Are Videogames Art?

The gaming interweb is abuzz with responses to Roger Eberts latest response to his article ‘Video Games can never be Art’

I read this article and was more than a little surprised at its claims. The article was mostly a response to a TED talk given at USC by Kellee Santiago, and so I guess the blame falls there also.

The three games Santiago raised as ‘art’ were; ‘Waco Resurrection’, ‘Braid’ and ‘Flower’

Firstly – Waco? Are you serious? For a discussion for, or even against, games as art, Waco will destroy all credibility. What on earth would make ANYONE believe that a game based on the events of Waco, Texas was art?

Braid has a clever mechanic, but also is not really ‘art’.

And Flower. Flower is a clever little thing. Santiago was right to raise Flower as art, as it’s probably one of the closest things to traditional art there is in video games. But I will come back to that.

I guess at this point I need to define a word so incredibly undefinable, art.

The best thing I found online was this which primarily defines it as ‘human ability to make things; creativity of man as distinguished from the world of nature’. But that definition doesn’t distinguish good art from bad ‘art’. Is the works of Fryderyk Chopin art? The world says ‘yes’. Then what, in this definition, distinguishes Chopin from Lady Gaga?
The reason the word ‘art’ has such as lofty definition is because art continually refuses to be defined. And when it is identified, people quickly work to break that definition and still be recognised as art. At a time when art was defined by the talent and skill of reimagining nature on canvas, impressionism challenged the definition. It was no longer about perfect lines and photographic detail, but rather the movement, and feeling of the scene and its subjects. And then what about cubism, surrealism, Dadaism, performance art, digital art, Interactive art?


From my understanding, art is somewhat subjective, and is subject to all who care to, and appreciated by those that do. But additionally, continues to be appreciated over time. I have my doubts that Lady Gaga will be appreciated by many in 500 years, or 100 years, or even 20 years.

So being subjective, and being tested and appreciated by those that care about video games leaves one factor remaining. Time. Gaming is not yet an old enough medium to test the theory of games as art. We will know what is art when, in 100 or more years, connoisseurs are loading up their emulators and kicking off to a game of Super Mario Brothers.

Another point Ebert raises on the subject of ‘games cannot be art’ as they can be won. I agree that something that can be ‘won’ is hard pressed to be considered art, however most of the games I play these days are not ‘won’ but rather the story comes to a conclusion. I haven’t played a game I ‘won’ since 1992.
Half Life 2 for example, just like its predecessor, is certainly not ‘won’, but rather, on its completion, that chapter of the protagonist’s story concludes. Now I’m not saying Half Life is art, it’s a rich story woven into the game. It’s detailed and riveting and fun, but that does not make it art.

Ebert goes on to say this about Flower, “Is the game scored? She doesn't say. Do you win if you're the first to find the balance between the urban and the natural? Can you control the flower? Does the game know what the ideal balance is?”
Ebert clearly knows nothing of the game and doesn’t attempt to find out (a simple Google/Wikipedia search will answer these questions). How is it that someone who has won critical acclaim as a journalist (‘"America's #1 pundit." – Forbes’ is proudly displayed on his website) could make a claim so bold without actually having any knowledge of the subject matter. I do not presume to say the works of Jane Austen are not art, simply because I do not read them and know little of them. Instead I take heed from the masses of people who know and appreciate period literature and, until I read it for myself, accept their general opinion on the subject.

I’m not saying that we all become mindless drones, automatically agreeing to the general consensus (which would probably see Lady Gaga as art), but rather I say this in order to urge people to experience the things they wish to comment on, and until then, ask someone of more experience than themselves.

There, I’ve said it. Games can be, and possibly are, art. Not very decisive am I? Time will tell.

Wow. I’ve gone all this time without nominating a single game as, what I believe is actual art. My nomination goes to Shadow of the Colossus – a spectacular PS2 adventure, with a transcending story and a depth of character that is simply amazing considering so few words are actually said.

*Update* http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html
Roger Ebert; "I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen."
"Who was I to say video games didn't have the potential of becoming Art? Someday? There was no agreement among the thousands of posters about even one current game that was an unassailable masterpiece. Shadow of the Colossus came closest. I suppose that's the one I should begin with."