The Ashcan

Word Up: So like, are video games art?

Posted on 29. Apr, 2010 by Jef in Art, video games, Word up

Steven Spielberg, enthusiastic about the medium, said five years ago video games would be art once “somebody confesses that they cried at Level 17.” At the time, a friend of mine scoffed and said he already HAD shed tears while playing games. Granted, this particular friend crying at, well, anything, wasn’t much of a surprise, and catharsis as the benchmark for artistic expression is a particularly Spielberg-ian way of approaching the question, but the question itself remains. Those things. Video games. Art?

Movie critic Roger Ebert also threw his two cents into the coin slot in 2005, and in his mind the answer was a resounding “no”. Earlier this month he revisited the topic on his blog but his opinion hadn’t changed. Of course, many disagreed with him. In truth, it’s not a new debate, and as computer power grows exponentially and games become more and more mainstream, it’s a question that probably won’t be going away any time soon. So get your game face on (or some other such bad pun) and let’s see what the smart people are saying:

The Insider

Kellee Santiago from modestly named thatgamecompany gives a TED talk arguing that games already are art. She gives examples, including Flower, which looks kind of boring and is about nature and balance or something, and Waco, where users take on the persona of David Koresh. Say what? Say word, DAVID KORESH. She compares the relative crudeness and simplicity of current-day  games to the early days of cinema, and says as people grow to expect more and different things from the medium, possibilities will open up. But she also admits she is hella biased. Most artists are though, right? [TEDxUSC - Kelle Santiago - 3/23/09]

The Outsider

In a blog post brusquely titled “Video games can never be art”, Ebert attacks Santiago’s argument on a number of fronts. He ends up with a valid enough position: video games are games, and there’s nothing wrong with that really, so why can’t gamers just be happy with that? “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.” See what he did there? In order for games to be art, they have to not be games. In either of which case, Ebert wins. Game over, yeah? ["Video games can never be art"]

The Objective Observer

Not really. Jon Evans writes a thorough piece for Maisonneuve that looks back at early text-based internet games (MUDs! Give a shout if you played MUDs), and draws a clear line to World of Warcraft, along the way detailing quite a few emotional moments in games, famous and obscure, that players say tugged their heartstrings. He doesn’t hold any punches though, noting that “for all Bio-Shock‘s visual beauty and apparent complexity, it is fundamentally the same game as Pac-Man.”  But he champions the character work and open-world design of Grand Theft Auto 4, calling it “the industry’s biggest step yet towards meaningful and original storytelling.” Though not moved to tears, he ends on an optimistic note. ["Can a video game make you cry?"]

The Author with Geek Cred

In the Wall Street Journal, author Junot Diaz counters the praise surrounding GTA IV, saying that sure, fine, it’s art, but that doesn’t mean it’s any good. “GTA IV sucks you the hell in but its narrative doesn’t move me in any way or shake me up or even piss me off,” he writes. “Successful art tears away the veil and allows you to see the world with lapidary clarity; successful art pulls you apart and puts you back together again…and in the process reminds you in a visceral way of your limitations, your vulnerabilities, makes you in effect more human. Does GTA IV do that? Not for me it doesn’t…” Which sounds like a good point, but I have no idea what “lapidary” means! ["Grand but no Godfather"]

The Pointlessness of Existence

So what can a game do to show our limitations and vulnerabilities? With Ebert’s paradox, it can’t, really. Which maybe explains why so many games with artistic slants skirt the win/lose theme altogether and lean towards existential themes — because what if beating the game means losing at everything else? What is the point of winning anything anyway? For a hands-on example, try Every Day The Same Dream, “a little art game about alienation and refusal of labour.” Or if you don’t like crying softly to yourself, go play God of War 3 and see how the trilogy ends. In that vein, sci-fi blog i09 runs down some of their favourite games that are likely to give you a bad case of ennui. :( ["Video games that plunge you into existential despair"]

The Video Game Writer That Could

Alright, so aside from lose/lose scenarios, what other narratives can video games explore? Part of what hampers game artistry is that historically the principle creative forces in the industry are designers concerned more with gameplay and graphics than they are with storytelling. Which is like when Puff Daddy had the Lox under his wing but all he wanted to do was put them in shiny gold suits and make them dance behind Mariah Carey. Mary De Marle, the acclaimed video game writer behind Myst III and Myst IV, pushes for more collaboration between writers and game designers at an industry conference (insider shit, right here), picturing the possibilities of together creating a new form of storytelling. Get your Power Point on: ["What's a Writer to Do? Re-defining Our Role in Crafting Player-Driven Narratives"]

The Critics

De Marle notes that the language of video game storytelling hasn’t even really been invented yet. On the flipside, neither has the language for video game criticism.  Sure, reviews run rampant, but while, say, film studies has developed its own modes of thinking about the medium specifically, video game discourse is still mostly a patchwork of thoughts cribbed from other art forms. For an early attempt at video game thinking, check out Salon.com co-founder Scott Rosenberg’s “A Portrait of Mario” from way-back 1991 (beware: Nietzsche quotes!). And for something more contemporary, there’s the academic-minded but pop-obsessed team at Popmatters, who recently wrapped up a series on the best storytelling in video games. ["Moving Pixels Podcast: The Best of Video Game Storytelling"]

The Rock Stars

For a really good non-fiction narrative read that also encapsulates the video game world’s tension between art and commerce, David Kushner presents “Masters of Doom”. The book follows the “Lennon and McCartney of video games” John Carmack and John Romero — the controversial guys behind pop culture phenomenons Doom and Quake — through incredible success and the inevitable destruction of their friendship as the impulses of money and art tear them apart. Kushner’s style is breezy and whether you’re into games or not it’s a fast-paced, engaging, addictive read. ["Masters of Doom: How Two Guys Created an Empire and Transformed Pop Culture"]

And there you have it. In no time at all, we’ll have actual video game snobs who think the rest of us don’t understand anything we play, and highbrow gamers who coyly list “guilty pleasures” in order to appear even more highbrow, and regular ass people who say stuff like “that game is SUPPOSED to be stupid, why can’t you just enjoy it?” Sounds like fun doesn’t it? I can’t wait!

“Word Up”: The linkdump series that feels like homework.

(images via and and also)

Tags: are video games art?, Bio-Shock, David Kushner, Doom, Every Day The Same Dream, existentialism, Flower, Grand Theft Auto, John Carmack, John Romero, Jon Evans, Junot Diaz, Kellee Santiago, lapidary, Mary De Marle, Masters of Doom, Myst, Quake, Roger Ebert, Scott Rosenberg, Steven Spielberg, Super Mario, thatgamecompany