[Editor's Note: We're not just a (rad) news site -- we also publish opinions/editorials from our community & employees like this one, though be aware it may not jive with the opinions of Destructoid as a whole, or how our moms raised us. Want to post your own article in response? Publish it now on our community blogs.
Mikey Neuman is Gearbox Software's Creative Director and writer; Mikey's thoughts and opinions don't necessarily represent that of his employer. You can keep up with him via his Twitter account, where you'll find him occasionally promising to do wild things if you pre-order his games.]
It's a funny thing surfing Destructoid during the day/at night/sometimes while crapping and I'm not afraid to admit it/lunar cycle of choice. Every once in a while you'll come across an article brandishing some hotshit opinion that dares you dear reader to form your own opinion. Sometimes it's something you had not given much thought to and it brings that topic to the forefront and forces intercourse (collective: that's what she said.) However, sometimes we take a gander at the stick in our hand and realize it's nothing but a nub from our incessant beating of a dead horse (and what did that horse do to you? Slept with your sister? Shit... wanna borrow my stick?)
The article I came across was this exclaiming "GUYS! It's 2010 and video games still aren't art!" Did I do that right? Was I alarmist enough? Was this clearly the topic of discussion you and your friends were having before I rebutted? We are still asking the question, "Are videogames art?" so I'll toss out the tl;dr version for those that are already bored of my parenthetical nonsense:
Shut the fuck up.
Everyone catch that? I didn't do a fly by there and make you spill your coffee and shout "Maveriiiick!" at the top of your lungs? People posturing themselves above the question, as if they're in a place to decide what IS or IS NOT art, is so unbelievably pretentious I think Gus Van Sant himself might be thumbing his nose as we speak. (Maveriiiick!)
Okay, now that I have all those pesky facts out of the way, here's the opinion part: Anyone who sets out to create art, and at the completion of that mission decides what they've created is art, then it sure as frick is. Let no critic ever tell you, the artist, that what you have created is not your art. This is an argument we have been having for centuries between creators and critics. Artists love creating, critics love controlling.
If the videogame developers think what they have created is art, then it is and what's pretty magnificent, is no one can take that away. Like any medium, art is what we make of it. There is bad art. There is great art. There is art that forces us to speak on topics we dare not speak of, but make no mistake, it is all art.
The crux of the problem is in our steadfast reliance on placing art on a pedestal as if it should be untouchable, thought provoking, influential. Hey, some of it is! Some of it is experimentation. How many people told Jackson Pollack what he was doing, was not art? People told him he was doing nothing more than splashing paint around on a canvas as if it meant something, and yet we recognize him as an artist. Most of the time, these arguments come from people who themselves, are not artists (or would not classify themselves as such.)
Let's do an experiment. Think of an artist who tralloped in a style you would consider to be realistic. I'll wait here and whistle choice segments of Kanye West's 808's and Heartbreaks while I anxiously await your answer. Okay times up, did you all pick Civil War artist, Conrad Wise Chapman?
No?
Crap. Anyway, he recreated little pockets of life of what he saw during the Civil War. We might equate him to something like a war photographer during our time in Iraq, but I think we could all agree both of these examples are artists. Is this different than games like Operation Flashpoint, Ghost Recon, Brothers in Arms (I'm sorry!) or those zany History Channel games, where the idea is to put you, dear gentle viewer, into the boots of a soldier? We can agree they are giving you a separate, more violent perspective, but it is giving you perspective. This is just dwelling on the idea that art should give you perspective and an idea as to what a particular fantasy is like. This does not dive into art as an entertainer, which is a whole other can of worms I might just as well save for a follow up to that author's follow up.
We are living in the Wild West infancy of a new medium. Sure, we have probably moved past our equivalent of The Great Train Robbery and probably have not quite reached our Citizen Kane (Uncharted 2 might actually be that game) but we are moving and getting increasingly adept at not measuring our artistic merit against films and books because we achieving a whole new level of artistic success. We just happen to be interactive while doing it, which clamps our toolset to be within the margins of things that are fun to act out interactively (per the research we've done this which might appear a lot of times to be "shoot man. Have fun.") Artists throughout the ages have placed fantasy fulfillment at the top of their artistic spectrum. Videogame developers at the apex of realizing that vision in something other than still life or the moving picture. Sometimes we make Saint's Row 2, and that's okay. There are people that want to understand that fantasy (a 2nd time) and we are assholes to deny them.
Bottom line: Videogames are art because anything else is art. They are no different, and the fact people would pretend they are not, only pushes to prove they are.
This article took five beers to write and if that isn't Pollack enough, I don't know what is.
I did catch this quote in the comment section and, having wasted two pages, could not have said it better myself. Loogibot wrote, "It [games are] art. Art can be fun, depressing, angering, educational, or even stupid. The definition of what 'is' and what 'isn't' art, is neither scientific nor via general consensus. Games are art, and those who oppose it as art do so because they simply don't want it to be."
Raise one for the homies, Loogiboot, you get it.
Contest:
8:00 PM on 01.27.2010
| 
I still think games should more often try to at least attempt being meaningful and also attempt to hone what makes videogames videogames rather than striving to be more like movies...but as for the question "are games art"...
As you say here: undoubtedly yes!
Somehow I think that's as likely to happen as Paris Hilton not performing fellatio anymore.
I was not sure I would read all the way through since the "The art/not art debate is retarded" trend is a ship that has been sailing for a while (the issue must be that bad) but I saw you name dropped Van Sant and Pollack and that kept me hook.
I have not much to add to this, but would like to make a precision.
"Artists love creating, critics love controlling."
True but let's not forget that without the french critic of the 1940-50, there wouldn't have been any french new-wave cinema and Hitchcock/Welles/Hawks wouldn't have been as big. To para-quote Bazin:"Critics are there to point the public toward great art". So, they have their importance. They shouldn't decide if it is art or not, but should give the public their informed opinion on whether it is great art or not.
Also, well said. It's nice to have some industry perspective on the subject.
"I would suggest that it's not the medium, but the quality of perception and expression, that determines the significance of art."
We could probably all do a little better in not trying to prove to the world that games can be art and just be satisfied with which ones affect us deeply. Just as I could spend all night trying to convince someone that a superficially ugly album like Ulver's Nattens Madrigal is art, there will always be those who would refuse the notion that some game is art on principle alone.
Preach.
It.
Brother.
... and I'mma let you finish...
... but this semi off the cuff rebuttal from a dude that actually makes games (cuz frankly, not enough dudes that do enter this discussion) regarding the art that he contends to make is hands down one of the coolest things that has happened at Destructoid.
of all time.
I loves this fun club!
But not art in the sense of that pompous, beret wearing, chinese fancying twat with that gay little goatee. In other words, the art community. It's not that they are closed minded towards games, because they treat films in the same way, but it would be hard to find someone there who doesn't greatly respect cinema.
when people say "games are art" they are referring to the extremes of the art communities, as evidence of there examples. Simply, games are not art this standard of art.
stop bringing up extreme examples (referring to people, not just the author of the article). "if a set of dots is art, then ico is". if you believe that, then you are simply missing the point.
games can carry artistic elements, just like movies. but they are not art to the standard that people argue about.
Ahhh I hate seeing this. Stop catering to the impatient. Stop it.
I think the only thing you've mustard up here is a rallying of 12 year olds telling their parents the man on the internet said it was art they were playing.
We can all agree that anyone can call anything they want, but who other then gamers, is going to take anything you've send with seriousness when you say "Shut the fuck up."
Art takes maturity to understand. A 5 year old can play Ghost Recon, but he can't understand the emotions behind this.
http://weblogs.cltv.com/news/local/chicago/the%20great%20depression%202.gif
A 30 year old can play Braid and not understand the emotions of it, but its there for the taking. Conversly, a 5 year old can watch Bambi and be traumatized by the expressed sadness. What are we proving to each other?!!?!?!
I think you're selling this article's meaning short because he didn't wear his scarf and monocole to tell you what he meant.
I was getting kinda tired about the whole "Are they art/They aren't art" stuff. Especially when they're pulling the ideas it right from a textbook.
When I did photography in collage, I wasn't much for the "rules" of it, though I am grateful they made me work with film rather than digital, There are just some funky things you can't do with Photoshop that can only be done in the dark room. There were things I was told not to do, which I did anyway and people actually ended up liking the prints that came from that more.
If you just do whats expected of you or think too much about it, its hard to make art.
I think the article is more about the concept of art than "games are art because everything is art". Basically, if something is made with the intention of being artistic, it is. It may be good or bad, but it is. Thing is, not every game is made with this mentality. I doubt the people who worked on Gears Of War or Ghost Recon, for example, think of their work as a piece of art, but I bet the people who are part of the IcoTeam do.
Or maybe I just didn't get what you were trying to say.
An excellent one too.
This view dictates that if something is art, it is valid, because it is "untouchable, thought provoking, influential." Ergo, everyone swooning over the concept of games being art are actually seeking validation for their hobby as an engrossing, humanitarian, worthwhile endeavor.
I say who gives a shit. I play games because I like to, and for a wide variety of reasons at that. I don't give a flying hamster fuck what other people think of my hobby.
some are and some aren't. art is only a perspective. just like standing on top of a mountain and looking out into the horizon, some people get the beauty, and some people don't. but that mountain view is usually not considered "art" unless someone takes a photo of it and frames it on a wall. and it seems silly to think that art exists in nature but that is the truest art there can be. we are nature so we are and can create art, just like a painting elephant can. while not everything can be considered art, most can be.
its always been up to the individual on can be. the individual is not the group.
Let me set some life lessons in this post. No one has the authority to say your opinion is wrong. A critic is a human just like the rest of us. They have no inherent powers that make their opinion more valid. Once you people stop holding others opinions in such high esteem you will realize there is only one person in this world who's opinion matters. Your own.
Art is something that requires maturity to understand?
So, if I paint a landscape of a forest valley, because there isn't something that requires maturity to understand, it isn't art? Why would you believe that every piece of "art" has to have some sort of deeper meaning beyond it's visible, audible, tactile, etc qualities? Just because you can't pull a "deeper meaning" out of your ass, doesn't mean the subject isn't art.
So I call bullshit on your opinion.
And I call bullshit on your avatar that I can't tell whether it is or is not peewee herman.
i think the saddest thing is how necessary thi article is.
Like in gta who would have thought running over people if fun?
there are many games like HL2 that really open up the worlds of possibility and the lack of them.
But like all art there are people that just can't appeal to a certain kind and that's OK cause that if their own individuality .
Games are art because games contain art. Games are a visual medium. In order to make a game, you have to draw something. Drawing is a form of art.
Games are an musical medium. Most games will contain music. In fact, we usually go what the fuck if games don't contain music.
Games are a form of literature, if you are one who likes a good story with your game. You cannot have a game without writing, and writing is an art.
The only difference between these mediums and games is that games are interactive, and combine all of them. How is it that games somehow become less of an art when the person who experiences it interacts with it?
If someone wants to put the comment I just made into a coherent statement, that'd be great.
i think the argument is not "are video games art" (which people who dont understand video games will no doubt argue) but i think the argument really is more "do/can video games have artistic merit" what i mean by this, is that most people, especially outside of the gaming culture, think of video games solely as a form of shallow entertainment. people will readily doubt the artistic merit of video games, which is a understandable from an outside perspective given the seemingly over-abundance of violence and sex. the same could be said for Hollywood blockbusters and sequels. but still, like you said, its not up to anyone to decide what is classified as "art", save for the artist himself. BUT to say that does not necessarily mean that their work has value as art. to say something has artistic merit only because it exists would be like saying that pornography is a legitimate form of art, and i am sure there are people out there that think so, (and there is definitely technique and style involved) but, its not. there is a difference between art-for-entertainment-sake and art-for-art-sake. a phrase comes to mind, creative integrity- you look at a game like braid and you see that whoever made that game poured their heart and soul into it, compared to a licensed shit game like avatar that was obviously a business move to get as much short term profit as possible.
but as far as video games go, it is SO art. i love being apart of it, i mean, video games have been out for like, about 20 years, and yet it is an industry that outsells film and books. you think when film was in its twenties people took it as seriously as they do now? video games are an artistic medium that is so new, people dont realize how far it has to go, you think video games are amazing now? how far will they go in just 20 more years? this is only the beginning.
just to prove the point of some legit games that have so much artistic merit its coming out of their, well you know, here are a few that i consider. games like killer 7, super metroid, braid (again) MGS, Uncharted, really a list is pointless, there are so many, and in the game industry, there are so many aspects to consider, artistic style, attention to detail, writing, directing, pacing, gameplay, level design, atmosphere, all of these things are what make me love games.
god im sorry if this sounds pretentious, and i forget any point that i wanted to make, so im just going to stop.
If you intentionally crumple a piece of paper a certain way on purpose then it's art in the medium of paper crumpling. Paper itself is a mundane form of art since it was made on purpose. Artificial=man made.
Can I get an Amen? You Sure as hell CAN bro. You sure as hell can.
Video games are a type of juvenile field in which I (and others) can release the inner angry 13 years old teenager and Slashing, shooting, puzzling, jumping my day by day frustrations away. Ok, relief is a feeling. Then it's art. But art like Clockwork orange? serious?!
I don't know. Perhaps the problem has been cite Uncharted 2. It's one of the worst examples I could imagine. Uncharted 2?! Citizen Kane?! Really?! I must have misunderstood, my English should be more untrained than I imagined. The game is incredibly fun, but there is not even a spark there. Surely the creators do not want to waste time showing the ceiling.
I wanted to developed more but the download is almost done. Gabe Newell's gallery is getting a lot of my money lately. Excuse me but I have to blow up some aliens.
Ps.: But anyway, congratulations on your article. Offend strangers and sending them to shut up is an consistent attitude, welcome to the field.
Fantastic read.
see how easy that was?
Guess you could say I'm neutral to it...
The core question ("Can games be art?") has been kind of a circle jerk, too, because we all (90% of us, at least, enough for defeat any and all filibuster attempts) believe games have the capacity for art and this capacity has been achieved by a large number of game creators, and I'd say less than 10% of those who don't read this site believe that. And, surprisingly, they don't give a good god damn about what we decide about games being art.
The real question should be "how can we push games as an artistic medium to make them both more accessible and more successful as a vehicle of human emotion?", which is a much longer, and much more technical, question.