"Art is the human disposition of sensible or intelligible matter for an aesthetic end." - James Joyce
"Art is hard." - Tim Kasher
Are video games art? What is art? Does it really matter? These are the questions I find myself asking...myself. Obviously video games are an industry, and as an industry it garners more earnings than music and cinema, two creative mediums that people do consider art. Does the fact that video games make a shit ton of money somehow prevent them from being considered art?
Think about it. Everyone knows what art is. It's the Monet and the Van Gogh and the Da Vinci. Those are ARTISTS. But what about the Warhol and the Pollock and the Lichtenstein? In contemporary views, these more avant-garde, outside the box artists produced art. Time has shown us that while there is a clear distinction between these groups of artists, both are, in fact, artists.
("Van Gogh's 'Starry Night' Defender, Gameboy Advance. Click to enbiggen.)
All those old dead people are all within the same medium, yes. VISUAL ART. The viewer sees the painting and reacts to it. As defined by my infallible source of indisputable information, "art" is defined as "the process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions." According to that definition, its pretty hard to disagree with video games as art. In fact, I'd go so far to say a video game can be several genres of art, all wrapped up in a nice $60 package. I'm not saying ALL games are art (one in particular comes to mind), but some can be.
This article mentions BioShock as possible art. I believe it is. First of all, look at this:
(Superman 64 = Not Art)
Now look at this:
(BioShock = Art)
Seems pretty obvious to me. But to delve further, please recall the above quote about the definition of art. Art is "deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses." BioShock does this, therefore, it is art.
Of course, if the sense Superman 64's developers were trying to deliberately invoke in the viewer was GUT-WRENCHING NAUSEA, then I suppose it is also art.
I've decided that I was kinda lying in the previous blog. I have come to the conclusion that ALL games are art. Yes, even Superman 64. There are just those that pull it off better than others.
ReplyDeleteWell said. And further, looking back at games is very difficult to do in our modern times. For instance, I conned my boyfriend into playing "Faxanadu" for the original NES this weekend because of the fond memories I had. It was a little further along than Mario in the graphics, but playing it now is an entirely different experience than when it was new. Does that diminish its artistic value? Probably a little, but the fact that I have such memories about it speaks to the fact of how some games can be art whether they're pretty or not.
ReplyDeleteEven if all games are art (and I think they are), there are varying degrees of success when it comes to our experiences with video games. A successful artistic experience can mean something along the lines of Bioshock, which is what some developers aim for. However, not all gaming experiences are quite as successful. For example, I wouldn't call Aqua Teen Hunger Force Zombie Ninja Pro-Am a positive artistic experience in any way, shape or form.
ReplyDelete