Video games and Art

Before you let out that sigh, know that this isn't one of those overly long essays on why games are definitely, totally art. It may be long, but don't expect to see the words Braid, BioShock, and Shadow of the Colossus being constantly referenced in every paragraph. Rather than trying to argue that videogames are art, I found analysing the question "are videogames art?" provided more solid, satisfying answers. This article attempts to accomplish three goals: explore the idea of art, examine what this question is really asking, and to determine a solution to the question. This debate has made little progress lately so I hope this new angle will breathe new life into this discussion.

A great place to begin is to analyse the question everyone's debating about; are videogames art? So, in order to understand what the answer is, art must first be defined. Of course, as we all know, there is no definition of art and therefore, there is no answer to this question. But is this really true? Perhaps, but I propose it's only half right. In theory, art only ever operates at the individual level. As discussed earlier, art is subjective and is determined solely by the individual. But in reality, art operates on two plains and both have different properties. To be less vague, there are two definitions of art: one at the individual level and one at the cultural. In its first and more traditional form, art doesn't have an overarching definition, but rather, art is defined by the self. However, art at the cultural level does, as you will soon see, have absolute meanings. Further exploring both these concepts will uncover the root of this debate.

At the cultural level, society defines which mediums are art, while the individual determines which specific works or pieces are art. Society has deemed the mediums of literature, music, and film (and many others) art but individuals dictate which pieces within those mediums are worthy of the title. Culturally, art is determined by general agreement; film is an art while doodling is not. At the individual level though, art is determined subjectively through specific works; I view Lord of the Rings as art but I do not Transformers. Society has a tendency to define which mediums are art forms, but individuals decide which pieces within those mediums are art.

So then, it's important to determine what level the question "are games art?" is being asked. Is it being asked on the subjective plain? I don't think so because this question is raised to definitively answer if games are art or not; individual opinions would not satisfy that. The question isn't asking for individual beliefs; it's looking for a collective one. It's looking for a general agreement. Therefore, the question is being asked at the cultural domain. So, what's really being debated here is not "are games art?", but "are games pop-art?" (are they a generally accepted form of art?). And since culture already has a predefined definition of what mediums are and are not art, there shouldn't really be a debate because there's already an answer.

If the question is being asked from a cultural perspective, we know from earlier that this level has absolute definitions as to what is and isn't art. Recall that culture dictates which mediums are pop-art. So, are videogames art? Culturally, no they are not. The general population, at this point in time, does not view videogames as art. So, this debate is really about the medium's struggle to be recognized as an art form at the cultural level.

 There are two elements we need to consider before venturing further: how will this medium become part of culture and how will it become part of the art community? The answers to these questions will explain why games have yet to achieve pop-art status. To start, let's focus on why games aren't recognized as part of popular culture. To determine how games may achieve pop-art status, culture's characteristics needs to be analysed as well as the state of the gaming industry.

Culture is always shifting and it takes time before anything gains enough credibility to be considered part of it. Simply, new things which are not well understood are also, to a degree, feared (much like how Rock and Heavy Metal music were received when they were introduced). So, when people randomly blurt out "videogames can't be art", I like to think they haven't grasped what videogames are or what they're capable of. Maybe they fear videogames because it disrupts their decade-old definition and understanding of art. Perhaps they dismiss videogames because they fear art can be something they're not familiar with. Unlike film, music, and literature, videogames aren't viewed as art because the medium is too new, and therefore, poorly understood. Culture's resistance to change is one of the two major players why videogames are deemed inferior.

The videogame medium is not the first to be written off as a lesser endeavour and won't be the last. Before videogames, film had trouble gaining acceptance by society, and it too was ridiculed and shoved aside in favour of other popular mediums. Over time however, film became progressively accepted among society. Today, film is considered a major art form and it's now unfathomable film was once viewed inferior to other mediums. This shows us that culture moves very slowly, which, in turn, means general acceptance moves at the same pace. So, I can't help but make the connection that videogames too, will eventually gain enough acceptance to be considered part of popular culture. And by the looks of it, gaming isn't far off from achieving this milestone when the medium's large, varying, and growing consumer base is taken into consideration. Given culture's past, I remain confident gaming will be a respected medium in the not so distant future.

We've established why games do not yet play roles as big as music or film in today's pop-culture; the medium is still too new. But what about the other piece to the puzzle, why aren't games accepted as an art form? To put it bluntly, the majority don't view games as art simply because this industry is void of a significant roster of art-worthy titles. This medium just doesn't have many examples of interactive pieces of art yet. Every game that attempts to innovate and create a meaningful experience is greatly overshadowed (not to mention out-marketed) by games whose purpose is strictly to entertain. So, whether or not this medium will be viewed as art entirely depends on the industry itself. Until this medium can produce a sufficient array of experiences, videogames will continue to be referred to as toys.

Is the videogame medium art? No, it is not. Culture defines which mediums are art and unfortunately, games have yet to puncture its aging definition. As seen with film, culture's tendency to change is a slow process and its resistance to accept a new facet of culture is high. Videogames are growing in popularity so rapidly though, they on the cusp of achieving a spot in popular life. Videogames as a recognized art form may not be so certain however. Since there aren't many games deemed art-worthy by the general public or even gamers, the medium will continue to be viewed inferior to music, literature, and other forms of art. The reversal of this stigma hinges on the industry's ability to consistently develop titles whose purpose is greater than to solely entertain. Are videogames pop art? Not right now, but it hardly means this medium is incapable of achieving it.