If you`re a reader of this blog, chances are you like video games, probably a lot. And if you like video games, or, for that matter, if you`ve ever heard of video games, chances are you`re familiar with the debate about whether or not video games are art. It`s a debate that`s been going on for a while, and while a lot of people are understandably sick of it and just want to get on with playing whichever video games they like, I`m glad it`s being addressed on The Tartar Sauce, since, as Bobbicus noted in his excellent post, the debate`s way more complicated than how video games can be classified. Everyone has different perspectives on what art is, and how people classify art influences the reasons why people may or may not think that video games are art. Because of this, there are infinitely many sides to this debate, which is one of the many reasons why it still hasn`t been resolved. I know I`m kind of just repeating what Bobbicus said, but that`s just because I totally agree with that point, which is essential to my argument.
When many people hear the word art, they get images in their heads of aesthetically perfect images, or revolutionary statements, or avant-garde modern artworks. But not all art can, or should, be put on this high of a pedestal. This is why terms like "high art" and "low art" exist (which, in my opinion, are bullshit terms, but I`ll get into that another time). People use the word art to put things on high pedestals all the time; you can hear it whenever people describe a Beatles album or a Tarantino movie as a masterpiece. And this is why people often object to video games being called art; many people don`t think that video games should be elevated to the same status as Renaissance paintings. But many people ignore the fact that, well, frankly, not all art is of the same quality. Putting all your opinions aside for a second, and thinking of art in it`s most literal sense, just answer these questions. You would agree with me that the Mona Lisa is a work of art, right? And you would also agree with me that a painting by Andy Warhol is a work of art, right? After all, Da Vinci and Warhol are both referred to by everyone as artists, and artworks by both of them are prominently displayed in art museums. But would you say that both these paintings are of the same quality? Probably not. Whether you`re a traditionalist who favors skill and aesthetic beauty or a (post)modernist who thinks traditionalists just don`t understand Warhol`s critiques of pop icons, you probably think that one of these paintings is better than the other. But you would still call both of these paintings art. Just keep that in mind.
As I said before, many people disagree with the statement "video games are art" because they don`t want video games to be elevated to such a high status. But many of these people would probably have less trouble with the statement "video games are an art form". The first statement implies that every video game ever made is of the same quality as something like the Mona Lisa. But all that the second statement implies is that video games are something that can be used to make artworks, maybe even of the same quality as what`s shown in museums. It`s much more reasonable to say that video games are an art form. However, while that statement may be easier to accept for many people, it still implies the statement "video games are art", since, logically, something that is made using an art form is naturally a work of art.
And here`s where my argument diverges from the standard ones. All video games are works of art, in my opinion, and if you followed the last paragraph you know why. But that doesn`t mean that all video games are of the same quality. Hell, it doesn`t even mean that all video games are good. Most video games suck, quite honestly. Not all art is good. Just because something`s a work of art, that doesn`t mean it can`t suck.
Case in point: Tommy Wiseau`s The Room. I`m using a movie, rather than a video game, as my main example, but that`s because right now I`m just discussing art in general. Film started out in a similar way to video games. Lots of early films, just like a lot of games from my childhood, were educational, and many people realized quickly that movies, just like games, had enormous commercial potential. Film soon became a primarily commercial medium, and early silent films made huge amounts of money, just like early 8-bit games, both of which are primitive by today's standards but considered cool in a retro way by some. There have been many film-makers that have managed to be commercial while still making artistic statements, for example Coen Brothers or Stanley Kubrick, and there have also been many game developers, like Suda51 (Killer7, No More Heroes) and Fumito Ueda (Ico, Shadow of the Colossus), that have done the same thing. But there are also many less well-known film-makers (Jean Cocteau, Stan Brakhage, and countless others) who have used film as a medium solely for art with no commercial intentions. And, likewise, there are many video game developers (like Daniel Benmergui, who Bobbicus mentioned earlier) who have used video games in the same way.
Anyway, that`s the background. I haven`t actually defined what I think art is yet, and I probably should, so here goes. I think it`s fair to say that art is anything made for non-practical use that is supposed to convey a message or create an emotional state. The Room, a film by Tommy Wiseau, is, by that definition, art. It obviously has no practical purpose, and it is obviously supposed to convey a message and create many emotional states. But you can tell by watching the preview that it does neither of those.
As you can tell, this film sucks. The acting is terrible, the lines are forced and unintentionally hilarious, the characters are generic, the story is filled with plotholes, the music is overly melodramatic, and the entire film is utterly misogynistic. But that doesn`t mean it`s not art. Film is an art form, so by definition this is art. And it`s supposed to convey a message and create an emotional state. Is The Room a work of art? Of course. Does that mean it`s good? Hell no.
When discussing whether or not video games are art, the idea that not all art is good needs to be taken into account, because it would make it easier for everyone. Video game fans are completely justified in saying that brutally violent and misogynistic games like the GTA series are art. But critics are equally justified in saying that these games are terrible, without denying that these games are art. People use the art argument as a defense mechanism all the time, but it`s a misguided defense mechanism. For example, if someone says that Half Life is too violent, a fan might defend the game by saying it`s art. And the fan would be absolutely right: Half Life is art. But that doesn`t in any way refute what the critic says. It`s a different issuse entirely.
So, basically, all video games are art. Insanely epic games like Twilight Princess? Art. Cutesy fun games like Animal Crossing? Art. Excuisitely beauiful games like Shadow of the Colossus? Art. Avant-garde, postmodern games like The Path? Art. Violent, problematic games like Manhunt? Art. Mind-bogglingly shitty games Life of D Duck? Art. Obviously, some of these games are better than others. Some of these games are more artsy than others, and some are more commercial than others. But they`re all art. And that in no way means that they`re all good.
0 comments :: Games as Art: A Different Perspective
Post a Comment