Video Games and Art
So Roger Ebert said once more that video games aren't art. And there has been a big tizzy about this. This is silly. Clearly, for the trivial definition of art, video games are art. But Ebert, sometimes (he shifts his goalposts constantly) means "not art" in a different sense than formal definition: he sometimes means it in the critically dismissive sense, and in that case he's pretty close to right on target.
What do I mean by "critically dismissive?" Well, for instance, imagine a Hallmark card with a nice painting of some lilies on the cover. It's clearly art in the trivial sense: paintings are pretty much the only thing which are defined culturally as honestly %100 bona-fide art without asterisk. But in another sense it's "not art:" in that it has no redeeming social or aesthetic value. Indeed it pretty much exists to be inoffensive and non-noticeable.
In terms of the basic question: are video games art? clearly the answer is yes. But in terms of the question "is there any worthwhile art in video games?" the answer is much hazier. I think that the answer is yes, but there's still a surprising dearth.
When I think about video games that have personally affected me about as much as a pretty good movie or nearly any book, I can count them on one hand. If I remove the games where it was some non-game aspect of the work (I'm looking at you, FFTactics) that affected me, it drops even further.
When I think about video games that have caused me to dramatically re-examine and rethink my life, the number drops to zero. (compared to a handful of movies, a few role-playing games, a great many books.)
In terms of things which have actually honestly changed my life, it's really just books and may...be a tabletop role-playing game (although I bet if I was a movie buff it'd have some movies too: I've seen this amongst my friends.) Video games aren't anywhere close to this.
So, once we've dismissed the obvious, there's a pretty important question there: why the dearth of decent art in video games? I think that, as a generation of video game players and designers, we need to confront that question, not shun and avoid it.
What do I mean by "critically dismissive?" Well, for instance, imagine a Hallmark card with a nice painting of some lilies on the cover. It's clearly art in the trivial sense: paintings are pretty much the only thing which are defined culturally as honestly %100 bona-fide art without asterisk. But in another sense it's "not art:" in that it has no redeeming social or aesthetic value. Indeed it pretty much exists to be inoffensive and non-noticeable.
In terms of the basic question: are video games art? clearly the answer is yes. But in terms of the question "is there any worthwhile art in video games?" the answer is much hazier. I think that the answer is yes, but there's still a surprising dearth.
When I think about video games that have personally affected me about as much as a pretty good movie or nearly any book, I can count them on one hand. If I remove the games where it was some non-game aspect of the work (I'm looking at you, FFTactics) that affected me, it drops even further.
When I think about video games that have caused me to dramatically re-examine and rethink my life, the number drops to zero. (compared to a handful of movies, a few role-playing games, a great many books.)
In terms of things which have actually honestly changed my life, it's really just books and may...be a tabletop role-playing game (although I bet if I was a movie buff it'd have some movies too: I've seen this amongst my friends.) Video games aren't anywhere close to this.
So, once we've dismissed the obvious, there's a pretty important question there: why the dearth of decent art in video games? I think that, as a generation of video game players and designers, we need to confront that question, not shun and avoid it.