Saturday, April 2, 2011

The Importance of Video Games as Art


I was trying to figure out how I could start this off, and I think this is a good topic to cover early on.  Hopefully this first post can address some of the basic questions and criticisms people might give early on.  I can’t possibly address everything, so if enough people make comments I may very well write another post on this subject, but for now I’ll address this as I can.

Now and again in various internet forums someone will post something regarding video games as art, and many views on the subject start flying.  There are often some interesting things said within this sea of mostly repetitive arguments, but there is one simple thing I keep hearing that has been getting to me for a long time: “It doesn’t matter.”

Most gamers argue that video games should be looked upon more favorably by society, but many of them do not feel as strongly that society should look upon games as an art form.  The ideas behind this viewpoint are varied.  Some claim that as long as they can enjoy their games, it doesn’t matter whether or not they are an art form.  Some say as long as gamers know and understand games as an art form, society as a whole does not need to.  Yet others claim that the very meaning of “art” is subjective, meaning that video games are art if you think they are, and they are not if you think they’re not, so the entire issue is meaningless.  All of these arguments are based on some degree of subjectivism, but regardless of whether that fits into your personal philosophy, there is something very important that they all ignore.

If you’re not one for art theory, think back to your high school or college sociology class and what it said about art.  In short, art is an absolutely vital, critically important part of culture.  Art is the way humans try to explain and explore some of the less quantifiable aspects of the human experience.  It’s the way we both influence and record our culture of the time.  Creativity, the driving force of art, is one of the things that separate us from animals.  Art brings culture together, defines and enforces societal values, and has the power to affect both individuals and culture as a whole.


'Cause these two are totally the
same, right?
Since art is so important to culture, it makes sense that the concept of art must be solidified enough to study it.  In fact, this is already done in many ways that we often take for granted; consider genres, for instance.  Despite the complexity of art and all the ways it can be presented, in order to more effectively study artworks, we have assigned them labels based on their themes and settings even though these things are much too difficult to grasp with a system of simple labels.  What chaos would ensue if we tried to study Citizen Kane in the same way we study District 9, or if we applied the same analytical logic to Sense and Sensibility as to Lord of the Rings!  However, there are always the occasional works that challenge these genres, often resulting in new genre labels until there are so many sub-genres that most people can’t figure it out.  How do you categorize Apocalyptica, a hard rock band comprised of four cellists and a drummer (no, I’m not kidding; check them out)?  Has anyone yet put Shawn of the Dead in a definitive genre, or does it still stand alone in the “romantic zombie comedy” category with a healthy dose of parody thrown in?  Genres are important because they allow us to more effectively study artworks, but they are ultimately an attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.  Impossible though it may seem, it is very important.

So considering the importance of putting a definition on the indefinable, one must ask what bearing a subjective art theory has on this.  The answer?  Nothing at all.  Because even if the very definition of art is up to the individual, that is not an effective way to study or categorize something.  Such ambiguity has its place, but this, a situation where something must be categorized and studied, is not it.  We as a culture must attempt, as best we can, to solidify these slippery concepts of art and creativity so that we may analyze them, explore them, and allow them to affect culture as they can and must.

This is why, regardless of whether “art” is a subjective or objective concept, definitions regarding what general medium is and is not an “art form” must be made if a culture is to effectively study, explore, and truly experience what art has to offer.

This is my view on the issue, at least.  If you have any questions, disagreements, encouragements, suggestions, whatever, feel free to comment.  And if you like what I’ve said so far, like me on Facebook!  Or if not, just wait to see if I ever say anything good first.

1 comment:

  1. MZ:

    I made a post about this on the Escapist a few weeks back

    http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.287317-Relax-Its-a-Fucking-Game?page=2#11347156

    Mainly just the same points you made. But the question being asked there was, since games are just a toy, should we be worried about them?

    To which I responded, every medium has at some point been looked down on, and it was only through the actions of some people asking 'can this be something more' that we now see literature or movies as culturally relevant. I strongly believe that videogames are the next cultural wave, and there have to be some people willing to stand up and say 'this is worth fighting for, because it is art.'

    It's not just about whether they are art or not, because only a very unintelligent person would entirely write off videogames as art, it's about defending them precisely because they are art.

    ReplyDelete