Are Video-Games an Art Form?

[Random Person]

Sup peeps, Random Person here. I'm not exactly sure if this goes in "general games" section or here, so I just put it here. Mods, feel free to move at your leisure.

So yeah... video-games... are they art? The reason I ask this is not because I doubt in my mind that they are (I wholeheartedly believe that video-games are art and that anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot... uh... I mean... that people have varying opinions and I respect that ) But the reason I'm bringing it up is because I was discussing it with someone and they firmly believe that video-games are not an art and that they will never be art. I also discussed with someone else and they said that video-games have the potential to be art, but as of now, are not art. It did not dawn on me that anyone could doubt that video-games are art. I honestly can not see how anyone could think differently because everything that you put into traditional art (literature, pictures, etc) goes into making video-games. The whole coding process of making a game is not all there is to it. You got to think about the story, and how the characters should look, and the metaphors and similes and blah blah blah...

Then I thought... "Let's see what ZD has to say." So what do you guys think. Art? Not art?

*Also keep in mind your definition of art. Remember, you can't argue what is and what isn't if you don't know each other's definition first.*

 

[Nicole]

art [noun]

1.the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

2.the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection.

3. a field, genre, or category of art: Dance is an art.

4.the fine arts collectively, often excluding architecture: art and architecture.

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art.

This is the definition of "art" according to dictionary.com. My definition is similar to that of its first one. Mine goes like this: Art is any expression manifested physically. That means painting is art. Writing is art. Video games, the topic at hand, are art. Dance is art. Et cetera et cetera. The only way for anyone to deny that video games are art is for them to go by one of the latter definitions, such as "the fine arts." I would consider video games and art form but not a form of the fine arts. But art an fine arts are obviously different things, and anyone who says video games not being a form of fine arts as a reason for them not being art has a rather poor excuse if you ask me.

I go by a similar principle for "sport." I classify a sport as any competitive activity that involves physical effort. By that definition, yes, shopping can be a sport.

 

[A Link In Time]

Yes, videogames are art and those who fail to recognize so are completely and utterly ignorant. In fact, I'd argue that videogames are a more expansive, refreshing, and lasting art medium than most.

Videogames combine the best of both the visual and sound worlds. Beautiful and vivacious scenery comes to life through programmers and composers fill a title with fitting tunes. In fact, videogames are often a larger undertaking than other art forms, costing tens of millions of dollars to produce. And let's not forget the sheer man power and time required to complete projects of larger scope. Videogames started to boom around 35 years ago and their popularity to this day is a testimony to their endurance. Also, the ability to have easily transferable physical and downloadable media guarantees that most videogames will not erode like other mediums and therefore continue to exhibit exceptional longevity.

 

[TF/HH]

I say yes, given what Nicole posted about what Dictionary.com says, Video Games would fall into the fifth category with artistic design in the characters and stuff like that, I personally consider Video Games as being a true form of art, and a fun one at that. :bleh:

 

[Koosholts]

I do not think that video games are art, but they definitley have the potential to be.

My definition of art: A specific action where human beings can express there views/morals/ideas/passions/feeling/you get the point/etc.

By my definition, drawing is a form of art because it is an action a human being does to express everything I stated above. I drew a picture of 2012 where aliens invaded New York City. I expressed my views through an action of drawing on paper so what I did was considered art.

So, by my definition, video games are not art yet and here's why.

Video games have to conform to the demographic and what the buyers want. Nintendo can't freely put there views/opinions/expressions/ etc. into a video game without consulting the community and what they would want in a game. Perhaps miyamoto is extremely passionate about technology (which he probably is). Even though he's passionate about that idea, he can't express it through a Zelda game because if we saw an airplane in a Zelda game then sales would plummit and Nintendo wouldn't make any money. He can't succesfully perform his ideas through video games because he has to take into account the buyers of the product and what they want, making video games not art.

Also, he has to consult with a team of people on the production of a Zelda game before making any final decisions. The whole team has to be in an agreement with what would be put into a vido game. Therefore not one singal person can succesfully express their views through video games because they have to conform to what the majority wants to make the sales better, make it work better, etc. Again, another reason why video games are not art.

Now, this isn't to say they could never be art. In this world, sadly, pretty much everything is about money. Nintendo can't make video games unless people buy them and they make a profit off what they make. If the target demographic wasn't so judgemental and was open to the creators ideas and buy them regardless, in other words, if money was no object and a person could freely do whatever they wanted with the video game, then yes, they would be art.

 

[Random Person]

I do not think that video games are art, but they definitley have the potential to be.

Finally, someone disagrees. (Can't argue if everyone agrees ) It seems like if the game comes from multiple minds, then that isn't art. To this I ask you... if more than one Person works on a beautiful painting, or an excellent piece of literature, does that make it not art? Is art restricted because the ideas come from more than one Person? (I hope this doesn't sound challenging, I'm trying to get a deeper understanding of your arguement)

Also, you say that because it is meeting the standards of the public and not solely its creator(s), it can not properly demonstrate the original idea. However, the purpose of video-games is to entertain and thus the original idea is to meet the standards of the public. This idea may conflict with other initial ideas that want to be put into the progress, but does that mean it isn't art because the creators chose one initial idea over another?

My definition of art: A specific action where human beings can express there views/morals/ideas/passions/feeling/you get the point/etc.

Thank you, now then, in video-games, just like in stories, characters and situations are used as metaphors, similies, historic events, etc. Characters look the way they look because they're representing something. Things like "sudden weather change" (cough cough TP final battle cough) represent atmosphere or dark comings. Do these not meet your definition?

Again, I hope I'm not coming across as attacking you. I started this because I enjoy GOOD arguments and like to hear other's thoughts on things. And if you need more lengthy examples let me know, I'm trying to keep mine short to prevent TLDR comments

 

[A Link In Time]

I do not think that video games are art, but they definitley have the potential to be.

My definition of art: A specific action where human beings can express there views/morals/ideas/passions/feeling/you get the point/etc.

Gaming portrays humans emotions, pain, loss, and suffering as well as important morals. Your argument is baseless.

Video games have to conform to the demographic and what the buyers want. Nintendo can't freely put there views/opinions/expressions/ etc. into a video game without consulting the community and what they would want in a game. Perhaps miyamoto is extremely passionate about technology (which he probably is). Even though he's passionate about that idea, he can't express it through a Zelda game because if we saw an airplane in a Zelda game then sales would plummit and Nintendo wouldn't make any money. He can't succesfully perform his ideas through video games because he has to take into account the buyers of the product and what they want, making video games not art.

Also, he has to consult with a team of people on the production of a Zelda game before making any final decisions. The whole team has to be in an agreement with what would be put into a vido game. Therefore not one singal person can succesfully express their views through video games because they have to conform to what the majority wants to make the sales better, make it work better, etc. Again, another reason why video games are not art.

Your argument falls apart on its hinges. A game can be injected with anything. It may not succeed commercially or critically but remains a creative vision. Also, if a developer isn't satisfied with coworkers, he or she often leaves to start a project or his or her own. If anything, videogames are a symbol of nonconformity. Just recently, legislation in the U.S. went so far as to claim videogames are as dangerous as guns or drugs. Fortunately, the bill was taken down in the Supreme Court. As maintained before, videogames are a creative vision and even moreso than other art forms due to being a combination of visuals and sound effects.

Now, this isn't to say they could never be art. In this world, sadly, pretty much everything is about money. Nintendo can't make video games unless people buy them and they make a profit off what they make. If the target demographic wasn't so judgemental and was open to the creators ideas and buy them regardless, in other words, if money was no object and a person could freely do whatever they wanted with the video game, then yes, they would be art.

Actually, Nintendo and other producers do make extremely random and new games from time to time and people do buy them. A good estimate 25% of the industry still experiments quite liberally even during these rough times.

 

[Hanyou]

If movies, drama, books, and music are art, there's absolutely no reason games can't be. They fulfill every criteria that those other media do (often combining them), and they do so just as artfully.

Video games have to conform to the demographic and what the buyers want. Nintendo can't freely put there views/opinions/expressions/ etc. into a video game without consulting the community and what they would want in a game. Perhaps miyamoto is extremely passionate about technology (which he probably is). Even though he's passionate about that idea, he can't express it through a Zelda game because if we saw an airplane in a Zelda game then sales would plummit and Nintendo wouldn't make any money. He can't succesfully perform his ideas through video games because he has to take into account the buyers of the product and what they want, making video games not art.

Also, he has to consult with a team of people on the production of a Zelda game before making any final decisions. The whole team has to be in an agreement with what would be put into a vido game. Therefore not one singal person can succesfully express their views through video games because they have to conform to what the majority wants to make the sales better, make it work better, etc. Again, another reason why video games are not art.

Most art responds to the market; that's part of what allows it to define culture. At the same time, there are plenty of games that don't cater to the market. Indie games have made their own way for a very, very long time, and only recently have gained the type of mainstream popularity that's allowed them to compete with big-budget titles.

Consider Cave Story. It's a beautiful game that is unabashedly "video gamey", but the entire thing was constructed from the ground up by one man. Its story has high points, low points, comedy, tragedy. Its characters are some of the most memorable I've known in any medium.

Again, one person is responsible for this. He wasn't responding to the market, just making art. And it hasn't lost its merit as it has become popular.

I do have to wonder why responding to the market makes it less artful, though. Many of the great historical works of art were made on commission, and whole artistic movements (not just in painting and sculpting, but in music, movies, etc.) built on popular trends.

 

[Ronin]

I like to call video games that speak to my heart pieces of art. Skyward Sword jumps to the forefront of my mind as I try to reminisce games that have done just that. It portrays so much human emotion and character development that I relate to very well. In my opinion it's the best Zelda title to carry this through. Twilight Princess has its moments of eliciting comparable passion, but pales to the art that is Skyward Sword. I'm rather affected still by some of the scenes in SS, such as the one point where Link finally catches up to Zelda. They want so badly to be reunited, yet fate is a barrier that comes between that, and the curtain can only be lifted once certain segments in their roles have been played. That's not only art, but a masterpiece--pure, melodic music.

As a whole this varies with how humans perceive art, what they define it to be. It can be brought into their own words through the expression that the game(s) give off. Several elements would need to contribute toward this. The dialogue communicates the emotion of the characters; the story tells of their failures, obstructions, and victories; the characters exhibit their personal development throughout the story; and so on. This is what speaks to me, allows me to interpret works of art as they are, or lack as art, by how they're produced.

 

[M. Bulteau]

Yes, because yes.

SHUT UP.

 

[Koosholts]

Everyone with the exception of Berlioz perhaps (>.>) made excellent comments and rebuddles to my idea of why I don't think mainstream video games are not art. I'd like everybody here who is focusing on my post to look at two things. One, I never said video games could never be art, and two, make sure to base your arguments on my definition of art, not yours.

@Random Person: I believe that the only way a group of people can work together on a piece of work and it still be considered art is if the entire group had the same ideas when working on the project. For example, I love to draw. What I draw is based on how I'm feeling at that specific time, what's going on around me in my enviornment, etc. I'm not basing what I draw on any other peoples opinions but my own. This makes it my work, my work of art. Remember that my definition was when a human being performs a specific action that expresses his emotions, views, etc. I'm expressing how I feel at the given time, not anyone else. If my mother came into my room and told me not to draw what I was working on but something else, would it still be considered art then based on my definition? No, it wouldn't. Now that my mom has influenced my drawing it is not art because it doesn't reflect my feelings properly. The only exception is, like I said, if a group of people worked on it together towards the same exact goal. You could argue that Nintendo all has a goal in mind to make their product to the best of its capabilities, but they'll make it so that the majority of the people who are buying the game will be pleased with it. Therefore they are not reflecting there own views and styles of the game but what they think will be best for the community that will buy it. There is outside influences such as the general public and internal arguments over the several creators of the game for it to be considered art based on my definition. They would all have to agree on the same idea and it would have to reflect only what they wanted in that game.

In your last bit, you say that characters are what they are because they are representing something. I totally agree with this statement. However, do you think they are represented they way they are because that's how everybody wanted the way Link to look (I'm going to use Zelda references a lot), or because that's how the Zelda community expects Link to look. Link is always portrayed as the hero because that's how we have known to grow and love him as a character, and Zelda is supposed to be the "damsel in distress." What if, though, Miyamoto gets diagnosed with severe depression and feels gloomy constantly all of a sudden? If Zelda really was his work of art, again based on my definition, he would more then likley make a video game where Link fails to save the day and Zelda dies. We all know that would enver happen because he has to conform his ideas based on the community who he's selling the game to and he has to cooperate with other coworkers who work on the game. If it truly was his work of art, he would have free will over what to do with the game.

And no, don't worry, you didn't seem like you were attacking me at all . I like a good argument just as much as you do!

@A Link In Time: First off, I urge you to read my definition more carefully. Yes, they express all the things I've stated. But does one person or a group of people all express those same emotions in the same way? Perhaps the majority were feeling happy and that's why they created a cell - shaded, vibrant WW instead of a darkened MM. My argument isn't baseless because not one person or a group of people express their emotions in the same exact way through a video game because of reasons I already listed above to Random Person.

At your second part, again read what I said. Did I say no, they're not works of art? No, I didn't. I said they are not right now but they have the potential to be. If sole creator creates a game with his own vision in mind with no regard to the general public then yes, it's his work of art.

At your third part, yes they do experiment, but like you said, people still buy them. Nintendo knows that they have such loyal fans that no matter what they make usually people will buy them and try them out. Nintendo's goal is to make money and you can't deny that. They are not Santa Claus freely handing out games, they are a business, and their goal is to make money.

@Hanyou: It might help you to know that I don't consider movies an art either. Everything else you listed I do. The difference between video games and movies with everything else you listed is that they create what they create to sell to other people and make money. Artists who write music express their feelings through lyrics in a song and authors express their imagination through the creative storys they write. Yes, they do sell their products as well, but most didn't make the art that they made with the intention of selling it. Song writers and authors sell their product to spread there ideas, feelings, and morals to other people where as movies and video games are made to be sold and make a profit out of. Yes, there are many hidden emotions and feelings in Zelda games but those weren't the feelings and emotions of a specific person or creator. They were made to make a really good story that people will get hooked onto so that they will buy their games. This goes true for movies too.

About indie games and games that don't cater to the market, look at what I originally said a little bit closer. I stated that I don't think video games are art but they certainly have the potential to be. If money was no object in the world and people made video games to spread their ideas and feelings just like authors do books and songwriters do songs then they most certainly would be works of art. However, this is not the case. Like I told ALIT they are businesses and their goal is to sell their product first, and put there ideas and feelings of what the game portrays last. The video game you mentioned, that would be consider his work of art.

Well, that's the last of the people who directly commented on what I said. I'm not one of the best writers by any means so I hope I organized this well enough so that none of you get lost in what I'm trying to get across. Remember that my opinion is just that, my opinion, and make sure when reading what I said think of it from my point of view and my definition of art. Please feel free to rebuddle everything I said above because like I said before, I love a good argument!

 

[Random Person]

Please feel free to rebuddle everything I said above because like I said before, I love a good argument!

Okay then, I will . There are a lot of things I want to address, but just so I don't get too scrambled I will stick on this topic. Maybe I missed it, but I failed to see you address the issue of video-games (and movies would count here as well) and their goal not being art. The intention of video-games (and movies) is to entertain the masses. Thus, if you have other intentions that you are trying to get out, does putting your intention to entertain over others make it not art? For example, lets say hypothetically (OH EM GOODNESS I HATE HYPOTHETICALLY) that the purpose of Link was to show a complete symbol of a fearless hero (I'm not saying they did this). Hypothetically, Nintendo could have put a full adult buffed up male but realized that their intention of showing a fearless hero was colliding with their intention for the game to please audiences because not everyone can relate to a full adult buffed up male. So, they turned the buffed up male character into a lean boy who gets caught up in adventures(because we've all been kids before). Now, in this hypothetical scenario (seriously, I hate hypothetical) Nintendo put their intention to have the game sell better above their intention to demonstrate a fearless hero. Does that make it not art? Not to mention, the act of getting qualities for a game to sell, IMO, is an art itself. In the example I gave, in order to sell the game, Nintendo had to make a character more relateable to their audience which means they had to rethink their structure on that character. Is that not art?

I guess to sum up this part of the argument is that I don't think that if the intention of something is to sell, then that keeps it from being art. In order for something to sell, its creators have to think deeply about the subject and construct ways for the piece of work to sell. They have to think about how a hero can be more likeable, a villain more unlikeable, a situation more pleasing and less pleasing, etc. If the intention of the creator is for the object to please others, then that is the idea which they are trying to express. (Which is what you have defined as art). They want to express a game that is pleasing to a general audience even if it disagrees with some of their other ideas.

 

[guapo2003]

I believe that they are because it takes time and patience to create on same thing as if you were drawing a picture of whatever else.

 

[toonlink]

I believe certain video games are art because the quality determines if it is art or not. I am not going to post a list of those for I do not wish to insult anyone.

 

[GanonSlayr]

That would depend. The music and art in the video games can be art, but not the game itself. For example, the art style and music in Muramasa: the Demon Blade could be art. The art style and the music S:S&SEP could be art, but not the game itself.