Don't just say games are art, show it

Default_picture
Tuesday, April 17, 2012
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Eduardo Moutinho

I've never really defended video games as art to anyone that I know because I feel it's a silly argument. When you experience amazing works of interactive entertainment on a regular basis, the notion is obvious.

Flower 1

We get it already. Games are art. Now quit making such a fuss over it. It's an old argument that needs to die. Seriously. We're all sick of it. Enough already!

Besides, this constant preaching isn't achieving anything. In fact, I would say it's done more harm than good. How?

Because it depicts us as being insecure about this all-important subject.

The question of whether games are art has been debated for years. It's a topic that pops up frequently on message boards and in the press with titles like thatgamecompany's Flower being held up as prime examples supporting the argument. I think Journey is the better example, though, since it isn't constantly shouting "HEY, I'M AN ART GAME! APPRECIATE ME!" like Flower, but I digress.

The point is, plenty of people have supported the pro-art rationale -- more than was ever necessary. But they haven't managed to accomplish anything except articulate our collective thoughts. Never have I seen any good come out of the movement, like someone saying they've been convinced of the artistic merit of games. I've only seen agreement.

 

And that's why we write about the topic, isn't it? To get the non-believers to see the light. We haven't succeeded in that regard. All you ever read in the comments section of those articles are predictable heaps of praise that talk about how the author is right and anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish. Maybe you see some heated arguments on the subject but never any converts.

It's not hard to see why, either. The problem is simple -- and no, it's not because these articles are always kept to video game-centric sites. The problem is that when we continually try to convince others that games are art, it gives off the appearance that we're doubtful about our own claims. We come across as needed to receive approval from outside sources before we can confidently believe our propaganda. It's ludicrous.

Journey 1

Take a look at any post from film critic Roger Ebert that touches this debate, and you'll see thousands of players coming to gaming's defense. And you'll also see a ton of forum threads and articles countering his position -- some with hostility, even. Honestly, guys, it's ridiculous. All that hubbub over the statements from a man who doesn't even play games. This is why no one takes us seriously.

If you truly believe games are an art form, don't just say it, show it. There are some good critiques out that that make a damn strong case, even for the most seemingly simple games. Start professing our medium's artistic merit through intelligent introspective. Be a critic for once. We'll actually stand to make a difference that way. People take notice of good, thought-provoking writing, after all. And we might gain a few converts or more exhibitions like the one currently at the Smithsonian. We won't know until we try.

And hey, if that means I don't have to see another games-as-art thread, then all the better.

 
Problem? Report this post
BITMOB'S SPONSOR
Adsense-placeholder
Comments (5)
Default_picture
April 14, 2012

A flawed argument. When popular sentiment is that games are not works of art -- despite objectively being exactly that -- there's very good reason to speak up.

SImilarly, bi/homosexuality are not inherently wrong... but far too much of this planet wrongfully feels the opposite, so there's a duty for good people to say something.

There's no insecurity is stating facts, especially in the fact of unwarranted denial.

Default_picture
April 14, 2012

It just seems ridiculous to keep writing articles making those claims when both the games and their critiques (not reviews; there's a big difference) do a better job at making a case for the medium. I can't count how many times I've read something titled "Games are art" that manages to say a whole lot of nothing.

The better method would be to drive people toward the games that push their potential. Let games speak for themselves, you know? Better to spent our engery writing about those games than writing about the whole.

...And I probably should have said that in the article, since that was what I was (poorly) trying to get at. Crap. Be right back.

Default_picture
April 14, 2012

I hear where you're coming from, and I definitely appreciate letting games stand on their own. I just don't feel like standing idly by when people with cloud (Ebert) spout off nonsense is all)

Default_picture
April 14, 2012

Oh, I know what you mean. He's definitely got influence. I just think he isn't worth our time. I think he's just trolling us at this point, actually. He knows we hate it when he says games aren't art, so he has to be continuing to write about only because he enjoys getting a rise out of us. If he actually played a game, then his comments would be worth arguing against, since he would be drawing from actual experience.

36970_440604814609_500264609_5862488_5061095_n
April 17, 2012

There's a super simple solution to all of this, for me at least. Art, as defined by me, is a work that elicits an emotion. Be it joy, sadness, whatever. If a game can manage to draw an emotion out of me, I consider it a work of art. Obviously games are art. They require art assets in the most literal sense of the word. But for me art is defined by a message that makes me feel something.

So when the industry starts taking itself a little more serious and using the unique abilites it has to play with emotions, then I think people will take us more seriously. Until then, the debates will continue. Partially because a lot of gamers don't understand what is meant when someone says "an art game".

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.