Jeff Vogel - Video Games are better than Art

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.

I've been thinking about this subject a lot lately, being a wannabe artist myself. I also have to say I had respect for Jeff Vogel until reading this. While it takes an extreme amount of skill to make games and there are various artists involved, whether they be writers, musicians or graphic artists. There are components of games that can definitely be considered art. But games are first and foremost entertainment, and most game producers are making them with the primary goal of being fun. Art can certainly be entertaining, but that shouldn't be the primary goal. It should strive to communicate and idea, emotion, philosophy. Games don't do that.

Also when we consider other artistic forms, I feel every element of the artistic piece is in the function of enhancing the idea behind it. Whether it is painting technique, colors chosen, writing style, etc.

However when considering games, I've yet to find a game where gameplay (what a terrible word) is striving to enhance the artistic idea. What does combat do for Planescape Torment's core idea? What does it bring? Yet it is such a huge part of the game.

For me games will become artistic form when producers start incorporating interactivity/gameplay into their core ideas. They have such huge potential because of the interactivity, yet consistently fail to deliver on it.

Originally Posted by Hamenaglar
I've been thinking about this subject a lot lately, being a wannabe artist myself. I also have to say I had respect for Jeff Vogel until reading this. While it takes an extreme amount of skill to make games and there are various artists involved, whether they be writers, musicians or graphic artists. There are components of games that can definitely be considered art. But games are first and foremost entertainment, and most game producers are making them with the primary goal of being fun. Art can certainly be entertaining, but that shouldn't be the primary goal. It should strive to communicate and idea, emotion, philosophy. Games don't do that.

Also when we consider other artistic forms, I feel every element of the artistic piece is in the function of enhancing the idea behind it. Whether it is painting technique, colors chosen, writing style, etc.

However when considering games, I've yet to find a game where gameplay (what a terrible word) is striving to enhance the artistic idea. What does combat do for Planescape Torment's core idea? What does it bring? Yet it is such a huge part of the game.

For me games will become artistic form when producers start incorporating interactivity/gameplay into their core ideas. They have such huge potential because of the interactivity, yet consistently fail to deliver on it.

Did you try games like flower or Ori and the Blind forest just to give a few examples… there are plenty more I could find for you, anyway, after you've played some of these games you'd not be able to say that you have yet to find a game where the gameplay is striving to enhance the artistic idea. A more recent example is Inside for example. But there are many more.

Originally Posted by Kyrer
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.

That I agree with. Well said!

Personally, I've always viewed game development more as a craft. It is something that requires practice and training to learn to make well. You can't make a crappy game and claim it's just your 'artistic expression'. Well you can, of course, and some have certainly tried, but that doesn't mean they should get away with it. A poorly made game doesn't become good for any artistic reason; it's just a bad game.

And I've never really understood why people are so eager to have it labelled art. Why this apparently is so important for so many people. And in my views on art, I agree with much of what Kyrer is saying. It profoundly puzzles me to be honest. Is it a sense of seeing your favourite medium, or at least dear hobby, as somehow inferior otherwise? That you become insecure about it, if non-gamers don't take your gaming seriously? Whatever it is, it seems to me to be rooted in some desire/need to have games accepted as cool by the larger public. But if that is so, I think this art claim is a very odd route to take.

Originally Posted by Steinawarjar
That I agree with. Well said!

Personally, I've always viewed game development more as a craft. It is something that requires practice and training to learn to make well. You can't make a crappy game and claim it's just your 'artistic expression'. Well you can, of course, and some have certainly tried, but that doesn't mean they should get away with it. A poorly made game doesn't become good for any artistic reason; it's just a bad game.

And I've never really understood why people are so eager to have it labelled art. Why this apparently is so important for so many people. And in my views on art, I agree with much of what Kyrer is saying. It profoundly puzzles me to be honest. Is it a sense of seeing your favourite medium, or at least dear hobby, as somehow inferior otherwise? That you become insecure about it, if non-gamers don't take your gaming seriously? Whatever it is, it seems to me to be rooted in some desire/need to have games accepted as cool by the larger public. But if that is so, I think this art claim is a very odd route to take.

It shouldn't be puzzling. I have every confidence in the medium and enjoy it as learning, toy, low art, and high art. But I also think that creators should try and reach as high as possible, not out of low confidence but because it's good to try and push things onward.

Originally Posted by Steinawarjar
And I've never really understood why people are so eager to have it labelled art. Why this apparently is so important for so many people. And in my views on art, I agree with much of what Kyrer is saying. It profoundly puzzles me to be honest. Is it a sense of seeing your favourite medium, or at least dear hobby, as somehow inferior otherwise? That you become insecure about it, if non-gamers don't take your gaming seriously? Whatever it is, it seems to me to be rooted in some desire/need to have games accepted as cool by the larger public. But if that is so, I think this art claim is a very odd route to take.

I don't think it's a matter of being accepted as art by the general public as much as being seen as a form of high art by the critical elite. Clearly it is an art form because it stimulates the senses and impacts our emotions. But can it become timeless and admired by future generations? To some degree that is starting to happen, but mostly among the dedicated gaming community rather than the public at large.

Originally Posted by Bedwyr
It shouldn't be puzzling. I have every confidence in the medium and enjoy it as learning, toy, low art, and high art. But I also think that creators should try and reach as high as possible, not out of low confidence but because it's good to try and push things onward.

I agree. It is human nature for at least some proportion of people engaging in any kind of creative endeavour to want to raise it to it's highest level so I'm not surprised at the desire - or passion - from some to see video games held up as art.

Originally Posted by Damian
Have you played Planescape:Torment? IMO thats the closest an RPG has gotten towards art.

I have played Torment and hundreds of others but I haven't had that transformative experience - though clearly lots of people have. It's an individual thing about where that bar is. For me, yeah, it's kind of high and is more rooted in "high art" (with all the good and bad that comes with that). That's my bias and I'm ok with that. That bias probably makes it more difficult for me to understand how others see the current state of games as art right now but again, it's subjective and just my opinion. But that’s probably why I find the whole argument of video games as art so interesting.

I’d love to have that kind of powerful experience playing a game and I’m glad there are game designers out there that bring that level of passion to their craft. Maybe it will happen - maybe it won't but even if it does it's hard to imagine it somehow being even greater then other forms of art which I think Jeff Vogel is claiming. I don’t believe the technological aspect of games somehow inherently give them a leg up on other forms of art. A movie isn’t better than a book to me strictly on the merits of the fact it imparts narrative with sound and pictures. That aspect of Vogel’s argument - that somehow, inherently video games must be better than other forms of art - takes away some credibility in my eyes as I think that kind of assertion is far fetched.

I personally get annoyed by "art critics", many of whom are snobs who look down on other people's creativity and try to stand on a pedestal to declare what is/isn't art.

My thing is, I may not like heavy metal, country music, some modern art, etc. etc., but I'm not going to insidiously try to devalue it by basically claiming it's not art. It's not about acceptance it's about respect for all forms of creativity.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Did you try games like flower or Ori and the Blind forest just to give a few examples… there are plenty more I could find for you, anyway, after you've played some of these games you'd not be able to say that you have yet to find a game where the gameplay is striving to enhance the artistic idea. A more recent example is Inside for example. But there are many more.

No, I haven't. I've just checked it out on steam and there it says it's a platformer. Not really interesting to me.

Number of titles? The market is gruesomely flooded. (Gruesomely for developers, I mean. For fans, it's an overwhelming embarrassment of riches.)

It always peeves me when some blogger says, "Video games are OK, I guess, to the simple-minded. But they're not enough. They are unworthy. They're [string of negative adjectives], and it is up to me, hero that I am, to FIX them at last!"

Diversity? Pick any demographic group, and someone is making games to cater to them personally. It's one of the great advantages of a gruesomely flooded market. (Of course, not every game will cater to you personally, but that's not possible or desirable. Other people get stuff they like too.)

The article reads that the market is overflooded and so diverse that someone somewhere makes a video product to get any demographics addicted.
Except that some video products are not that addictive they can get the mentioned demographics to shut up.

In a bizarre twist of mind, it is stated that the market is an overwhelming embarassement of riches.

Actually, the market consumes so many resources to produce only a few types of goods this is a good approximation of absolute poverty. So many resources are guzzled to meet a few tastes there is no room to satisfy other tastes.

The article leads to consider that a market overflooded with dance movies, that would come in variants, is indeed rich and diverse.

Nope, just a market that sucks up all the resources to clone the same genre over and over again.

The video product market is not diverse, it is a larger and larger repetition over a few archetypes.

Originally Posted by Fluent
I personally get annoyed by "art critics", many of whom are snobs who look down on other people's creativity and try to stand on a pedestal to declare what is/isn't art.

My thing is, I may not like heavy metal, country music, some modern art, etc. etc., but I'm not going to insidiously try to devalue it by basically claiming it's not art. It's not about acceptance it's about respect for all forms of creativity.

Snobbery has gotten better thanks in no small part to the rise of nerd-culture and pop-culture as legitimate societal forms and the imprint of official artistic expression speech protection in the US (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants). We also have champions in people like Wil Wheaton who took a very wise and mature attitude: "Everyone is a nerd about something. Let them. Affirm them. You're a horrible person if you uphold your own nerdery and diss someone elses."

Basically we co-opted the snobs and now everyone loves them some Star Wars and Dr. Who. Increasingly this includes games. We've arrived and lack only the approval of old people who refuse to see how similar watching American football is to playing games. Forget them. They're old and don't get it. The snobs still write lengthy articles in the New Yorker about high-brow art, but they're increasingly less asinine about it.

If we'd consider every kind of above average craftmanship as art, my car would be art as well.

"More than art" belongs to the kind of discussion like "my metal sub-genre is more true than yours" or "Warcraft is better than C&C". Imho, it's pointless to discuss that. I wouldn't refuse the claim that games can be art, I'd simply say most games are not. They heavily use artistic skills, that's correct. But in the end it's a product that has to work as expected and to sell as many copies as possible. Games have to meet the expectations of the audience and many game designers restrain their work to proven solutions rather than trying weird things. Imo, art tries to elevate our perception above the ordinary. In contrast, most games simply try to depict reality as detailed as possible, or at least some kind of carnival realism. It's colorful, highly imaginiative, but in almost all cases plain simple as well. If I turn it off, I don't care about it anymore, except of thinking about strategies to solve the next game hurdle. But it doesn't make me think about more sophisticated things, and imho that's an aspiration of every form of art. Unlike most games, art doesn't give an explicit answer but leaves room for interpretation and personal imagination. Most games do not.

Last but not least it's not the game maker who decides what is art, because of the interactive nature of video games. It's up to the user what kind of experience he creates from that piece of software that was delivered to him. The maker is mostly out of control.

Personally, Planescape was the only game that made me think about more sophisticated things and personal attitudes. On the other hand, it deals with questions that fascinated me from my Rhetoric studies as well. So I guess it simply intensified my natural curiosity for that kind of things. If you don't care for that, it's just software with lots of text and crappy combat.

Originally Posted by Avantenor
my car would be art as well.

Who's to say it's not?

Because it's pointless as well when everything can be considered as art by design. Because every action besides breathing and sweating needs at least some kind of skill and conscious decision. It's as esoteric as Watzlawick's wisdom of "you cannot not communicate".

Originally Posted by Bedwyr
No, your implied syllogism is flawed:

1. Art derives from technology.
2. Games are the highest form of artistic technology.
3. Therefore games are the highest form of art.

#1 is simply not true. *Any* artist with skill will tell you that a good artist can work in any medium. "Better" mediums will not create "better" art. That is dependent on the vision and skill of the artist.

#1
I'd put it to you that the moment a child picks up a rock and uses it to scratch a line on a wall that rock has been transformed into a human technology. Whether or not your rock drawing is better than mine is irrelevant. Both were made with technology and if that technology was not invented both would not exist. Rock? Pencil? Brush? Chisel? Photoshop? Whole game? All technology.

Whats the next medium going to be? We've done canvas, we've done computers, we only have the 5 senses and most mediums only engage a single one at a time. Think up anything, vulgar as you like, human excrement, and it's been done.

The point is, if you follow the technology forward it inevitably leads backwards again to doing our classic things like crafting a pencil to draw with only this time in VR.

#2
Reality is all just a game.

Look at the rate graphics are improving. Imagine 200 years from now. It's certain they'll eventually be flawless. Look how willing we are to accept virtual goods as real. It's almost in our nature. We have so much faith in so much that doesn't physically exist but can you think of anything else to simulate beside all we know?

We know earths resources are finite. Pencils run out, everything eventually runs out, the sun dies and we're left with the question of how the human species survives. Do we fly off in a spaceship in some sort of sleep? The nearest star is lifetimes away. It's probably easier to recreate a new simulation of earth that exists within a fraction of base time, over and over. Like a flashing light. A big bang. I don't know.

#3
It's quite possible that games are not only the highest form of art, but the very laws and fabric of the universe in which all art exists.

Whoa. It's getting deep in here.

I'd just like to say that art can really be anything to me. The butter churn of yesteryear that some family used with no electricity, etc., is now sitting in someone's home as a decorative art piece.

There's no reason art can't extend to an interactive video game. We already consider movies, books, etc., as art, and they are interactive. Video games are relatively new and this is what happens to new things. They get a lot of scrutiny at first, they get scoffed at, etc., then years later they get accepted, but more importantly, respected for what they are.

Breathing can be an art and take skill, by the way. Ask someone who does yoga or practices Eastern breathing techniques.

A bar of soap is better than a leaf.

He succeeded in doing one thing, he got people interested enough to click the title and discuss.

Originally Posted by SirJames
#1


Look at the rate graphics are improving. Imagine 200 years from now. It's certain they'll eventually be flawless. Look how willing we are to accept virtual goods as real. It's almost in our nature. We have so much faith in so much that doesn't physically exist but can you think of anything else to simulate beside all we know?

Those virtual goods are redeemable trade items.

Originally Posted by SirJames
#1
We know earths resources are finite. Pencils run out, everything eventually runs out, the sun dies and we're left with the question of how the human species survives. Do we fly off in a spaceship in some sort of sleep? The nearest star is lifetimes away. It's probably easier to recreate a new simulation of earth that exists within a fraction of base time, over and over. Like a flashing light. A big bang. I don't know.

It wont be surprising to learn that a common AAA video products consumes more resources than the erection of the great pyramids.

For sure, most painting master pieces required much less to be made than a common video product.

Very strange to speak of finite resources when pushing for the way that ensures that the resources are going to be consumed harder, larger and faster.

A single graphics card to run this type of game is 250W(PCs are close to 1kW)
Pencils might run out but they are no match for that stuff when it comes to guzzling resources.