[General Discussion] Games as Art

So, there's this article on IGN listing the top 10 games that would best hold the phrase "games are a form of art" in a argument.

I considered making a thread about it just to get general GFF opinions regarding the issue, but I wasn't until I read some of the posts from IGN-goers on the bottom of the second page. "Games have art in them but are not art", "Art implies an earnest connection between the work and its audience, and it relies on the emotional and interpretive energy of its audience to perpetuate its power," and so forth.

That first quote is simple but kinda true. Games do have a ton of art in them -- hell, character art is sometimes a factor for me when I go buy a game. I was first drawn to Ar Tonelico simply because the character art was well done and attention-grabbing. Well-drawn cover art is something that draws a person's attention, whereas it otherwise might have been overlooked completely.

On the other hand, the second quote, taken from a different poster, can be construed in both manners. The poster had said in that same statement he agreed with Roger Ebert, whose stance was "games are not art." However, there are countless titles where an "earnest connection between the work and its audience" exists, and almost every RPG to at least some degree "relies on the emotional and interpretive energy of its audience to perpetuate its power."

I would argue that yes, games are art, a different kind of art. To some, the word "art" implies paintings and sculptures, and that is a very limited view of what art is. In a broad sense, art an expression of creativity and imagination enhanced with inherent meaning; art doesn't exist simply to exist. The creator has some reason for creating art, and that reason is poured into the design., thus art exists for a purpose -- to convey meaning.

I don't think it's a point even worth arguing that games convey meaning and emotions. Games inspire all sorts of emotions; fear, anxiety, suspense, sadness, admiration, joy, etc. Games also produce meaning, especially in open-ended, free-roaming ones like the Elder Scrolls series, Jade Empire, and even the Grand Theft Auto series. So if games are able to express meaning and inspire emotion just as, say, the Statue of David or the Mona Lisa, shouldn't games be considered art?

For those who don't care to read IGN's list, I'll list it for you. Top 10 Games As Art:

10: Out of this World
9: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
8: Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty
7: Grim Fandango
6: Shadow of the Colossus
5: Half-Life 2
4: Resident Evil 4
3: Okami
2: Electroplankton
1: Final Fantasy VII

Yes, some of the posters griped about Final Fantasy VII's top spot. And yes, ICO was something of a "honorable mention" among posters.

Anyway, I'd like to hear the thoughts of GFFers regarding games as an art form. I realize the opinion might be slightly biased, but oh well. We'll see in the pending discussion.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

I knew posting that list was a bad idea. Takes too much attention away from the actual topic at hand, which is not to discuss why those games are on the list, but games in general.

In any case, not to call you out GB, but something you said struck me. You'd call games creative, and I'd venture that you'd say the same about art. So if games are creative and art is creative, what's the difference?

That's part of defining what "art" is, and where this distinction between games and art lies. Both are creative outlets of expression, both require a degree of imagination and both evoke emotions in their viewers.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Link to a decent article printed a couple years ago regarding Ebert's claim to games never being considered art. Here it is.

Quote:

There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.

However, he fails to consider RPGs*, where players are led on to the next part of the game by no one other than the script writer, aka the author. Seems like kind of a close-minded thing to say for a critic of his standing.

*Of course, Elder Scrolls is omitted from that phrase, being that is in the genre-definition of "player choice" among RPGs.

GB: Point taken regarding creativity. But even video games can act as a medium for artistic creation and imagination. They're just a different medium for expressing the definition of art than we're conceptually used to.

Take Okami, for example. One look at Okami and the first thing I think of is "art". Okami happens to be a form of moving art, not terribly different from the very same "serious film" Ebert talks about. And Okami is a video game that I believe successfully acts as an artistic medium, in the same manner Shadow of the Colossus and even Final Fantasy VII.

A general rule for art is that it evokes emotion, going back to a point I made earlier. Quite frankly, any good game is capable of evoking emotions. Anything form a sports sim to an RPG and even puzzle games are capable of creating emotion, but I wouldn't consider Madden '08 art. I would, however, consider FF7 art because it's the type of emotion involved -- the connection you build with the characters, the story, and your personal desire to see it through to the end. That kind of emotion is powerful, no less than staring down the Mona Lisa in some respects.

Last Minute Thought: After reading a bit more of that article I linked, there's one thing that really bothers me. A quote from Ebert, "But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art." To me, it sounds like he's limiting the type of people who can respect something as art to those who don't play video games. A dichotomy between 1.) those who are capable of viewing art (non-gamers) and 2.) those who play video games. That statement of his comes off as a little pompous; his declaration of the nature of video games being the root of why games could never be considered art. Those that play them aren't sophisticated enough to understand, view, and appreciate art. Maybe I read too much into it, but that was first impression.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Unless the cost of game development goes down significantly, we're going to be faced with very little of what can be considered "good art."

As with all forms of art, there is generic "Hey it's a painting" and "Wow, that's a masterpiece!" I don't think of art in the scope that everything must be the equivalent of the Statue of David or Mona Lisa, and the same concept applies to games. There will be games that stand out as masterpieces among a collection of generic games.

But you're right. Rising development costs will cause developers to create a final product that may be slightly shy of a masterpiece in favor of low cost. That's a shame.

How ya doing, buddy?