The question of whether or not video games can be considered art is one that has occupied online messageboards, blogs, and even newspapers over the past several years. Yet recently, Matt posed a seemingly simple question that has thus far left me stumped: Why should we care? At first, I didn't really have an answer. For a gamer like myself, who willingly whiles away hours and even days in the warm glow of digital explosions, the question of "why should I care?" had never really come to mind. Even though I've yet to reach a conclusion as to whether or not games are art, the worth of questioning if games can or ever could come to be described as "art" had always been a given for me. Yet, when asked why, I could do nothing but sit dumbfounded in my chair. The question still stands: Why should we care?
To be honest, I really can't give a reason why Matt or anyone else should care, but perhaps I can speak to why I care. I love games because they have a profound ability to illicit a complex range of emotions and reactions in me that simply are not present in any other medium, ranging from empowerment to terror, empathy, conflict, and guilt. To be fair, mediums such as cinema, literature, music, and the visual arts have evoked strong responses from viewers and listeners for decades, if not centuries. Works such as the Sistine Chapel, the Mosque at Cordoba, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and Saving Private Ryan have all enjoyed profound success in invoking the terrors of battle or the awe of the divine in both ancient and modern peoples alike. Yet, I feel that video games have the potential to match and perhaps surpass the poignancy of more traditional media by inviting the player to actively participate in the work of art the developers have created. By making the viewer an active participant in the work of art, instead of simply a passive observer, a game can more directly and effectively engage the viewer with the issues it is trying to tackle and the points it is trying to get across.
Does this mean, then, that I advocate that games are a legitimate form of art? Not at all. Games, as they stand, face a number of different challenges that complicate their evolution into an established art form, and titles that advance the legitimacy of games as art are few and far between. Yet, I care about the question of whether games can be considered art because I perceive a profound and tangible potential for games to utilize the evocative and immersive properties that keep me in my living room each weekend to engage players in the societal, cultural, and existential issues that more traditional mediums currently address. Ultimately, I care about it because I care about gaming, and because I want to see this passtime grow out of the turbulent adolescence that it currently finds itself in and grow into something more worthy of the potential that all-too-often goes unseen. As Tony Huynh, Senior Game Designer at Day 1 Studios, stated in his blog, LimitlessUnits.com, "video games have boundless possibilities and are uniquely suited to surpass any other mediums that currently exist because there is a level of connectivity through open-ended and collaborative interactivity that no other media can hope to match." I hope that others come to see this, too.
-- Mike
Banner image of Prince of Persia by Ubisoft. Image courtesy of IGN.com
»» read more
To be honest, I really can't give a reason why Matt or anyone else should care, but perhaps I can speak to why I care. I love games because they have a profound ability to illicit a complex range of emotions and reactions in me that simply are not present in any other medium, ranging from empowerment to terror, empathy, conflict, and guilt. To be fair, mediums such as cinema, literature, music, and the visual arts have evoked strong responses from viewers and listeners for decades, if not centuries. Works such as the Sistine Chapel, the Mosque at Cordoba, Beethoven's 5th Symphony, and Saving Private Ryan have all enjoyed profound success in invoking the terrors of battle or the awe of the divine in both ancient and modern peoples alike. Yet, I feel that video games have the potential to match and perhaps surpass the poignancy of more traditional media by inviting the player to actively participate in the work of art the developers have created. By making the viewer an active participant in the work of art, instead of simply a passive observer, a game can more directly and effectively engage the viewer with the issues it is trying to tackle and the points it is trying to get across.
Does this mean, then, that I advocate that games are a legitimate form of art? Not at all. Games, as they stand, face a number of different challenges that complicate their evolution into an established art form, and titles that advance the legitimacy of games as art are few and far between. Yet, I care about the question of whether games can be considered art because I perceive a profound and tangible potential for games to utilize the evocative and immersive properties that keep me in my living room each weekend to engage players in the societal, cultural, and existential issues that more traditional mediums currently address. Ultimately, I care about it because I care about gaming, and because I want to see this passtime grow out of the turbulent adolescence that it currently finds itself in and grow into something more worthy of the potential that all-too-often goes unseen. As Tony Huynh, Senior Game Designer at Day 1 Studios, stated in his blog, LimitlessUnits.com, "video games have boundless possibilities and are uniquely suited to surpass any other mediums that currently exist because there is a level of connectivity through open-ended and collaborative interactivity that no other media can hope to match." I hope that others come to see this, too.
-- Mike
Banner image of Prince of Persia by Ubisoft. Image courtesy of IGN.com
