Are Video Games Art?

[Geoff the Medio]

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04 ... e_art.html

Either way, why?

Edit: Follow up to original post: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07 ... _lawn.html /Edit

[pd]

I think any form of creation, communication and expression can be considered art. It doesn't even matter how good a certain "piece" is perceived, because there is no barrier that needs to be crossed for something to become art. Video games are to some degree made of art in a traditional sense(music, sculpture, painting, writing/storytelling) but programming and the design itself can also be considered art IMO. A game is created from nothing, there's communication(designer->programmer->machine->player) and obviously there's also expression in how every person involved is approaching things. What's really fascinating is, that for the first time, the observer becomes active(player) and is allowed to create, communicate and express himself. That begs the question, if every game(like chess) is art. To answer this I'd propose that it's not so much about the game itself, but about the creation, communication and expression that went into it. It's not the chess board and figures, that are art, but the development of the idea, the process that resulted in the finished game. In the same way, that it's not the dry paint on a canvas that is art, but it's idea behind it, the communication though it, etc.
Also, a player of game can be an artist if he's able to express himself using the game. It's not unusual to talk about great athletes like they were artists.


Some people might argue, that video games, are not art because they are produced commercially and the same thing actually happened with illustration. What people tend to forget is, that all master painters for example have been commercial artists(working for the church or the upper class most of the time) and yet in retrospect their work is considered art.
Video games are still an extremely young discipline. I like the analogy with cave painting in the TED a lot and I think it will probably just take a while before video games are generally considered art.

[eleazar]

Sure.

At the very minimum, a video game usually contains various other recognized arts, such as music, narrative, and visual arts.

[Thundax]

Video games are most definently art.

They should be considered one of the highest forms of it.

For many years architecture was considered the mother of all arts. This was not only because it was thought to have created the neccesity for painting and drawing, but because it incorporated all of the arts.

Video games are similar. They are not a single art, but, like architecture, they are formed with a compilation of many. Programming, 2D Visual, 3D visual, Scripting, Balancing, Music, Writing(Story Telling), and interfacing. In many ways, I would say video games incorporate more individual art forms than architecture does. That's debatable though.

[Xzex]

saying that Video Games are not art would be like telling Leonardo DaVinci he was an idiot.

I like to think of it this way, an Art is a form of expression for someone. a Game Programmer puts his/her feelings into a project and gives it life. you can't say that great architecture comes from a mundane architect.

[namehere]

yes yes yes its art!!!!

i saw this argument in an edition of gameinformer, i only read a few paragraphs before writing the guy off as "idiot looking for attention"

thank you pd and xzex for typing my opinion for me :P

though i have to disagree with the chicken scratch painting comparison, i would actually say its the opposite, video games are the amazing ceiling painting while simple paintings are the chicken scratches, games are extremely advanced art not only because they can include all sorts of forms of art within them, but because the curator actually interacts with it, the art of game forces the viewer, the player, to use their brains actively, it stretches the capabilities of thought rather than let you sit around staring at the painting while considering all the different possibilities of what the artist might have been thinking when they painted it, in all honesty i believe that many forms of art, paintings, literature, whatever, is not even influenced by emotion, they just make it cause they liked the idea, and here i have the support of the famous Tolken, author of the Lord of the rings and many other works, just read the foreword in the fellowship of the ring :P

to say that games are not art is to say that the mona lisa is just a random grease stain (i actually saw a video of a guy recreating it with hamburger grease stains, it was incredibly accurate from what i know......idk, you tell me :P)

[Geoff the Medio]

Followup to oringal post: http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07 ... _lawn.html