The debate over whether video games are art has extended beyond the classroom into the mainstream, with such greats as Robert Ebert and Stephen Spielburg weighing in their opinions on the matter. So I'll throw my own into the ring and see how it stacks up.
First off all, we're just going to gloss over the question of what is art. That's a conversation which has gone on for thousands of years and which I don't want to weigh in on. Yet. I'm just going to assume that if you're here with me, we can agree on some basics like the fact that there is art, and it's something separate from mere entertainment. I'm also going to assume you read my post from yesterday. If not, then click on yesterday and you can go read it. This will help in the coming discussion.
So then, let's crack some knuckles and begin.
Can video games be art? I'm going to go ahead and say yes, and here's why. Similar to architecture which also faced an uphill battle to obtain legitimacy as art, video games have certain rules they must follow (they must be playable), they serve a multitude of functions, and people create them. I think we can all agree on that. And if someone is creating them, if they are considering rules while creating them, and so long as the game lives up to the number one rule, then we can call it art, I should think.
But here's where it gets tricky. What do we need to consider in legitimizing the artistic nature of a video game?
Do we focus only on plot? If that's the case, then it seems like all the video games I mentioned yesterday which don't feature heavy plots or any at all don't fit our artistic category. Nor would modern games which seek to emulate those games. But if you look at current discussions you'll often see the old greats included in people's list of artistic video games.
In which case is it innovative game play that makes them art? Well if that's the case aren't we looking at games more as something akin to a building? Something which might be visually appealing but which also must conform to certain functional ideals as well? If that is the case then do we look at a game like Bioshock Infinite which is simply repeating the old gameplay elements of its predecesors and negate its artistic integrity because it's not trying to think outside of the box? What about the RPG genre which tends to focus on plot over gameplay innovation? And does that mean games which are not utilizing the technology of the times are simply not art?
Speaking of art what about the visuals? Visuals have been an integral part of not only gameplay, but also storytelling in games. Do we negate the pretty visuals of newer games in favor of older styles which serve a specific purpose? Or celebrate the newer visuals and downplay any game which does not appeal to our visual senses? Can I possibly say visual a few more times?!
The problem with video games as art is that they are a combination of mediums, a problem shared by film as well. Speaking of film, this guy right here is a friend of mine and editing is his game so if you are interested in seeing some interesting film work, go check him out. Shameless friend plug. Anyways, back to my point. Film contains visuals, music, editing, and I'm sure a lot of other things that I don't know about because I haven't studied film. It's easy when we just talk about writing as words, art as pictures, and music as sounds, but when we start combining things where do we draw the line? Do all of the things need to be great or can a soundtrack carry a movie. Or a game?
All interesting questions. Without exploring them let me just try to define how I view video games as art. And that is the same way I define anything as art. Does it move me?
One of the interesting emotions that video games can draw from us is frustration. Modern games like Dark Souls, or the good old games like classic Mario or Pac Man, or...the list goes on and on, but they were challenging, something that goes hand in hand with so called high art. Meanwhile we have games which visually push the limits and can downright be described as beautiful. Skyrim and Fallout are two examples which come to mind, due to the sheer immensity of the landscapes they present.
There are games which create such engrossing atmospheres that we become transfixed. Shadows of the Colossus gets thrown around a lot as a video game which is art and it deserves the claim. Shadows presents a bleak world which tells its story with all of two cut scenes, and which challenges in game play as well. Survival Horror games do a better job of being scary then most horror movies, and often contain complex stories which play out alongside the descension into almost literal madness. And as I mentioned yesterday, the plots of some of the RPG's out there rival novels in their complexity. Just another element to be considered.
As is my way with these posts, I could go on and on, but what I'm essentially getting at is that there are no easy answers for what makes video games art because there is too much at work to narrow down any one thing. Which makes the ultimate decision about whether video games are art or not up to the only person who it should matter to.
You.
First off all, we're just going to gloss over the question of what is art. That's a conversation which has gone on for thousands of years and which I don't want to weigh in on. Yet. I'm just going to assume that if you're here with me, we can agree on some basics like the fact that there is art, and it's something separate from mere entertainment. I'm also going to assume you read my post from yesterday. If not, then click on yesterday and you can go read it. This will help in the coming discussion.
So then, let's crack some knuckles and begin.
Can video games be art? I'm going to go ahead and say yes, and here's why. Similar to architecture which also faced an uphill battle to obtain legitimacy as art, video games have certain rules they must follow (they must be playable), they serve a multitude of functions, and people create them. I think we can all agree on that. And if someone is creating them, if they are considering rules while creating them, and so long as the game lives up to the number one rule, then we can call it art, I should think.
But here's where it gets tricky. What do we need to consider in legitimizing the artistic nature of a video game?
Do we focus only on plot? If that's the case, then it seems like all the video games I mentioned yesterday which don't feature heavy plots or any at all don't fit our artistic category. Nor would modern games which seek to emulate those games. But if you look at current discussions you'll often see the old greats included in people's list of artistic video games.
In which case is it innovative game play that makes them art? Well if that's the case aren't we looking at games more as something akin to a building? Something which might be visually appealing but which also must conform to certain functional ideals as well? If that is the case then do we look at a game like Bioshock Infinite which is simply repeating the old gameplay elements of its predecesors and negate its artistic integrity because it's not trying to think outside of the box? What about the RPG genre which tends to focus on plot over gameplay innovation? And does that mean games which are not utilizing the technology of the times are simply not art?
Speaking of art what about the visuals? Visuals have been an integral part of not only gameplay, but also storytelling in games. Do we negate the pretty visuals of newer games in favor of older styles which serve a specific purpose? Or celebrate the newer visuals and downplay any game which does not appeal to our visual senses? Can I possibly say visual a few more times?!
The problem with video games as art is that they are a combination of mediums, a problem shared by film as well. Speaking of film, this guy right here is a friend of mine and editing is his game so if you are interested in seeing some interesting film work, go check him out. Shameless friend plug. Anyways, back to my point. Film contains visuals, music, editing, and I'm sure a lot of other things that I don't know about because I haven't studied film. It's easy when we just talk about writing as words, art as pictures, and music as sounds, but when we start combining things where do we draw the line? Do all of the things need to be great or can a soundtrack carry a movie. Or a game?
All interesting questions. Without exploring them let me just try to define how I view video games as art. And that is the same way I define anything as art. Does it move me?
One of the interesting emotions that video games can draw from us is frustration. Modern games like Dark Souls, or the good old games like classic Mario or Pac Man, or...the list goes on and on, but they were challenging, something that goes hand in hand with so called high art. Meanwhile we have games which visually push the limits and can downright be described as beautiful. Skyrim and Fallout are two examples which come to mind, due to the sheer immensity of the landscapes they present.
There are games which create such engrossing atmospheres that we become transfixed. Shadows of the Colossus gets thrown around a lot as a video game which is art and it deserves the claim. Shadows presents a bleak world which tells its story with all of two cut scenes, and which challenges in game play as well. Survival Horror games do a better job of being scary then most horror movies, and often contain complex stories which play out alongside the descension into almost literal madness. And as I mentioned yesterday, the plots of some of the RPG's out there rival novels in their complexity. Just another element to be considered.
As is my way with these posts, I could go on and on, but what I'm essentially getting at is that there are no easy answers for what makes video games art because there is too much at work to narrow down any one thing. Which makes the ultimate decision about whether video games are art or not up to the only person who it should matter to.
You.
No comments:
Post a Comment