9/3/2013

I’ve been stewing over whether video games can be considered art for quite some time now. Much has been written about the controversy, but recently, the controversy has been fomented by the inclusion of some video game prints in the New York Museum of Modern Art and Design. Critics have called the curator out, say that such pieces are not art, but games. For instance, chess is a wonderful display of strategy and mental execution. It may have elements of art, but in the end, it is a game. Similarly, watching two great tennis players volley back and forth is only a game, despite what can be described as an artful performance by the players. Aside from distinguishing between art and design, the curator stood by the concept of video games as art despite criticism from those who thought otherwise, including the late Roger Ebert who thought video games could never be art.

A lot of the debate focuses on defining art and games. For some working definitions, you can go to the link below.

http://thegamedesignforum.com/features/can_videogames_be_art.html

For art critics, there seems to be a subjective value placed on art that evokes a greater appreciation for humanity. It is a closed-ended experience created by the artist for people who can grasp the intent of the artist, that the experience that went into creating the piece of art can be similarly experienced by the one who reads, looks, or hears it. Thus critics point to a “sublime” quality of art that is targeted to few individuals, those that can understand, as opposed to the masses. Not everyone can appreciate Brahms, Van Gogh, or a wadded up piece of tissue paper on a thin pedestal, but those that do reach into a greater awareness of emotion that touches humanity. Therefore, art always maintains a certain distance between it and the interpreter that elevates it into a rarefied cultural tier of “fine arts.” By its very distance and selectivity, art cannot be played.

In stark contrast are the “low art” of games. They are meant to be played and thus incorporate the decisions of the player. Games are open-ended in that that the outcome is not a foregone conclusion. In certain respects, games are real-time whereas art is mostly static (even symphonies which are played, are still bound by the composer, however interpretive the director might be). Games are activities we do to simply pass time. We do not cultivate any greater sense of humanity or cultural awareness. Thus games garner a negative connotation (at least to art critics) as “time-wasters” despite however enjoyable they might be. It’s something children often do, and as adults something we supposedly outgrow, like Saturday morning cartoons. Games are not serious, but casual. We often say expressions like “quit playing games (with my heart, or anything else)” as an imperative to grow-up and act seriously. Whenever someone has been conned, we say that he or she has been played, not painted.
It certainly doesn’t help the video game artists’ case that there is indeed casual gaming. With the advent of mobile gaming, how can a game like Angry Birds or Candy Crush Saga be considered art? Certainly the gamer is entertained as he or she passes time riding the train to work or to get home, but nothing greater is accomplished other than a sensation of enjoyment. We are merely entertained by games either as the performer or the spectator, and pay handsomely to do so, but is that the only function of games? Is it only an entertainment package to be consumed? Or can games instill a greater sense of cultural awareness that point beyond mere entertainment?

As an avid gamer, I am of the opinion that indeed video games can be art, but there is the rub. They can be art, not necessarily that they are art. The distinction is important because it defines the function of video games as art. As a product of design, video games are, like most art, items bound by the creators’ intent. It does not matter whether a game is completely linear or if there are multiple story lines/endings. Despite whatever freedoms are given to the player, the games are still bound by the ones and zeros of their design. While players are able to create characters and classes, or select weaponry and gear, they can only do so from what the artists (yes, artists) have created for them. These “digital artists” deserve high praise for what largely goes unnoticed by the general public. In the narratives, character stills, voice acting, code, quality testing (a thankless job), and everything else that earns a spot in the end credits, the content comes together into a singular end product much like any other work of art. In fact, I dare say that more artistry goes into creating some video games than for books, movies, paintings, or music, that video games are able to exceed what “fine art” has to offer. However, while it can be said that the design of a game itself qualifies as art, video games are not art just because it has been purposely designed.

For gamers it’s never only about being entertained, even if at an unconscious level. There have been many a game instances where I have been as frustrated as a minotaur lost in his own labyrinth. And in multiplayer games there will always be someone who will get the better of me. No, gamers are about the gaming experience. We referred to it as gameplay, the playability of a game that translates the design of a game into an interactive experience. THAT is where the art lies. Electronic Arts does have its slogan correct. It really is “in the game.”

Thus, video games function to translate its art into player experiences from which narratives are born. This works best in games that are heavily involved in telling a story, but also works in the stories that are told by the kind of characters we play. For example, my favorite game series is Mass Effect. Combine elements of a first person shooter and role-playing game and you get a game trilogy that incorporates decisions made from the first game that have consequences into the third. Say you get a player killed in the first game. He or she will not appear in the third. There are ethical decisions to make that have consequences in the series. There are questions that probe the depth of humanity even though aliens are involved. The game tells a story where a piece of the player is reflected in the character and decisions made in-game.
Another example would be the Baldur’s Gate series from the glory days of PC gaming. It was some of my fondest college gaming memories. As with any other franchises, a certain continuity exists in the sequels to the original. Sure it drives some of the software sales, but there is a certain expectation of story with a gameplay that is distinct to the franchise. Baldur’s Gate is based off Dungeons and Dragons, so already it has an expectation of a story driven game experience, but the choices that you make are about how to create an effective party. However, while the story does revolve around the protagonist, each of your party members have their own stories to develop in the game, assuming you choose to develop them. Suffice it to say one of my college friends often times just watched me play because the game unfolded like a movie.

These are all more conscious decisions in a story driven game, but what about the “mindless” multiplayer first person shooters such as Modern Warfare 3? Sure, there is a campaign mode, but most people hop online to pick teams where the objective is to kill other virtual players. But even in this, the kinds of classes people play still reflect, to a degree, the type of person they are. With headsets, other team members can put a voice with the character and interestingly enough, even with only a voice, personality shines through. With enough time, people start to notice that one plays a certain way on certain maps. For example, on many maps I use a riot shield as my style of play. I don’t particularly care that it’s not an offensive weapon. The point is that I use it as one of my favorite ways to play, to the annoyance of many an opponent (and sometimes teammates). This is beyond just an entertainment value, but symbol for players themselves. Video games point to something else about the person playing the game. It’s about how they want TO BE in the game.

Thus, video games must be considered as art, and despite the time wasters they appear to be, are no less artistic than a good book or a movie. True, some video games are of the causal nature. They aren’t meant to be art pieces, but to generalize this other games is to be ignorant to what games can represent. Part of gaming is the narrative that is offered, but more importantly, the game is about how you interact with it. It can be reflective of the type of person you are, and that is art. Art is a medium that must speak to you, so if games do not function in this capacity, then it has failed as art…for you, just like toilet paper on a pedestal has failed for me. In the end however, the content of art still carries weight because ultimately what becomes art is between it and its creator. Isn’t it interesting that video games can do just that while being played?

Some more links to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_games_as_an_art_form#cite_note-12
http://thegamedesignforum.com/features/narrative_in_games.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2012/nov/30/moma-video-games-art
http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters/