sufficient skill, etc).
That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation
Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to)
Also note the similar question: what defines a chair?
> The problem with the other interpretation is that we exclude things that are obviously art (a painting stops being art when you use it) and you have a massive gray area (a urinal, placed in an art exhibition).
I don't see this as a problem. I can use my shoe to hammer a nail into a wall but my shoe is a shoe, not a hammer. A painting isn't a use-object. You can use a painting for whatever you like but it doesn't make it a use-object.
> A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers.
A urinal is not art. Hanging something to sell tickets doesn't make something art.
> That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation
> Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to)
I think you're correct to link your perspective to fiat currency but that just drives home how empty the subjectivist view of art is. Using this definition, nothing is art because tomorrow or a year from now or next decade, people may not consider it art. Art (and all meaning) is endlessly deferred. This is not how people experience things, it's a cop-out.
It is very tricky to define art. But we're better off engaging with the people who tried to answer that question and building on their work instead of the people who refused to answer at all.
> It is very tricky to define art. But we're better off engaging with the people who tried to answer that question and building on their work instead of the people who refused to answer at all
I’m not sure that’s true, because I’m really of the belief that trying to find a strict classification is a mistake — even if we find something that works 90% of the time, we haven’t actually learned anything, and we can’t use it for anything useful anyways. Like finding the definition of a chair, it’s only useful for, well, classification systems, and things that depend on classification systems (eg taxes). But this is largely self-serving, and meaningless to us as non-users of those systems. At best, it helps us in conversation, but I’m not of the belief that the definition of “art” does even that much.
When a urinal can take on all the same “artistic” properties of a painting (including value, meaning, etc) it should be immediately clear there is no strict, solid definition to find. Especially when we consider that it does clearly change over time, and things considered art today (say abstract art) where not considered art yesterday (eg to the Greeks, or even the artistic community of its time)
As such, the question itself is wrong — and those who attempt a strict definition are inevitably struggling with a futile endeavor.
It’s not simply tricky to define art — it is both meaningless and impossible. Perhaps at best, it can be defined within a context — [ object-instance under question + time + (sub)culture ] together may produce something of substance.
> I can use my shoe to hammer a nail into a wall but my shoe is a shoe, not a hammer
A rock is a rock, but when I put a sufficiently large rock next to a dining table and sit on it, it’s also a chair. A rock is a rock, until I beat you over the head with it, and now it’s a deadly weapon in the court of law; in another conversation it remains a humble rock; in yet another, a particular composition of minerals; in one more, an art installation [0].
And notably, all of these things can be true of our simple rock simultaneously
From a programming perspective: OOP modeling can get awkward, because it models objects as having certain properties and capabilities. When those definitions change, everything goes with it.
Relational databases tends be more consistent, because it takes the inverse view: a set of properties exist. The composition of those properties happens to produce an object. A different composition produces a different object. These compositions give rise to the set of capabilities
That is, there are many ways to interpret the underlying data. Your business logic is just making various choices with how to do so
> A rock is a rock, but when I put a sufficiently large rock next to a dining table and sit on it, it’s also a chair. A rock is a rock, until I beat you over the head with it, and now it’s a deadly weapon in the court of law; in another conversation it remains a humble rock; in yet another, a particular composition of minerals; in one more, an art installation [0].
Sitting on a rock does not make it a chair. A char is for sitting on, a rock is not.
A strict definition of art (or anything) may be impossible. But that doesn't mean trying to find one is a mistake. The attitude that views art as an ideal to pursue produces art that lasts centuries. If we stop trying to pursue that ideal, if we throw up our hands and say "art is whatever we think is art," we will stop producing art (or whatever you want to call it) that has any longevity.
> Sitting on a rock does not make it a chair. A char is for sitting on, a rock is not.
You’re ascribing purpose where there is none. Objects are not born of the world in some particular and unique fashion, and rendered static in its place and time.
What would you call this? [0] A tree? Yet it’s most certainly a chair, in all the ways we expect a chair to be (except perhaps immobility, but a heavy and immovable chair of stone is still a chair). And yet most certainly a living tree, in all the ways one expects a tree to be.
> A strict definition of art (or anything) may be impossible. But that doesn't mean trying to find one is a mistake.
What makes it a mistake is to assume the act of categorization is inherently valuable — I argue it is not simply futile, but even if we did succeed, we’d have gained nothing.
> The attitude that views art as an ideal to pursue produces art that lasts centuries.
You’re referring to the skill-based pursuit, and sure, I agree with that. A well constructed painting is something to be admired. But this is referring to mechanical ability, and not the quality of art that I consider most important. Rather, you expect a strong piece of art to force you to think — emotionally, or about the subject (or even the meta-context in which it sits); art isn’t necessarily something to be admired and shelved, but something greater than that. The rock I linked previously is an artwork, not because of its high skill in construction, but because of the sheer terror of its existence and the dread one feels even looking at that horrific construction
> You’re ascribing purpose where there is none. Objects are not born of the world in some particular and unique fashion, and rendered static in its place and time.
Chairs are "born" when someone makes a chair. Chairs are objects created by people for the purpose of sitting on.
Natural objects may have a purpose too. The purpose of a seed is to germinate. The purpose of a fruit is to be eaten (it evolved to be edible so it would be eaten). The purpose of a wing is to help a bird fly.
> What would you call this? [0] A tree? Yet it’s most certainly a chair, in all the ways we expect a chair to be (except perhaps immobility, but a heavy and immovable chair of stone is still a chair). And yet most certainly a living tree, in all the ways one expects a tree to be.
I would call it a tree and a chair. But it wasn't a chair until someone did a lot of work to make it one. Similarly, a rock can be a chair if someone sculpts it into a chair.
> What makes it a mistake is to assume the act of categorization is inherently valuable — I argue it is not simply futile, but even if we did succeed, we’d have gained nothing.
Categorization is inherently valuable and necessary. Words are categories. We cannot talk or think without making categories. If you believe talking and thinking are bad or futile then stop doing those things.
You can argue that we should continue making categories but we should stop questioning them, i.e. stop philosophizing. This is essentially a conservative argument because it forecloses on questioning whatever traditions and cultural attitudes we have. But it is a valid perspective and quite old.
> You’re referring to the skill-based pursuit, and sure, I agree with that. A well constructed painting is something to be admired. But this is referring to mechanical ability, and not the quality of art that I consider most important. Rather, you expect a strong piece of art to force you to think — emotionally, or about the subject (or even the meta-context in which it sits); art isn’t necessarily something to be admired and shelved, but something greater than that. The rock I linked previously is an artwork, not because of its high skill in construction, but because of the sheer terror of its existence and the dread one feels even looking at that horrific construction
I'm not talking about skill, or not only. I'm saying that it is the view of art as a mysterious, undefiniable thing that nevertheless should be pursued that results in art that lasts forever. Your view of art results in people hanging toilets on the wall.
I saw that exhibition within a year of it opening. It wasn't amazing. The dwarf fortress aspect was a wall painted with screenshots. It made me both happy and sad.
The funny little punctuation marks on the wall meant so much to me, that ñ is a were creature coming to do horrible things! I had an emotional reaction, but I know the thousands of other people won't ever really get those stories about how glorious a steel clad captain of the guard is, and how sad it is when they die of starvation after fighting animated yack hair for a few seasons.
It was helpful for me to really viscerally grok there is art I don't understand that has deep meaning to others.
I kinda agree, and I do like playing and making video games myself, but I don't want people to be uppity about it. It is a very complex form of art, yes, but more "advanced"? It's certainly not as matured as novels or movies. It's still very much commercial oriented. I, for one, really want to see games that have a powerful political/environmental message that makes you uncomfortable after playing it (e.g. playing as a nazi officer or slave trader), but they're probably not going to be a commercial success, so they probably won't get made.
63 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 141 ms ] threadVideo games make use of many arts, music, visuals, storytelling etc... but a video game is identified by the goal it sets for its player, its win condition, strategy, etc... the use of art is mostly to keep the player engaged and entertained instead of being the defining characteristic.
That said I also agree this may not be a particularly useful distinction and don't have very strong feelings about it.
Some video games fit this sport-like criteria and are competitive in nature. Others are storytelling experiences meant to be enjoyed for the sake of enjoyment. It's an interactive art form and some of the talent that goes into some of the most well-designed games is extraordinary and should be recognized as such.
People fall in love with some games based on their characters and storyline. If making people fall in love with a creation isn't art, then I don't know what art is.
Someone could take that story and present it as a film, or a novel, and you'd likely still fall in love with the characters.
But few people would claim to fall in love with the video game in and of itself, for example what you would get after stripping out the story, the visuals, the music. No one feels an emotional connection to game mechanics, goal setting, a scoring system, strategy etc... at least not the same kind of emotional connection that one associates with other art.
So that's why I say video games use art, just like advertisements use art, but I don't consider advertisements themselves to be art nor do I consider video games to be art.
A lot of things use art without being an art form themselves, and I suspect video games are one such thing.
You can pull Mario out and put him in a movie, but it's not quite the same, is it? The character was created for the medium. The original Super Mario Bros, for example: classic work of art. The music is iconic. The character animation and mechanics are a joy and clearly had a sweeping, long-lasting influence on society. You would not have had that emotional connection with a fat plumber from Brooklyn without that experience. It's inseparable from the medium.
You can also pull a character from a novel (or other art form) and put them in a video game. I just played Witcher 3 recently: A beautiful in-depth, expansive game with a gripping storyline that was pulled from a book series. Is the book series no longer art because it jumped mediums? Nonsense. The experience of reading the story and playing the story are completely different. I treaded thousands of miles in an expansive virtual landscape and played the role of Geralt as I did so. I experienced his romances, fought his battles, and shaped the story and outcome based on decisions I made in the game. And I experienced art (voice acting, cinematography, architecture, landscaping, character design, etc) that would otherwise not exist without the game as a package. It doesn't make the book any less of an art form. It's all art.
Anyways I could go on and on with examples. Clearly not all games are created equal, just as not all paintings are created equal. And they do not all fit into neat, sport-like or Pong-like categorizations.
This is literally true: Most of the salient features in Mario's visual design (cap, moustache, overalls) were intended either to make his movements readable on the primitive 8-bit character-cell-with-sprites graphical displays of the time, or to compensate for the difficulty in representing features like hair and a mouth on those displays.
He is a very deliberate design within very tight constraints, and thus a marvel of character design.
> few people would claim to fall in love with the video game [...] No one feels an emotional connection to game mechanics
I think you’ll have a hard time convincing gamers of this line of thinking. Mario Bros, Doom, Kerbal Space Program, Worms, Secret of Monkey Island, Warcraft, Celeste ... and so many other games have delightful mechanics that people love. It is different than a story, but you’re using the idea that it’s different to invalidate mechanics as art. It doesn’t have to be the same kind of emotional connection. People don’t have the same emotion connection to Leonardo’s ornithopter as they do to DaVinci’s Mona Lisa, yet nobody would even attempt to make the argument that the ornithopter isn’t art.
Art is and always has been in the eye of the beholder, so my disagreeing doesn’t need to change your opinion, but FWIW games absolutely count as art in my book, and many others’. Not all games are good art, but a few games are great art.
A basketball player might not be an artist, but the person who created the idea of basketball could be called one, under this premise.
Now, most computer games are way more complicated than basketball due to what their platform allows, but the argument remains that the rules of interaction and the responses of the game to player's actions are designed to provoke some specific response, or even used contemplatively, even if you were to change what actual medium those responses were in (for example, text-based dungeon crawlers versus something more visual like For the King).
Some movies are junk that people consume passively in the background or to have a laugh and/or escape their troubles for a bit while they eat some popcorn. Some movies are masterpieces that make their audience feel complex feelings or look at the world differently.
Some drawings are vulgar juvenile doodles. Some drawings are masterpieces that make their audience feel complex feelings or see the world differently.
I think the same things could be said about video games.
Movies also have an art form that makes them unique—cinematography & editing.
As just one of many excellent essays exploring these subjects, may I suggest Noah Caldwell Gervais on Kentucky Route Zero through the lens of participatory theater (spoilers, 1+ hr).
https://youtu.be/pW3qZfF6JfI
Lots of games don’t have a win condition—Tetris, for instance—and many don’t even have goals.
When you consider video games outside of the context of arguments about whether they are art, you usually think about Mario, Halo, Minecraft, etc... these are games that are defined by skill, goals, strategies, mechanics. They make use of visuals, music, storylines, characters, a host of various art forms but at their core, after stripping away the art that they make use of, you get something at the core.
What that core is, what I consider to be a game, isn't something I sincerely think most people would associate with art in the same way music or movies are associated with art.
We just have come to mix video games with art together that as a consumer we don't see the differentiation between the two. But I think as a game designer it's worth have a clear distinction between the "game" and the "art". I also think that good games develop those two things independently of one another with the art layered on top of the game.
Except that the artistic (in the sense of art as expression) quality of most video games is poor, and how else could it be, given the production methods? For most games it is somewhere between slot machines and actual high art. I have yet to play a game for the story, too. It seems possible...
I say that as someone who appreciates most kinds of art at least a little and does play video games.
> the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
I would say that video games are inarguably "high art". The greatest thing about the increased ergonomics that Unity/UE bring is the ability for less specialized people to express themselves via video games. Visual expression, storytelling, sound, etc. It's all there.
I am not involved with Fullbright, but the game Tacoma (https://store.steampowered.com/app/343860/Tacoma/) I think is an excellent example of video games as art. For those curious, I would highly recommend taking a look.
I appreciate all the arguments for video games being art. In fact I lean to that side of the discussion myself. But I can't shake the feeling that just adding a bunch of artistic things into a product doesn't make that product art. Art is meant to be viewed. A video game isn't...
It's not just focused on video games, but there are ocassionally exhibitions devoted to them.
https://www.paleycenter.org/exhibits/paleygx-gaming/
https://www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never...
The best recent example I know of that knocks this idea out of the ballpark is Manifold Garden, which even without the puzzle part of the game, would on its own would be art. It uses non-euclidean space, where you can change the gravity 90 degrees when close to a wall, which can be done just about anywhere. It was originally named "Relativity" based on the art piece and it shows. The puzzles are great/challenging and the explorative world just perfectly rides that fine point between chaotic and beautiful without feeling too lost. And when you're lost, you're constantly surrounded by beauty.
Have a look at their promo: https://youtube.com/watch?v=vLt4ZXcDdIQ
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_Memorandum
I wonder if future generations will have to play video games as part of school. Will they hate video games as much as I hated books?
The difficult part will probably be writing a 10-page essay on how Manic Miner is a metaphorical criticism of 20th century mining industry...
Pathologic, for example, is not exactly a FIFA game
That rather depends on the video game.
> where as art is something created for the sake of expression
Quite a lot of what is universally recognized as art was created for commercial purposes by the artist; no small part of it was also shaped by commercial interests of those who commissioned it.
Games present more options for commercializing, but at the same time I think that games have a lot more moving parts that can be seen as forms of artistic expression
The OP doesn't mention a date, but the linked MoMA post says the collection was established in 2012: https://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-gam...
I think games like Pong, Tetris, Asteroids etc are more ideal for making a case for games as a unique medium, because instead of deferring to cinematic or literary elements (as most art games are wont to do), they instead have a purity of form and function not dissimilar to a Josef Albers or Steve Reich piece.
There is also the question of preservation. A digital video of a Computer Art work can be transmitted forever using open codecs. But what are we referring to when we talk about Video Game Art. The visuals and sounds, or the game play itself?
TBH I actually wish MoMA took video games as first class citizens. In the manner of their excellent film and video wings. Rhizome, Bitforms, Ars electronica, even the Smithsonian Institute are all probably better staffed for emulation into the distant future ;)
Manfred Mohr, A Formal Language: Celebrating 50 Years of Artwork and Algorithms
https://bitforms.art/exhibition/mohr-2019/
What does this even mean? If you mean that all video games are produced for commercial benefit, that's certainly not true. Maybe most of them are, but you could say exactly the same about movies and books.
> But what are we referring to when we talk about Video Game Art. The visuals and sounds, or the game play itself?
Isn't this just trying to unnecessarily force games into the mold of existing media? A video game is an interactive composition that consists of visuals and sound and narrative and control mechanics and game logic, just as a painting typically consists of shape and color.
Film as Art is often considered under Auteur Theory. The entire body of work is investigated. To glean a unique vision specific to the director.
One of the more popular retrospectives at MoMA pre-lockdown was the films of Mae West. Depression era escapism for the audiences of those days. But nearly a century later, they have a very different impact.
In 500 years, Super Mario Bros may be more important than Hamlet. As a society, we are on the cusp of playing games directly with our minds (via Neuralink). It's not a question of the immersion or interactivity these simulations will have. But in how they advance our understanding of our humanity.
I know it all sounds a bit snobby and elitist. But looking at some games that attempted to transcend. Bjork's Biophilia for instance. Or the CD-ROMs of Theresa Duncan. I can't help but feel the pinnacle has not been achieved yet. And is still very much up for grabs ;)
Paintings are just oil and canvas, fibres and minerals.
>And no artist has yet arguably manifested a visionary work from a "game engine".
I can't imagine anyone comprehensively familiar with games claiming this. Even if you want to erroneously confine yourself to a definition of art as "single-developer/artist releases unified-vision under already-established game engine", look at Fragments of Euclid, or Superliminal.
Much of "art" is about exploration of abstract concepts. Games (especially those two above) give the ability to play with spatial dynamics and perspective unconstrained by narrative or the limits of conventional medium. They very literally challenge your preconceptions about how to operate in our "normal" 3-5 dimensions. If that isn't art I don't know what is.
Picture/Sculpture: 1-10 minutes
Film:100-500 minutes
Book:100-1000 minutes
TV: 500-10000 minutes
Games:10,000-2,000,000 minutes
I’m not sure that’s a meaningful metric for evaluating art.
Games often have art in them in the form of assets. Chess is not art but a chess piece may be art. And it isn't a rebuke to say something isn't art, not everything worthwhile is art.
From that perspective, games reign supreme in their potential: not only are they interpreted, they are themselves changed by their interpretation. Not simply a conversation in a single point of time (by viewing the object under question) but an extended one, with both parties conversing with the other, and both even capable of changing their stance and topics as the conversation continues.
I personally don’t think you’ve ever needed “critical distance” to determine an object as art — because nothing is truly that distant, and beating someone over the head with a small statue does not change the status of the statue in regards to its “artistry”, despite the critical distance changing (the evaluation of the statue as a weapon may however not be an artistic evaluation).
And of course, Duchamp’s urinal is the primary counter-example to contend with.
We're playing the game of distinctions. Some things are art and some things are not art. One way to lose that game is with arguments like the one you've made, which make it impossible to say that anything is not art. If that's our conclusion then everything anyone has ever made is art and the world is a museum. To me, that is not a satisfactory place to end up.
By using interpretation, it becomes “closer” to correct — its art, when one treats it as such. A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers.
And then it becomes a question of if anything can be art, and anyone can interpret anything as art, then when isn’t it? And my answer really boils down to reasonable and group interpretation — it’s “art” when a sufficient number of people (a percentage of relevant population) considers it so, and it is generally treated as such when it holds certain qualities (an interesting statement, an aesthetic, sufficient skill, etc).
That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation
Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to)
Also note the similar question: what defines a chair?
I don't see this as a problem. I can use my shoe to hammer a nail into a wall but my shoe is a shoe, not a hammer. A painting isn't a use-object. You can use a painting for whatever you like but it doesn't make it a use-object.
> A urinal changes from a tool to an art piece based on context and its viewers.
A urinal is not art. Hanging something to sell tickets doesn't make something art.
> That is, like currency, it only holds value so long as people believe it holds value. Anything can be used as currency, and you can correctly claim anything to be currency, but it’s quite meaningless without convincing others to buy into your interpretation
> Thus, anything can be called “art” if you can convince enough people of it — and this is how it works out in the “real world” as well (graffiti switches from art, to a statement, to a public menace, and back to art, depending on what group you’re talking to)
I think you're correct to link your perspective to fiat currency but that just drives home how empty the subjectivist view of art is. Using this definition, nothing is art because tomorrow or a year from now or next decade, people may not consider it art. Art (and all meaning) is endlessly deferred. This is not how people experience things, it's a cop-out.
It is very tricky to define art. But we're better off engaging with the people who tried to answer that question and building on their work instead of the people who refused to answer at all.
I’m not sure that’s true, because I’m really of the belief that trying to find a strict classification is a mistake — even if we find something that works 90% of the time, we haven’t actually learned anything, and we can’t use it for anything useful anyways. Like finding the definition of a chair, it’s only useful for, well, classification systems, and things that depend on classification systems (eg taxes). But this is largely self-serving, and meaningless to us as non-users of those systems. At best, it helps us in conversation, but I’m not of the belief that the definition of “art” does even that much.
When a urinal can take on all the same “artistic” properties of a painting (including value, meaning, etc) it should be immediately clear there is no strict, solid definition to find. Especially when we consider that it does clearly change over time, and things considered art today (say abstract art) where not considered art yesterday (eg to the Greeks, or even the artistic community of its time)
As such, the question itself is wrong — and those who attempt a strict definition are inevitably struggling with a futile endeavor.
It’s not simply tricky to define art — it is both meaningless and impossible. Perhaps at best, it can be defined within a context — [ object-instance under question + time + (sub)culture ] together may produce something of substance.
> I can use my shoe to hammer a nail into a wall but my shoe is a shoe, not a hammer
A rock is a rock, but when I put a sufficiently large rock next to a dining table and sit on it, it’s also a chair. A rock is a rock, until I beat you over the head with it, and now it’s a deadly weapon in the court of law; in another conversation it remains a humble rock; in yet another, a particular composition of minerals; in one more, an art installation [0].
And notably, all of these things can be true of our simple rock simultaneously
From a programming perspective: OOP modeling can get awkward, because it models objects as having certain properties and capabilities. When those definitions change, everything goes with it.
Relational databases tends be more consistent, because it takes the inverse view: a set of properties exist. The composition of those properties happens to produce an object. A different composition produces a different object. These compositions give rise to the set of capabilities
That is, there are many ways to interpret the underlying data. Your business logic is just making various choices with how to do so
[0] https://d7hftxdivxxvm.cloudfront.net/?resize_to=width&src=ht...
Sitting on a rock does not make it a chair. A char is for sitting on, a rock is not.
A strict definition of art (or anything) may be impossible. But that doesn't mean trying to find one is a mistake. The attitude that views art as an ideal to pursue produces art that lasts centuries. If we stop trying to pursue that ideal, if we throw up our hands and say "art is whatever we think is art," we will stop producing art (or whatever you want to call it) that has any longevity.
You’re ascribing purpose where there is none. Objects are not born of the world in some particular and unique fashion, and rendered static in its place and time.
What would you call this? [0] A tree? Yet it’s most certainly a chair, in all the ways we expect a chair to be (except perhaps immobility, but a heavy and immovable chair of stone is still a chair). And yet most certainly a living tree, in all the ways one expects a tree to be.
[0] https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fa/a0/de/faa0dec4b3887a44d85c...
> A strict definition of art (or anything) may be impossible. But that doesn't mean trying to find one is a mistake.
What makes it a mistake is to assume the act of categorization is inherently valuable — I argue it is not simply futile, but even if we did succeed, we’d have gained nothing.
> The attitude that views art as an ideal to pursue produces art that lasts centuries.
You’re referring to the skill-based pursuit, and sure, I agree with that. A well constructed painting is something to be admired. But this is referring to mechanical ability, and not the quality of art that I consider most important. Rather, you expect a strong piece of art to force you to think — emotionally, or about the subject (or even the meta-context in which it sits); art isn’t necessarily something to be admired and shelved, but something greater than that. The rock I linked previously is an artwork, not because of its high skill in construction, but because of the sheer terror of its existence and the dread one feels even looking at that horrific construction
Chairs are "born" when someone makes a chair. Chairs are objects created by people for the purpose of sitting on.
Natural objects may have a purpose too. The purpose of a seed is to germinate. The purpose of a fruit is to be eaten (it evolved to be edible so it would be eaten). The purpose of a wing is to help a bird fly.
> What would you call this? [0] A tree? Yet it’s most certainly a chair, in all the ways we expect a chair to be (except perhaps immobility, but a heavy and immovable chair of stone is still a chair). And yet most certainly a living tree, in all the ways one expects a tree to be.
I would call it a tree and a chair. But it wasn't a chair until someone did a lot of work to make it one. Similarly, a rock can be a chair if someone sculpts it into a chair.
> What makes it a mistake is to assume the act of categorization is inherently valuable — I argue it is not simply futile, but even if we did succeed, we’d have gained nothing.
Categorization is inherently valuable and necessary. Words are categories. We cannot talk or think without making categories. If you believe talking and thinking are bad or futile then stop doing those things.
You can argue that we should continue making categories but we should stop questioning them, i.e. stop philosophizing. This is essentially a conservative argument because it forecloses on questioning whatever traditions and cultural attitudes we have. But it is a valid perspective and quite old.
> You’re referring to the skill-based pursuit, and sure, I agree with that. A well constructed painting is something to be admired. But this is referring to mechanical ability, and not the quality of art that I consider most important. Rather, you expect a strong piece of art to force you to think — emotionally, or about the subject (or even the meta-context in which it sits); art isn’t necessarily something to be admired and shelved, but something greater than that. The rock I linked previously is an artwork, not because of its high skill in construction, but because of the sheer terror of its existence and the dread one feels even looking at that horrific construction
I'm not talking about skill, or not only. I'm saying that it is the view of art as a mysterious, undefiniable thing that nevertheless should be pursued that results in art that lasts forever. Your view of art results in people hanging toilets on the wall.
The funny little punctuation marks on the wall meant so much to me, that ñ is a were creature coming to do horrible things! I had an emotional reaction, but I know the thousands of other people won't ever really get those stories about how glorious a steel clad captain of the guard is, and how sad it is when they die of starvation after fighting animated yack hair for a few seasons.
It was helpful for me to really viscerally grok there is art I don't understand that has deep meaning to others.