This editorial is in response to our own David Lasby’s banter piece called “Should Video Games Be Considered Art?”. He argues his point by saying that video games:
“…should inspire, should challenge or move us to rethink ourselves, our relationships, or our world; and in so doing, to become better.”
– David Lasby
I’ve been moved by games don’t get me wrong, so I cannot counter his point, however we have to look at what video games are truly made in this “artistic” form. They are made to be played and interacted with, and with the player’s perspective in mind, to be bought and sold the world over.
You can catch The Boss Rush Podcast live on Twitch every Sunday night or on Podcast Services and YouTube Monday mornings. Play Games. Be Better. Boss Rush Games.
Anchor | Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Google | Twitch | Overcast | Pocket Casts
Art is an expression of a creative vision, feeling, and emotion from the artists and/or creators. I can agree that the visuals themselves can be considered art, but when the powers that be discriminate, disseminate, and poke and prod these “artistic” pieces, who are they serving when they do so? The customer. A game cannot fit into the art space, because what are the points of video games? Playing. You are interacting and trying to reach a goal, encountering challenges, and hitting checkpoints. You are interacting, learning and employing a skill to advance. If this were the case to say “video games are art,” then we have to use the same logic with sports. Sports themselves are expressions of emotions, however the ultimate role of sports is to employ your own skills to achieve goals. As a fan, or viewer of sports, video games, or any activity where others are trying to achieve a goal, those specific activities are meant to satisfy or amuse the audience.
If we say that there are video games that lack these interactive elements, like walking simulators for example, and achievable goals, then it ceases to become a video game, doesn’t it? As Roger Ebert puts it, on his website:
“…I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.”
– Roger Ebert
Art is not interactive. If you are watching a musical orchestra play a symphony, they don’t require you to pick up an instrument and play. Reading Homer’s The Iliad does not require you to “choose the next action” in order to finish the story.
Art by itself, as stated before, is an expression of the artist’s vision. Games these days are play tested and focus tested, and developers are interacting with players to find out what they like, and what gameplay elements satisfy the most. Games are NOT made with the artists’ visions in mind, they are made with the “player’s” vision in mind.
If video games were art, there would be no need for Metacritic scores, and leagues of websites (like the fine website bossrushgames.com) and video game magazines critiquing video games left and right, and recommending or not recommending games to their viewership. Video game publishing companies are obsessed with these scores and reviews, and want to put out games that make you, the player, happy. Which, in turn, means more money in their pockets. Was Van Gough obsessed with selling his art for money? Was Plato writing plays, ballads and poems for fame and fortune? Video games are made to be bought and sold, and meant to earn profits.
I can admit to myself that I have played many games that have evoked a wide range of feelings and emotions, like sadness, anger, happiness and wholesomeness. There are games out there that have given me pause and caused me to reflect and have great discussions about with others who have experienced the same, much like the experiences David Lasby mentioned in his article. However, I believe he misses the point when he calls video games “art” because it evokes these feelings and emotions. We can enjoy these moments with video games and not have to call it art. Because it is not. Video games are experiences we interact with. Art is a true reflection of the artist itself, and we all know video games are made with the consumer in mind. Art is not interactive, and does not require input from the viewer, or player. Video games are a product that is produced with the intent to make money. That’s OK, because it shouldn’t stop you from enjoying them.
Image Sources: Game Informer, New Statesman, That Dragon Cancer
Author’s Note: The conversation continues in my editorial concerning critique versus criticism in video games, and why many that that believe video games are an art form don’t treat it as such.
I must disagree with your conclusion that videogames are not art, for various reasons. I am going to attempt to respond to all of your points one by one:
1) “Art is an expression of a creative vision, feeling, and emotion from the artists and/or creators.”
Your definition of art seems to be rather strict. In Confucian China, philosophers defined math and archery as art, so in that more broader sense, we could also classify sports as an art in itself. One could take this view even further, exemplified by the fact that many today classify certain dishes made by top chefs as works of art. Another definition, introduced by Leo Tolstoy in is book “What is art?” is even directly opposed to your own view on the subject, as he describes art as being fully defined by how something is experienced by an audience and that its creator has no power on whether it can be defined or not as art. My own view is two-fold, in that we either consider the strictest definition possible, where art can only be an visual object, such as a painting or a sculpture, that was created without any commercial objective whatsoever, or we consider a more open definition, in that anything that has something to say and evokes certain emotions must be considered art.
2) “when the powers that be discriminate, disseminate, and poke and prod these “artistic” pieces, who are they serving when they do so? The customer.”
This argument can be used for almost any piece of art created in modern times, be it a painting, a novel, a film or even a sculpture. To say that something is not art due to being customer-focused is, at least from my point of view, a misconception of what art truly is. Regardless, even if we were to agree on this point, one must admit that several games, in particular indie games, are not made with the main objective of selling products to a customer, so it at least opens the door for some games to be considered piece of art.
3) “what are the points of video games? Playing. You are interacting and trying to reach a goal, encountering challenges, and hitting checkpoints.” and also “If we say that there are video games that lack these interactive elements, like walking simulators for example, and achievable goals, then it ceases to become a video game, doesn’t it?”
That is a good question, what are the objectives of video games? Is it only reaching a goal and encountering challenges? If so, then do games that lack these elements, such as ‘walking simulators’, stop being games? This argument seems like the most tenuous of the bunch, as in its most basic essence it is only an argument of semantics. In philosophy, this is type of argument is generally frowned upon and with good reason, since it introduces very little to the discussion and we miss the forest for the trees. In practice, a video game is only a medium, with a very specific definition, and trying to say that a game with low interaction is not a game, goes against its very definition. Also, this argument can be made against immersive or interactive theater, which, I would argue, is also an art form. In fact, many art exhibitions today have interactive elements to them and it seems limiting to classify anything that is interactive as not being a form of art.
4) “Games are NOT made with the artists’ visions in mind, they are made with the “player’s” vision in mind.”
Again, disagree. Extending the argument in 2, I would say that most commercial products are made with the customer’s vision in mind. You can find many indie games that are made with the creators vision in mind. I have played some games which attempt to narrate how it feels to live with certain mental illnesses and I can assure you, they were not made with the player in mind, but the life experiences of its creator. Also, like I previously mentioned, something is not necessarily a piece of art simply do to being made with the artists vision in mind.
5) “If video games were art, there would be no need for Metacritic scores” and also “Video games are made to be bought and sold, and meant to earn profits.”
Again, this is a critique of commercial products. Just because something is made with profit as one of its objectives, does not mean it is not art. Almost ALL mainstream films today are made with profit as one of its main purposes, otherwise the studios shareholders’ will simply replace a director. This does not mean that a film cannot be art, just because it also strives to earn a profit. Also, many games made by smaller creators are not made with the main purpose of making profits, so this point does not apply to them. Damn, even several mainstream games are made with the main purpose of drawing players to purchase a given console or hardware, so a game can fail to make a profit and still be considered a success, something that is not true in most film endeavors, so this argument makes more sense if you were to try and build a case as to why films aren’t art, than as an argument to why video games aren’t art.
Your final paragraph is mostly a rehash of the arguments you had previously made, so there is nothing specific there for me to answer that hasn’t been answered in my previous points, so I will instead try to answer your overall essay. I would like to start by mentioning my background, because I am a mathematician by trade and, unlike what most people believe, mathematics is not objective, it is subjective, as one can choose which axioms to create a system with, a choice that is fully subjective, and only then does objectivity arise. Since math is a sandbox where everything can be true, one’s choice of axioms is very important, as it defines the rules which limit and define what we can do. Here I find your axioms lacking, mostly because you seem to start with a conclusion “video games are not art” and try to work backwards to find axioms that agree and fundament your conclusion. Although I found your essay interesting, I think it would be better if you first spent more time trying to find axioms that define art in its more abstract form and then worked from there. Also, the arguments about profit can be applied to almost any object created in the last century or so and as such do not really carry much weight beyond defining art as something that must be created before a certain time.
I think you raise some good points however, as you can see from the replies, I think there is more that needs to be done to sell this idea to people. I think one of the big problems people have is drawing equivalence between enjoyment and art – this seems to stem from multiple places such as a desire to be inclusive and not gatekeep (which actually lowers standards), and ego: people want their work to be considered art/want the thing they enjoy to be considered as art. It’s a curious phenomenon since what these people are doing is placing “art” on a pedestal of high culture, while also undermine the inherent value of the thing they’re trying to promote.
People also conflate artistic qualities with art. Video games can involve artistic elements but these don’t make the final product art (for the various reasons you’ve outlined). I think maybe if we shifted our vocabulary to replace references to art in non-art endeavours, perhaps we could shift this mindset. You mention Plato, and perhaps his word “techne” might be a suitable replacement.
If you fancy some further reading, there is something on Medium titled “If Everything Is Art Then Nothing Is Art” which voices similar concerns but the scope is a more broad look at culture in general. Interesting it ends the same way your article does (and the same way my preachy lectures to other people end): “That’s okay”. I think what we all realise that other struggle with is that art isn’t that important and we don’t need to draw equivalence for the sake of it.
Thank you for the reply and adding to the conversation. I actually read the article you mentioned “If Everything is Art Then Nothing Is Art” after I wrote this article and I wish I had prior, but was nonetheless surprised how similar we were in our viewpoint. But you hit the nail on the head with what you said about ego and people’s desires to have what they love be inclusive and placed on a high cultural pedestal. Thank you again.
That is such an AWFUL take on art. I don’t even know where to start. Interactive? Uhhhhh….dissect that. The music in a video game…the visuals…you can’t interact with most details. So many parts of a games are not interactive. Also, a script is written. Music is produced. Artwork is rendered into the digital world. Almost every component in a video game is created through art….yet when a person picks up a controller, those components are reduced to something less than art? Also, monetization. Are you dumb? They don’t make movies or music or TV shows for money? Huh. I could’ve fooled me. Put it this way: if lil Wayne can call himself a recording “artist” andthe world agrees without batting an eye, then saying video games aren’t art is extremely insulting. And again, your reasoning is just grade school level ignorance. Interaction does not somehow invalidate something as being art. Moron.
Yes, calling someone a moron is a PERFECT way to make your point. Immediately cannot take you seriously.
Dumb ducking ass ahahahahahahahahhahahahahah
This is an impressively bad take.
“If Video Games were art, there would be no reason for Metacritic scores”
I guess movies aren’t art then. Ebert is double wrong.