The Games as Art Debacle

It’s the year 2011. Just a couple of decades ago video games have recently gotten out of their crisis and steadily growing into one of the largest industries in the world today. In fact, it is so big it has easily surpassed the likes of the other entertainment media such as film and literature. Despite the rapid rise in popularity and success of the video game industry another subject related has been rearing its ugly head more frequently by most professionals: Are they eligible to be considered as an art form? It has become a very heated topic as of late even to those completely unrelated to the industry such as Roger Ebert, a notorious film critic who goes against the idea. No other subject divides the gaming community as much as this or even what qualities games require to be treated as an artistic work. Does it need to have an impact on the player? Does it have to look spectacular and visually pleasing? Is the gameplay even relevant for this qualification? These are questions that pop up very frequently and in hopes of trying to settle this argument on my part will have to be seen further.

Let’s take a look at this from an outsider’s perspective, one that isn’t really related to games in any way, shape or form. Widely regarded as an entertainment medium classically relegated to a younger denomination, just for being called games is not helping the argument for them being viewed in a fanciful manner. After all, even those that grew up playing games most of the time were blind to the notion unless the game expressed specific factors to instill that artistic viewpoint. This is the tricky part; what made the player decide that THIS is game is work of art?  Trying to make some sense in these unsteady waters can be foggy at best since as any artist may tell you art is subjective and it means different things to different people. For instance, having been raised on a diet of role-playing games as a youth lead me to analyse the aesthetic factor presented within the genre. This of course is not just limited to graphics, something that divides gaming communities entirely as well. We’re talking about the presentation, the story and character development, the soundtrack to even the gameplay.

Are these really important for a game to be art? Perhaps going by the definition of an art piece is being a little constricting for the medium. Not all literature and film are considered artistic yet are still treated as such regardless of the one in question. This isn’t the case with games; even when so-called “art” games are released the general public views this in derisively, as if to imply they are trying too hard to be something they are not. In a way I do believe there is a degree of truth there: You just cannot sacrifice the “game” aspect of the game in order to raise the aesthetic appeal. There is no winning factor in providing evidence that games are art when there is no “game” there to begin with. No, I staunchly am against the artsy game movement as I believe it is trying to deface the medium for the sake of pandering to a disillusioned audience. Before you even consider expressing the artistic merits of a game it is imperative to deliver the game as what it truly is: A game. Books and film do not even have to try to be anything else besides their respective media, why should games?

Art is subjective to whoever perceives it, yet certain elements are universally shared regardless of the tools of media used to express the feeling it is trying to convey. The first thing that crops into people’s heads when they think of art is aesthetics, which is how a piece is presented to others. Even older games with the graphical limitations of the time are considered works of art for reasons, such as aging well and being designed in such a way that the graphics still complement the game years after its release. After all people still look at paintings from the Renaissance period or watch older Disney animations purely for aesthetic reasons, thus it should not stop them from playing a good game from the earlier days on those factors as well. However beauty alone cannot support the argument in favour, as we can see from James Cameron’s Avatar. The film’s story was mediocre at best and it still boasted the most visually stunning aesthetics seen in any visual media so far. On a similar level Shadow of the Colossus is widely hailed as the poster child for the games as art argument and for good reason, even though the story is pretty much vague and left to the play to discern what exactly is going on.

Personally I cannot see why video games would not be viewed as an alternative medium for art. They are just as if not more engaging and can be visually and audibly appealing to their audience. Perhaps deep down the biggest reason games get critiqued so harshly in this debate is the interactive factor that no other artistic medium has provided so far. Only in games is the audience taking part in shaping the artistic piece other than its creator; the other forms of art are restricted to the artists themselves. It is also wrong to not consider the possibilities games have to express these feelings and ideas art is supposed to nourish; creativity is something advocates open-mindedness and freedom of expression, something the detractors should heavily reconsider especially if they come from an artistic background. Games allow both the artist and the audience to take part in the same work of art, a reciprocated relationship between individuals that have a fondness for games. At the end of the day, these ARE games we are talking about. It can have as many artsy elements as it wants but it should still be fun to play. Making your own entertainment is my philosophy of games as art.