It’s a concept that some are recoiling at, yet others embracing- the idea of video games as art.

It’s easy to understand why some recoil at the idea. In fact I think that it can be almost something of an instinctive reaction. Art and video games are two things that just don’t seem to fit together.  Something about the idea of a game, with its connotations of frivolity, seems inherently contrary to the serious, at times pretentious, connotations often associated with the art world.

So when I heard that MoMA (the Museum of Modern Art) had embraced video games as an exhibition in their gallery, I tried to unpack my instinctive surprise. What I found was that my initial hesitation was mostly just a natural reaction to the novelty of the idea.  In fact, my understanding of art and my understanding of video games drew some pretty key parallels:

Intellectualism

Firstly, I think the failure for video games to be recognised as intellectual is one key reason why people instinctively put up resistance to the idea of video games as art. Through the media we have often been conditioned to think of video games as little more than “running around and shooting people”, which naturally seems to directly contradict notions of intellect. Yet, as those in the gaming community know, even in games where ‘running around shooting people’ is part of the objective, there is often a highly complex and thought provoking narrative to accompany it. Moreover, even if the story is more on the periphery, there is often a great deal of strategy involved. We revere games with a more simplistic battlefield (like chess) as intellectual, so how are video games different?

Emotional evocation:

Well, of course, we don’t usually consider games like chess art. Chess seems too rational and calculated for the passion of the art world. Yet this brings me to my next point- emotional evocation. Something about the value of art is not only in it’s ability to make us think, it also makes us feel. As the lecture this week showed us, the games we play affect us profoundly. They can evoke fear, sadness, exhilaration, triumph. Moreover, the effect they have often goes deeper than just base emotional reactions, allowing players to genuinely be drawn into the visual world, develop empathy for characters and form attachments.

Aesthetics:

There is, however, the sense that to be considered ‘art’, emotional or intellectual investment needs to be cultivated in a certain way- through an explicit focus on aesthetics. Yet, I don’t think anyone can deny that video games lack this intent. As discussed in the lecture, aesthetics are a key foundation for the player’s immersion.  Just like the stark realism or beauty of a painting, the aesthetics of the game world is commented on by the gaming community and valued as something that sets a game apart.

Interactivity:

Finally, perhaps the big difference is interactivity. This was certainly the argument put forward by one blogger I came across. According to him, art should represent a personal vision, or “one person’s reaction to life”. Since video games are interactive, neither the player nor the creator of the game can claim ownership to each individual game played. In effect, as there is no artist, there is by consequence, no work of art. Yet, I’d always thought that art primarily encouraged subjective experience and creative interpretation, rather than simply imposing the artist’s “personal vision”. In my opinion, the creation of “art” was always two way- video games simply allow this relationship to be more directly addressed, and perhaps even pave the way for a more modern understanding of art.

Like any medium, where such huge range of video games exist it’s difficult to make blanket claims about the art-video games relationship. PacMan and Fruit Ninja might seem less like art than Bioshock or Dear Esther. Yet I think as a medium they at least deserve to be brought into the fold.