Are Video Games Art?

So I was reading through my recent issue of Play magazine and they had an article about the recent Hollywood and Games conference, basically it's a conference to build better relations between the two forms of media. One of the things the article brings up is an old Roger Ebert quote where he basically says that games can never be considered art. This also reminds me that Hideo Kojima had made a similiar comment in another article I have from a year ago.

So the question stands... Can videogames be considered art?

To a certain extent they can. One can easily point out the many things that already ARE considered art that are commonly put into a video game. Music, Character Design, and things like that. However, Video Games are also a business. They have to design the game in a certain way most of the time to ensure sales, whereas with music or paintings, while affected by other people's work, it is closer in a way of inspiration than copying.

Not only that, but one can't simply say that all Video Games are art, as they are assigned to genre's not by their style, but by the way they are played. True advancements in a Video Game series normally has to do with an added gameplay element, rather than an advancement in the story, a new idea for the sound, and things of that type. Video games simply evolve differently than with Music, Paintings, and other kinds of art.

I'd say Video Games are about as much as Art as movies.

I consider games art, I find them far more inspiring and thought provoking than most of the crap artists we study in college.

well we can consider FMVs art... but not all games are art... actually very few can be art... But what am I saying? These day any crap can be art! :rolleyes2

Artstyle of the games graphics could definetly be considered art.

I refer you to: http://forums.eyesonff.com/writers-c...ideogames.html

If films, books, and abstract sculptures made of used tuna fish containers can be considered art, then I don't see why video games cannot.

The people that make video games are very clever and good at what they do, some people would say that it's a science and therefore cannot be considered an art, but that's just arrogant.

Video games never cease to impress me with the stories, graphical effects and such. So, I do think they should be considered an art form... :D

To make a great game is as much talent and creativity as making a great movie, album, or painting. To say that some can't be considered art just because they aren't that good, or made to make money is the same as saying a song can't be art just because it sucks. Regardless of the quality, they're still art. If anything, I think video games would take more creative talent to bring all of the art elements together to form a cohesive whole than many other artistic mediums.

Of course. If carving, painting and creating a whole lot of other things is considered to be art, so are the video games.

Let alone the fact that the environments in the modern RPGs, best example STALKER, are simply breathtaking.

i would say that most of the elements we see when we play a game are art. the visuals, music/sound/voice acting, story, etc...which would lead me to believe that the amalgamation of those elements should also be considered as such.

The general consensus is that movies are art. Well, if movies are art, so are video games. Though I like to see art done by a single person and not by a whole bunch of people working on separate parts and putting them together.

So, yeah. Each particular aspect of a video game or movie (music, character design, etc.) is art. You put all the artwork together, and you have a finished product.

Video games are easily thought of as art by me

Videogame production is not art, but it is possible to produce an artistic videogame.

Games are art in the same way that movies are art. Most aren't very good from an artistic standpoint, but some are. Like Killer 7.

I really think it is. If they aren't, where does the line of art and not art start and end? If a painting is art, what if it now plays music? Is it still art? What if it changes and moves? What if it has acting? Now it's like a movie, which is still considered art. What about when you have to press a button to make it work, making it interactive? Is it still art now? I don't get why the cut-off happens when it's made for a game console.

Animators in 3-D movies like Pixar are considered artists, but the team working on Final Fantasy game CG movies aren't. Both are in a business out to make money, so what's the difference? Besides, somebody painting or writing a book doesn't do it to be poor and have nobody see or read it either; that's their job and they need it to support them, too. Nobody makes a painting because they don't want it to be seen at least by someone, and nobody makes a game because they don't want it to be played. I don't see any differences here.

Of course, being "art" doesn't make it good or give it originality or merits automatically. Some will be better then others. But it still falls under the idea of "art" as far as I'm concerned.

Art can be defined as the physical form of human creativity, yes? Games do generally fall into that category. There are even games where the user's creativity plays a large part in what goes on.

Video Games still have the stigma of being seen as something that kids and losers do to waste their time. 'They' won't dare to label such a thing as 'art' even when presented with contrary evidence. Beyond that, I think the fact that games are interactive serve as a barrier to entry into the abstractive definition of art.

We'll have to wait until the generations shift. When people who grew up in a videogame environment are in positions of power, this kind of thing won't be a debate anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roto13

Games are art in the same way that movies are art. Most aren't very good from an artistic standpoint, but some are. Like Killer 7.

---

Indeed. There are plenty of unbelievably crap games out there, with little to no artistic or creative merit, but that's true of other 'artistic' genres as well.
As an example, I watched the film Kung Pow: Enter the Fist the other day. If someone was arguing that 'motion pictures are not art', then this would be extremely effective supporting evidence. However, it doesn't change the fact that movies like To Kill a Mockingbird and The Matrix exist as well. Similarly, there are some sculptors who make sculptures out of poo. Quite literally, their works are piles of crap. Nonetheless, sculpture remains a recognised and respected artistic medium.

When Roger Ebert declares video games incapable of being art, he's coming from a biased and self-serving perspective. Chances are he's never played a video game, and is only responding to stereotypical preconceptions; he's likely influenced by all the atrocious game-based movies he's reviewed in his time.

The idea of video games having depth, literary quality, and basically anything other than gratuitous violence is still largely unknown to the general masses. I'd guess that accessibility is a problem. Anyone can watch a movie, but to play a game requires time, effort and expense - something people won't commit to on a whim. Besides, for every Metal Gear Solid and Shadow of the Colossus, there are at least a couple hundred games like Blast Force Omega Max: Ultimate Incendiary or Total Bikini Wrasslin Jamboree' Custard Edition.

What does Roger Ebert know? He only has half a face now.

Ebert is totally biased against the game industry. He gave 300 four stars, but if it was based off a game instead of a graphic novel, I guarantee that would have drastically changed.

When people say that something isn't art they're holding an imaginary quality against an imaginary bar.

Art is a result of human action, not how 'good' something is.

The general use of the word 'art' is one that I am wholly against.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ceej

Though I like to see art done by a single person and not by a whole bunch of people working on separate parts and putting them together.

---

I believe that we are entering a new period of an art era,where what you just described will be the norm.The myth of the lone artist who produces masterpieces all by himself starts to fade slowly.

Personally i think video games are the highest artform man ever created.The key point to that is of course the users interactivity which deferiates it from other passive artforms.The player/user immerses in a creativity world made by a collection of artists (programmers,3D artists,game designers,musicians,writers,concept artists) and he/she is free to discover and play it as he wishes.

I agree with JKTrix when he says that we have to wait until the generations shift.Todays majority of art critics and art historians are constituted by old people who are used in seeing art in galleries,exhibitons and museums and they cannot accept (or want to accept) that something which is beyond their areas of knowledge (and power) can be considered art.They refuse to consider that something which is targetted to a mass market can have artistic merits.
As with movies,i consider all games as art.
With that said,of course there is and always have been good and bad art.

I think games can be as much art as films, music and literature can be, if not more. After all, games today have all of the aforementioned in one. Maybe even code and AI scripts could be considered art? Of course, as earlier stated, art does not equal quality, and far from all games have a considerable amount of artistic merit. This makes no difference though, after all, far from all photos, paintings, music and books are good either.

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

I definitely consider video games to be an art form: a very involving art form demanding of the creators. The best games have good controls, music, graphics, characters designed ingeniously with a lot of personality to boot, an enjoyable story etc. and all these things require creativity, patience and ingenuity to make well - much like any other art form.

I think they are an evolution, partially, of storytelling. :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mirage

Maybe even code and AI scripts could be considered art?

---

Definitely. Games like Half-Life 2 and S.T.A.L.K.E.R. would not have been as amazing if they weren't built on such powerful engines - Source and X-Ray. They build the buildings, render the beautiful lighting effects and play the music and sounds that makes the game come alive. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

---

That's like saying not all music is art. As the end result of a creative process, they are all art, whether you like to think so or not. As said before though, that doesn't mean it's all good. Whether or not something is good though has no bearing on whether or not it's art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

---

That's like saying not all music is art. As the end result of a creative process, they are all art, whether you like to think so or not. As said before though, that doesn't mean it's all good. Whether or not something is good though has no bearing on whether or not it's art.

---

Thank you. I agree wholly. But people tend to have a positive connotation when they hear the word "art" and think of the Mona Lisa, Paradise Lost, and the Statue of Zeus, and it seems to many to be tacky to use the same word to describe those as to describe Fight Night, Transformers, and Harry Potter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vivi22

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rocket Edge

Of course it can be, thats not saying all are, though.

---

That's like saying not all music is art. As the end result of a creative process, they are all art, whether you like to think so or not. As said before though, that doesn't mean it's all good. Whether or not something is good though has no bearing on whether or not it's art.

---

Thank you. I agree wholly. But people tend to have a positive connotation when they hear the word "art" and think of the Mona Lisa, Paradise Lost, and the Statue of Zeus, and it seems to many to be tacky to use the same word to describe those as to describe Fight Night, Transformers, and Harry Potter.

---

I know that. I mean't 'in my own opinion'. Some games can be complete crap while others (like Final Fantasy) can be beautiful, in my eyes.

Theater was originally considered to be a past time of the lower classes. And movies, for a time after they became widespread, were seen as the same - no class or respectability in them whatsoever.

You'd think a guy like Ebert, of all people, would be savvy to this little piece of movie history and be a little more objective to this industry which just emerged into the mainstream but a few years ago.

Yes.

Wow, this has turned into a nice discussion with alot of good comments. :)

I feel I should elaborate, since the article actually states Ebert's reasoning. Though I feel many of you have actually touched upon why this statement is changing (even though you probably didn't realize it;) )

Ebert's main point is that art cannot be malleable or changing. Once the product is finished, it can never change. So basically, he's hitting it with a technicality since the very interactive nature of gaming prevents it from being consistant. Basically, no matter how amny time you read a book, watch a movie, witness a play, or listen to music; the four art forms never change. In a videogame, it's always slightly different when you play through it. The fact that you can fail and end the game prematurely becomes a factor.

Personally, I feel the medium of art is constantly changing and being redefined so I feel his definition will become obsolete in a few years;)

I think yes because dosen't it envolve art to make the characters and everything.

Is that a question or a statement?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Wow, this has turned into a nice discussion with alot of good comments. :)

I feel I should elaborate, since the article actually states Ebert's reasoning. Though I feel many of you have actually touched upon why this statement is changing (even though you probably didn't realize it;) )

Ebert's main point is that art cannot be malleable or changing. Once the product is finished, it can never change. So basically, he's hitting it with a technicality since the very interactive nature of gaming prevents it from being consistant. Basically, no matter how amny time you read a book, watch a movie, witness a play, or listen to music; the four art forms never change. In a videogame, it's always slightly different when you play through it. The fact that you can fail and end the game prematurely becomes a factor.

Personally, I feel the medium of art is constantly changing and being redefined so I feel his definition will become obsolete in a few years;)

---

He's never seen a moving sculpture, I take it? They change all the time. the animal shapes carved from living bushes still grow.

It gets infuriating when all the 'grown-ups' around keep telling you that video games are just a stage and that I'll grow out of it. I didn't see them grow out of movies or books, though...

Anyway. Are video games art? I define art a bit diferently than other people around here. Artists create art under the influence of certain feelings. Through art, they want to show the world a piece of themselves. What I mean is that not all that glitters is gold. A picture can be beautifully done, appear real an so on, but that doesn't necessarily make it art. Sometimes a, I dunno, toilet seat, can express more. See, being somewhat an artist myself, I think that artists don't think about money. It's about something different. See, I dunno how, i.g. Kill Bill can be art (unless Tarantino wanted to show the world what bloody visions lay on the bottom of his soul). Not every piece of music is art, same as not every sculpture, painting or music is art. IMO, some videogames can be considered art. It actually depends on whether it's just 'cool' or whether it carries some more complex emotional sensations.

Like most things in life, the concept of Art is subjective. What they consider Art down the Tate Modern for example I would call rubbish. On the other hand I would call the works of Fumito Ueda Art. Take for example film. The likes of Schindler's List or Apocalypse Now or The Godfather can be considered Art. American Pie: The Roadtrip or Biker Bikini Bandits From Space probably won't be. In that sense for every Ico there's a Monster Truck Rally Four. For every 2001: A Spacy Odeyssey's there a Rob Sneider film. For every Van Gough there's someone's unmade bed. I think it's a bit critical to say games can never be Art because the very defintion of Art itself is very much open to interpretation. To my mind saying games can never be an artform is essentially demoting it to an intellectual level of beating rocks on the floor or snapping branches in half.

It's an Art. You express your feelings through playing the game. If your feel crappy then you play like dung. If you're on an high, then you play fantastically.

True art is what's created without hunger for money; so any game that's been produced out of pure passion can be considered art.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter_20

True art is what's created without hunger for money; so any game that's been produced out of pure passion can be considered art.

---

Art does not require any specific motivations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hazzard

It's an Art. You express your feelings through playing the game. If your feel crappy then you play like dung. If you're on an high, then you play fantastically.

---

Mm, but thats really playing a game as an art, rather than the whole game itself untouched being an art.

Brilliant Thread.

And the answer is - there is no universal answer. Yes, I absolute believe some video games to be art. Especially the franchise of this forum - Final Fantasy. Movies, music, and stories are all considered "art", yes? So why wouldn't a medium that combines all of these elements into a greater experience be considered art?

At the same time, not all games are art, and I also believe that not all movies and music is art either. Alot of it is trash, and is more of a science than an art. Especially when you look at the music/movie industry today, their entire process of creating their products. It's more like drug companies who combine certain elements to have a certain desired effect, and a certain desired commercial response from the market. Same with games.

If you read/view some Sakaguchi interviews you'll see what i'm talking about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LunarWeaver

Ebert is totally biased against the game industry.

---

He's a fossil. Someone said the same about his beloved movies, 80+ years ago :p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maxico

Art is a result of human action, not how 'good' something is.

---

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

IMHO, creative things done with care and aiming for perfection are art, no matter what medium

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Ebert's main point is that art cannot be malleable or changing.

---

A technicality if I ever saw one. I think he is a fossil that has not realized art is constantly evolving with it's creators, we the artists and art fans.

We all pretty much agree though it's due mostly to our bias opinion really (to be fair, you don't ask a question like this in a video gaming forum) So here's something to think about then.

Are video games an art unto themselves or can one seriously compare games like Ico, the Final Fantasy series, and Zelda to the likes of artistic creations like the Mona Lisa, Mozart's Requiem, and Casablanca? Why or Why Not? Also, should it even be fair to compare art from different mediums?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Are video games an art unto themselves or can one seriously compare games like Ico, the Final Fantasy series, and Zelda to the likes of artistic creations like the Mona Lisa, Mozart's Requiem, and Casablanca? Why or Why Not? Also, should it even be fair to compare art from different mediums?

---

No,you can't compare them not because they are 2 different mediums but because they belong in completely different periods of history.
It's like trying to compare a 500 b.c. Spartan warrior with a contemporary soldier.It's impossible.

To fully understand and appreciate something,you must be aware of the time period it was produced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno

Ebert's main point is that art cannot be malleable or changing.

---

No, but the experience can be. One person's experience listening to a classical composition may invoke certain grandiose images where another's may be a minimalist vision. One person watching Casablanca may be bored the first time, but many years later may find himself riveted.

The experience of art is a very dynamic thing which very seldom do two people share the same emotions towards. Video games are designed by nature to have many set things in them. One may argue about how a certain one has more of a non-linear approach, but in the end, someone still designed it with a particular goal in mind. It's only the user's experience with the game that ever makes it any different or changing.

Shakespeare was lowbrow once. Same for Mozart. Who knows, in 200 years we can have schools teaching the "classics" such as Zelda or Final Fantasy

Maybe it's easier to answer if video games are art, looking at the greatest things in life...or greatest video game list!