Pages

Wednesday 16 February 2011

Can Video Games be Art?

Over the past few days I've come across a number of blogs which have broached this subject. Its the kind of argument which brings up a vitriolic rage in many a gamer and comments on the subject can go into the thousands (see Roger Ebert's post here). I plant my feet firmly in the "games can be art" camp.

Unfortunately, it comes down to that all-to-often carted out stumbling block - definition. I view art as an interpretation. RightGamer at DominantGenes (RG falls firmly on the opposite side to me, agreeing with Roger Ebert in his assertion that games can never be art) states the following:
Professional painters, musicians and cartoonists are all considered artists regardless of the quality of their pieces and no one would try to dispute this. Now professional game designers and developers are not generally associated with being artists but if the final product truly is a piece of art like some gamers claim, then why not label these people as such?
I argued that whilst these above named professions are largely considered artists, I cannot make the same sweeping generalisation about their work. Justin Bieber is most definitely a musical artist, but I would not say his work is art. *Swoosh* That was the sound of a thousand angry tweenage girls all partaking in a sharp intake of breath. I'm also fairly sure that there are a significant number of people who would not consider Tracey Emin's work art, or Jackson Pollock, or Michael Jackson, or Banksy, etc etc. What it boils down to, is that art is an interpretation.

Its a wishy-washy Postmodern argument I know, and as Social Scientist I'm loathed to bring it out. But when applied to a medium such as art it is hard to ignore. I don't think you could cite a piece of work which can be universally and objectively called "art" - there is no essential element which exists which pushes a piece from "object" to "art". I could rant on about signifier and signified, perception, consensus, habitus, Bourdieu, Foucault, Baudrillard, Magritte, ceci n'est pas une pipe... But ultimately you cannot ignore that each and every image we see in this world, however critically acclaimed, is seen through our eyes, and each and every image is then interpreted by our brains - it is changed and twisted and then out pops a conclusion. Whether that conclusion is that it's art or not is not objective, it is wholly subjective.

Of course, that means that Ebert and RG are entirely correct - to them gaming cannot be art - their definition doesn't allow it. But to me, gaming can be and is art - Portal is art, Amnesia: The Dark Descent is art, Half-Life 2 is art, heck... Final Fantasy VII is art - these games speak to me on a visceral level, they evoke emotions through characters and visuals which far outstrip the vast majority of paintings and films.

The other option is that art has some existence which is external to those actors involved in its creation. That it somehow pre-exists interpretation. I just cannot bend my brain to consider that there exists anything in our society which has not been created by the people who exist and have existed within it. There is no society external to the actor. So, there is no art external to the actor. Art is something which sits deep within our soul; it is for no-one else to decide on our behalf.

5 comments:

  1. I agree with the points you've made mostly.


    My personal thoughts on this topic began when I played Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. It had such a good story and a presentation that drew me in completely to the point that I teared up at the ending.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I would definitely consider games art. The designs of levels, the way they leap from someone's imagination and onto the screen is fantastic. Sometimes they are much more deserving of credit than the random things that end up in the Tate Modern Museum.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hm, talking with a friend a few years ago, we agreed at the time that animated movies, good or bad, were probably the highest as in most complete form of art as they enfold all the pictorial arts (drawing, painting, etc.) and all the dramatic arts and usually music and even choreography-- everything you end up hearing and seeing in one is the result of artifice, nothing or nearly nothing is accidental (it mostly can not be) and everything is there because (and as exactly as possible, how) someone wanted you to see it.

    All of the above can also be said of games, with the difference (and ESRB warning) that part of what you will see may be generated by other users and not be anything that you or the game maker specifically intended you to see-- but even that is a kind of calculated effect several steps up from throwing paint at canvas.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would definitely consider games art. The designs of levels, the way they leap from someone's imagination and onto the screen is fantastic. Sometimes they are much more deserving of credit than the random things that end up in the Tate Modern Museum.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with the points you've made mostly.


    My personal thoughts on this topic began when I played Prince of Persia: Sands of Time. It had such a good story and a presentation that drew me in completely to the point that I teared up at the ending.

    ReplyDelete

LinkWithin

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...