In the presentation Over Games, I found the point that “Games Are Not Art” interesting and rather funny, being the fact that I am taking this game design course as part of my art degree. The presentation makes the statement that gamest are intrinsically created — that “people have been playing games for as long as they have existed.” By presenting this information, the presentation implies that art is not born of this intrinsic need, whether it be medical, psychological, or social. Games have rules. Art does not. You can “win” a game. You cannot “win” in art.
While I agree that these differences are distinct, there exist games that can crossover into some kind of artistic expression or as an artform in many ways. Game mechanics and play cannot be considered as fine art, or anything that is simply well-engineered can be considered “great art”. Otherwise, the complex rules of Go or football can be considered “fine art.” Therefore, we don’t consider great players of Go “artists.” We don’t consider the great players of football artist; they are great athletes.
What set video games apart is the dual nature of both gameplay and narrative, the combination of play with an immersive “alternate reality.” This is what sets video games apart from sports and commercial card games, which do have gameplay but arguably not the same level of immersion. No one would argue that a game of football is “art”, yet fiction in both film and literature is widely considered as a form of art. Games can be art because dramatic/narrative elements can convey artistic thought. Games are creative. Legally, they are afforded legal protection by the Supreme Court as creative works.
However, the boundaries are still unclear. Is art just consisting of observation (you observe a painting, drawing, etc. traditionally)? Can art be interactive or immersive? I believe with the acceptance of the rise of New Media as an art (as well as interactive installations), video games can be considered as art simply if they reach a certain “threshold” of being immersive. But what is that threshold? If someone considers Super Mario Bros immersive and engaging, is it then art? And then, what is the threshold of literature and cinema being considered as an artform. In those mediums, there is also a sense of distinction between movies that are considered “art” and those are not, literature considered “art” and those that are not. Critically acclaimed films are considered to be “fine art”, but no one would claim Twilight as “fine art.” Again, widely acclaimed literature (including “the classics”) are considered an art form, but trashy romance novels and most young adult books are not. Perhaps there exists such a distinction in video games. Or is there a difference between “video games” and “art games”? Another additional layer to consider is the difference between commercial games created by the game industry in comparison to “indie games.” Are video games considered art because of progressiveness or certain elements with concept? And so the debate keeps going…
