Games as Art
Written by Drew Onia. Posted April 13, 2012
Video games are curious things. Establishing a place for them in a societal context has proven difficult. Some people have trouble labeling video games simply as interactive media. This is where we get into the debate: are video games art? It is very easy to approach the argument from an emotional standpoint and simply say yes or no. How is a game different from a painting? Or photograph? Or film? Are all games art? The underlying question here is: what is art? More so, do video games have to be considered art to hold the cultural significance that they do?
A good place to start when examining whether or not games fit into the term “art” is the movement of Modern Art. This is not because games fit into this category. Rather it is because they do not. Though it may seem logical to equate gaming with modern art (since gaming is an artifact of our time), it actually has the least in common with this movement compared to other movements. That is, if we are going to attempt to call video games “art” at all. Rosenberg (1964) comments about the state of modern art in the 1960s:
Today, it is not a question of what one likes but of what one ought to like, not of what one feels but of what one ought to feel. With its self-educating outlook, the Vanguard Audience is devoted on the principle of the new. It conceives the history of painting during the past one-hundred years as a string of schools or movements, each which represents the new for a certain period;then, superseded by another movement, it loses its validity as a mode of creation at the same time that its products ascend into the firmament of art history. There is a time for Impressionism, a time for neo-plasticism, a time for action painting. The validity of a work depends on its timing, and art criticism becomes one or another species of art history (65).
Something to consider when defining art is the circumstances around its creation. An appropriate example to start with would be Gustave Courbet’s The Painters Studio from 1855. Some argue this was the start of “Modern Art”. The Painter’s Studio is littered with representations of Courbet’s artistic philosophy. Behind him is a nude woman, observing his work. At this point in time the nude was staple of art shown in The Salon. Courbet keeps his back turned to her, as if to say that aspect of art is irrelevant to him. Closer to his gaze is a small child who looks Courbet’s work with undivided attention. The child can see his work unbiased, whereas the standards of art at the time left no room for products like his. These two figures represent how Courbet felt about the established ideal of art in the Salon. This painting was a monumental (12’ by 20’) work made by Courbet to triumphantly establish himself as different. Though, it also served to stroke his ego, as can be seen with his hand extended out much like God Creating Adam in the Sistine Chapel.
Now, let’s examine games in a similar light. As far as early video games go, they were showcase of technology. Graphics were simple, sometimes consisting of only small squares. They were meant as a product to market, not as a reaction to something in our society. This is not to say something must not be sold in order to be art. Courbet’s work is worth millions right now. However, this is because of its historical, cultural and personal impact. Games typically are valued on rarity, and only sometimes on artistic direction.
More so, they did not start as a reaction to anything except demand for new technology and market trends. It is more about what will sell than what is truly creative. They either condemn or condone the popular opinion (The great “How many bald space marine games do we need?” debate.) That or they are a throwback to “retro” style games in one way or another. For this reason, it seems games cannot be labeled as “Modern Art”. However, this does not quite exclude them entirely from art just yet. Technology is what made games possible. And the use of that technology may fit somewhere as a form of art.
Video games are curious things. Establishing a place for them in a societal context has proven difficult. Some people have trouble labeling video games simply as interactive media. This is where we get into the debate: are video games art? It is very easy to approach the argument from an emotional standpoint and simply say yes or no. How is a game different from a painting? Or photograph? Or film? Are all games art? The underlying question here is: what is art? More so, do video games have to be considered art to hold the cultural significance that they do?
A good place to start when examining whether or not games fit into the term “art” is the movement of Modern Art. This is not because games fit into this category. Rather it is because they do not. Though it may seem logical to equate gaming with modern art (since gaming is an artifact of our time), it actually has the least in common with this movement compared to other movements. That is, if we are going to attempt to call video games “art” at all. Rosenberg (1964) comments about the state of modern art in the 1960s:
Today, it is not a question of what one likes but of what one ought to like, not of what one feels but of what one ought to feel. With its self-educating outlook, the Vanguard Audience is devoted on the principle of the new. It conceives the history of painting during the past one-hundred years as a string of schools or movements, each which represents the new for a certain period;then, superseded by another movement, it loses its validity as a mode of creation at the same time that its products ascend into the firmament of art history. There is a time for Impressionism, a time for neo-plasticism, a time for action painting. The validity of a work depends on its timing, and art criticism becomes one or another species of art history (65).
Something to consider when defining art is the circumstances around its creation. An appropriate example to start with would be Gustave Courbet’s The Painters Studio from 1855. Some argue this was the start of “Modern Art”. The Painter’s Studio is littered with representations of Courbet’s artistic philosophy. Behind him is a nude woman, observing his work. At this point in time the nude was staple of art shown in The Salon. Courbet keeps his back turned to her, as if to say that aspect of art is irrelevant to him. Closer to his gaze is a small child who looks Courbet’s work with undivided attention. The child can see his work unbiased, whereas the standards of art at the time left no room for products like his. These two figures represent how Courbet felt about the established ideal of art in the Salon. This painting was a monumental (12’ by 20’) work made by Courbet to triumphantly establish himself as different. Though, it also served to stroke his ego, as can be seen with his hand extended out much like God Creating Adam in the Sistine Chapel.
Now, let’s examine games in a similar light. As far as early video games go, they were showcase of technology. Graphics were simple, sometimes consisting of only small squares. They were meant as a product to market, not as a reaction to something in our society. This is not to say something must not be sold in order to be art. Courbet’s work is worth millions right now. However, this is because of its historical, cultural and personal impact. Games typically are valued on rarity, and only sometimes on artistic direction.
More so, they did not start as a reaction to anything except demand for new technology and market trends. It is more about what will sell than what is truly creative. They either condemn or condone the popular opinion (The great “How many bald space marine games do we need?” debate.) That or they are a throwback to “retro” style games in one way or another. For this reason, it seems games cannot be labeled as “Modern Art”. However, this does not quite exclude them entirely from art just yet. Technology is what made games possible. And the use of that technology may fit somewhere as a form of art.
Courbet - The Painter’s Studio, 1855.
Thomas Cole - The Voyage of Life-Manhood. 1842.
Because of the lack of reactionary influence artistically in the mainstream gaming industry, it seems inappropriate to label games as a whole as “Modern Art”. Just because a painting is produced in the modern day does not make it Modern Art. Likewise, not all painting done in the 1500s Europe were Renaissance works. While the story of a game may ask us philosophical questions, the art design too may evoke a sense of wonder.
Above is a panting by Thomas Cole titled, The Voyage of Life: Manhood. As you would expect, the narrative in the picture is of a young man embarking on a treacherous journey. If he can survive the harsh conditions, he will have proven himself. Though you really don’t need my short two sentence explanation in order to see that. The boy is standing, and praying, inside of the golden vessel. The vessel itself appears to be modeled after an angelic figure, representing the divine power that will guide him through the turbulent times ahead. Though he seems puny in relation to the forces of nature around him, he stands out as strong and apart from the environment. Some of the ways we see this are his relative size in the picture, the choice of divine colors (which are also found nowhere in the picture except on him) and the triangular shape made between him and his boat (Kuh, 1964 25)
This painting is a product of the time it was produced. There was a large interest in the “epic landscape”. Nature having a divine and overwhelming presence in the picture was what people wanted to see (a market demand, almost). Though it may have been out of place in terms of how people “actually” lived in the 1840s (hence, the reaction of many modern art movements), many people would still classify this work as “art”. So much so, there are hundreds of paintings along this line. Even though it did not speak to the time culturally, people loved this type of work, and they found something inspiring about it. Games follow a similar suit. Though not every game is a story based epic that has you vicariously living through a character’s dynamic changes, each game has an object in order to win. For now, let’s examine what most people make the games as art argument all about: The Epic.
The “epic”, or any story/progress-driven game is designed to pull the gamer into its world. We are attracted to a particular game, or type of game, because we want to experience something we would not normally experience. The game’s job is to challenge the player’s thinking or reactionary skills in a way that gamer likes. Perhaps you’ve always wanted to go skydiving, or visit ancient Inca ruins. This is all possible through vicarious interaction via a video game. Though, you would rarely stop there. Why just skydive, when you could skydive, highjack a helicopter and liberate a country from the rule of a dictator? Or, why only visit ruins when you could be the first to explore and analyze them, encountering all their dangers, and treasures, first hand? Like Cole’s painting, we want to feel a sense of achievement, however big or small, from video games. Watching a character progress is one thing. Being that character is another.
Some games revolve heavily around story for that reason. Many J-RPGs are very time consuming, but not overly difficult. It is the story and characters that drive us. We expect to change along the course of the game, just as the characters do. It seems then aesthetic has very little to do with a game being defined as art. How a game presents itself inevitably will have an effect on how it affects the audience. The perspective, style, and progression of graphics are all crucial aspects of the game. However, just because a character or environment is immaculately detailed or eccentric does not make it art. Where a game can truly succeed at bringing you into its world is by making it believable. That may be putting you in a realistic and vast environment (not unlike Cole’s piece above). Or it may be simply putting you in the shoes of a silent protagonist, adding your own personality and mystery to the scenario.
We have answered some questions about the validity and categorization of games in the medium of art. There is the epic, a journey that we wish to embark on in order to achieve or gain something. Yet there is still the question of where market comes into all of this. Are games simply the product of market demand? Look at how many first-person-shooters there are nowadays. Or how many JRPGs there were last generation. This may have something to do with a reaction to world events. However, it is more likely that people just find them fun to play, and thus they sell well. Are they high art? Or can they even be considered art?
First-person-shooters tend to push gameplay in new directions by blending different concepts and genres. However, they also provide ideal testing grounds for new technology. Artificial intelligence, textures and mapping, interactive and destructible environments etc… It seems then some games fall further back into the realm of technology and science rather than art. If you look at many games deemed “artistic”, they tend not to be leaders from a technological standpoint, but rather an idyllic and experimental standpoint. This can be seen in independent games. This is not always the rule. Some games are both aiming to be “artistic” and immersive while at the same time showing off new technology (Shenmue, Mass Effect). A line then needs to be drawn between art and craft.
The museum of Jurassic Technology is a perfect example of art vs. craft. The museum specializes in the bizarre, folklore, and spellbinding aspect of creation. The website’s introduction states:
The public museum as understood today, is a collection of specimens and other objects of interest to the scholar, the man of science as well as the more casual visitor, arranged and displayed in accordance with the scientific method. In its original sense, the term "museum" meant a spot dedicated to the muses - "a place where man's mind could attain a mood of aloofness above everyday affairs." By far the most important museum of antiquity was the great institution at Alexandria founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus in the third century before Christ, (an endeavor supported by a grant from the treasury). And no treatment of the museum would be complete without mention of Noah's Ark in which we find the most complete Museum of Natural History the world has ever seen. (MJT 2008).
Though it may appear to be tongue in cheek, the real aim of the museum is to inspire, and make you question something. If you come out smiling, or with a sense of awe, then museum has done its job.
The exhibits inside consist of small, almost impossible seeming creations. For example, Wiggin’s, who is known for creating remarkably lifelike sculptures. While not a new idea, his take on the art of sculpting is certainly bizarre. He creates, paints and displays sculptures made of sand or other small mediums. These sculptures fit inside the head of a pin, and can only be truly appreciated for their detail while viewed from a microscope.
This is where it seems many games would fit in the spectrum of creation. I do not mean to belittle Wiggin’s for his craft. It is a truly remarkable skill. But how does it push our understanding of the world? It certainly leaves us with a sense of awe, but does it really classify as art? Likewise with a first person shooter, or any game that focuses on the engine running it more than the experience itself. Crysis left a blank stare on gamers’ faces for years after its release. The level of detail and reaction from the environment was astounding. Because it was a technical feat that was relatively fun to play, does that classify it as art? Is it “more artsy” than a less visually impressive game? Though very impressive in craft, and quite remarkable in detail, it is hard to argue the game is a higher form of art because of it. If you make that argument, you condemn all games before it to “lesser art”. Is Mario a lesser form of art from Crysis?
Because of the lack of reactionary influence artistically in the mainstream gaming industry, it seems inappropriate to label games as a whole as “Modern Art”. Just because a painting is produced in the modern day does not make it Modern Art. Likewise, not all painting done in the 1500s Europe were Renaissance works. While the story of a game may ask us philosophical questions, the art design too may evoke a sense of wonder.
Above is a panting by Thomas Cole titled, The Voyage of Life: Manhood. As you would expect, the narrative in the picture is of a young man embarking on a treacherous journey. If he can survive the harsh conditions, he will have proven himself. Though you really don’t need my short two sentence explanation in order to see that. The boy is standing, and praying, inside of the golden vessel. The vessel itself appears to be modeled after an angelic figure, representing the divine power that will guide him through the turbulent times ahead. Though he seems puny in relation to the forces of nature around him, he stands out as strong and apart from the environment. Some of the ways we see this are his relative size in the picture, the choice of divine colors (which are also found nowhere in the picture except on him) and the triangular shape made between him and his boat (Kuh, 1964 25)
This painting is a product of the time it was produced. There was a large interest in the “epic landscape”. Nature having a divine and overwhelming presence in the picture was what people wanted to see (a market demand, almost). Though it may have been out of place in terms of how people “actually” lived in the 1840s (hence, the reaction of many modern art movements), many people would still classify this work as “art”. So much so, there are hundreds of paintings along this line. Even though it did not speak to the time culturally, people loved this type of work, and they found something inspiring about it. Games follow a similar suit. Though not every game is a story based epic that has you vicariously living through a character’s dynamic changes, each game has an object in order to win. For now, let’s examine what most people make the games as art argument all about: The Epic.
The “epic”, or any story/progress-driven game is designed to pull the gamer into its world. We are attracted to a particular game, or type of game, because we want to experience something we would not normally experience. The game’s job is to challenge the player’s thinking or reactionary skills in a way that gamer likes. Perhaps you’ve always wanted to go skydiving, or visit ancient Inca ruins. This is all possible through vicarious interaction via a video game. Though, you would rarely stop there. Why just skydive, when you could skydive, highjack a helicopter and liberate a country from the rule of a dictator? Or, why only visit ruins when you could be the first to explore and analyze them, encountering all their dangers, and treasures, first hand? Like Cole’s painting, we want to feel a sense of achievement, however big or small, from video games. Watching a character progress is one thing. Being that character is another.
Some games revolve heavily around story for that reason. Many J-RPGs are very time consuming, but not overly difficult. It is the story and characters that drive us. We expect to change along the course of the game, just as the characters do. It seems then aesthetic has very little to do with a game being defined as art. How a game presents itself inevitably will have an effect on how it affects the audience. The perspective, style, and progression of graphics are all crucial aspects of the game. However, just because a character or environment is immaculately detailed or eccentric does not make it art. Where a game can truly succeed at bringing you into its world is by making it believable. That may be putting you in a realistic and vast environment (not unlike Cole’s piece above). Or it may be simply putting you in the shoes of a silent protagonist, adding your own personality and mystery to the scenario.
We have answered some questions about the validity and categorization of games in the medium of art. There is the epic, a journey that we wish to embark on in order to achieve or gain something. Yet there is still the question of where market comes into all of this. Are games simply the product of market demand? Look at how many first-person-shooters there are nowadays. Or how many JRPGs there were last generation. This may have something to do with a reaction to world events. However, it is more likely that people just find them fun to play, and thus they sell well. Are they high art? Or can they even be considered art?
First-person-shooters tend to push gameplay in new directions by blending different concepts and genres. However, they also provide ideal testing grounds for new technology. Artificial intelligence, textures and mapping, interactive and destructible environments etc… It seems then some games fall further back into the realm of technology and science rather than art. If you look at many games deemed “artistic”, they tend not to be leaders from a technological standpoint, but rather an idyllic and experimental standpoint. This can be seen in independent games. This is not always the rule. Some games are both aiming to be “artistic” and immersive while at the same time showing off new technology (Shenmue, Mass Effect). A line then needs to be drawn between art and craft.
The museum of Jurassic Technology is a perfect example of art vs. craft. The museum specializes in the bizarre, folklore, and spellbinding aspect of creation. The website’s introduction states:
The public museum as understood today, is a collection of specimens and other objects of interest to the scholar, the man of science as well as the more casual visitor, arranged and displayed in accordance with the scientific method. In its original sense, the term "museum" meant a spot dedicated to the muses - "a place where man's mind could attain a mood of aloofness above everyday affairs." By far the most important museum of antiquity was the great institution at Alexandria founded by Ptolemy Philadelphus in the third century before Christ, (an endeavor supported by a grant from the treasury). And no treatment of the museum would be complete without mention of Noah's Ark in which we find the most complete Museum of Natural History the world has ever seen. (MJT 2008).
Though it may appear to be tongue in cheek, the real aim of the museum is to inspire, and make you question something. If you come out smiling, or with a sense of awe, then museum has done its job.
The exhibits inside consist of small, almost impossible seeming creations. For example, Wiggin’s, who is known for creating remarkably lifelike sculptures. While not a new idea, his take on the art of sculpting is certainly bizarre. He creates, paints and displays sculptures made of sand or other small mediums. These sculptures fit inside the head of a pin, and can only be truly appreciated for their detail while viewed from a microscope.
This is where it seems many games would fit in the spectrum of creation. I do not mean to belittle Wiggin’s for his craft. It is a truly remarkable skill. But how does it push our understanding of the world? It certainly leaves us with a sense of awe, but does it really classify as art? Likewise with a first person shooter, or any game that focuses on the engine running it more than the experience itself. Crysis left a blank stare on gamers’ faces for years after its release. The level of detail and reaction from the environment was astounding. Because it was a technical feat that was relatively fun to play, does that classify it as art? Is it “more artsy” than a less visually impressive game? Though very impressive in craft, and quite remarkable in detail, it is hard to argue the game is a higher form of art because of it. If you make that argument, you condemn all games before it to “lesser art”. Is Mario a lesser form of art from Crysis?
One of Wiggin’s pieces: Snow white & the Seven Dwarfs in the eye of a needle.
So far we have discovered that the typical game has more in common with the “epic” than reactionary art. Sometimes the focus is on the character and the dynamic changes they may undergo. Other times it is focused on the adventure itself, using the character only a shell for the player to fill. Examining the Baroque movement, Bussagli and Reiche (2007) state about the new movement of Baroque landscapes:
At the turn of the century, a major work overturned the conventional relationship between figure and landscape in Italy. In Flight to Egypt, which Annibale Carracci painted for the Galleria Doira Pamphilji, the members of the Holy Family move through a typical Italian landscape, with hills populated by shepherds and flocks where the human subjects seem to disappear because the real protagonist of the painting is the landscape (28).
Comparable to games, it is about the journey and adventure to be had. The focus of the game is more often about the journey then the story or characters exclusively. That is not to say story is not important. However, does an adventure game, or game of any kind need a story in order to be good? Or even be called and Epic?
So far we have discovered that the typical game has more in common with the “epic” than reactionary art. Sometimes the focus is on the character and the dynamic changes they may undergo. Other times it is focused on the adventure itself, using the character only a shell for the player to fill. Examining the Baroque movement, Bussagli and Reiche (2007) state about the new movement of Baroque landscapes:
At the turn of the century, a major work overturned the conventional relationship between figure and landscape in Italy. In Flight to Egypt, which Annibale Carracci painted for the Galleria Doira Pamphilji, the members of the Holy Family move through a typical Italian landscape, with hills populated by shepherds and flocks where the human subjects seem to disappear because the real protagonist of the painting is the landscape (28).
Comparable to games, it is about the journey and adventure to be had. The focus of the game is more often about the journey then the story or characters exclusively. That is not to say story is not important. However, does an adventure game, or game of any kind need a story in order to be good? Or even be called and Epic?
Flight into Egypt, Annibale Carraci, 1604
Another similarity can be drawn between games and this period in time. Focusing on story, how much content is really in a game? If you look at the story of a game without any gameplay, there is often not that much. A game can be just as effective at telling a story as a book or movie. It is all in how you experience it. However, most storylines in gaming could be compared to a Victorian play more so than a novel or short story. Victorian plays, or almost any stage production for that matter, are broken up into acts. Not unlike games, which are broken into sections or levels. Though there may sometimes be dialog between bits of story, it is the act of playing as the character that elongates the experience. We are there for their entire ordeal, even if no events are happening in relation to the story. Sometimes, these events don’t have anything to do with each other. Look at any Shakespeare play. Not every scene in the play is essential to the main story. A lot of the time, characters are just put in random, sometimes hilarious, situations. These serve as only entertainment, and perhaps a bit of character building. Many games share this trait. Broken up into acts, the character may become distracted by some side quest. Or a level is added in where no progress in the story is made. Rather, it serves only as an excuse to give the player a little more time with the character. The gameplay is first and foremost the focus.
There are market trends in just about every product type out there. Games are now very much focused on the first person perspective, competitive multiplayer, and blending other game elements together. Prior to that, J-RPGs were big business in all territories. Prior to that, arcade fighters and platformers dominated the market of console gaming. Art is no exception, and though it is arguable to call any particular movement in art a “market trend”, it does happen to be the type that sells during said period. The main difference, as pointed out earlier, was that art was a reaction to society and culture, whereas gaming is a reaction to consumers.
Building on this concept, let’s explore the artists Komar and Melamid. Two Russian artists who decided to perform an experiment between logic and art (Dia Art Foundation 2011). In brief, the experiment consisted of a survey to households in various countries. They would be asked their preference of different art styles, techniques and subject matter. The results of these surveys were given to the artists, and they would then evaluate the results to paint the “Most Wanted Painting” of that country.
Another similarity can be drawn between games and this period in time. Focusing on story, how much content is really in a game? If you look at the story of a game without any gameplay, there is often not that much. A game can be just as effective at telling a story as a book or movie. It is all in how you experience it. However, most storylines in gaming could be compared to a Victorian play more so than a novel or short story. Victorian plays, or almost any stage production for that matter, are broken up into acts. Not unlike games, which are broken into sections or levels. Though there may sometimes be dialog between bits of story, it is the act of playing as the character that elongates the experience. We are there for their entire ordeal, even if no events are happening in relation to the story. Sometimes, these events don’t have anything to do with each other. Look at any Shakespeare play. Not every scene in the play is essential to the main story. A lot of the time, characters are just put in random, sometimes hilarious, situations. These serve as only entertainment, and perhaps a bit of character building. Many games share this trait. Broken up into acts, the character may become distracted by some side quest. Or a level is added in where no progress in the story is made. Rather, it serves only as an excuse to give the player a little more time with the character. The gameplay is first and foremost the focus.
There are market trends in just about every product type out there. Games are now very much focused on the first person perspective, competitive multiplayer, and blending other game elements together. Prior to that, J-RPGs were big business in all territories. Prior to that, arcade fighters and platformers dominated the market of console gaming. Art is no exception, and though it is arguable to call any particular movement in art a “market trend”, it does happen to be the type that sells during said period. The main difference, as pointed out earlier, was that art was a reaction to society and culture, whereas gaming is a reaction to consumers.
Building on this concept, let’s explore the artists Komar and Melamid. Two Russian artists who decided to perform an experiment between logic and art (Dia Art Foundation 2011). In brief, the experiment consisted of a survey to households in various countries. They would be asked their preference of different art styles, techniques and subject matter. The results of these surveys were given to the artists, and they would then evaluate the results to paint the “Most Wanted Painting” of that country.
Komar and Melamid, United States: Most Wanted Painting, 1993
The picture above is America’s Most Wanted Painting. Through the survey, it was discovered that most appealing to Americans were painting with historical figures (seen with George Washington), landscape, wildlife and recreation (as seen with the children). Taking a quick look at this piece, you may not give it much thought. However, as soon as you recognize the subject matter, it seems rather awkward and out of place. Despite technically being the most wanted piece of art in America, most would hesitate to call this a masterpiece. Some may even question its validity as art.
The picture above is America’s Most Wanted Painting. Through the survey, it was discovered that most appealing to Americans were painting with historical figures (seen with George Washington), landscape, wildlife and recreation (as seen with the children). Taking a quick look at this piece, you may not give it much thought. However, as soon as you recognize the subject matter, it seems rather awkward and out of place. Despite technically being the most wanted piece of art in America, most would hesitate to call this a masterpiece. Some may even question its validity as art.
Komar and Melamid, United States: Least Wanted Painting, 1993
This tongue in cheek experiment was done all over the world. Interestingly, almost every country surveyed had similar results (a historical figure in a traditional landscape). How does this apply to games? In the same way as this survey was done to produce a single piece of art, games are often developed as a result to what the public wants. This is not to say every game, or at least every “big” game, is a cash-in with no artistic value. However, it does say that games strive to give people what they want in order to make a profit. From this standpoint, games are very technical and monetary product rather than an artistic one.
This conclusion may not seem entirely fair. Some games may just be money makers following in the footsteps of consumer demand and market research. Other games truly do try to create something different. They come “out of the blue” and shock us with a new way to think and interact with our environment. There are many sides to this argument. The two main ones discussed here is whether or not games are an applicable/reactionary medium in art, or whether they perhaps share more in common with older forms of art such a playwright and Baroque painting. Branching off of that idea, can games be considered their own cultural artifact?
It seems we get so caught up in the justification of the medium that we lose the definition of gaming somewhere along the way. Even if games are not art, does that really make them any lesser of a form of expression? Can games just be games: a new form of interactivity that has not been explored before? Instead of trying to justify their existence by comparing them to paintings, architecture or movies, we could simply state that games are their own phenomenon. Be it art, craft, or something entirely different. Games have made a huge impact on many people. While that may be enough for some to justify games as art, some people will need more convincing. Another thing to consider is the fact that games are still a very new medium. Whereas art has evolved and changed over millennia, games may possibly be the first step of something entirely new. We may not even know where this technology and its application will go. Gaming has only been around for half a century.
Tomonobu Itagaki, famed game designer, once said, "Even the masters, like Picasso, can never please everybody. When you create something, there will always be people who don't like it.” (Industry Gamers 2011). Said like a true artist. When you set out to create something, there will always be negative feedback. That comes to down to matter of opinion and preference. The same could be said for art. Everyone has their own taste. However, true art can be appreciated for what it does, regardless of taste. Itagaki’s games are known for being either borderline sexist, or brilliantly paced and extremely difficult. There is plenty to like, and dislike about his work.
This quote is interesting for the obvious reason he makes reference to another great artist: Picasso. Does true art in gaming come from the overall design, and not the specific “artistic direction”? Does it have to aim for being different and pushing boundaries instead of trying to please an audience? Many famous game designers are known for their creativity in finding exactly what makes a game fun to play. In the end of the day, that is all that matters. Though games may make reference and pull from all eras of art, they do not fit into any particular genre or period. They are their own artifact. A form of art that reacts more towards itself than the outside world. Does that make or break the argument for games being art? It doesn’t really matter. You can consider games high art, fun little time wasters, or even their own cultural artifact. After all, games are here to stay. They have had a profound impact on culture, and that says something.
This tongue in cheek experiment was done all over the world. Interestingly, almost every country surveyed had similar results (a historical figure in a traditional landscape). How does this apply to games? In the same way as this survey was done to produce a single piece of art, games are often developed as a result to what the public wants. This is not to say every game, or at least every “big” game, is a cash-in with no artistic value. However, it does say that games strive to give people what they want in order to make a profit. From this standpoint, games are very technical and monetary product rather than an artistic one.
This conclusion may not seem entirely fair. Some games may just be money makers following in the footsteps of consumer demand and market research. Other games truly do try to create something different. They come “out of the blue” and shock us with a new way to think and interact with our environment. There are many sides to this argument. The two main ones discussed here is whether or not games are an applicable/reactionary medium in art, or whether they perhaps share more in common with older forms of art such a playwright and Baroque painting. Branching off of that idea, can games be considered their own cultural artifact?
It seems we get so caught up in the justification of the medium that we lose the definition of gaming somewhere along the way. Even if games are not art, does that really make them any lesser of a form of expression? Can games just be games: a new form of interactivity that has not been explored before? Instead of trying to justify their existence by comparing them to paintings, architecture or movies, we could simply state that games are their own phenomenon. Be it art, craft, or something entirely different. Games have made a huge impact on many people. While that may be enough for some to justify games as art, some people will need more convincing. Another thing to consider is the fact that games are still a very new medium. Whereas art has evolved and changed over millennia, games may possibly be the first step of something entirely new. We may not even know where this technology and its application will go. Gaming has only been around for half a century.
Tomonobu Itagaki, famed game designer, once said, "Even the masters, like Picasso, can never please everybody. When you create something, there will always be people who don't like it.” (Industry Gamers 2011). Said like a true artist. When you set out to create something, there will always be negative feedback. That comes to down to matter of opinion and preference. The same could be said for art. Everyone has their own taste. However, true art can be appreciated for what it does, regardless of taste. Itagaki’s games are known for being either borderline sexist, or brilliantly paced and extremely difficult. There is plenty to like, and dislike about his work.
This quote is interesting for the obvious reason he makes reference to another great artist: Picasso. Does true art in gaming come from the overall design, and not the specific “artistic direction”? Does it have to aim for being different and pushing boundaries instead of trying to please an audience? Many famous game designers are known for their creativity in finding exactly what makes a game fun to play. In the end of the day, that is all that matters. Though games may make reference and pull from all eras of art, they do not fit into any particular genre or period. They are their own artifact. A form of art that reacts more towards itself than the outside world. Does that make or break the argument for games being art? It doesn’t really matter. You can consider games high art, fun little time wasters, or even their own cultural artifact. After all, games are here to stay. They have had a profound impact on culture, and that says something.
De Chirico, The Nostalgia of the Infinite, 1911
Ico Cover Art, Fumito, Ueda, 2011
References
Bakshov, Nadim. “The Nostalgia of the Infinite.” La Mosaique. Web. Oct 24 2011.
“Ico Cover.” Race Me. Web. 21 Oct 2011.
“Itagaki Slams Young Japanese Developers For Lack of Confidence.” Industry Gamers. Web. Oct 24 2011.
“Komar & Melamied: The Most Wanted Paintings.” Dia Art. Web. 21 Oct 2011.
Kuh, Kathrine. “The River: Places & People.” Art in America. 52 (1964): 25-35. Print.
Marco Bussagli and Mattia Reiche. Baroque & Rococo. New York: Sterling, 2009. Print.
Rosenberg, Harold. “After Next, What?” Art in America. 52 (1964): 65-73. Print.
“Museum of Jurassic Technology.” MJT. Web. 21 Oct 2011.
“The Painter’s Studio.” Wet Canvas. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
“Snow White.” Daily Motion. Web. 21 Oct 2011.
References
Bakshov, Nadim. “The Nostalgia of the Infinite.” La Mosaique. Web. Oct 24 2011.
“Ico Cover.” Race Me. Web. 21 Oct 2011.
“Itagaki Slams Young Japanese Developers For Lack of Confidence.” Industry Gamers. Web. Oct 24 2011.
“Komar & Melamied: The Most Wanted Paintings.” Dia Art. Web. 21 Oct 2011.
Kuh, Kathrine. “The River: Places & People.” Art in America. 52 (1964): 25-35. Print.
Marco Bussagli and Mattia Reiche. Baroque & Rococo. New York: Sterling, 2009. Print.
Rosenberg, Harold. “After Next, What?” Art in America. 52 (1964): 65-73. Print.
“Museum of Jurassic Technology.” MJT. Web. 21 Oct 2011.
“The Painter’s Studio.” Wet Canvas. Web. 20 Oct. 2011.
“Snow White.” Daily Motion. Web. 21 Oct 2011.