Are video games considered art?

[Zukunft23]

http://www.soomahn.ca/?p=32

[cortjezter]

great article!

i'm going to add my comment to the article here instead of on their site, to support the argument...

as an artist, i would be incredibly offended if my contributions were considered something other than what they are: art. one thing art forms like pop art, minimalism, abstract, etc. has taught us is that art's boundaries are indeed quite flexible. to that end, any medium which employs the skill of various artisans makes it inherently an art form, regardless of how the medium is consumed.

that's my two cents

[tismatron]

i think games like killer 7 are definitely art...

[hohez]

Anything that is rooted in creativity is art to me. So no, EA games are not art, ba dum chhhh

[rawker]

No i think video games are more like a museum, built by enginers, but filled up by artists

[Neral]

yes, i believe that video games is indeed art

[Lumphead]

it's games like electroplankton that really scream "art". i believe there is a threshold in video games for art and not art, but i can't quite put my finger on it. if i think about it enough, it will come and i will edit this.

[Zachalmighty]

Games like Final Fantasy *raises flame shield* are art. They are like literary classics in the fact that they have beautiful art, history/religious/philosophical tie-ins and beautiful stories. RPG's in my opinion are art and so are some FPS's and platformers but sports games are not art at all.

[t27duck]

If video games are considered art, then should we consider Windows art because they are both just a collection of 1s and 0s deep down.

[James_Smarty_Cools]

Games as art, I don't know about that. Anything goes, I suppose. Perhaps something along the lines of dodgy performance art bits, t-shirt line art or those lefty parodies of McDonald's and Exxon logos.

[adsyrah]

I think games are increasingly being taken seriously as art forms.

We're at a stage now where the realism of games isn't wowing people as much as 5 years ago so games need other ways to grab people's attention and the visual style is one wat to achieve this. Look at games like Killer 7, Bit Generations and Electroplankton to see some very stylised games that still have great gameplay attached to them (less so for Electroplankton, but you get my point ).

And I think as time goes on you will see video games and art converging even more. Especially as computer games are more relevant for our generation - I think art will incorporate more nods to well known characters.

[Miss Moonlight]

well, yes. Anything that involves creativity, passion and alot of hard work, such as video games, can be art. I fail to not see how the legend of zelda series is not art .. but that's just me. ^^

[thewster]

I think some of the things people consider art today is retarded. Like someone chucking paint on a canvas and calling it art.

That said, I do believe some forms of gaming are art forms. More cinematic games like Metal Gear, etc.

I think, if some more people played games, it would be easy for them to see that.

[Gutter Boy 41]

It depends on the game.

Mainstream games like zelda and mario could be considered art but its debatable.
I'd say that the majoirty of games are not art. I fail to see how any thing out of EA or Mario party could be considered art, but the focus on art style in games has become extremely important.

I'm gonna go on a limb and say...Pikmin is art

[Kid]

I'm sure there is some kind of art in games, but the question rises: "Is it 'art in games' or 'the game is art'?
There's a big difference in that, in my opinion. SSX Blur is quite a good example. The game is quite stylish, with its menus and stuff like that, but to call the game art... Not in my life.
Then there is Paper Mario 2 (I haven't played Super Paper Mario yet, damn you NoE!). This game is art. Not only the arty graphics, but the whole game just is like a painting. Take the gameplay, take the people you meet. The game as a whole is just... it all fits together, it's great.

Twilight Princess, art too. Everytime I explore the lands of Hyrule, I get this sort of magic feeling, that's when I realise how great games can be.

[KingKoopaTroopa]

well...

it is generally agreed that movies are art...

even if it is american pie or epic movie...

Thus, why not mario party, and ssx blur...


just cuz zelda, gears of war, lord of the rings, matrix, seem story driven, its a depiction of story and human expression in the directing that gives visuals the merit of art. So no matter if its drama or comedy, videogames is an artform

[Yishai]

I absolutely think games are art. Although, It depends how you define art as well. Some see any kind of expression as art. Some see making a piece and allowing for the audience to interpret what it means as art. I think people can decide for themselves if something like that can be considered art, I personally don't believe they are. I see art to specifically be about whether or not a piece effectively communicates its message or feeling to the audience using the various principles of the medium.

What interests me though is, what are the Artistic Principles driving Video Games? I'd say at it's core most of the principles are found in the gameplay. Visuals play a part but a game really gets it's message across by how the game works and interacts with the player. Take Sim City Societies, in that game you build different societies and with every society you build you effect the attitude of your people. As you're playing the game, the feelings of the game maker are conveyed to you.

So many games create mechanics within them that expressively depict how the creators see real life. The Grand Theft Auto series, while mainly focused on entertaining, does this quite well with how it designs the gameplay experience.

Bottom Line, "fun isn't just in the eyes of the experiencer". Game developers set out with the intention of causing certain feelings and emotions within the player whether it be fun, fear or whatever else. A good developer doesn't just "hope" the game will receive the reaction that he wants, he/she works really hard to make sure it does receive that reaction. That makes them art in my book.

[cortjezter]

critics like roger ebert pan games as an art form citing that they are inherently denied the title because they are interactive, limiting the outcome intended by the creators.

i disagree... first because any art museum i've been to tends to have interactive exhibits or at least a piece or two that allows some sort of interaction.

second...just because games can have multiple outcomes or whatnot does not mean it isn't art. many famous pieces of art--including paintings, sculpture, etc--are interpreted in numerous ways, most of which probably aren't what the artists intended or interpreted for themselves. take any cubist work of picasso. or the mona lisa for example, we only know who painted it... but over the years, there have been countless theories upon every aspect of it: 'who is mona lisa?' 'is she smiling?' etc etc. this just goes to show that the outcome every person experiences can be different, yet they are considered art. i highly doubt da vinci intended 'the last supper' to be seen as a tiny jpg on the web or a postcard...to see the fresco in person is a much different experience. so which of them is or is not art?

third, games are tremendously complex works by teams of individuals who provide not just technical expertise, but also a lot of creative and artistic service to each title. it's my personal view that anything that requires creative thought or expression is art.

as a critic, i'm surprised such an intelligent and well-respected opinion would be so close-minded, or at least show such limitation; i think it only serves to show his limits as a critic; a job founded on the principle of objectivity and openness. it's a critic's job to help others find what is good and bad in creative work, not to determine what is or is not art, since as we all know, art is ultimately in the eye of the beholder.

[Yishai]

Unfortunately, most critics also tend to be snobs that can't objectively look at something based on its own merits. We've seen that with game critics on the subject of the Wii constantly. All some say is "Graphics, Graphics, Graphics."

The idea that something interactive isn't art is coming from his background in film. However, back in the N64/Playstation era developers really started to take it up a notch and show that a game could convey the same emotions as a movie. These days though, I'm really glad to see games leave "being more and more like movies" as games have their own talents and weakness, just like comic books. All the art forms do better if they accept what they are rather than be something they're not. Sure, a game can be cinematic, but let it forward the gameplay.

Because graphics are becoming less relavant with Wii sales I'd really love content to become the focus in the game industry. On all the consoles.

[Sword_of_Twilight]

If everyone had the skills to make video games, they would realize just how beautiful they really are.

[Esnel Pla]

well...

it is generally agreed that movies are art...

even if it is american pie or epic movie...

Thus, why not mario party, and ssx blur...


just cuz zelda, gears of war, lord of the rings, matrix, seem story driven, its a depiction of story and human expression in the directing that gives visuals the merit of art. So no matter if its drama or comedy, videogames is an artform

Good point, although it's a little iffy. Literature is also art, of course, but what about pulp fiction? Dostoevsky is not comparable to say... Nora Roberts. Just like Thomas Kincaid cannot be compared to say... Edward Hopper. Or Uwe Boll to Orson Welles. However you want to squint at it.

The whole video games as art debate itself is very iffy. It brings up a lot of things, mostly the definition of art itself. And there's no real definition of that. At all.

At this point and time, I would say games are becoming more and more artistic, though do not approach anything near what is considered "high art."

The things holding it back from that? Competition, scoring, objectives and things like that. I think its possible for games to be "art," to be a truly immersing and emotional experience... but not without changing so many things about the medium that would make it almost something else entirely.

Also, the art debate, from what I've seen, stems a lot from games being a lot more "story-driven." Even first-person shooters usually have a script department now-a-days (Just read an article in Script magazine about Half-Life 2...). And this leads to the comparison of games as art to movies as art, without the realization how little stories really matter to movies and to books. As they are media solely for the purposes of telling stories. Whereas in games, I have noticed a lot of underlying anything to the more "artistic" titles. The games, in other words, are more concerned about telling an intricate plot line, as opposed to being an experience.

Though a couple definitely have both. Shadow of the Colossus, BioShock, a few others. Still a way to go though.

[NES_Master]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

I personally consider video games art.

For me if you have an idea and produce something from that idea. Thats art to me. I don't care if it's a video game, a bird house or a post on a message board. We are surrounded by art you just have to open your eyes and your mind to it.

[sharkh20]

Art is in the eye of the beholder.

I personally consider video games art.

Agreed. This goes with all things considered to be art/not art.

[Linga]

Long story short, yes. They are an expression of the developers ideas and creativity. I am sure that there are many who will dispute what I have said but thats just my opinion.

[darkrai_master]

To make a long story short, yes.
now i'm of to climb this wall of text...

*climbs partway but entire wall lands on me, crushing my kidney, spine, spleen, scapula, pelvis and pain gland*