game girl advance: Videogames, Art, Blah Blah Blah

Videogames, Art, Blah Blah Blah

I received an email from a well-meaning and earnest student who wanted to collect expert responses about whether or not videogames are art, and so on. How tedious. This debate doesn't even *exist* except possibly in the mind of Roger Ebert and overeager students. No offense. But can we just move on already?

It seems to me that the whole notion of trying to define "art" is, first of all, utterly irrelevant in our age. When vulgar homes display those ubiquitous prints of Monet's waterlilies, when insipid pop songs can be desconstructed, when the face of the Mona Lisa is used on keychains sold to tourists, when collectors pay thousands of dollars for the scribblings of a madman who has "found art" - it's a circus. It's like trying to define what "food" is when we have everything from seaweed extract to Velveeta.

There's no "art" anymore. Just categories of creation. And you can either enjoy it, or not. Just as food is simply something you eat. And let's be clear, there is good food and bad, horrible, awful, nearly inedible food.

Ebert's whole thesis on interactivity and lack of authorial control exempting videogames from being considered "art" is ludicrous, anyway. It's clear that he hasn't played many videogames, because those of us who do understand that there is totally authorial control - it's just not necessarily in the narrative of the game, although sometimes it is. Tell me that Psychonauts doesn't bear the imprint of Tim Schaefer's grubby little fingers ALL OVER IT. You can tell, from the character design to the platforming that this is Tim's style, it's his game. All those touches of whimsey and humor - how much more authorial control do you want? Tim has created an entire world and has also decided the way in which you will interact with it. Does that make it art? Who cares? If Jeff fucking Koons can be considered an artist then anyone can.

Hm, maybe I had a little too much coffee this morning. I don't mean to say that art isn't important, or whatever; it's just that this question, are videogames art? is irrelevant. Would answering that solve anything? Can it even be answered? Does it matter what the answer is?

The bigger question is, how do we make videogames that can move us and thrill us and teach us about ourselves in the way that the best literature, fine arts, films, and other human creations can? I believe we are on the way.

Is that art? I don't know. But it is necessary.

Posted by jane at August 08, 2007 07:18 AM

you're absolutely right. and we're seeing fewer and fewer ambitious art films, as well, because budgets are straining... we are, however, seeing more smaller indie films, perhaps, and maybe that's where games can shine, too.

we're also seeing less "serious literature". it used to be that those projects got funded out of a sense of public good, or because there was a prestige associated with them and the investors or funders didn't care that much about making money back. now financiers sometimes care solely about how much money they can make back.

i'm way oversimplifying, and of course speaking from just what i observe; i don't really know.

so i guess we need the wealthy philanthropist patron of videogames!

Posted by: jane on August 8, 2007 07:59 AM

Art-with-a-capital-A is a question of authority. When Ebert says that games aren't art, he sets himself up as an authority on what art is. When people waste tons of energy trying to convince him to expand his definition, they just legitimize his authority.

I actually like living in a world where Jeff fucking Koons is considered art, because it really does mean that anything goes, we can stop worrying about whether games fit into some predefined artistic definition, and get on with the much more interesting business of envelope-pushing.

Posted by: joshlee on August 8, 2007 05:40 PM

"Now we face supposed issues that are bigger than ever (global warming, war), and we get feel-good nonsense."

We've had war on and off for pretty much the bulk of the last 60 years, Jane, some of them protested as vehemently as the current ones...

I have to disagree with you over the question of the relevence of the question "are games art?" Whilst I have a fervent hatred of much of what passes for art these days (and in my opinion it does not warrant the classification), there are advantages to having games classed as such. Notably, there are many potential sources of funding for "art projects" that could help many a budding developer get off the ground, if only their art were recognised as such. Is that not reason enough to push the point a little?

Posted by: Zild on August 9, 2007 05:01 AM

>Does it matter what the answer is?

Unfortunately, yes. Because the answer to that question will serve as ammunition for one side or the other of the legal debate regarding game sales, etc. The powers-that-be at one point in time decided that Comics were definitely NOT art. We see where that lead.

Now, that being said, I totally get and agree with your point.

It's just that "are games art?" is a proxy for the question many are REALLY debating, which is something akin to "do games have value?", or "do games have merit?"

Posted by: kpallist on August 9, 2007 09:33 AM