Opinion - Games Are Not Art

Niche Gamer shared their opinion on why games are not art and had a bit to say about RPGs as example.

...
To put it bluntly without all the hyperbole and analogies, the “new gaming media” now had absolute power to influence the hobby in a way that would have made Jack Thompson cackle with delight.

They were the sole influencers now, setting up vast, interconnected “Web 2.0” communities that steered discussions in ways they wanted that only benefited them and their interests.

They could destroy a developer, attempt to squash a game’s success, and dig up dirt on anyone who went against their interests, and nobody had any kind of power or oversight to keep them in check. Well, that is, until GamerGate happened and became that oversight. They didn’t like that.

Getting back on track though, the “games are art” idea had another even worse effect on the industry, and that was the dumbing down of the hobby – most noticeably in the RPG genre.

[...]

Click to expand...

More information.

PST is art. The Witcher 3 is art. Dishonored is art. etc.
Destiny is not art. SW:Battlefront is not art. Candy Crush Saga is not art. etc.

'nuff said?
Dunno, maybe, but obviously I do not agree with niche gamer. Some games are IMO art. Some not only aren't art, but are also produced with only one purpose - to scam people.

Of course games are art - or they certainly can be.

That said, 99.9% of all games would be art on a spectrum between the objective (intentionally aimed at commercial success) and the subjective (the purest form of personal expression disregarding all other considerations) - because of the nature of the industry.

If they're talking 100% pure art, then I suppose such a thing is only possible for developers who're not dependent on financial success - or the tiny, tiny minority of developers subject to a pure personal expression that falls in line with what's commercially successful.

Games can be appreciated as art it is true, while still being essentially a product. I'm pretty sure no-one wants to see 'post-mordern art: the game' however.

A lot of "established" art is also a product, and so it always was.

But this sort of thing really needs a very strong and clear definition before anyone should start arguing for or against.

As in, what IS art, in this case? I only skimmed the article - so maybe it's clear about it and I don't know?

I use my own definition for art, because I think it's better than most I've come across.

I think games are not generally viewed as art, which is a shame, because there are advantages to that. For example, with novels, publishing houses want to strike a balance between commercial success and artistic credibility, so they publish a certain amount of blockbuster genre fun, which helps finance the more serious literature that doesn't sell as well, but earns prestige.

Same thing with movies - the studios want artistic recognition as well as the box-office, and the blockbusters help to pay for the much less profitable Oscar-bait.

There's no equivalent thinking in the gaming industry, and so every game must stand on its own as a commercial success, and the idea of anything artistically daring won't likely get past the suits. So, there's also a bit a vicious cycle that limits gaming in that way.

Ripper said:

There's no equivalent thinking in the gaming industry, and so every game must stand on its own as a commercial success, and the idea of anything artistically daring won't likely get past the suits. So, there's also a bit a vicious cycle that limits gaming in that way.

Click to expand...

If that was true, then no publisher would ever finance anything but certain hits.

I don't agree that publishers aren't willing to finance more daring games.

There's also plenty of risk involved.

Bioshock is a great example. Ken Levine has been very open about how supportive Take 2 was of the vision - even though they understood it wasn't traditional by any means. They believed in the team.

Of course, that doesn't mean there was no obligation to market and sell - but I don't think it's true that games that are daring and untraditional can't be financed in the industry.

With that said, I don't know how deliberate such things are. I don't know if it's as common here as in the movie industry - but it's certainly happening.

Slightly off topic but I once read great quote which goes something like this,

"if music is the art of sound, if painting is the art of light, if architecture is the art of space, then games are the art of math"

very true i think

Are we seriously still debating this opinion?

Most mainstream sites already consider games art.

So does the US government.

The US National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) now considers video games eligible for artistic funding, meaning they are legally recognized as an art form. For those not familiar with the NEA, it is a US government program which funds artistic projects to "enhance the public good."

Click to expand...

Darth Tagnan said:

If that was true, then no publisher would ever finance anything but certain hits.

I don't agree that publishers aren't willing to finance more daring games.

There's also plenty of risk involved.

Bioshock is a great example. Ken Levine has been very open about how supportive Take 2 was of the vision - even though they understood it wasn't traditional by any means. They believed in the team.

Of course, that doesn't mean there was no obligation to market and sell - but I don't think it's true that games that are daring and untraditional can't be financed in the industry.

With that said, I don't know how deliberate such things are. I don't know if it's as common here as in the movie industry - but it's certainly happening.

Click to expand...

I think maybe you've misunderstood what I'm getting at. Let's say there's a game being proposed, which sounds like it could be artistically very interesting, but probably very uncommercial. In the gaming industry, I think you would have great difficulty getting that picked up by a studio, because they don't have much concern about being recognized for artistic achievement in itself.

In those other industries, because they are taken seriously as art, they really do have that kind of thinking. Every year, they want to have a portfolio with a balance of commercial hits, and work that will attract the attention of the respected artistic prizes, and serious reviewers. They will look for and pick up those projects, even if they think they will make very little money. It's not non-commercial thinking, it's just that they consider the artistic prestige of their "brand" an important part of their long-term strategy.

It's that kind of thinking that I believe is not present in the game industry. That's not to say that they'll refuse to take a risk on something a bit different - any industry that does that is doomed. But I don't think it's anything like the attitude of investing in serious art, for the sake of that recognition and cachet.

Ripper said:

I think maybe you've misunderstood what I'm getting at. Let's say there's a game being proposed, which sounds like it could be artistically very interesting, but probably very uncommercial. In the gaming industry, I think you would have great difficulty getting that picked up by a studio, because they don't have much concern about being recognized for artistic achievement in itself.

In those other industries, because they are taken seriously as art, they really do have that kind of thinking. Every year, they want to have a portfolio with a balance of commercial hits, and work that will attract the attention of the respected artistic prizes, and serious reviewers. The will look for and pick up those projects, even if they think they will make very little money. It's not non-commercial thinking, it's just that they consider the artistic prestige of their "brand" an important part of their long-term strategy.

It's that kind of thinking that I believe is not present in the game industry. That's not to say that they'll refuse to take a risk on something a bit different - any industry that does that is doomed. But I don't think it's anything like the attitude of investing in serious art, for the sake of that recognition and cache.

Click to expand...

I don't know much about the music industry, but I think you're right that the movie industry has a much more established method of doing what you're saying.

I think that's partially because the movie industry is much older - and, as such, has had more time to find ways to produce a variety of things in ways that are "safer" - but I also think actors and directors have more power within the industry than most developers have within the gaming industry.

I mean, it's common for an actor to deliberately pursue a career based on commercial success on the one hand, and artistic desire on the other hand - and once they're sufficiently invaluable to suits, they have the power to make art happen and get their pet projects financed.

I admit, I don't really know the gaming industry in terms of "insider knowledge" as much as I know the movie industry. I used to be a gigantic movie buff, but I sort of lost interest a few years ago. But the movie industry is much more public in that way - so it's easier to know what's going on, behind the scenes.

Thankfully, the gaming industry is becoming more like that - but it's definitely taking a long time.

But I think you're right that the gaming industry is not "there yet" - insofar as there's no tradition for doing "art on the side" - unless we're talking about the indie scene, which is where I understand many of the "artsy" movies are being made these days.

On the other hand, I think it's been established several times that there's MUCH more money to be earned within the gaming industry - so I'm sure it's only a matter of time before suits invent ways to "satiate the artsy people" while earning their money.

Also, I think the indie scene in the gaming industry has an advantage, because you can do more with less money than you can in the movie industry.

But that's also changing, so who knows what's going to happen.

I'm surprised to see this "art" debate still going on, though. I thought we were past it, at this point.

Couchpotato said:

Most mainstream sites already consider games art.

So does the US government.

Click to expand...

Yea, but if you're an artist visiting US for games convention, US government won't allow you to enter the country, you will be detained at the airport. Especially if you're an artist from Netherlands, Austria or France.

Yes, I think that's right - I'd say it's changing, and that's inevitable. It's at an extremely early stage for a creative medium. As to the debate about whether games can be a form of art, that doesn't interest me too much, as it seems very clear to me that they are, and the arguments against don't do much to persuade me.

What a rambling, incoherent mess of an article. Of course games are art. The question is whether or not individual games are good art or not.

The author sounds like a bitter gamergater who can't stop raving against the "SJWs" he imagines have ruined the gaming industry

joxer said:

Yea, but if you're an artist visiting US for games convention, US government won't allow you to enter the country, you will be detained at the airport. Especially if you're an artist from Netherlands, Austria or France.

Click to expand...

Okay what are you smoking Joxer? Never heard of this happening.

If you travel to the US and get stopped it's usually because of passport problems, or your Nation has been banned. Of course you could be stooped by an idiot TSA worker.

Some of those airport laws and processes are idiotic.

Nephologist said:

What a rambling, incoherent mess of an article. Of course games are art. The question is whether or not individual games are good art or not.

Click to expand...

That's on point.

Following common definitions of "art", games of course are.
If you have an own definition and say games arent't art, that's more or less useless.

Couchpotato said:

Okay what are you smoking Joxer? Never heard of this happening.

If you travel to the US and get stopped it's usually because of passport problems, or your Nation has been banned. Of course you could be stooped by an idiot TSA worker.

Some of those airport laws and processes are idiotic.

Click to expand...

Er… Wrong papers causing problems can happen and no country will let you pass, it's logical and usual procedure everywhere on the planet. While it's still unclear what caused it, papers or something else, in recent specific case artists weren't just denied enetering US but got jailed in no beds cells as if were potential terrorists and not artists.
https://kotaku.com/magic-the-gathering-artists-denied-entry-to-u-s-deta-1828693925

Ought to put this in gaming BS thread, but it's not related to gaming really.

My summary of this articles line of arguments:

"Games are not art, because art attracts political interest groups that destroy our beloved hobby."

Nice trolling/clickbait/whatever.

He doesn't even try to define what art is, it's nearly exclusively about the political intentions of people using this term for games. My definition/understanding of art doesn't care for what effect it has on its subjects. It cares about what they are.

So in closing, are games art? Only the boring ones.

Click to expand...

I'm sure I'd have agreed to that. When I was 10 years old and "forced" (inhumane!) to visit an art museum with my parents.

joxer said:

Er… Wrong papers causing problems can happen and no country will let you pass. While it's still unclear what caused it, in this specific case artists weren't just denied enetering US but got jailed in no beds cells as if were potential terrorists and not artists.
https://kotaku.com/magic-the-gathering-artists-denied-entry-to-u-s-deta-1828693925

Ought to put this in gaming BS thread, but it's not related to gaming really.

Click to expand...

From reading that link it was a Visa problem.

Nothing new just bureaucratic nonsense.

Shame ICE agents treated them like terrorist though.

I think his article is interesting but a bit shortsighted. Gaming has expanded in the last few years in scope and scale. You can have casual games, brain games, strategy games, and "dumbed-down" RPGs like Elder Scrolls (which are actually pretty shallow fun for an RPG gamer IMHO) to say the least. There are even games that are "art" or at least artistic. He places limits on a vastly expanding and evolving "hobby" which can have art and not-art in it.