Should Videogames Be Regarded As Art?

[Tellyn]

People talk about art and music as cultural legacy, but do they ever think that we also have a new cultural legacy? Sure we all know the artists Van Gogh and Leonardo da Vinci, and we all know who Bach, Mozart and Queen were. Even if we talk about Steven Spielberg and Walt Disney everyone knows whom we are talking about, but as soon we start talking about video games, no one knows.

 

Only few know that gaming history was written in 1958 when William A. Higinbotham, the creator of Tennis for Two, began his project in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. His idea was to use a small analogue computer in the lab to track and display the trajectory of a moving ball on an oscilloscope, with which users could interact. Missile trajectory plotting was one of the specialities of computers at the time, the other being cryptography. In fact, the first electronic computer was developed to plot the trajectory of the thousands of bombs to be dropped during World War II.

 

And people complain about the Wii’s graphics.

 

As head of Brookhaven's Instrumentation Division, and being used to build such complicated electronic devices as radiation detectors, it was no problem for Higinbotham, along with Technical Specialist Robert V. Dvorak who actually assembled the device, to create the game system they named Tennis for Two in three weeks, and it debuted with other exhibits in the Brookhaven gymnasium at the next open house in October 1958. In the rudimentary side-view tennis game, the ball bounces off a long horizontal line at the bottom of the oscilloscope, and there is a small vertical line in the centre to represent the net. Two boxes, each with a dial and a button, are the controllers. The dials affect the angle of the ball trajectory and the buttons "hit" the ball back to the other side of the screen. If the player didn't curve the ball right it crashed into the net. A reset button was also available to make the ball reappear on either side of the screen ready to be sent into play again. No score was tabulated, and it was displayed in glorious phosphor monochrome on a puny 5" oscilloscope screen, but it was still a big hit with everyone who visited the display. There were people who queued in line for hours to play it.

 

Nowadays, games surprise us in every way. We enjoy the worlds we live in and we love to explore them in every way. Did it ever occur to you that you were walking around in true art? Art in its purest form; one hundred percent imagination. I hope that the next time you walk around a vast world created by our beloved game developers you will stop and look. Just look and I am sure you will see things you did not notice before! This is art! 3D art.

 

 

Click here to head to the main site and read the rest of the article.

 

So what are your thoughts? Surely after 50 years, thousands of products and masterpieces such as Okami and The Wind Waker, videogames should now be appreciated and accepted as an art form?

[darksnowman]

I haven't read the article as yet, but is it coincidental that you mentioned two cel shaded games there (Okami + Wind Waker) and are you subliminally suggesting that only these more "artistic," cel shaded games could be considered as art?

[Chris the great]

apparently, they cant be as i remember some one saying, and being quoted be clarkson on top gear, that art must have no purpose but to be art. (in which case films and music arnt art)

 

i dissagree, to me, art is an expression of the human spirit, pure individualism and conveying feelings and emotions. i have no art back ground, people could say im wrong, or stupid, or wrong and stupid with a good dose of ugly, but it dosent change the fact that games do contain expressions of the "soul" (not that i beilive in such a thing). take a game such a skies of arcadia, not particularly arty, certainly not a unique visual style, its bassicly a very standard rpg, with air ship combat added in. on its own, its nothing artisitic, but the game comunicates such unwavering optemism, diversity of cultures and equality of the sexes that it would be hared not to see it as a form of expression.

 

in that sense, the game is art. it conveys the thoughts and feelings of its designers. the only way its different to the mona lisa or that dirty old bed is that its also entertainment.

[Tellyn]

I haven't read the article as yet, but is it coincidental that you mentioned two cel shaded games there (Okami + Wind Waker) and are you subliminally suggesting that only these more "artistic," cel shaded games could be considered as art?

 

I didn't write the article, but I used those as examples because those are two games which I personally think should be classed as art.

[Emasher]

Alot of games are art. How could you consider them anything else when their creators have put so much work and emotion into every aspect of them. However some games (like the latest ubisoft games) are more like a 5 year olds scribbles.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

First, we'll have to ask ourselves: What is art?

 

*runs to cover from the massive debate that is about to break out*

 

On games and art, I find myself agreeing with much of Chris the great's post.

[Chris the great]

First, we'll have to ask ourselves: What is art?

 

*runs to cover from the massive debate that is about to break out*

 

On games and art, I find myself agreeing with much of Chris the great's post.

 

not only that, but we share facial hair.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

not only that, but we share facial hair.

 

Excellent! *electric air guitar*

 

[/bill and Ted mode]

[RPGfan]

In order to establish whether videogames can be regarded as art, we must first understand what art is. The way I see it is:

 

Art is something which you have learned until you master it, and which you are now working on perfecting. That is how the great artists of decades and centuries past always worked. Whether we talk about Rembrandt or Picasso.

 

Art is pure soul expression. It is a creactive activity, which takes different forms depending on whatever medium/method it is processed through.

 

Art is what you do in order to perfectly express your inner picture of something, and which you want to show to others to see how they will react! To surprise, to delight. And be gratefull when seeing that you get a good reaction.

 

And that is exactly what developers of videogames do, isn´t it? See how we react when playing their works.

 

So videogames can definitely be regarded as art!

[Chris the great]

well, supposedly, art is different to science, in that, its not just tried and tested measures, theres some extra quality you either have, or dont, and you cant quiet put your finger on it.

 

how many games can you think of, that whilst technicaly fine, didnt quiet escape the 70% boundry and become somthing increadable?

 

for me, that the majority of decent EA game. technicaly fine, a good diversion, but lacking that special quality that makes the game stay in your memory.

 

simularly, how many technicaly poor games have you loved despite their obvious flaws? the pokemon serise is a good example, could be seen as a poor rpg, yet somthing about it makes them shine. no more heros is anouther example. its basicly repetetive combat and basic wii controles, in a dull city but its one of the best games ive played in years.

[Phube]

No..........

[Goron_3]

Okami, WW, Rez....

 

So yeah i would say yes they should!

[Will]

Making games is a creative process so in my opinion they absolutely should be considered as art. As with most art forms, the vast majority is worth very little from an artistic point of view, with just a few absolute gems being highly regarded and worthy of discussion. Its these games that prove games are undoubtedly art.

[RPGfan]

And it is those few gems that stand out to pass the test of time and which truly remind us why games are indeed art of the highest calibre. I will personally never forget The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time when it came out for the first time and how it rocked my life! I hope Nintendo will one day again resume the long developement cycles required to make a new Zelda game which is what OOT was and which Twilight Princess regrettably didn´t become.

[killthenet]

Of course games can be considered art. There is a creative process involved. Gaming is more of an art business than an art form though. There are very few truly independant games developers who are getting their games out there, most of the content we play comes from major corporations. Gaming came of age at just the wrong time and was very quickly swamped by big business, with the majority of games working to some formula and only a rare few pushing boundaries.

 

Because of this the term 'art game' has started to become more common place, in referral to a game which is unconventional or strays a little from the status quo, whether in presentation, structure or gameplay. It seems that any game that has an abstract presentation or narrative is suddenly classed as an art game, as if only something that is abstract can be art. But anything can be art, it's simply what you make of it.

[DCK]

No, they shouldn't. Gamers only want to feel good about themselves. Games can be artistic, but I think it goes too far to call them art.

 

In general, I think people tend to regard too many things as art.

[Emasher]

No, they shouldn't. Gamers only want to feel good about themselves. Games can be artistic, but I think it goes too far to call them art.

 

In general, I think people tend to regard too many things as art.

 

But then not all paintings are regarded as art, not all sculptures are, not all songs are, not all movies are... Every form of art you can think of has things in it that aren't art.

[DCK]

True, but name me one game that can be considered 'art'?

 

Games are mass production, 'resolve the conflict' activities, meant for you to waste time on. Even stuff like Okami, which is all nice and artistic, doesn't qualify as art to me.

 

Everybody has a different definition of art, but I think that your definition must be pretty broad to consider any game art.

[Emasher]

So you're saying you wouldn't even consider something like OoT art. Music is also mass produced and used to pass the time. Do we not call most musicians artists ("The artist performing in that album was so and so").

 

A game doesn't have to look like a painting like okami to be considered art. I would consider an 8-bit game art if it was good enough. Because its a different medium of art, it is considered to be artistic for different reasons than lets say a painting.

[RPGfan]

Excellent argument, Emasher!

 

I see games as also being art because...well...they are full of it! Aren´t they? Whether it is awesome picturesque landscapes that developers work hard to create giving us that special feeling exploring it, or beautifully decorated living and breathing figures in the world we play with... and the beauty of a village in a deep forest our hero/heroine has to go to - the most outstanding of those are pieces of art because they stand out from the crowd so to speak. In OoT, like Super Mario 64, many things in that game stood out of the crowd (like was seen for the first time), and so could be called art for being so...artistically... worked out!

 

If I look at a centuries old painting in a museum and enjoy it´s deep beauty, and next go home to play a videogame like OoT (I can´t recall anymore how many times I have played it by now) with beautiful landscapes (just like a painting), the only difference between the art in the museum and the one inside my tv is that the one in the museum is immobile whereas the one inside my tv is mobile (moving on the screen). Static and moving pictures. Art in two forms.

 

I believe that art is what people regard exceptionally good in whatever form it is presented, so good that other works pale in comparison. That is art. Pinnacles of creation. Which is why not everything can be called art! Only the best of the best can. Just because you are an artIST it doesn´t mean that you automatically create art per se. It really depends on what you create through your soul-expression and how it is received by the world around you.

 

I can´t go out on the street, and throw a bucket of paint onto a wall in certain way, and call that art. Because it is not me who decides if it is art. It is spectators who do. Even if I regard it art myself, I am darn sure most people wont. And there was no effort involved in the making of it either. They will scoff at it and move on. So it wont be seen as anything else but a nuissance.

 

So I conclude that creations by people becomes art, when enough people (a majority) have beheld, approved of it, and elevated it to that level of spectatorship as I like to call it.

 

So art apparently cannot exist without enough people to judge it as being so. Which safeguards the world of art from conpeople or plain twisted individuals who would call anything, including a bucket of paint (or worse) thrown on a wall, art! Just like there is no sight without light, there is no art without people saying it is so and thus bringing it up to that status!

[Indigo]

Here's my view. I'm not claiming to be objective on this, so don't bug me for not qualifying every sentence with 'IMO'.

 

I think videogames have the potential to develop into art-form, but in their present state there are very few games that I would consider to be works of art. Of course there are many films which I also wouldn't consider art either, but a significant proportion of films can be said at least to endeavour to present some kind of artistic vision/message to the recipient, whereas there are few videogames for which that can be said.

 

For me art isn't only about being aesthetically pleasing, therefore to judge the artistic value of a game primarily from its graphical style is misleading. That's not to say it's not an aspect though. It's just one medium through which particular emotions and messages can be conveyed. Maybe it's like art is two parts of a sphere - the core which is the meaning/message, and the surface which contains the ways through which the core may be reflected and expressed. Videogames have plenty of surface, lots of ways through which meaning can be conveyed - interaction being the unique component - but without anything for those things to express we're left with an empty work.

 

I mean what is the message/meaning of for example The Legend of Zelda? Ocarina of Time is usually considered the best game ever, and certainly appears more artistic than games like Pac-man or Mario Kart, yet you'd be stretched to claim it's anything more than an engrossing good versus evil tale with some great characters and landscapes. There's no real depth.

 

One thing that is noticeable about videogames compared to established art-forms is that rarely are they the vision of one individual. Obviously with novels the novelist is god. With movies there are hundreds of people working on it, but (allowing of course for interventions from producers) it all comes together under the vision of the director, who has his name on the poster. It's 'a Stanley Kubrick film' or 'a Ridley Scott film' or whatever. With games this most often isn't the case. There's no visionary, no director - they're the kind of stuff born out of group brainstorming sessions. That's not to say there aren't exceptions. When MGS2 had on its box 'a Hideo Kojima game' people accused Kojima of pretension, and yeah there will have been some ego in that, but more than just being a signal of gaming 'celebrity', it was a bold indication that a game could express the vision of one person. That's definitely the way things need to go if gaming's going to develop as an artform, though I worry that with rising budgets the opposite will happen and it'll all become focus group fare.

 

I have lots more to say but I need some sleep. Hopefully what I've contributed isn't too rambling and contradictory. I'll end this with a link to an interesting article that muses about MGS2, ICO and post-modern art.

 

"dreaming in an empty room" (a defense of Metal Gear Solid 2)

by tim rogers

[DCK]

So you're saying you wouldn't even consider something like OoT art.

No, and it's pretty ridicilous to think so. It's a classic game, but it's not closer to art than Postal. What is there arty about OoT? Can't say I'm shocked shy by the graphics, its story is horrendously bad and contains no intelligence whatsoever. It's fun, it's not art.

Music is also mass produced and used to pass the time. Do we not call most musicians artists ("The artist performing in that album was so and so").

That's just semantics, it's a convention we follow. Little of the music I listen to can be considered art. The difference between music and video games is that music is an art form that went into mass production and mere time-spending because it was so popular. Games are defined by those aspects, however.

A game doesn't have to look like a painting like okami to be considered art. I would consider an 8-bit game art if it was good enough. Because its a different medium of art, it is considered to be artistic for different reasons than lets say a painting.

That's fair, but you can't pinpoint what that criteria might be. For example, 'great gameplay' only means it's a piece of good entertainment, not a work of art.

 

You can go on about "what is art", but then "what is a game?". Games are meant to be enjoyable and/or educative. All games revolve around some banal conflict resolution in some way. I don't consider art something to just enjoy - I consider art to make me think, when I embrace what the piece of art is expressing.

 

Not some fairy story like OoT is going to pull that off for me. I haven't ever played a game that pulls it off. There may be some, I heard good stories about Ico and Shadow of the Collosus, but I can't say I've played them.

 

You see, people are too keen to confuse entertainment with art. Something you enjoy doesn't become art because you really like it, even though it makes you feel better about what you enjoy.

[Emasher]

But there is no criteria for something to be art. Maybe Oot's graphics aren't that great, maybe the story isn't the best ever. But thats not what makes a game art (by itself anyway). Art isn't something that can be defined by the left brain, it is something that your right brain just knows is art. The feelings you get when playing a game make it art. The way the game makers decide to give you these feelings is not important. What matters is the feelings them-self.

[RPGfan]

Yes, the spectators/the players/the beholders decide what is art. And what is definitely not.

[Phube]

Art = Pretentious CRAP

 

Games/Films/Music = Entertaining GOODNESS (well mostly)

 

Here ends the argument!

 

 

Oh, and here's where you're all going wrong; even crap art is art. You seem to be suggesting that only good videogames are art... which is ridiculous!