K
Kyrer
Guest
It's a slightly slippery subject. What we mean when we say "art" is a broad concept, and is largely defined by what has come before. There is very little to link together: music, novels, sculpture and poetry, and yet we categorise all these as being worthy of the label "art". However, it's difficult to include video games into the same category because the medium is very new and different.
Video games are not a passive medium in the same way others are. Would scrabble or monopoly be considered art? I'm not really sure they would be, certainly not "high art". Maybe games are closer to sports or hobbies than they are to art. There is no definitive answer, however, because the word "art" is so woolly.
I also believe that no game has ever come close to delivering what other art forms can. I mean art, really good art, is something really special. Really good art can touch you in a way that nothing else can; so much so that it can be something to define yourself by. If anyone defined themselves by any video game I have ever played, I would be sorely worried for them. I've never played a game that made me cry, or helped shape my beliefs. As someone mentioned above, it makes me wonder what sorts of art people have been consuming that they consider games to be as worthy. Maybe in another 50 years, by then who knows, but not yet.
Don't get me wrong, I really, really love games. I just think trying to define them as high art smacks of people wanting to promote "their" medium as being as great as other, traditional art-forms. I'm not sure that is necessarily the right argument to make, which seems to be the same point of the article: games don't have to be art to be awesome, they just have to be awesome, but by being awesome, it doesn't necessarily make it art.
Video games are not a passive medium in the same way others are. Would scrabble or monopoly be considered art? I'm not really sure they would be, certainly not "high art". Maybe games are closer to sports or hobbies than they are to art. There is no definitive answer, however, because the word "art" is so woolly.
I also believe that no game has ever come close to delivering what other art forms can. I mean art, really good art, is something really special. Really good art can touch you in a way that nothing else can; so much so that it can be something to define yourself by. If anyone defined themselves by any video game I have ever played, I would be sorely worried for them. I've never played a game that made me cry, or helped shape my beliefs. As someone mentioned above, it makes me wonder what sorts of art people have been consuming that they consider games to be as worthy. Maybe in another 50 years, by then who knows, but not yet.
Don't get me wrong, I really, really love games. I just think trying to define them as high art smacks of people wanting to promote "their" medium as being as great as other, traditional art-forms. I'm not sure that is necessarily the right argument to make, which seems to be the same point of the article: games don't have to be art to be awesome, they just have to be awesome, but by being awesome, it doesn't necessarily make it art.
Last edited: