Grant ShepherdAre video games art? PART 1
July 7th 2008 00:58
Category: No Category
As a whole video games have never really been taken seriously. They have always been considered a novelty item among a large portion of the community and up until recently they were probably right. But over the last ten years or so the video game industry has progressed from a low budget medium used for light entertainment into a multi-billion dollar a year industry that rivals all other media in terms of profitability and exposure.
There are numerous debates around as to whether or not video games can be referred to as an art form. I will cover various areas of this topical debate and go further by evaluating the effectiveness of video games in terms of their development and social impact on the community, and whether this can further push for the acceptance of video games in the art community.
Criticism of games
There are numerous arguments as to why video games are not considered a part of the art community. The main criticisms which seem to keep resurfacing are
1.Video games are just a pointless form of entertainment, created to occupy children or amuse those young of heart. That it is something “you grow out of.”
2.Video games are just a mass produced consumer item created to make money and not to demonstrate the artistic ability of the creator.
3.There is no emotional connection to the viewer/player because the characters, environment and experiences aren’t real.
There are countless more arguments and criticisms about video games but these are the most common. Therefore they are the best questions to address when weighing up whether or not the criticisms given to games are warranted.
Criticism 1
This criticism is probably one of the most commonly used in the video games as art debate. But it is probably the most unjustified. Every critic who claims that video games are pointless amusement aimed at children, probably hasn’t played a video game in over 20 years. Yes the original video games created for the arcade, like Donkey Kong and Pong etc were obviously created for shear amusement. But video games today have definitely progressed significantly since then. No longer are games created just to amuse the player for a few hours, games are now epic masterpieces that can take upwards of 40 hours to complete. Games are now very serious endeavours and take persistence, patience and commitment to complete.
It has been proven that the majority of gamers are over the age of 18. This disproves the theory that games are only intended for children. Most games today aren’t even suitable for children, due to the violence, coarse language and sometimes sexual nature of the narrative.
Criticism 2
There’s no doubt about it, the video game industry is worth a lot of money. Most large video game companies expect the circulation of their product to be in the millions and make billions of dollars a year. But this is expected due to the huge production costs that now come when producing a top quality video game. The teams involved in video game production now rival the size of blockbuster movies and often surpass most films in general.
Therefore it is expected that these video games generate a fair amount of revenue to make the production worthwhile financially. But this has caused many critics to question the artistic values of video games.
Oppositionists believe that due to the fact that games are a consumer good that is made to generate a profit; this therefore forfeits the right of the creator to claim artistic credit for the piece. But what is unreliable in this theory is that the video game companies are the ones who are responsible for marketing and sales etc and therefore they are responsible for the economic side of the production. The creator of the game in most cases will not have any involvement whatsoever in the monetary affairs of the product. Their only purpose is to demonstrate their ideas, thoughts and creation to the gaming community, and if this in return gains a profit for them so be it.
It is the same for authors, screenwriters and film directors etc. They don’t do it for the money; they do it to express themselves creatively. Game designers are no different.
Criticism 3
As quoted by Newsweek’s Jack Kroll, “audiences will probably never be able to care as deeply about pixels on the computer screen as they care about characters in films: moviemakers don’t have to simulate human beings; they are right there, to be recorded and orchestrated.” (Jenkins). Kroll effectively sums up what the general attitude is of critics when gamers try to compare video games to film (most of which are referred to as art). The argument put forward is that video games can never connect to the gamer the way a film or piece of art can. That is, it can’t demonstrate emotions due to the fact that what you are viewing is not real. But is an actor who is playing another character real? Are the stories created in a film always real? Is a painting of a landscape real?
No. This very hypocritical viewpoint is completely unjustified. Just because something isn’t real doesn’t mean it isn’t art. When you think about it, not many artworks are real. And it is just as easy to have an emotional connection with an artificial character in a game as it is with an actor in a film. Especially with today’s advanced graphics and dedicated emotion engines, the characters in video games are ultra realistic and demonstrate real emotions and characteristics.
Characters in video games are now so advanced that they are almost indistinguishable from real life, but what separates them from their real life counterparts in film is the fact that they have been completely designed and created. Whilst films use actors to try and resemble a director’s idea of a character, video games are able to capture exactly what the creator imagined. This helps further the cause that video games are actually more artistic than cinema.
Part 2 will go over examples of games that have emerged recently that have really pushed for gaming to be accepted as art.
There are numerous debates around as to whether or not video games can be referred to as an art form. I will cover various areas of this topical debate and go further by evaluating the effectiveness of video games in terms of their development and social impact on the community, and whether this can further push for the acceptance of video games in the art community.
Criticism of games
There are numerous arguments as to why video games are not considered a part of the art community. The main criticisms which seem to keep resurfacing are
1.Video games are just a pointless form of entertainment, created to occupy children or amuse those young of heart. That it is something “you grow out of.”
2.Video games are just a mass produced consumer item created to make money and not to demonstrate the artistic ability of the creator.
3.There is no emotional connection to the viewer/player because the characters, environment and experiences aren’t real.
There are countless more arguments and criticisms about video games but these are the most common. Therefore they are the best questions to address when weighing up whether or not the criticisms given to games are warranted.
Criticism 1
This criticism is probably one of the most commonly used in the video games as art debate. But it is probably the most unjustified. Every critic who claims that video games are pointless amusement aimed at children, probably hasn’t played a video game in over 20 years. Yes the original video games created for the arcade, like Donkey Kong and Pong etc were obviously created for shear amusement. But video games today have definitely progressed significantly since then. No longer are games created just to amuse the player for a few hours, games are now epic masterpieces that can take upwards of 40 hours to complete. Games are now very serious endeavours and take persistence, patience and commitment to complete.
It has been proven that the majority of gamers are over the age of 18. This disproves the theory that games are only intended for children. Most games today aren’t even suitable for children, due to the violence, coarse language and sometimes sexual nature of the narrative.
Criticism 2
There’s no doubt about it, the video game industry is worth a lot of money. Most large video game companies expect the circulation of their product to be in the millions and make billions of dollars a year. But this is expected due to the huge production costs that now come when producing a top quality video game. The teams involved in video game production now rival the size of blockbuster movies and often surpass most films in general.
Therefore it is expected that these video games generate a fair amount of revenue to make the production worthwhile financially. But this has caused many critics to question the artistic values of video games.
Oppositionists believe that due to the fact that games are a consumer good that is made to generate a profit; this therefore forfeits the right of the creator to claim artistic credit for the piece. But what is unreliable in this theory is that the video game companies are the ones who are responsible for marketing and sales etc and therefore they are responsible for the economic side of the production. The creator of the game in most cases will not have any involvement whatsoever in the monetary affairs of the product. Their only purpose is to demonstrate their ideas, thoughts and creation to the gaming community, and if this in return gains a profit for them so be it.
It is the same for authors, screenwriters and film directors etc. They don’t do it for the money; they do it to express themselves creatively. Game designers are no different.
Criticism 3
As quoted by Newsweek’s Jack Kroll, “audiences will probably never be able to care as deeply about pixels on the computer screen as they care about characters in films: moviemakers don’t have to simulate human beings; they are right there, to be recorded and orchestrated.” (Jenkins). Kroll effectively sums up what the general attitude is of critics when gamers try to compare video games to film (most of which are referred to as art). The argument put forward is that video games can never connect to the gamer the way a film or piece of art can. That is, it can’t demonstrate emotions due to the fact that what you are viewing is not real. But is an actor who is playing another character real? Are the stories created in a film always real? Is a painting of a landscape real?
No. This very hypocritical viewpoint is completely unjustified. Just because something isn’t real doesn’t mean it isn’t art. When you think about it, not many artworks are real. And it is just as easy to have an emotional connection with an artificial character in a game as it is with an actor in a film. Especially with today’s advanced graphics and dedicated emotion engines, the characters in video games are ultra realistic and demonstrate real emotions and characteristics.
Characters in video games are now so advanced that they are almost indistinguishable from real life, but what separates them from their real life counterparts in film is the fact that they have been completely designed and created. Whilst films use actors to try and resemble a director’s idea of a character, video games are able to capture exactly what the creator imagined. This helps further the cause that video games are actually more artistic than cinema.
Part 2 will go over examples of games that have emerged recently that have really pushed for gaming to be accepted as art.
| 75 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Add To: 
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Cibbuano
20/20 Filmsight
Science News
Hunt Famous
Orble Post of the Day
Fat Cult
Techbreak
Of course, I think he's missing the point. Interactive art is a cutting edge field, and video games certainly have the potential to be art..