The most hoity toity, pretentious and elitist consumers of art (example being my made-up guest writer, N.C., Esq.) tend to claim that "Western Opera is the Highest Art Form", due to opera encompassing many artistic disciplines such as art, music, theater, dance, literature, whereas mere novels only encompass literature.
This snobby outlook is further helped by the fact that the majority of famous western operas are in Italian, some smattering in French, German, and only one that I can think of in English that's an opera standard, Hansel and Gretel. I can see N.C. putting on airs, quoting libretto in Italian.
Video games also encompass many art-forms including art, music, theater practice and theory, cinematography, photography, and literature. It also surpasses western opera in snobbery in that the majority of mainstream video games are available not just in major Western languages, but also in all the major African, Eastern, and Middle Eastern languages. So by the reasoning above, if opera is considered art, then video games should be considered art as well.
I will now present the major arguments I've read against video games as an art form. Roger Ebert appears to compile most of the arguments I've seen floating around the internet, so click on the link if you're interested in getting a general idea.
One argument stems around video games being made for purely commercial purposes, unlike "pure" art where the intrinsic purpose is to express oneself creatively, and to understand the world and human relationships. In other words, using this precise argument, J.S. Bach, Michelangelo, et al are NOT artists since all of their works have been commissioned. Further, Bach and Mozart also had decent salaries as Kappellmeister, God forbid.
This is a slap in the face of the many fans of video games who recreated and even improved on games such as Sonic, Metroid and Pokemon for free, such as Another Metroid 2 Remake, which appears better than the original (appears because I only looked at it, but not played it, but the original looked unappealing), and is an absolutely brilliant game.
These incredible individuals crafted the games out of their own passion, love, and desire to express their creative and technical abilities. Further, like so-called "true artists" they want to share their passion with others by posting links to their free games, and not for profit.
Using this reasoning, these video game developers are even more of a "pure" artist than Bach, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, et al, since they didn't even make a penny from their work. So this reasoning is clearly facetious.
There's one vague critique that I've read where the issue is that video games are created purely as a form of entertainment, and not the loftier "true artistic" goals of understanding the world and relationships. This doesn't make sense to me. Are we supposed to grimace from pain when we go to the movies or the opera (albeit a Wagnerian one I can see), clutching the sides of our armrests out of agony?
In fact, opera, considered the "Highest Art Form" among art snobs, was created specifically to entertain the masses, for hopeful profit. Opera then became a booming business when it became all the rage, in high demand, and hence commercially successful.
Verdi was basically a rock star back then and actually did crowd surfing. Again, there are the many gaming enthusiasts who coded video games because they want to express their vision and love of the medium, and not necessarily for entertaining others, or for profit.
However, even if video games were created purely as a means for profit and entertaining the "common masses" (as art snobs would put it) like opera was originally, saying that video games isn't art, is also saying that opera isn't either.
The next major argument is that video games have not achieved the level of quality of other fields in art, dance, literature, music and so forth. I think they have as represented by Chrono Trigger (interestingly it delves into Attachment Theories and Structural Family Therapy), Final Fantasy VII, Heavy Rain, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Tales of Berseria, The Last of Us, Ni No Kuni, Ori and the Blind Forest, amongst many others.
This has gotten to the point where there are video games studies in Universities. I can see many interpretations of Sephiroth in Final Fantasy VII being dissected out thoroughly by professors, Ph.D. candidates and students, as they do in critical literature studies, given his complex psychology and origin story.
Even if you don't find Sephiroth a complex character, video games will continue to advance. It's incredible how we went from the very beginning of video game creation such as Pong to the sophistication of The Last of Us in just 20 years. Even in the art world, you can't go from humans just starting to write for the first time ever, and then 20 years later, out pops a Shakespearean play. I can see video games becoming more and more complex psychologically as time goes on, and very quickly, faster than other art media.
Another argument I see floating around in the "Video Games Are Not Art Camp" is that you interact with the game in order for the game to proceed, and the objective is to win or beat the game. Art is supposed to be passively observed, per the arguments.
If this were true, then literature is not an art form, since reading is very interactive, and you can't experience or find out what happens at the end until you read the entire book, much like video games.
If anything, reading is even more demanding interactively than playing video games as you have to think through each sentence if the novel is a masterpiece. If you didn't finish reading the book, you haven't completed it, just like when you didn't finish a game. I really don't see anything "passive" about reading.
With this line of reasoning that art must be passive, theater, along with literature, can never be an art form as actors and audience members sometimes interact directly with each other, breaking the fourth wall.
I remember watching my first play as a child, there was one scene where the actor is asking if she should follow this sinister person into the woods, and as kids, we kept yelling "no" over and over again, the actor kept pretending to waffle, but then deciding to follow the person despite our protests. This is very much like video games where you interact with the game, but the game follows a set plot, or plots as in Witcher 3.
Upon reading Ebert's article, and the portion where he wonders why gamers always have to insist that video games are art, I can only say, "Salt!". Are we really led to believe that the vast majority of gamers are wringing their hands out of anxiety that video games are not generally considered an art form by the public? I can see myself, playing Dark Souls, being so upset with that idea, throwing my controller at the screen out of disgust. Give me a break!
Rather, it seems that this conversation tends to come up as an academic exercise, rather than gamers fretting about their video games not taking seriously. There is already the inclusion of video games studies in Universities, as mentioned before. In the media, one distinguished newspaper was in an uproar over games being exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art, but PBS was Team Video Games as Art.
It appears that whenever a new medium presents itself, it's not considered art, such as films and television shows, and I think this same trend is being applied to video games. Currently, video games may not be generally accepted by the public as an art form, but down the road, I feel that video games will be accepted as art like films are today.
So far, the above arguments encompass what I've read through Googling. What do you think, are video games art or not, and why?
The How of Happiness Review
This snobby outlook is further helped by the fact that the majority of famous western operas are in Italian, some smattering in French, German, and only one that I can think of in English that's an opera standard, Hansel and Gretel. I can see N.C. putting on airs, quoting libretto in Italian.
Video games also encompass many art-forms including art, music, theater practice and theory, cinematography, photography, and literature. It also surpasses western opera in snobbery in that the majority of mainstream video games are available not just in major Western languages, but also in all the major African, Eastern, and Middle Eastern languages. So by the reasoning above, if opera is considered art, then video games should be considered art as well.
I will now present the major arguments I've read against video games as an art form. Roger Ebert appears to compile most of the arguments I've seen floating around the internet, so click on the link if you're interested in getting a general idea.
One argument stems around video games being made for purely commercial purposes, unlike "pure" art where the intrinsic purpose is to express oneself creatively, and to understand the world and human relationships. In other words, using this precise argument, J.S. Bach, Michelangelo, et al are NOT artists since all of their works have been commissioned. Further, Bach and Mozart also had decent salaries as Kappellmeister, God forbid.
This is a slap in the face of the many fans of video games who recreated and even improved on games such as Sonic, Metroid and Pokemon for free, such as Another Metroid 2 Remake, which appears better than the original (appears because I only looked at it, but not played it, but the original looked unappealing), and is an absolutely brilliant game.
These incredible individuals crafted the games out of their own passion, love, and desire to express their creative and technical abilities. Further, like so-called "true artists" they want to share their passion with others by posting links to their free games, and not for profit.
Using this reasoning, these video game developers are even more of a "pure" artist than Bach, Michelangelo, Shakespeare, et al, since they didn't even make a penny from their work. So this reasoning is clearly facetious.
There's one vague critique that I've read where the issue is that video games are created purely as a form of entertainment, and not the loftier "true artistic" goals of understanding the world and relationships. This doesn't make sense to me. Are we supposed to grimace from pain when we go to the movies or the opera (albeit a Wagnerian one I can see), clutching the sides of our armrests out of agony?
In fact, opera, considered the "Highest Art Form" among art snobs, was created specifically to entertain the masses, for hopeful profit. Opera then became a booming business when it became all the rage, in high demand, and hence commercially successful.
Verdi was basically a rock star back then and actually did crowd surfing. Again, there are the many gaming enthusiasts who coded video games because they want to express their vision and love of the medium, and not necessarily for entertaining others, or for profit.
However, even if video games were created purely as a means for profit and entertaining the "common masses" (as art snobs would put it) like opera was originally, saying that video games isn't art, is also saying that opera isn't either.
This has gotten to the point where there are video games studies in Universities. I can see many interpretations of Sephiroth in Final Fantasy VII being dissected out thoroughly by professors, Ph.D. candidates and students, as they do in critical literature studies, given his complex psychology and origin story.
Even if you don't find Sephiroth a complex character, video games will continue to advance. It's incredible how we went from the very beginning of video game creation such as Pong to the sophistication of The Last of Us in just 20 years. Even in the art world, you can't go from humans just starting to write for the first time ever, and then 20 years later, out pops a Shakespearean play. I can see video games becoming more and more complex psychologically as time goes on, and very quickly, faster than other art media.
Another argument I see floating around in the "Video Games Are Not Art Camp" is that you interact with the game in order for the game to proceed, and the objective is to win or beat the game. Art is supposed to be passively observed, per the arguments.
If this were true, then literature is not an art form, since reading is very interactive, and you can't experience or find out what happens at the end until you read the entire book, much like video games.
If anything, reading is even more demanding interactively than playing video games as you have to think through each sentence if the novel is a masterpiece. If you didn't finish reading the book, you haven't completed it, just like when you didn't finish a game. I really don't see anything "passive" about reading.
With this line of reasoning that art must be passive, theater, along with literature, can never be an art form as actors and audience members sometimes interact directly with each other, breaking the fourth wall.
I remember watching my first play as a child, there was one scene where the actor is asking if she should follow this sinister person into the woods, and as kids, we kept yelling "no" over and over again, the actor kept pretending to waffle, but then deciding to follow the person despite our protests. This is very much like video games where you interact with the game, but the game follows a set plot, or plots as in Witcher 3.
Upon reading Ebert's article, and the portion where he wonders why gamers always have to insist that video games are art, I can only say, "Salt!". Are we really led to believe that the vast majority of gamers are wringing their hands out of anxiety that video games are not generally considered an art form by the public? I can see myself, playing Dark Souls, being so upset with that idea, throwing my controller at the screen out of disgust. Give me a break!
Rather, it seems that this conversation tends to come up as an academic exercise, rather than gamers fretting about their video games not taking seriously. There is already the inclusion of video games studies in Universities, as mentioned before. In the media, one distinguished newspaper was in an uproar over games being exhibited in the Museum of Modern Art, but PBS was Team Video Games as Art.
It appears that whenever a new medium presents itself, it's not considered art, such as films and television shows, and I think this same trend is being applied to video games. Currently, video games may not be generally accepted by the public as an art form, but down the road, I feel that video games will be accepted as art like films are today.
So far, the above arguments encompass what I've read through Googling. What do you think, are video games art or not, and why?
I don't like Roger Ebert, I'm glad you chose him as a spearhead to this discussion. Credit where it's due, he is an intelligent man, and I could agree with some of his philosophies about Film and Art, were he not so damn stubborn making them. It's funny how Art, something that is characteristically blurry and difficult to pin down, is being defined by someone so unfittingly rigid and firm.
ReplyDeleteI think the argument to be made against his stance on video games, doesn't so much come from his understanding of Art, as it is by definition subjective, and in the hands of him as much as anyone else. Where I feel the mistake comes in, is in his definition of Games. In his own words: "Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them." However, these games are just as much games as, to stick to examples, Chess. We are fortunate to have more recent examples now than in 2010, but given this definition, he excluding games from the "walking sim" genre entirely, games like That Dragon: Cancer, or Gone Home, where there is an end, but you don't win those games, meerly finish them, come to the end of the story. You're excluding To The Moon, and Undertale, they don't have points, or a score total, you don't win those games as such. You could argue they have a victory condition at reaching the end of the story, but that's no more winning the game as tossing the ring into mt doom in Lord of the Rings books/films.
Discussing games that have rules that the player has to follow, this I will side with him on, however that doesn't mean it isn't art. Removing the rules of the game would be like giving the camera to a viewer of a film. You'll miss a lot of important information because you were looking the wrong way, you'll receive the wrong message from a scene because you're standing at the wrong angle. Other mediums have rules to follow too, just because ours are more engaging with the player by virtue of being an interactive medium, doesn't mean it's any different from film and cinema.
Finally objectives, Overwatch is a great game, and look how few objectives that has! Jokes aside, objectives in games are no different from objectives in film and story, only whereas in film the protagonist travels to grandma's house, in games you are the protagonist.
Yes, you presented another great point in favor of Video Games being an art form. The presenter who tried to explain why she felt video games are an art form made me cringe, if Ebert presented her views accurately. Out of ALL the video games, why chose those examples?!?? The article was written in 2010, and she could've focused on the psychological depths of a Chrono Trigger, Final Fantasy VII--Cloud's existential struggles alone can lead to a dissertation. And just b/c games have rules doesn't preclude it from being art. In literature, the rules and objectives are to finish reading the book to get the whole experience, and in music, you need to listen to the whole piece to gain a full experience of the composition, same with other media!
DeleteI LOL'd at Overwatch, b/c the clips I see of it, it's all characters running about in chaos!
I actually like the games she choose as examples. Not because they were good, but because their very nature was to be less as games, and more just artwork expressed in a playable manner. Those games were more inspired by traditional art: Paintings, Sketches, things of that nature over literature. It's a different style of Art, sure, but still fitting. I would've preferred she at least mention some more games with roots in literature, film and the like, but eh too late to change it now.
DeleteWith regards to objectives, I'm talking less about the objectives of us as observers, readers of these media texts, and more about the objectives of the characters in the story. Staying consistent with examples, Red Riding Hood's objective is to go to grandma's house. The story doesn't care if we are controlling Red doing this, it'll happen regardless.
Overwatch, iy was because Oberwatch has control points and objectives you're supposed to secure, but it's something of a running joke from the release where people didn't seem to know this, and ran off doing their own thing anyway.
I see, but as Ebert noted, the art work isn't at the masterpiece level. However, I think with Studio Ghibli being dissolved, it would be VERY smart if one of the major console makers hire the talent to come up with art work--anyone who says Ghibli's Spirited Away isn't a masterpiece needs their eyes checked. I'm hoping that Ni No Kuni 2 would be at the level of a Spirited Away with the inventive, creative fantastical elements that I would've never come up with in a million years.
ReplyDeleteSorry for being dense, but I now see what you mean, and you're totally right, and very well put I must add! It appears that all books have objectives then, and no one would dare say that literature is not art.
I chuckle about Overwatch, it seems to be a wonderful game where you can do whatever you want, not necessarily following objectives!