Video Games as Art

I have just discovered, via Twitter, Roger Ebert's latest thoughts on why "video games can never be art," and, via that blog, the talk by Kellee Santiago to which that original post was a response.

So, like all half-ass bloggers with no real knowledge of the nuance of video game production or appreciation for fine art, I felt compelled to lend my thoughts on the subject.

First, I, too, will begin by defining 'art', or rather agreeing to define it, as 'the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions' (appeals to, mind you, not pleases), 'being motivated by a desire to touch the audience.' Hell... works for me.

But what is a game? Must someone win? Must scores be kept? I vote 'no,' and instead proclaim that a game is a manufactured and reproducible experience meant to be interacted with, within predetermined arbitrary parameters, by individuals. It's agreeing to follow a certain set of rules, not because it behooves you, but because it entertains you.

And moreover, the playing of the game should be the justification of the game. Now, if the rules dictate a win condition, one should desire to meet those conditions, or else you aren't following the rules. But, if the game claims no purpose beyond accomplishing fun, then that's fine, too.

So, what makes 'game = art'? Well, we simply need one idea that meets both definitions. But more than that, right? For me, video games as art doesn't mean using well crafted novel-like stories, or well rendered picturesque landscapes; we already know prose and painting are art forms. But true video game art 'touches the audience' by 'deliberately arranging elements' in way that is uniquely video game, that other art forms can't accomplish, and thus becomes unique and relevant.

Now, bear in mind, I am in no way qualified to start spouting artsy game titles as if I've ever played them, and will, instead comment on the three Ms. Santiago brought up, and Mr. Ebert then ripped to shreds based upon nothing but his obviously half-assed comprehension of the points Ms. Santiago made and his deeply ingrained prejudices against the video game medium.

'Waco: Resurrection,' what looks to be a terribly tasteless piece of garbage, strives for art in the way it forces it's players to interact with the event. The mask, the declaration of being before the game will start, the voice activated game mechanics, are all examples of the manipulation of elements in order to touch the audience. It doesn't just portray the events at hand through the artist's lens. It uses very specific and deliberate sensations available only in a video game to create a sense of empathy and thus make the player feel the creators feelings. However, I don't know if it succeeds. I don't think I'd find this game very enjoyable, probably just cumbersome. But like I said, it's appealing to my senses, I just don't think it's making it's case too well. ART. Not good art, but ART.

Now, 'Braid' I've played... the demo. Was it art? I say so. And it is art because it uses metaphor. Heavy-handed, level zero metaphor. But not, This story is about regret and wanting to go back and fix stuff, so let's make it a time travel story. No, that would be the art of story telling, using plot devices to express a deeper truth. Instead, this metaphor comes as a game mechanic. Instant do-overs. It communicates a desire of creators in a way that even the most confounded piece of 'Lost'-esque time travel lit could never, because through this video game, you don't just read about this desire, you live this desire.

(Do you see where I'm going with this...? Turns out I kinda had a point after all.)

And 'Flower...' I may hafta vote 'nay' on this one. It's may have beautiful artistic imagery, and beautiful artistic sounds, but what does it accomplish as a video game? I seriously don't know. Does it convey the joy of nature and the desire to reach harmony between the natural and the artificial any differently than a good song or a well crafted documentary could, or is the video game just a vehicle for more conventional aesthetics?

I may never know if I don't play the game myself, but the question helps to sum up my very point. The art of video games is not just in touching the audiences on new levels - hell, some video games may not touch people at all, try as they might - but in trying to touch those audiences, on whatever level, in a way only video games can.

And what ways are those? I don't know; the art is only 35 years old, and game designers are only now becoming aware of it's potential. But Ms. Santiago is right; we are privileged enough to witness the birth of a new art, and we need to recognize and nurture it, 'cause who knows what good (or evil) we could be spawning right now?