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.

Independant Gaming - Torch or Lantern?

Do not let them tell you that you shouldn't post after giving blood - they are wrong, whoever these naysayers may be. I defy them! Wooziness aside...

Ever wanted to be stuck inside a cave, with nothing but a pickaxe made of diamond and some wool? Me neither. Or at least, if you asked me a few weeks ago - I'd have agreed with you. I mean, haven't you played Minecraft? What about cowering in a cupboard whilst Princess Flappyjaw snorts and growls its way around the room lusting after your skin, which would make a perfect balaclava? Never wanted that? Why the hell not? You're weird...

I see from this article over at Wired.co.uk that the Independant Gaming Festival is coming up, and Minecraft and Amnesia: The Dark Descent are both in the running for Indie game of the year. I'm torn about who I would go for - on the one hand Amnesia is pants-wettingly terrifying, there is nothing quite like the fear when your lantern runs out of oil in a dark corridor, and in the dim distance you see an leg disappear into a doorway. Of course, you turn to leave, but as you do so great fleshy tumours burst out of the walls, stringy cartilidge bars the door - you crap yourself, hit alt-f4 and go to bed to sit wide-eyed in the dark.
On the other hand, Minecraft is quite the opposite, I cannot stop playing, perhaps tomorrow I will spend an hour flattening ground to build my cathedral - bit by bit, from the ground up. Perhaps the day after that I will dig straight down, in the hopes of finding a dungeon, so that I can get wheat to start my farm. Maybe after that I'll gather 100 blocks of wool and build a woolen tower as high as I can. Its so freaking expansive, my mind boggles!

I think in the end Minecraft wins this one for me, because whilst Amnesia is innovative in removing the player's ability to fight back, it forces me not to play because it is so terrifying! I laud this as a great acheivement by the developers, but if we are going off fun-factor - then Minecraft has it beat.

Ultimately, I think both games have been revolutionary - Minecraft in its wide appeal and commitment to sandbox gameplay, and Amnesia with its shedding of the power of the weapon in survival horror gaming, and the way it forces the player to come up with other ways of making it through the twisted corridors of the castle.

I'm really glad I'm not withing range of a computer with Amnesia on it right now - in my blood deprived state I fear that the sheer terror would throw me into some kind of shock... maybe its time I just put my head on the desk...