Games are Art, But Art can be Bad...
Considering that I often try to discuss how games can be pretty thought-provoking (emphasis on "try to" there), I thought it might be about time that I finally weigh in with my thoughts on the whole "Games as Art" debate thingamajig that people can't seem to stop arguing about.
There is one problem though; I'm hesitant to really even refer to it as "a debate", why so? Well it just seems to me at least, that a lot of the discussions I see regarding this issue aren't that constructive. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are genuinely interesting and informative discussions about games and art occurring all the time, but when it comes to the wonderfully rational, reasonable, and always constructive forum of discussion that is the internet comment section (hah), the argument tends to boil down to something like this:
On the one hand we have the video game detractors, those who argue that games are not, have never, and probably never will be art. They feel that games simply fail to reach the heights of some nebulous and unclear set of quality standards that supposedly define what "art" is.
It seems that, to the detractors, art has to possess certain characteristics, it has to exhibit a particular level of... something. I suppose that "something" is that idea that art is considered to express beauty, profundity, or both, but I'll talk more about that later.
The main point is this: An argument I see all too often is the idea that games just don't attain the lofty heights of profound beauty that art apparently needs to possess.
On the other hand we've got those who argue that games are art, myself included. But there's one problem: Another argument I see far too often focuses itself around simply namedropping games that might be considered "artistic".
In response to the videogame detractors mentioned previously, many simply shout "but what about Shadow of the Colossus!?", "but what about Journey!?", "but what about Bioshock!?". This just isn't effective way to argue that games are art. While I'm aware that shouting about your favourite game, that you find beautiful or profound, might help to expand someone's horizons as to what games can do... It still misses the point.
What is that point? Well, by shouting "but Shadow of the Colossus must meet your standards for art, surely that game is beautiful or profound enough?" All you end up doing is reinforcing the idea that art does indeed have some defined set of standards that must be adhered to. It doesn't matter how many games you think might surpass those standards, the idea that such a pre-defined definition of art even exists is abhorrent anyway!
It isn't just your average internet argument that has suffered from such misconceptions either: When the late, great, film critic Roger Ebert came out with a now infamous statement that essentially said "Games aren't art and never will be", the ensuing uproar was, in many cases, more than a little flawed in how it went about picking his argument apart.
Now don't get me wrong, as much as I respect Ebert's work within the genre of film, I have no qualms with saying that he was unequivocally wrong: His statements regarding games were poorly thought out, and were pretty much just the product of his unfamiliarity with the medium.
That said, many of the responses that his initial blog post received were in much the same vein as I've described: People simply namedropped certain games they considered to be artistic, assuming that he'd obviously just concede and claim that games can indeed reach the supposed standards of art.
I mean, even the idea of someone going round his bloody house with a PS2 and copy of Shadow of the Colossus, just so he could play it and "see the error of his ways", was briefly suggested, which is just utterly laughable.
Gamers: Don't feel that you need to struggle to convince others that games can be art. Don't try to change their minds by claiming that certain games possess the required level of beauty or profundity in order to be bestowed the hallowed title of "art"! You just don't need to. Why? I refer you to the title above: Games are art, but art can be bad.
Before I go on to elaborate on that overall point, I suppose I should stop for a second to deal with an issue that I'm more than a little apprehensive to try and discuss... So what exactly is "art" then? If I'm so vehemently opposed to the idea that art has a defined set of standards and characteristics that must be adhered to, how do I go about defining "art"?
Quite simply really: Art is creative expression. It's the creation of expression through any medium or method, that can express anything.
I know that sounds incredibly vague, but it's supposed to. Defining what art is, is tricky, if not impossible. Logic, reason, and objectivity aren't particularly useful in such an endeavour; subjectivity rules the day in the art world.
Art is simply the result of a human effort to create something that expresses something, using whichever medium they wish.
And when I say "expression" I don't necessarily mean that art has to express deep, complex, philosophical meaning. It just has to express something, anything! A painter could paint a painting for no purpose other than to paint a nice looking painting; they could intend there to be no "deeper meaning" whatsoever within their work, but it's still expressing something: It's expressing aesthetic beauty, and material, visual appeal.
Likewise, a painting doesn't have to be aesthetically beautiful or skilfully complex; ugliness, or simplicity, can be perhaps just as useful tools for expression as traditional beauty.
In fact, let's take a second to have a look at a couple of examples of what we traditionally consider to be "art"...
Take one of my favourite artists, J. M. W. Turner for example. He was particularly adept at creating stunningly dramatic scenes and environments. His skill with lighting, depth, and colour resulted in sumptuously rich and detailed works. He was an artist fascinated with the Industrial Revolution occurring in Britain at the time, as such, even his nature scenes often depicted some element of this new mechanical drive of progress. His paintings simultaneously celebrated the new, modern, machine world that Britain was ushering in, whilst often expressing an air of melancholy. It was if he was saying "Look at this exciting new world we're creating! But also, consider the one we're leaving behind...".
On the complete opposite end of the spectrum, let's have a look at another well-respected artist: Mondrian. Mondrian could not be further from Turner; after the apocalyptically traumatic event that was the First World War, Mondrian wanted to move away from the traditional western values of art that had existed before and during this cataclysmic event. He created a style that emphasised the supposed purity of abstraction, his works didn't even come close to resembling anything recognisable in the world we lived in, they were utterly abstract, and in Mondrian's eyes, utterly pure; with a sense of harmony and equilibrium that he honestly thought could usher in a new balance for society. It was an artistic style nothing like traditional painting. Many artists, philosophers, poets, and writers in the post-First World War western world felt that traditional artistic values and standards were now morally bankrupt, because the western culture that they had been created in, was ultimately guilty of causing the horrors of the First World War. As such, Mondrian was just one of many modernist artists who used art to create a new modernity, a world nothing like the decadent, violent one they were trying to leave behind.
Both of these painters created their works for drastically different reasons, they expressed totally different sentiments in their art, developed indescribably different styles, and had their own definitions of what art could, or should, be. This is why it is impossible to claim that art has any predefined standards! Because even when we look at the medium of painting, arguably the first thing we think of when we hear the word 'art', even when we look at two world-renowned artists, we still find it impossible to create any standards that apply to both.
When Mondrian first gained fame, it's safe to assume that many in the art world at the time were apprehensive to call his work "art", because it simply didn't fit the standard mould. Even to this day, walk into any art gallery that's currently displaying any works of Mondrian, and I'm certain you'll overhear people of all ages and demographics saying "... but is it really art?", followed by said people promptly walking into the Rembrandt room and gushing over how "artistic" he was.
We humans simply love to question the new, we get comfortable in traditions, in historical values and popular trends, so much so that when something new comes along, a significant portion of us will embrace it, but perhaps an even greater portion will reject it. When it comes to art, that just doesn't work though.
Anyway, I think I'm digressing a little. Let's get back to games then shall we?
Gaming is simply the newest medium to add to humanity's ever growing list of creative methods of expression. The fact this it is a relatively new medium is what's caused it to suffer so much scrutiny; it's just so different in form and function to other artistic mediums.
At this point I'm just going to take this moment to have a little recap.
So far I've pointed out a few issues with how some of the debates as to whether games are art or not, focus too much on the idea that "art" is something that has defined standards and characteristics that must be adhered to: Both parties in this debate are guilty of this, those who state that games aren't "art" because they're somehow not good enough, not profound or beautiful enough, obviously imply that idea. Likewise, those who combat those detractors by pointing out particular games that they think might be considered "artistic", also imply that art therefore has a set of standards that must be met.
I've spent the last fifteen-hundred words of this arguing why it's impossible to define any kind of standards for what art is. And I've instead defined art simply as any form of creative expression through any medium.
Literature is art because it's another tool through which writers create worlds, they create stories within those worlds, acted out by painstakingly imagined humans, and non-humans in fact. The putting together of words is a detailed art form within itself; written language can astound the reader with its sheer beauty, it can immerse the reader in vastly complex fantasies, and enthral them with deeply personal human tales. It has the power to allow wildly exotic escapism, or to comprehend the real world around us.
Poetry is art because it is capable of similar feats as literature, but it makes more use of the form and rhythm of written language, and tends to be more personal in nature.
Theatre is art because it takes those written stories and tasks talented individuals with transferring all of the nuances and emotions within that story to a stage, acting it out before our very eyes.
Film takes that one step further in that not only does it rely on the ability of human actors, but it tries to visually, and audibly recreate an entire world, and all of the locations and events within the story. Not only that, but the way the director actually films said story, the cinematography, is an art form itself.
Then of course we have the more traditional visual arts, painting, sculpture, and the like, but I've already kind of been over them when I discussed painting earlier. The visual arts are created for such an incomprehensible amount of reasons that I can't really explain everything about the medium, but I've always felt that one of the more poignant aspects of visual art is that it's a way for the artist to comprehend, consider, and comment on the world around them, or create entirely new worlds instead.
Oh and last but not least, we have architecture. Architecture is about creating built environments that serve functional purpose whilst also exhibiting aesthetic form. Architecture creates the face of societies, whether it's Hitler's attempts to emphasise the "eternal thousand year Reich" with his imposing Roman structures, or a churches attempts to create an ethereal, reverent ambiance of worship, architecture is an integral part of how a society views itself. As well as being an exercise in efficient design and engineering know-how.
So how do we fit games into this list? Well, games are capable of doing all of these things... Except maybe poetry, yeah scrap that one, I'm yet to come across a game that tells its story in the iambic pentameter...
But aside from poetry, games do all of these things! Like literature and film, games create worlds and tell stories within those worlds. Games are written, with carefully designed characters, protagonists and antagonists, all with their own story arcs and purposes within the story. It has been many, many years, decades even, since games were purely about skill based challenges or puzzles. These days even the most simplistic game will usually try to provide some narrative context for its gameplay.
I'm actually not going to go into too much detail regarding the storytelling potential of games just now, because I'm instead going to create an entirely separate video dedicated to the topic of narrative in games at some point. But I will make mention of one aspect of storytelling that is unique to games: Remember my video on what Bioshock: Infinite is actually about? Remember how I mentioned that games actually tell two stories at once? Games not only express stories written by game developers and writers, they also express an utterly unique story at the same time; the story the player creates, simply by playing every single game in their own unique way... But as I said, I'll have more on that tantalising idea in another episode.
Games don't just create worlds narratively either, but visually too! One of the first stages of game development is the concept art stage. I defy anyone to look at the work of Kekai Kotaki (and the rest of the Guild Wars 2 artists in fact) and claim that games aren't art. It seems so obvious, but the amount of visual design and creative talent that goes into any game is tremendous. In the same way that architecture creates the face of societies, level and environmental design creates the aesthetic of the game; what would Bioshock be without Rapture? What would Half-Life 2 be without City 17?
In fact, the very idea that games have the unique ability to create three-dimensional representations of worlds, worlds that we can actually explore and affect, is incredibly profound when you think about it. Jump in a time machine and give Salvador Dali a visit, tell him that not long after his death we'll develop the ability to create 3D, explorable worlds as fantastical or as realistic as we can imagine, and I reckon his mind would be blown with the possibilities of such an ability.
Games can use their aesthetics to do more than just look pretty, look at games like Proteus or Journey, or Limbo, games that use a purposefully designed art-style to create exactly the right ambiance and mood they want, to make the player feel a certain way whilst playing the game.
I think there's also one important characteristic of art that I've yet to mention, which has particular relevance to games: Art isn't just a way for artists to express themselves creatively, it's also a way to create experiences. Art isn't created purely for the artist, it's also created to be experienced by others. Whether we're talking about painters, poets, architects or filmmakers, I'm sure there are very few artists out there who would be perfectly satisfied keeping their works to themselves, art is made to be interpreted, contemplated, and experienced by other human beings.
If there's one thing that games are particularly adept at, it's creating experiences.
The inherently interactive nature of games is something often lauded and talked about in opinion pieces like this one, and for good reason. The fact that games revolve around interactive systems creates a sense of immersion rivalled by no other medium. And I don't necessarily mean immersion in the somewhat exaggerated sense that it's often talked about in gaming; let's be honest with ourselves here, no amount of minimal user interface design or gimmicky motion controls will ever truly immerse us in gaming. Even now with the creation of the Oculus Rift, we'll still always be acutely aware that we're playing a game, and that's a good thing!
But that doesn't change the fact that games still have the most immersive potential compared to other mediums. The simple fact that games create a bizarre, almost unexplainable, feedback loop between the player, the controller, and the actions on screen, is one of the most important characteristics of gaming. That relationship between the player character and the player , that works through the controller, or through the mouse and keyboard, is what results in what some refer to as "kinsaesthetics" and some simply "game feel". The fact that certain games "feel" different from each other, often depending on many aspects of the game design such as physics, character movement, sound design, aesthetics, etc. etc. etc., is one of the more remarkable aspects of gaming. And it's something that game developers can exploit to profound effect. But again, I'll actually have more on that idea in the previously mentioned upcoming "Narrative in Games" video, because I feel that the interactive nature of games is particularly important in regards to how games tell stories... That, and the little word counter in the bottom left is telling me I'm over three-thousand words now, so I'll leave that topic for another time if that's okay with you.
Anyway, I'm about to make a potentially shocking statement. A statement that you probably thought you'd never hear anyone utter, let alone me. Here it comes, are you ready?...
I bet you're laughing, I bet you think I've just lost all credibility as a supposedly "analytical" gamer, but bare with me on this one.
Call of Duty is bad art, hell, it's not just bad art, it's horrendous art... But it's still art. Call of Duty games, like all games, try to take the player through a purposefully crafted aesthetic, narrative, interactive, systematic, experience. Is the narrative a convoluted, frankly boring mess that barely manages to provide context for a game based on repetition, iteration, and a total lack of innovation? Yep. Is the visual style fairly unremarkable, in spite of BLOPS II's attempts to add at least a little bit of colour (even if it is just orange and blue)? Yep. Is it a franchise that can be accused of representing some of the worst aspects of lazy game design, in a world where gamers will happily spend their money buying what is essentially the same game repackaged each year? Sure it can! That still doesn't mean it is therefore "not art" though.
The Call of Duty franchise may not necessarily reach my personal standards for what I feel games should be, but does that mean I utterly discount it? Does that mean I refuse to consider it as just another form of my favourite medium? No! Of course not. Any game, whatever I think of it; whether it's a game that I think is profoundly intellectual, or deplorably stupid, is part of a creatively expressive medium, and is therefore art... It just might not be very good art.
That's really the idea that I want people to take away from this. Games are art, all games, but that doesn't mean they'll necessarily be good art. I suppose I also want to leave you with a question: If you disagree with my reasoning, then I have to ask, what do you gain? How could anyone possibly benefit from the outright dismissal of any form of creativity as art?
I guess you might argue that, by carefully choosing what we allow to be defined as art, we help to protect the quality of art, the standard of art. But, as you know, I don't believe that art does possess any standards at all! Art is not an exclusive nightclub with a bouncer at the door asking people how profound or beautiful their work is before they can enter. Art is a cultural phenomenon that is indescribably varied. I'd argue that art never actually gets "better" or "worse" over time, it simply changes, it just becomes more varied and therefore more interesting. Sure, that variation causes differences in quality, in all mediums there will be beauty and shit, but deciding the quality of a piece of art is so subjective anyway that that's almost irrelevant.
I know that this has essentially been an overly long and convoluted way of saying "games are art, deal with it", but I've honestly felt for a while now that the way we perceive the word "art" has been distorted to have so much supposed beauty and profundity attached to it, that it's actually adversely affected they way many of us consider creative works of art.
Anyway, there you go, those are just a few of my thoughts regarding the silly "games as art" debate... If I'm honest, this really has been just a few of my thoughts, I could go into every minute detail as to why I think games are such a fantastic medium, but for now? That can wait for another time.
pixelskylines
theartofmadeline
kaledo-art
gummygunk
snowghoul
germansingergirl
annaxmalina
prguitarman