I wanted to stay out of politics for the most part in this cblog because it is highly unlikely that anything productive will ever come out of such a topic. However, I am getting very irritated by this ‘Games as Art’ debate that does not want to go away. For the record I am neither an art major nor an art critic and, in fact, outside of music my exposure to what is universally accepted as art is admittedly limited. However, I think that examining the structure of the ‘Games as Art’ debate is much more important than my personal experience with art for this post.
The main issue I see with this debate is that many people are trying to argue for or against games as an acceptable art medium without having first defined what art is. Before debating any subject you need to follow certain procedures. First, define your terms for yourself by asking some basic questions: Is art subjective or objective? If it is objective what properties must something have in order to be considered art? Next, you must reach a compromise with the other side of the debate on the definition of art. Any debate will be completely fruitless if there is not a mutual agreement to the definition of terms used in the debate. Only once both sides agree to these definitions can they begin to make arguments for and against why games might have the requisite properties for inclusion in the ‘art’ category.
To summarize, these things must be done in order to have a productive debate:
1) Define your terms
2) Agree to common terms
3) Debate
Supposing that this happened (and it never will), supposing gaming enthusiasts and people like Roger Ebert and Michael Dirda came together and agreed to some common terms, I think the ‘Games as Art’ debate would be quite easily resolved. If art is subjective (as I am inclined to believe) then anything can be art, including games, and the debate is over. If art is objective then it is merely an issue of defining what properties something must have to be considered art and seeing if games have those properties.
Naturally, agreeing on what art is and isn’t will be the most difficult part of this debate, however, it is this part of the debate that should be focused on; not whether or not games are some as of yet undefined thing. In other words, the ‘Games as Art’ debate should be the ‘What is Art’ debate, and once that debate has been resolved determining whether or not games are art will be trivial.
As I see games, they can very visually artistic but still lack in compelling storytelling. I can't think of any time when I was playing a game where I had an emotional attachment to the characters. The furthest it would go is maybe me wanting the main character to go out with this one chick instead of the other. I can think of books and even a TV show where I was attached to a character but games never got me to that level.
Well, according to dictionary.com, art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. According to that definition, there is no way games are not art. Personally, my definition of art is anything anyone considers to be art. By either definition, games are art, art can be whatever the hell you want it to be, and people who say otherwise are elitist arseholes.
Well put Mr. Mantra. I whole hearted-ly agree with you. I think at this point as long as you have a well plotted argument for why you're piece (be it video games) is art, you can get away with calling it that, with some people at least. That's of course, debatable.
Personally, I don't think that mainstream video games will ever reach the level of high art. I don't have any sort of well developed argument at this point in time to fully support that statement, but fact of the matter is games are typically commercial entities with the purpose to entertain and not to serve as 'art'. Honestly, it always irritates me when people call a beautiful looking game like Okami "Art". Just because it looks pretty doesn't mean very much in terms of art classification. Except for Brad Pitt. That man is the definition of art in the flesh. *swoon*
@ boatorious: Yes, you are absolutely right. Using this method we would not be able to identify anything as art until we have defined what art is. I don't see that as a negative thing at all however. It's completely meaningless to say that something is blank without there being an understanding of what blank is. Gaming and art are merely the placeholders in my argument that it's meaningless to declare something is a term that is undefined.
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
about me
I'm a gamer who's still trapped in the old-gen (ps2, DS, shitty Dell) for financial reasons. Depending on the games I'm currently playing sometimes I'm a hardcore gamer and sometimes I'm a more casual gamer. I tend to enjoy games that focus on critical thinking and ambiance, but I still love an occasional fast-paced round of Unreal Tournament.
Games I'm currently playing:
Persona 3
God of War II
Jam Sessions
Guitar Hero
Euclidean Crisis
Destructoid is an independently-run publication forged by our love of video games and the gaming community's need of accountable enthusiast press living the dream since March 16, 2006
Mantra's blog
follow this blog
subscribe via RSS
send message
invite to meetup+play
As I see games, they can very visually artistic but still lack in compelling storytelling. I can't think of any time when I was playing a game where I had an emotional attachment to the characters. The furthest it would go is maybe me wanting the main character to go out with this one chick instead of the other. I can think of books and even a TV show where I was attached to a character but games never got me to that level.
Well, according to dictionary.com, art is the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. According to that definition, there is no way games are not art. Personally, my definition of art is anything anyone considers to be art. By either definition, games are art, art can be whatever the hell you want it to be, and people who say otherwise are elitist arseholes.
I don't think the "what is art" debate will ever be resolved. So by your method we could never identify anything as art.
I don't think videogames are art. It's not because videogames are worthless -- it's because art is worthless.
Unlike art, videogames are important enough to ordinary people that they can survive without massive infusions of government cash.
Well put Mr. Mantra. I whole hearted-ly agree with you. I think at this point as long as you have a well plotted argument for why you're piece (be it video games) is art, you can get away with calling it that, with some people at least. That's of course, debatable.
Personally, I don't think that mainstream video games will ever reach the level of high art. I don't have any sort of well developed argument at this point in time to fully support that statement, but fact of the matter is games are typically commercial entities with the purpose to entertain and not to serve as 'art'. Honestly, it always irritates me when people call a beautiful looking game like Okami "Art". Just because it looks pretty doesn't mean very much in terms of art classification. Except for Brad Pitt. That man is the definition of art in the flesh. *swoon*
@ boatorious: Yes, you are absolutely right. Using this method we would not be able to identify anything as art until we have defined what art is. I don't see that as a negative thing at all however. It's completely meaningless to say that something is blank without there being an understanding of what blank is. Gaming and art are merely the placeholders in my argument that it's meaningless to declare something is a term that is undefined.
Art is anything that anyone thinks is art.
I completely agree, unfortunately saying that does nothing to end the debate.