# Are video games "art"?



## Staticnz (Mar 25, 2013)

I have a friend who doesn't like games. I grew up gaming and continue to game and we started talking about it. 

His argument:
You learn no real world skills in games.
Games are predetermined. You are jumping through hoops like a rat set up for you, that millions of other people will also jump through.
The characters in games are shallow and fake compared to movies and literature.
Games are pointless.

Therefore games are not real art. They are like a virtual rat maze.

My counter points:
It helps your reflexes. Sometimes they are challenging and help your critical thinking. Puzzles can make you think.
They are predetermined but so are all other forms of art as many people can also interpret books the same way. Movies are always the same too. There's actually more choice in games.
Characters can be shallow in games...but same with movies. Voice actors can be expressive and most of all, the stories can be brilliant.

For example knights of the old republic has the best story of anything ever in Star Wars, including the movies imo. The plot twist! The walking dead series is probably better than either the comics or the show!! More emotional too! System shock 2 has an amazing story and is so immersive.

Perhaps the big flaw is just not enough incredible games in terms of story and characters. But the last of us? I cried when aerith died! And now fallout 4...that isn't art? Vs static movies and literature? Or boring paintings?

Of course mt friend bought none of this. His conclusion was games are mindless drivel and not art.

Now why is this? As gamers we are biased. But can anyone make a good case as to why my friend is wrong? Also, why are games sneered at in this fashion but watching tv shows is so great and movies etc?

In my opinion they are all obviously ART!!


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

Well, no. Video games are a superb art medium that typically features plenty of art, but video games by nature are just interactive experiences. Theoretically, you can make a video game without a shred of emotional substance, appeal, or creativity. Both of your arguments are flawed because neither of you deal with what video games are intrinsically nor entirely, instead you both refer to opposite extremes exclusively. Video games CAN be just as artful as any other craft, yes, but are they always? Was Pong a work of art? Or was it just a video game? What about games like Mario Party or Yu-Gi-Oh! Legacy of the Duelist? Video games that are virtual extensions of a board game or card game? Would you consider a board game art, would you consider a card game art? What makes the virtual game counter-part more art than the board game or the card game?

An artist must exist to create the concepts, looks, and sounds for the board games and the card games, likewise an artist must exist to create TLOU and Fallout, but what you get with those games is something beyond art, a canvas for anything artful and in-between. Why do video games have to be classified as art to be recognized as meaningful? Video games are not art and that's perfectly ok, as a gamer you've come to appreciate greater art than plenty of people will throughout the entirety of their lifetime.


----------



## RandomGentleman (Aug 4, 2014)

Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.


----------



## Staticnz (Mar 25, 2013)

To22 said:


> Well, no. Video games are a superb art medium that typically features plenty of art, but video games by nature are just interactive experiences. Theoretically, you can make a video game without a shred of emotional substance, appeal, or creativity. Both of your arguments are flawed because neither of you deal with what video games are intrinsically nor entirely, instead you both refer to opposite extremes exclusively. Video games CAN be just as artful as any other craft, yes, but are they always? Was Pong a work of art? Or was it just a video game? What about games like Mario Party or Yu-Gi-Oh! Legacy of the Duelist? Video games that are virtual extensions of a board game or card game? Would you consider a board game art, would you consider a card game art? What makes the virtual game counter-part more art than the board game or the card game?
> 
> An artist must exist to create the concepts, looks, and sounds for the board games and the card games, likewise an artist must exist to create TLOU and Fallout, but what you get with those games is something beyond art, a canvas for anything artful and in-between. Why do video games have to be classified as art to be recognized as meaningful? Video games are not art and that's perfectly ok, as a gamer you've come to appreciate greater art than plenty of people will throughout the entirety of their lifetime.


I think your arguments were good but fail to see how it follows that games are therefore not art.

All you really proved is that SOME games are art, and some aren't. Just like some movies are terrible crap, and some are like 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Eyes Wide Shut or somethingarather.

Why the sudden blanket conclusion that because some games suck, ALL of them CAN'T be art? That doesn't logically apply to any other art form either.

The existence of Limp Bizkit does not cancel out Beethoven because they both happen to be music.

As for board games or card games, I would say they struggle to be art due to the limitations of the medium. Just like when they made Pong, they had limited options, and were merely creating something new at the time. But a computer game now has a much broader canvas to work with, and more potential. Could a board game conceivably be art? I think yes. It's just somebody would have to conceive of one as art, and it would be so.

Maybe the point is why it was created. Can somebody create a game to be art? Absolutely. Or they can create it to be shallow and mindless repetition for the sake of entertainment.


----------



## Joe (May 18, 2010)

What do you learn from reading a book or looking at art? I guess those can be inspiring to write or draw your own stuff, but video games are a lot different to create than play in terms of what content you see while doing it, but yes they literally have art/music/story guys on every game.


----------



## Milco (Dec 12, 2009)

Staticnz said:


> His argument:
> You learn no real world skills in games.
> Games are predetermined. You are jumping through hoops like a rat set up for you, that millions of other people will also jump through.
> The characters in games are shallow and fake compared to movies and literature.
> Games are pointless.


Those are, quite honestly, some weird arguments.
What skill is required to listen to music? What skills are required to read a book?
I don't think the status as "art" is determined by the skill of the audience.

The distinction between entertainment and art is sometimes blurry, but there is no fundamental difference between games, music, films and books.
There are many games that live up to all reasonable standards for art, but because budgets required are generally higher, and because the audience is still relatively young (which is bound to change in time), there are a lot of 'pop' games being made - but we wouldn't say that the music charts being dominated by pop songs shows that music isn't art.

I guess the distinction I'd make between entertainment and art, is that entertainment is a 'fix' here and now, while art is what makes me think and what moves me as a person.
Plenty of games have done that to me.


----------



## RiversBetweenUs (Nov 22, 2015)

Some games qualify as art due to the aesthetics and experience. 

Journey, Flower, Ico and Okami are artistic. I love Final Fantasy, Fallout, and a lot of other games, but don't consider those as art. Majority of games are not artistic, not in the real sense.

A lot of artistic games are trying to achieve something deeper than gameplay. The creators are more concerned with their vision of beauty and immersing the player into a deeper experience.


----------



## Arcases (Nov 20, 2015)

with a letter dropped from the start


----------



## Paper Samurai (Oct 1, 2009)

I would say they're art - art attached to a simulation it has to be said, but taken as a whole yes they have artistic merit.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

Kerbal Space Program taught me quite some stuff about astrophysics.
Since I started to play it, I am aware that a rocket doesn't just fly into orbit by flying straight up and that's it.
After it reaches a certain speed (about 100 m/s depending on the rocket) it does a gradual turn towards east (earth's rotation towards east, "gives" the rocket a little bit of extra velocity) as it climbs up, also called the "gravity turn", because it literally let's the earth's gravity turn it gradually horizontally until it reaches 7,6 km/s or 4,7 miles per second, which is orbital velocity.
I could have learned that in school as well, but I was unfortunately too busy worrying about being bullied and being afraid of showing up.
Not blaming anyone, just telling it how it is.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

RiversBetweenUs said:


> Some games qualify as art due to the aesthetics and experience.
> 
> Journey, Flower, Ico and Okami are artistic. I love Final Fantasy, Fallout, and a lot of other games, but don't consider those as art. Majority of games are not artistic, not in the real sense.
> 
> A lot of artistic games are trying to achieve something deeper than gameplay. The creators are more concerned with their vision of beauty and immersing the player into a deeper experience.


"Flower" is awesome!


----------



## Aribeth (Jan 14, 2012)

No.


----------



## Orbiter (Jul 8, 2015)

Aribeth said:


> No.


Yes.


----------



## Chasingclouds (Jan 7, 2015)

Art is subjective, therefore anything could be considered an art.


----------



## Haunty (Oct 24, 2008)

I guess I would define art as any creation. So yeah games are art to me.


----------



## Kiba (Apr 26, 2013)

Interactive media can be art.... I think most isn't. Game development requires art, but it also requires physics and a number of other things. So by that same token.... Are video games physics?... Obviously not, it's just a component of the whole. And since we don't play videogames based on individual components, it shouldn't be judged based on individual components either, but as the summation of all of it's parts.
On another note, arguments on both sides are completely ****ing retarded and completely devoid of premises that could prove/disprove the argument.

Buildings have architects who make them aesthetically appealing... But have engineers too who make them structurally sound and practical.

Cars, same thing. Most manufactured products have an element of artistry to them, but as a part of the whole, not as the focal/primary feature.


----------



## Unnecessary (Nov 16, 2013)

This something I think about a lot so I apologize if it ends up being a very long *** post. I was a big fan of videogames when I was younger but I've spent the last few years playing barely anything at all, so I think my views aren't that biased, as I'm not an avid gamer but I'm also not somebody who's never played videogames.

First we need to understand that everything and anything can be art. Why can't we see Pong as a representation of two human beings who are constantly trying to escape their responsibility or problems by giving them unto another person, and when somebody doesn't accept that responsibility everything falls apart? Sure, it's a huge stretch, but if it can be interpreted that way (and in many other ways if you really want to think about it) doesn't that make it art? Doesn't it hold any emotional, transformative power? Transmitting that message probably wasn't the creators intention, but does that take away from the emotional response you may have from drawing those conclusions? Does it have to be intentional to be art? How do we know there was no artistic intent behind Pong? If it didn't have intent but people still find it meaningful, is it art? If it did have intent but people don't care about it, is it art?

Anyway, what I'm trying to say is "art" is a very broad and almost meaningless qualification, since it can be applied to literally anything. The real, more reasonable question would be to ask if videogames are _good_ art. If something like, say, Final Fantasy VII can be compared to a literary novel instead of hypothetical cases of intentless art. So from now on when I say "art" I really mean "good art" or at least "meaningful art".

Now this is were it gets a little bit messy, videogames do showcase a lot of art: music, (painted/drawn) art, stories. I doubt anybody can argue songs like Ballad of the Goddess or One-Winged Angel aren't art, or that the beautiful scenery and landscapes from The Elder Scrolls or Destiny can't evoke profound feelings on the player. The stories might be a little bit harder to defend, but there are a few like Planescape: Torment that definitely stand out. This, however, despite what buzzfeed lists might tell you, doesn't make videogames, the_ game_ itself, art. Everything about them is art, yet they're not art.

There have been a few games who've tried to take an artistic approach on the gameplay. Since the beginning RPGs have been able to evoke a sense of insecurity or confidence based on the player's interaction with the party and equipment, this isn't transmitted by music, art or storyline, it is done by mere gameplay. The daunting and seemingly endless empty roads in the middle of nowhere and the menace of a danger much greater than yourself that you experience in Shadow of the Colossus can certainly cause and sense of hopelessness and fear. Even TellTale's The Walking Dead's fake decisions can make you feel happiness and remorse. None of these are on the same level of Beethoven or Shakespeare or Dalí, but they're baby steps on the right direction.

For some reason many gamers don't really want games to be more artful, but they want games to be more cinematic, because cinema is an already established art medium and it's easier to see the parallels between the two rather than paying attention to the minute are there is in the actual game. That's why ****ty games like Life is Strange, which has the gameplay of a potato and if it were an actual movie the writing and directing would be Razzie-worthy, are universally acclaimed because they're sort of kind of more like a movie. There's also "artsy" games like Journey and Flower, which definitely have intent but their gameplay seems too on-rails for me to take it seriously as art.

The first Super Mario Bros. is still the GOAT.


----------



## To22 (Apr 6, 2012)

Staticnz said:


> I think your arguments were good but fail to see how it follows that games are therefore not art.
> 
> All you really proved is that SOME games are art, and some aren't. Just like some movies are terrible crap, and some are like 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Eyes Wide Shut or somethingarather.
> 
> ...


True dat. Great points. I didn't adequately explain myself. Sorry about that. By saying video games "can have art in them" / "typically feature art", I was actually thinking of the definition posted in this thread, alongside a more shallow viewpoint (which conflicts). On one hand, I believe art is intentional, distinguished design where no function is of greater value than the appeal of its rapport, a value beyond being entertained or pleased with artistic merit (i.e. "works to be appreciated *primarily* for their beauty or emotional power"). In this view I would not classify the entire genre of music nor movies (but probably literature) as art, I would only classify them as artful entertainment by nature. On the other hand, art is just aesthetics, however I will concede this viewpoint...

To answer your question: yes, my initial and following statement does conclude that entertainment CAN be art, but also could anything else. I am just unwilling to classify an entire genre of entertainment as "art" when the genre's predominant value is entertainment. I didn't reference Mario Party and Yu-gi-oh for their lack of artistic merit, in fact, I did just the opposite. Said games were used to exemplify the fact that artistic merit doesn't always produce art. If the only prerequisite for "art" is that it features admirable or moving artistic skill wouldn't that classify every genre of creation, and to some extent: action, as "art"? Every skilled performer becomes an artist, likewise for every craftsman, but I wouldn't agree; I wouldn't agree that because someone is skilled and because what they do has "artistic merit" that this ranks their projects among artistry. I think art is a bit more specific than that, more circumstantial, lest "art" become synonymous with quality craft and entertainment as a whole.

When art relates to quality, our arguments on the meaning of art lean towards pleasure and admiration. But is designed pleasure and admiration "art"? Is it as simple as appreciating the manifestation of someone's imagination and skill? Or can art also be just the opposite, can art be unrefined and repulsive? There are times where work is regarded as top of its class to later devolve in esteem and vice versa. Once your favorite video games become outdated will they no longer be considered art? Are TLOU, Journey, and Dark Souls only being mentioned because we were enamored by its design? If so, there is no point in posing the question. If so, whether or not something "is" or "isn't art" is entirely up to you.

Anything COULD be art, yes. Art is the function of creative rapport but when it comes to video games, considering their predominant function is that of a struggle distinguished above rapport and hardly any video game contradicts that order, I would say that as a genre, generally speaking, no, video games are not art. Videos games are entertainment, software designed to preoccupy you with the functions of your brain, not unlike a theme park. Video games are, first and foremost, systems built to incentivize and reward basic struggle.

That is to say video games like The Last of Us haven't distinguished themselves enough as an artform to be considered art, personally. I cried during my playthrough of The Last of Us, but those tears were due entirely to the video game's writing, drawings, and acting, and had nothing to do with gameplay. If the gameplay is the game's defining characteristic and the art is beside that gameplay, how much of that game is "art"? The Last of Us's atmosphere might be that of something rich in art, but also are some restaurants. Are restaurants "art" because some can be admired for the music that plays in the backround or for the paintings placed on the walls? No. Not until said restaurant becomes its own piece aside from its paintings and atmosphere, not until the restaurant becomes its own agent of expression indistinguishable from the paintings on the walls.

Paintings are art, but only generally speaking. Paintings are art because their predominant value is the appeal of its rapport. I would think that before classifying a video game as "art", the video game's primary function would be that of expression, feeling that the gameplay was no less "art" than the world the gameplay accompanies. Show me a video game that as a means of rapport, tells that story without words, without scenes, and I'll show you, undoubtedly, a video game that is art.

Ultimately, I agree, modern day gaming under the right umbrella features plenty of video game art. If it weren't for how the stories were told, if it weren't for the way video games are used, video games wouldn't be so easy to generalize as art or not.


----------



## Estillum (Oct 24, 2012)

Who cares if it is or if it isn't. The distinction changes literally nothing.


----------



## ANXPhoenix (Mar 17, 2013)

I just saw a rather relevant article yesterday:
http://emorywheel.com/undertale-takes-next-necessary-steps-for-gaming-to-become-art/

It makes an interesting point about games often clashing with themselves and not presenting a complete image between gameplay, story, combat, etc.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## AngelClare (Jul 10, 2012)

They can rise to the level of art just like anything else that involves creative power.


----------



## Xenos (Jun 24, 2012)

Yeah, it's really an argument about the definition of art, and not video games per se.

I agree with much of what's been said. The only definition of art that makes any sense is the broadest one. Art is any work that contains an aesthetic component that the audience is meant to observe and/or experience on an aesthetic level (as opposed to a strictly functional level). It's not an indicator of quality; it can be art and still suck. This definition includes pop music, Michael Bay movies, porn, and even things like architecture when it has a substantial aesthetic component. And it definitely includes video games.

Any other definition of art just seems arbitrarily restrictive to me.


----------



## SouthWest (Dec 4, 2014)

I would compare it to filmmaking - the more there is at stake, the more it becomes about business. If you're a developer with a multi-million dollar budget it's more about selling a product that will give you a return on investment. It's typically the indie titles that can be more experimental and story driven because they only need modest returns to continue developing new games.

Having said this, there is usually more bad art than there is good art no matter what the medium. There are more bad films, games and music than good.


----------



## hmnut (Aug 8, 2011)

I made a Youtube video giving my opinion last year:






If you don't want to watch the video my conclusion was they mostly aren't meaningful art yet (and that's okay), but they can be.

After a year of playing a lot more indie games, my opinion has changes slightly to "there are more games that are legit art than I gave credit to... but it is still a small minority."

BTW also after playing a lot more indie games, there are a lot more crappy games than I gave credit to as well.

I would still say "Brothers a tale of two sons" is one of the best examples of games as art that I have ever played and that isn't even to say it is a great game, just the gameplay mixes with the story, and even though the story doesn't do anything super special the gameplay makes you feel (or at least made me feel) something I would not have felt if I saw the same thing in a Movie.


----------



## Enkidu (Nov 30, 2015)

Chasingclouds said:


> Art is subjective, therefore anything could be considered an art.


That's a safe answer - though I would argue that any creative medium is only as artistic as the audience it is catering to. It's important to remember that video games are media entertainment with a multiplicity of genres that sprung from popular titles and the minds of ambitious producers. It's a consumer _industry_ and games follow strict formulas because the product ultimately as to sell. The big titles on Steam, PSN, etc. are cast in predetermined playstyles (like MMO amusement parks) that developers _gradually_ add innovative features to so as not to lose their dedicated playerbase - and to keep them coming back for each sequel - and brand them to their product. The lasting appeal and nostalgia of genre-breaking games that experimented with alternative art and play styles (Ico/Shadows of the Colossus, Okami, LOZ: Windwaker, Journey, GW1, Portal, Minecraft come to mind) I think, are considered more like art because they broke the business model for the sake of creativity. Art direction, concept art, rendered characters and environments, composed soundtracks are by traditional definitions indisputably art. But when it's packaged in a mass-produced, short-term investment of money, playtime, and emotional attachment, it somehow degrades the ideal of 'Art' and morphs into something more akin to pop art like comic books, just more immersive. I'm obviously simplifying some of this, I just wanted to add perspective and quibble about a misapplied and overused term


----------



## Staticnz (Mar 25, 2013)

hmnut said:


> I made a Youtube video giving my opinion last year:


Wow. I don't fully agree with everything you said in the video, but super impressed with your presentation. Very thorough and thoughtful, and very confidently presented. Really impressed. Great job man!!!


----------



## hmnut (Aug 8, 2011)

Staticnz said:


> Wow. I don't fully agree with everything you said in the video, but super impressed with your presentation. Very thorough and thoughtful, and very confidently presented. Really impressed. Great job man!!!


Thanks a lot for saying.


----------



## Staticnz (Mar 25, 2013)

Some of your videos have like 18,000+ views! Yer a star!!


----------



## Estillum (Oct 24, 2012)

I think the question shouldn't be "are video games art?" but "do we really them to be art?" Do we really want snobby overpaid critics to pan everything as schlock while praising some pretentious bull**** as the second coming of Christ. Or the art critic circle-jerks when a bunch people pick though entirety of games like super Mario and some how think it's some anti-establishment piece of modern art? Or the yearly awards where the creators of the most deliberately emotionally manipulative games get a little award to the great delight of no one.

Who ****ing cares, the fact someone can call something "Art" not does not change the emotional impact of something, it makes absolutely no difference.

I'm still inclined to think that people who call video games "mindless drivel" compared to films and novels are pretty up their own ***, especially things like 50 shades of grey and Grownups 2 exist. A novel and film that are pretty terrible but by your friend's logic must be inherently better than every single video game solely due to their medium, but that's their loss, and that's not the sort of people we should be bothering trying to impress to begin with.


----------



## Persephone The Dread (Aug 28, 2010)

If film is art, and it often is categorised that way, then video games can be too; but not necessarily. I think a game like Final Fantasy VII or Silent Hill would be, while something like The Sims (any game in the series') definitely isn't, it doesn't really make you think or evoke any kind of emotional reaction. Though obviously all games that aren't text based have some amount of art involved in their creation and sometimes that art is really good.

I'm not sure why the question annoys people, because it's a reasonable question, but at the same time I don't think that it is important. 

Also I think that some genres have the potential to be best explored in video game format. I think horror video games can be way scarier than in other mediums - that imo is perhaps the best genre to experiment with artistic elements as well as in story telling and design. 

^ I might just be really biased because I find dark and macarbe stuff fascinating though..


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

are "video games" art, though? are video "games" art? "are video games" art? are video "games art"?


----------



## Estillum (Oct 24, 2012)

fingertips said:


> are "video games" art, though? are video "games" art? "are video games" art? are video "games art"?


----------



## Staticnz (Mar 25, 2013)

fingertips said:


> are "video games" art, though? are video "games" art? "are video games" art? are video "games art"?


What is a video "game" though?

Is that the same as a "vid"-eo g"a"me"?"?... ?


----------



## fingertips (Jan 11, 2009)

why is the term "computer game" not as popular these days? is there an appreciable difference between video games and computer games? are VCR board games video games? is televised sport video games? is "videogame" as opposed to "video game" valid? are board games art? is tug of war art? is pornography art? is language art? are our personalities art? do we have souls?

how would video games change if the majority of them were produced outside a capitalist mode of production? if an extraterrestrial society invented video games, how would their video games differ from our own? what would our video games say about us as viewed through the eyes of future archaeologists? is the term "video game" limiting? are video games fun? what is fun? is art fun? what is art?

does pixel art have a role beyond cheap nostalgia? is visual fidelity required for a game to be aesthetically appealing? if a decision you make in a video game doesn't branch the story, does that really mean it doesn't matter? are video games too reliant on imitating other media? is super mario a personification of our desires? will there ever be a religious text that references video games? should video game apostates be put to death?


----------



## StupidApostates (Dec 11, 2015)

Staticnz said:


> I have a friend who doesn't like games. I grew up gaming and continue to game and we started talking about it.
> 
> His argument:
> You learn no real world skills in games.
> ...


Video games are an art form. That's not a biased opinion either, because anything that requires a creative process is art. his argument just seems like saying that, like i don't know pop music isn't music just because YOU don't like it.

I mean there are a lot of games that are legitimately ART. 
DEAR ESTHER for example is literally a story in game form. 
Earthbound had an incredibly rich story, and actually was what got me into gaming. At least seriously.

Not to even mention that gaming has major benefits with brain activity, and as you said reflexive abilities and hand-eye coordination.


----------



## rawrguy (Mar 29, 2008)

Of course video games are art. Time was taken to draw out each scene and create story lines. However, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Mostly video game haters that do not view them as art.


----------



## Ignopius (Mar 19, 2013)

There are so many different genres of video games. Many are fluff and time wasters and others are tactical and thought provoking. I definitely think games on average are better for your brain than watching mindless sitcoms.


----------



## Scrub-Zero (Feb 9, 2004)

Not even 5% of games are art. The rest are cash grab milk cows and remakes/reboot. Creativity used to work for the gaming industry but it got murdered by greed.


----------



## JustThisGuy (Mar 24, 2012)

Persephone The Dread said:


> If film is art, and it often is categorised that way, then video games can be too; but not necessarily. I think a game like Final Fantasy VII or Silent Hill would be, while something like The Sims (any game in the series') definitely isn't, it doesn't really make you think or evoke any kind of emotional reaction. Though obviously all games that aren't text based have some amount of art involved in their creation and sometimes that art is really good.
> 
> I'm not sure why the question annoys people, because it's a reasonable question, but at the same time I don't think that it is important.
> 
> ...


I kind of get what you mean. But I'm on the fence. Tetris is a puzzle game. Though puzzles form or achieve something, like a piece of art. So it's a tough call on some.

Reminds me of Louis CK saying that standup is an artform, yet he feels douchey saying it is because of what it is. It's like he was giving into the fact that most people wouldn't think so. Like telling a joke isn't technically art, but creating a set piece with a skit and/or storytelling of jokes is art. My opinion.


----------

