Opinion - Games Are Not Art

Arguing over whether games are art is as pointless as trying to debate whether god exists or not: without a proper definition, the argument just becomes meaningless, and people's emotional attachments to their own opinions only serves to make it more so.

However, if you *were* to define "art" as some artefact or medium that conveys some form of human expression (which I think is a decent definition), then I don't personally think games are a good fit for that term. I'm not saying video games are *not* art, just that it's not a natural or useful definition for most purposes.

Why? Well, if you widen the definition of games to include non-video based games, such as solitaire, or scrabble, or twister, then I doubt most would consider these to be art. You could also argue that the definition of "game" could also include sports as well. Games are about participating and about being entertained, whether competitively or not. However, they aren't about conveying human expression, that is what art is for.

If you *were* to consider video games as art, however, then I seriously doubt any would count as "high" art. It might sound snobby to make that distinction, but I feel its important to do so. I love video games, though I've never played a single one that made me cry, or had a profound or transformative effect on me. Not even close. If art has never had that effect on you, then you should stop playing games right this instance, and go visit a library. Ask the librarian for help. Go now.

Kyrer said:

Arguing over whether games are art is as pointless as trying to debate whether god exists or not: without a proper definition, the argument just becomes meaningless, and people's emotional attachments to their own opinions only serves to make it more so.

Click to expand...

There is a proper definition, you may argue it's not proper as much as you want it will still exist:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art:

The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Click to expand...

Don't like it? How about this one then:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-arthistory/chapter/what-is-art/

Art, in its broadest sense, is a form of communication. It means whatever the artist intends it to mean, and this meaning is shaped by the materials, techniques, and forms it makes use of, as well as the ideas and feelings it creates in its viewers . Art is an act of expressing feelings, thoughts, and observations.

Click to expand...

Based on those you tell me is The Witcher 3 art? At the same time is Candy Crush Saga art? Is Horse Armor DLC art?

Kyrer said:

If you *were* to consider video games as art, however, then I seriously doubt any would count as "high" art.

Click to expand...

Now I ask of you to define "high art". Because I've never heard of such thing. Some examples would be helpful.

Kyrer said:

Arguing over whether games are art is as pointless as trying to debate whether god exists or not: without a proper definition, the argument just becomes meaningless, and people's emotional attachments to their own opinions only serves to make it more so.

However, if you *were* to define "art" as some artefact or medium that conveys some form of human expression (which I think is a decent definition), then I don't personally think games are a good fit for that term. I'm not saying video games are *not* art, just that it's not a natural or useful definition for most purposes.

Why? Well, if you widen the definition of games to include non-video based games, such as solitaire, or scrabble, or twister, then I doubt most would consider these to be art. You could also argue that the definition of "game" could also include sports as well. Games are about participating and about being entertained, whether competitively or not. However, they aren't about conveying human expression, that is what art is for.

If you *were* to consider video games as art, however, then I seriously doubt any would count as "high" art. It might sound snobby to make that distinction, but I feel its important to do so. I love video games, though I've never played a single one that made me cry, or had a profound or transformative effect on me. Not even close. If art has never had that effect on you, then you should stop playing games right this instance, and go visit a library. Ask the librarian for help. Go now.

Click to expand...

You made some kind of sense until you contradicted yourself and started to define "high art" as something that makes you cry (as if YOU crying or having a profound experience was useful in a supposedly objective definition) - and then pushed that definition on everyone

If you want that kind of high art, I can only suggest getting yourself a girlfriend that you fall in love with - and then you start pushing silly definitions on her, and I promise you a profound high art experience in return eventually

Anyway, games have made me cry and have given me profound experiences - so I guess they're high art according to at least one silly definition.

On the other hand, when I was a child - dropping an ice cream by accident made me cry - so maybe it's not the most convincing way of establishing "fine art".

joxer said:

There is a proper definition, you may argue it's not proper as much as you want it will still exist:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/art:

Don't like it? How about this one then:
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/boundless-arthistory/chapter/what-is-art/

Click to expand...

Which is precisely my point. I'm not saying there aren't any definitions of art, because there are quite clearly lots of them; some more valid that others. My Point is that its completely futile to argue over whether something fits a certain definition (in this case, art) without first defining the terms of definition is being used. Others in this thread made the same point.

joxer said:

Now I ask of you to define "high art". Because I've never heard of such thing. Some examples would be helpful.

Click to expand...

Well, I could be referring to art that is highly, culturally respected (see, see high culture), or I may be referring to this rather poor 1998 film… since I never defined the terms of my definition, I'll let you figure it out

Well you might not or refuse to, but we did define.
If your reluctance of discussing art is just because you can't have an idea what it is nor accept any definition, it doesn't mean others are in those same shoes.

As about figuring out nonsensical wording, I'll leave that to professional journalists at PC Gamer. They love to insert meaningless terms in their articles. Unlike dart who used an example, PC Gamer would describe crying over a dropped icecream - an immersive sim.

I think I get the author's point, though it conflates things and makes some leaps which can all be argued. It especially falls down by saying that Ultima 4 was "just a linear romp through a small world" but I digress.

It seems the author's main point is that when video games came under attack by politicians and other groups claiming that games were the "missing link" to explain random violence in the real world, the gaming community ran into the loving arms of the college-educated, self-proclaimed intellectual elites to defend the hobby and their main strategy was to call video gaming "art" with all it's free speech protections.

Where I think he has a point is that many of these defenders have their own reasons to come to the defense of video games, many of those reasons fall into the Justice Warrior camp, which brings along with it heavy doses of politics and social issues, to the extent which your fancy new VR goggles simply become a political lens from which you view the world. Then, to your horror, you'll discover the VR goggles are un-removable.

To that extent, I think he has a point. Like other forms of media such as movie, TV, and books, the video game industry is currently under the thumb of the politically correct and I do believe that explains some of what the author considers "watering down" of games, but certainly not all of it.

But what if video gaming wasn't co-opted by the SJW crews and we simply had a pure argument as to whether or not video games are art? I think in such a scenario, where politics and social mob rule are removed, it's a valid debate.

Also, though mentioned in the article is that little bit about revenue. I think that's quite actually a major point that needs much underlining and highlighting than the author provides. Anybody running a business who figures out how to tweak or fine tune a product or service to the tune of doubling, tripling, or quadrupling revenue is going to find themselves on a compelling and irresistible track from which few will return in order to satisfy "the niche."

Anyway, though a bit rambling, I found the article interesting.

Darth Tagnan said:

You made some kind of sense until you contradicted yourself and started to define "high art" as something that makes you cry (as if YOU crying or having a profound experience was useful in a supposedly objective definition) - and then pushed that definition on everyone

Click to expand...

I never claimed that was the ONLY definition, though I think you knew that already I did also use the words "profound" and "transformative." I guess more generally, I'm referring to the difference between "high culture" and "popular culture." If no-one grasps what I mean by those terms, then I guess this is the wrong forum to discuss them on. People often get threatened by such terms, which is unfortunate.

However, I guess the broader point you are trying to make is that it's all relative to the observer, which I guess is fair: I've never gotten anything out of going to art galleries, I just don't have that kind of eye. One man's profound is another man's stupid. However, I think from a cultural standpoint, the definition of "high art" is still a useful one, as it exists within society.

Darth Tagnan said:

If you want that kind of high art, I can only suggest getting yourself a girlfriend that you fall in love with - and then you start pushing silly definitions on her, and I promise you a profound high art experience in return eventually

Click to expand...

Well, my ex is even more of a snob than I am. However, I did try telling my fanboy colleague that Star Wars was some crappy, dumbed down kids film, and he should try watching something that fit his age… He didn't talk to me for a while after that :/

Darth Tagnan said:

Anyway, games have made me cry and have given me profound experiences - so I guess they're high art according to at least one silly definition.

Click to expand...

Well, you must have played some different games to me then :/ I did almost cry when my XCom 2 Iron-Man save got corrupted, that was for different reasons though.

joxer said:

If your reluctance of discussing art is just because you can't have an idea what it is nor accept any definition, it doesn't mean others are in those same shoes.

Click to expand...

Hay, do sound like someone who's reluctant to discuss art? I'm just saying it *can* be futile, under certain circumstances.

Games are a form of art. Just as movies are a form of art.

No one's gonna put "Transformers 2" or "Jaws 3" up as a great artistic achievement though. For every Michelangelo, there was a thousand failed hack painters.

Most art isn't great,.. twas always thus...

Kyrer said:

I never claimed that was the ONLY definition, though I think you knew that already I did also use the words "profound" and "transformative." I guess more generally, I'm referring to the difference between "high culture" and "popular culture." If no-one grasps what I mean by those terms, then I guess this is the wrong forum to discuss them on. People often get threatened by such terms, which is unfortunate.

Click to expand...

I know there's a perceived difference - and that some people have need of making the distinction.

However, I guess the broader point you are trying to make is that it's all relative to the observer, which I guess is fair: I've never gotten anything out of going to art galleries, I just don't have that kind of eye. One man's profound is another man's stupid. However, I think from a cultural standpoint, the definition of "high art" is still a useful one, as it exists within society.

Click to expand...

That's exactly my point, yes.

I wouldn't say it's necessarily worthless or useless, but it certainly keeps popping up as some kind of objective standard until it's shot down again, because no piece of art has ever been objectively established high art in such a way that everyone agreed with it - which would be the only way human beings could possibly establish objective truth.

Objective truth, of course, being just a theory that's potentially totally separate or outside of human perception - but objectivity within human standards would certainly have to be agreed upon for any argument supporting the existence of objectively high art to be convincing. I mean, if not - then we would have to elect certain people who could define it for us - and those who don't agree would have to be dismissed in terms of their opinion - which would seem rather silly I think you'd agree.

As such, I think it's a tiresome concept - but I'm not one to demand that others agree with me.

If you have a use for it, so be it.

Well, my ex is even more of a snob than I am. However, I did try telling my fanboy colleague that Star Wars was some crappy, dumbed down kids film, and he should try watching something that fit his age… He didn't talk to me for a while after that :/

Click to expand...

Well, snobs are people who consider themselves capable of establishing the value of one kind of taste over the other, which is next door to establishing the value of one person over the other.

I don't have that capacity myself, and I've yet to hear anyone even remotely make sense when trying to argue that they had it.

In fact, my experience has been that people who would attempt to argue they could establish the value of taste and people - are people who seem especially challenged when caught in an exchange with me. As in, I've had an excessively easy time poking holes in their arguments.

Could be coincidence, I suppose

Well, you must have played some different games to me then :/ I did almost cry when my XCom 2 Iron-Man save got corrupted, that was for different reasons though.

Click to expand...

That, or it merely takes different things to move me.

I've cried during several games - including Last of Us (the giraffe sequence), Bioshock Infinite (a special case, because it mostly being profoundly touched due to how surprising it was - and my mouth was literally agape during the end credits), Witcher 3 (Geralt reunited with a certain person) - and others.

Though I should remember to add that my own personal definition of art doesn't relate to quality or how much of an effect it has on me.

Also, as I said, I don't think of art as "high art" or "popular art" - I think of almost every game as being on a spectrum of art, and the purest art can easily be the worst kind of shit I've ever played.

I have felt tons of emotions playing some video games. Joy, sadness, laughter, tears. Maybe the reason some don't get emotionally involved in games they play is because they don't play games to get immersed and lose themselves in the game world. Many people play games just for combat, numbers, bragging rights on achievements and ironman mode. I know I talk to friends who view games as just pixels and bytes - something purely for entertainment and don't care much about story, their character (auto-generate random character? Sure who cares), or the like. Others really get into the game world, if its good (to them), and then can be emotionally moved by it.

This also applies to all art (I would think). One person could view a statue or read a poem and start crying and laughing. Another could look at that person as if they are insane and ask why they are so emotional over a lump of rock or some dribble of text.

As for me I see some games as art. Considering I do screen archery a lot in games I see tons of beauty in the worlds that developers create - the scenery, the characters, etc. I would assume that screen shots is a very gray area in art because is it still the game that is the art or the person taking a part of the game and displaying it as art?

But even without that I feel a sense of awe when I am playing and see some fantastic scenery in a game. I might feel scared and amazed at some creepy and very immersive quest that was so well put together it is a work of art to me.

Games embody visual art, written art, musical art, and more. So one has to consider how all these various components, usually evaluated as art on their own, come together into some gestalt, a greater whole, that is art as well.

To me the answer is it does. If I hear music in the game that seems to be a work of art (I still listen to some of the soundtracks for Skyrim), and see scenery that evokes emotion and awe that I consider art, and perhaps, if really lucky, have a story that is very well done (not usually the case in games I admit) that pulls on my emotions and makes me cry or feel joy, then that also is a piece of art.

Lastly a game as a whole can be a work of art. A creative masterpiece where all the individual pieces come together in such a way that it is an amazing experience.

I would not call all games art, or at least not a "work of art" (which is perhaps analogous to the idea of high art), but I can certainly see some of them as a work of art.

wolfgrimdark said:

To me the answer is it does. If I hear music in the game that seems to be a work of art (I still listen to some of the soundtracks for Skyrim)

Click to expand...

I'm particularly fond of Aurora. Coupled with the immersion I feel when I go wandering the land - it's a fantastic piece of music. I especially like the part that starts at around 1:00.



Not "high art" my ass

Much heat and little light being generated in these comments/opinions. At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own horn, I've painted off and on since the late 60s. Dabbled in various forms of sculpture and sold some pieces, won a prize or two, and done a couple commissions. I'm largely self-taught and educated myself on art history, materials, and techniques over the years, so all the foregoing colors my opinion. And I have definite opinions on both art and games.
I suppose you can call most anything an 'art form'. Even rap and hip-hop performers are fond of calling themselves 'artists'. While something can be done creatively from a design and execution standpoint, it doesn't necessarily make it art. Games are by definition a commercial product. So is music, film, fiction, biography, etc. Those products can be beautifully crafted, designed, whatever. That's open for debate. To me, if a piece is aimed at the mass market, it's merely a stylish and well-executed commercial product. Nothing more.
On the other hand, you take a guy like Van Gogh. He painted because he was driven to to do it, not in pursuit of commercial success, but because he was trying to express something inside himself. He lived to paint, not amass wealth or prestige. He lived simply.
There's nothing wrong with making a commercial product and doing it well. I just find it more than a bit pretentious calling everything 'art'. To me, it cheapens real art.
I know; someone is going to extend the argument to: "Well, who's to say what 'real art' is?"
All this is just my take.

Zephyr said:

Much heat and little light being generated in these comments/opinions. At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own horn, I've painted off and on since the late 60s. Dabbled in various forms of sculpture and sold some pieces, won a prize or two, and done a couple commissions. I'm largely self-taught and educated myself on art history, materials, and techniques over the years, so all the foregoing colors my opinion. And I have definite opinions on both art and games.
I suppose you can call most anything an 'art form'. Even rap and hip-hop performers are fond of calling themselves 'artists'. While something can be done creatively from a design and execution standpoint, it doesn't necessarily make it art. Games are by definition a commercial product. So is music, film, fiction, biography, etc. Those products can be beautifully crafted, designed, whatever. That's open for debate. To me, if a piece is aimed at the mass market, it's merely a stylish and well-executed commercial product. Nothing more.
On the other hand, you take a guy like Van Gogh. He painted because he was driven to to do it, not in pursuit of commercial success, but because he was trying to express something inside himself. He lived to paint, not amass wealth or prestige. He lived simply.
There's nothing wrong with making a commercial product and doing it well. I just find it more than a bit pretentious calling everything 'art'. To me, it cheapens real art.
I know; someone is going to extend the argument to: "Well, who's to say what 'real art' is?"
All this is just my take.

Click to expand...

There's a difference between aiming at the mass market and being commercially successful.

Beyond that, you seem to be completely missing how it's rarely the passionate developer who's aiming at the mass market. That's the publisher funding the passionate developer, telling them that's the only way they can get funded.

As such, the passionate developer (far from all developers) is creating art under certain restrictions, much like a painter can only paint within the capacity of his hands and the tools he has available.

An artist painting a picture doesn't need an investor - so he or she doesn't need to compromise beyond the natural compromise of having the limited capacity of being human.

But the developer is often a team - a team with multiple people with multiple talents. Which is arguably not cheaper or less of a contribution to the end result than any single person ever could be.

With that said, if you truly believe all individual artists are indifferent to commercial success or public recognition - then you're deluding yourself.

Many that focus on the mass market end up never doing well, commercially. Some people who do exactly what they want - in the way they want - end up being extremely successful commercially.

Also, why is aiming for commercial success cheaper than aiming for personal satisfaction?

I certainly don't see one person's approval as more "worthy" than the approval of many.

But I will agree that the purely subjective is closer to art than the purely objective aiming for the widest possible market - at least in most cases.

However, that's not about quality - that's about the degree to which the end result is based on personal expression. An artist with no talent is likely less interesting to his audience than the businessman with plenty of talent in picking the right developer and selling the product to the right market.

For every Van Gogh - there's a thousand lone artists doing exactly what they want, creating "pure" art that also happens to be pure shit.

Zephyr said:

Much heat and little light being generated in these comments/opinions. At the risk of sounding like I'm blowing my own horn, I've painted off and on since the late 60s. Dabbled in various forms of sculpture and sold some pieces, won a prize or two, and done a couple commissions. I'm largely self-taught and educated myself on art history, materials, and techniques over the years, so all the foregoing colors my opinion. And I have definite opinions on both art and games.
I suppose you can call most anything an 'art form'. Even rap and hip-hop performers are fond of calling themselves 'artists'. While something can be done creatively from a design and execution standpoint, it doesn't necessarily make it art. Games are by definition a commercial product. So is music, film, fiction, biography, etc. Those products can be beautifully crafted, designed, whatever. That's open for debate. To me, if a piece is aimed at the mass market, it's merely a stylish and well-executed commercial product. Nothing more.
On the other hand, you take a guy like Van Gogh. He painted because he was driven to to do it, not in pursuit of commercial success, but because he was trying to express something inside himself. He lived to paint, not amass wealth or prestige. He lived simply.
There's nothing wrong with making a commercial product and doing it well. I just find it more than a bit pretentious calling everything 'art'. To me, it cheapens real art.
I know; someone is going to extend the argument to: "Well, who's to say what 'real art' is?"
All this is just my take.

Click to expand...

I program games and they are not aimed at anyone. No one other than me will ever see them. In fact, I am driven write them simply as an expression of my desire to solve abstract problems. It gives me rush to see my creations come to alive on the screen. The computer screen is my canvas and the programming language is my brush. I may not be a great artist/programmer but there are many who are.

Whether something is art has nothing to do with its commercial implications. As I provided a quote before, if architecture is the art of spaces then games are the art of math. There is nothing more beautiful than math in this world! Or do you deny that architecture is not art? Is the Sistine chapel not a work of art?

The article makes some excellent points about the dumbing down of gaming and the effect that lazy, and political motivated journalism have forced developers into the same groupthink.

Of course its glib, and its confusion regarding the cause is lazy itself.

More simply, as someone has pointed out, its a result of continued commercialization in an increasing corporate environment.

This has lead to developers being out of touch with their audience but he correctly asserts RPG developers have moved away from the interest of the core audience towards more broader and mainstream expectations. Oblivion being the prime example.

Increasing commercialization of the products also means development of the products for more popular platforms such as consoles.

His comparison of Ultima Exodus was a bad one of course. He defined as linear because it doesn't have sidequests or alternate endings - but its not linear because you resolve the main quest in any order you want without being railroaded. The most popular games of its time, he needs to be reminded, were arcade ports. RPG's then, as now, were considered too involved and not mainstream.

It depends a lot on how you define art. Some people have a very narrow definition. For me they can be art. Not always good art, but still art.

My definition: art is a deliberate media presentation intended to evoke particular emotional responses. (Unintended emotions, like anger at this p.o.s., don't count.)

I can clear this up. Here is what art is: 1. Painting - Fleur de Lis by Robert Reid (1895) 2. Painting - Irises by Van Gogh (1889) 3. Movie - Claire's Knee (1970) 4. Movie - The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (1966) 5. Novel - Lord of the Rings by J.R.R. Tolkien (1954) 6. Short Story - Kew Gardens by V. Woolf (1919)

As a programmer (for 37 years now) I consider every program as a piece of art and developers are artists for me.

The quality of the article is not the "Why?" but the "What?"

I think we can all agree that the soundbite is wrong. For one thing its too simple.

The examples he gives are that RPG's are being dumbed down.

The two examples he gives are bad though

Comparing the dumbed down Oblivion to stat heavy Morrowind as an example of how making a game "art" ruined the franchise is again lazy. Morrowind was the first RPG to push the boundaries of technology in terms of graphics. Users were complaining bitterly of the games "bugs" causing it to reboot their computers when in fact they were overclocking their 300mhz AMD machines for a game whose minimum specs required 800mhz. His arguments are too convenient.