JackCentral

These days, video games are often anything but. The medium has evolved from an experience defined solely by gameplay into a thematic vehicle that values storytelling, audio and visual ambiance. Games now provide their audiences with a truly unique form of media by blending storytelling with interactivity.
However, despite this growth and evolution, the true nature of games is still fervently debated.
One of the biggest debates regarding this issue is whether or not games can be considered to be a “higher art.” Even Roger Ebert, a renowned film critic, has commented on this topic, saying that although games can sometimes possess aesthetically pleasing qualities, and can contain poignant stories, the fact remains that video games cannot be art.
Ebert believes that art must be created by an artist, and experienced in an unaltered form by the audience. No matter which game one plays, the experience is going to be in some way different than every other person that has played the game. Because a player’s decisions factor into their experience, the unaltered work of the artist cannot not be achieved.
According to this definition, video games certainly cannot be considered art; however, concretely defining art goes against the essence of art itself. Defining what comprises art is much like trying to explain a color to someone who is blind. Art is a unique experience that affects people in very different ways and means something different to each person that experiences it.
Obviously, not every gameplay experience can qualify for this artistic ambition. However, anyone who has explored the Ayn Rand-inspired dystopia of Bioshock, or has witnessed the seamless fusion of beauty and gameplay in Shadow of the Colossus would have a difficult time arguing that these experiences were any less instances of art than those of other, more permanent mediums.
Truthfully, the judgment of whether video games can be art will be never be settled, nor should it be. It is up to the audience to interpret their video game experience, and determine for themselves how moved they were by what they have witnessed. Getting caught up with whether or not games it art’s criteria is beside the point.
After all, art is more important for what it achieves than how it exists in and of itself. For example, literature is essentially just words on a page; it is the audience’s interaction with these words that give the words relevance, the reflection upon the reader’s mind that gives them substance. Similarly, until a painting resonates with one’s own internal feelings and thoughts, it is just a picture. It is this sentimental connection that allows the picture to transcend into art.
A game does not achieve art simply by existing; it is not until the audience interacts with the game, and experiences the thoughts and feelings that are evoked by it, that the game can even possibly be considered as an artistic endeavor. My point is that, ultimately, perception is what defines art, not words, and certainly not one man’s attempt at a universal interpretation.
The experience derived from games is what is important, whether the game is defined as art or not.

This entry was posted on Thursday, May 1st, 2008 at 1:31 pm and is filed under A&E. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.