Nester

OK, let’s dive into the deep end. I would like to bring up the old “video games as art” discussion. I realize this is kind of a tired subject that has long since played itself out, but I never felt it was addressed very well, and I think it’s because there are a couple of argumental dead ends that everyone tends to fall into. I’d like to get those out of the way so that we have a better idea of what we’re talking about.

First of all, I don’t like to use the ‘A’ word in regards to video games because it tends to come with a lot of baggage and negative connotation. People hear the word “art” applied to anything, and immediately think of snobby elitism. I prefer to say that we’re thinking of video games in an academic or intellectual way, and we don’t have to let our heads float up into the clouds.

To go along with that, discussing video games as art often boils down to one of two extremes. On one end, you have the Roger Ebert school of thought that claims that since video games have rules and winning and losing conditions, then they inherently cannot be art as a matter of principle because the format is too restrictive and imprecise. On the other end, you have the philosophical argument that art is completely subjective, and no one can make a definitive statement one way or the other. I don’t like either of these perspectives because they’re both dismissive, and lack intellectual curiosity. I think we can do better.

Second, and perhaps more importantly, there’s the notion that if a video game is art, than it must be sacrificing entertainment value, or “fun,” thus defeating the purpose of the medium. This is not necessarily the case. For one thing, “fun” is just as subjective a term as “art.” Two people may enjoy the same game, but for entirely different reasons. Also, I think any form of art in any medium needs to be entertaining on some level in order for people to want to spend their time thinking about it. For some people, that level may even be “art for art’s sake,” but those people are probably less interested in the actual medium (be it video games or anything else), and simply enjoy being art scholars. For our purposes, we can probably agree that for a game to be good art, it must also succeed as an example of its medium, and thus be a good game.

Now that we have all that out of the way, I think what we mean when we call something art isn’t so much a definitive categorization, but more of an attitude. If we say something is art, then we are looking at it from the standpoint that we can analyze it, deconstruct it, discuss it, and as I put it earlier, just be intellectually curious about it. So, the question becomes, “is it worth applying this mode of thought to the medium of video games?” I think so, regardless of whether we want to attach a label to it.

I actually don’t have a specific question to ask. I would just like to hear your general thoughts on it. Is this even a relevant topic anymore?

Wildcat

Before replying, I agree with you on a lot of your points. I think that the two extreme schools of thought that have tended to dominate this discussion have sort of missed the point. But I want to address these parts of your post:

Second, and perhaps more importantly, there’s the notion that if a video game is art, than it must be sacrificing entertainment value, or “fun,” thus defeating the purpose of the medium. This is not necessarily the case. For one thing, “fun” is just as subjective a term as “art.” Two people may enjoy the same game, but for entirely different reasons.

I think that’s ludicrous. Art does not equal boredom. A game can be artistic in nature and still maintain a sense of quality in terms of its gameplay. On top of that, it would be difficult to label games as art due to the subjective nature of them. Let’s say that, for a random example, Mega Man 3 is being considered as “art”. I love the hell out of that game in terms of “fun”, and it has a great visual and audio design that delights me. It feels the most refined out of the series for me. Does that make it less of an example of an art form? I would argue no. However, if someone doesn’t like MM3 as much as I do, they may think it’s not a good representation of art or entertainment. They may prefer MM2 and want to consider that the franchise’s high point in terms of fun and in terms of artistic value. Meanwhile, I would also consider MM4 the franchise’s low point personally. However, I do think it too has some artistic merit, despite my dislike of the overall experience.

Also, I think any form of art in any medium needs to be entertaining on some level in order for people to want to spend their time thinking about it. For some people, that level may even be “art for art’s sake,” but those people are probably less interested in the actual medium (be it video games or anything else), and simply enjoy being art scholars. For our purposes, we can probably agree that for a game to be good art, it must also succeed as an example of its medium, and thus be a good game.

I would concur. I think quality must apply to both the gameplay design and the aesthetic design for a game to qualify as art.

Now that we have all that out of the way, I think what we mean when we call something art isn’t so much a definitive categorization, but more of an attitude. If we say something is art, then we are looking at it from the standpoint that we can analyze it, deconstruct it, discuss it, and as I put it earlier, just be intellectually curious about it. So, the question becomes, “is it worth applying this mode of thought to the medium of video games?” I think so, regardless of whether we want to attach a label to it.

I completely agree, and that’s one of the goals I have for LVLs. in terms of its new direction. I want to do just that! I want to analyze, deconstruction, discuss and be curious about games. I want to look at them with an anthropological eye and decipher the cultural meanings I can gleam from them. So yes, I think, at least in the terms of your phrasing here, that this is relevant. Games are a form of media, and should be gauged by similar methods. Of course, the interactivity must be considered, but that is what makes games such an awesome thing. You become part of the art with games in a way no other form of media can offer. You can bring your individualism into it, and that is incredibly profound if you ask me.

Jason X

I have to agree with Nester on this one. In practice, I lean more towards “art is whatever you want it to be” camp, but when you get right down to it, calling something “art” is just a method for classifying something as being above the common levels of entertainment.

It’s interesting to see how opinions can form and change over time. I used to be the type who would say that Ico and SotC are art. Nowadays, I’m not so sure. I wouldn’t argue with someone if they called those games art, but as I get on in years, I’m starting to wish that people would stop trying to make things into other things. Can’t we just enjoy something for what it is, rather than creating an entire cause around it? Both of those games touched me on an incredibly deep, emotional level, and it’s often difficult to describe precisely why to the uninitiated. Do we really need to go beyond that, though?

I think the human mind can often be its own worst enemy. It craves clarification with one side, but that same elucidation tends to take away from the enjoyment of the things we seek to define…

Or maybe I’m just getting old, and this sort of discussion is better suited for the young. Either way, I’m perfectly fine with enjoying things in my own way. All I know is you all should be playing The Walking Dead game.

A college instructor of mine once said he subscribed to the definition that “art” is something you find in an art museum. And he wasn’t intending to be cheeky, but I think it goes with what I was saying about art being an attitude. If you saw a particular photograph on the Internet, you might give it a quick look, pass some judgment on it, and move on. However, if you saw that same photograph in an art gallery, you might be more compelled to look at it a little bit longer, and think about it a little bit harder.

At the same time, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with Jason’s perspective that it’s OK to just enjoy games as entertainment, and not have to get all academic about them. Most games are created that way. Maybe you like Ico because it’s just a really fun adventure game, and you’re not interested in reading into subtexts.

This may sound surprising, but when the concept of video games as art first crossed my mind, I was against it. I just wanted my games to be fun entertainment, and nothing more. I had a quick turnaround, though, when I suddenly realized that games had achieved a surprisingly profound ability for expression as early as the ’80s.

So, at the very least, the desire to classify games as art is an acknowledgement that there is another level of observation for people who might be compelled to find it.