Games As Art: An Analysis

One of the biggest and most heated debates to have swept across the world of video games in recent years is the potential status of games as art. Film critic Roger Ebert dismissed the possibility of games ever being considered art in one of his blogs last year, pointing out that there are inherent differences between the mechanics of a game and the nature of artistic work. In a recent turn of events, the National Endowment, a body that belongs to the US Federal Goverment, has recognised video games as a valid art form. While this is certainly a morale boost for gamers that like to think of themselves as art enthusiasts, they should not expect the debate to end here. After all, a governmental body may recognise something as art, but it does not have the universal authority to define art. In fact, nobody does.

But perhaps these recent developments do provide us with a reason to shed some new light on this neverending discussion. Especially with the increasing relevance of artistically ambitious indie developers and the rising popularity of cinematic games with limited interactivity, the advocates of gaming as art seem to have more proof than ever of the artistic potential of video games. It is not a given though, that these relatively new types games succeed in circumventing some of the main issues critics have with the potential artistic status of the medium.

What makes this discussion particularly difficult is that there is no clear-cut definition on what exactly art is. If Marcel Duchamp could display a urinal in a museum and call it art, why can the same not be done for video games? Not to say that video games are like urinals, but you get the point. Art is indeed one of the most ambiguous, abstract, multi-interpretable concepts we feeble humans have come up with over the years, but that doesn't mean that gamers can just come up with their own definition of art so that video games can be categorised under it and call it a day; it is not some one-size-fits-all term that holds no essential value.

For, despite the ambiguity, there are certain objective parameters, or rather guidelines that at least attempt to dictate what art constitutes of. In its broadest sense, art is an aesthetic expression of man that is of a particular relevance due to it holding a certain emotional or indeed intellectual value. This definition may be vague and therefore seem easily compatible with the nature of video games, but upon closer analysis, one will notice that, in essence, all video games rely on problem solving rather than the aesthetic fulfillment of the beholder.

And this is also where critics such as Roger Ebert point out where the main problem lies: it is undeniable that video games are inherently different in nature from established art forms such as film, music and literature. Naturally, exceptions can always be found. Games such as Amnesia and Cryostasis rely heavily on emotional and intellectual stimulation respectively, while the poems of Luis de Góngora were written specifically like puzzles and relied on problem solving rather than passive observation.

At the end of the day, however, there being a grey area in this matter does not dismiss the fact that there are inherent differences between video games and universally accepted art forms. There are certainly games out there with artistic potential, and some may go as far as calling them art, but despite these exceptions, it is still is difficult to persist that video games, as it stands today, are inherently an art form equal to film and literature. After all, the moment certain video games come closer to being art is often the moment they stop being video games (check out 'The Path' for reference).

On the other hand, Roger Ebert may have been a tad eager in his claim that video games are not and can never be art, while there are already quite some examples out there that at least question this assertion. In any case, it will be interesting to see what the future has to offer that will further blur the lines between the accepted definitions of art and the nature of video games.

Maybe the most important question is: does it really matter whether or not video games are art? For some parties, maybe (the status of art often gives leeway to subsidies), but for us gamers, it really doesn't make a difference. Whether the games we play are toys or pieces of art doesn't change anything about how much we enjoy these games. So in this respect, there is little reason for gamers to act so overly defensive whenever the topic is brought up.

Still, it is understandable that there are quite a lot of enthusiasts out there who attempt to label their favourite hobby as art. With it being a relatively young medium, games are often misunderstood by older generations, who often dismiss them as pointless time wasting or toys for socially awkward teenagers. These negative connotations make it frustrating for gamers who want to talk about their hobby to 'outsiders', as the latter will often fail to understand the genius it takes to come up with and develop a video game, let alone comprehend the deep emotional engagement people can have with their favourite titles. Because let there me no mistake about it: crafting a video game takes some serious skills, skills that are no less impressive than those of a gifted painter. Therefore, it is perhaps the most logical to think of video games as artisanship: carefully created products that, whilst being created for an everyday purpose, reflect the professional skills of their makers.

Jesse Dolman, NoobFeed.