Why I Gave A Damn If Video Games Are Art

Whenever this debate comes up, somebody always eventually says something to the effect of, "Well, hang on. Let's define 'art' before we go any further." Which in turn, makes me want to punch people. We all disagree so often and so ferociously on what "art" really is that it's almost become a silly statement to make. Art is universal, or at least it's supposed to be, but so many people scoff at something that thousands of others claim to be so fantastic that it changed their lives. The dictionary is no help, either:

• The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power

Well by the first part of the definition, video games certainly fit the bill. The second part... well, people are divided on it. Since the popular opinion is that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, there's no point in trying to define it in the first place, right? (I should mention that I do believe art to have a certain objective nature in some respects.) So it almost seems that whether you say video games are or are not art, you'd still be right.

A little over a year ago, Roger Ebert published a blog entry defending his position that video games are not and can never be a valid art form. I'm way too late to really weigh in on this with any kind of relevance, plus there have been better and more eloquent people than myself who already have. I'm not writing this to pick apart his argument (although I do have a few rebuttals to make, and I will), despite the fact that I strongly disagree. However, there are a couple of things I'd like to say now that the dust has had a while to settle and we can take a look at the aftermath.

First, I'd like to thank Roger for saying what he said. Anybody who thought of video games as art, whether casually or vehemently and actively, was whipped up into a frenzy. From blog entries to water-cooler discussions, gamers everywhere, who had merely accepted them as the next medium for artistic expression, were now seriously considering what it was that made them think that, and why it mattered. Many people took it as a direct insult (I don't blame them, it was easy to take the article as very, very condescending); others merely re-evaluated what they defined "art" as. I have faith that many game developers that had previously been cautiously crossing boundaries are now pushing a little harder; while developers who have been making artistically driven games for a long time now, like Valve, BioWare, Thatgamecompany, Naughty Dog, Square Enix, Konami, Double Fine, Atlus etc. now have an even louder base to support them. So first off, thank you for pissing us off. We needed that.

My next point is half observation, half rebuttal. I'll bring up a decent sized chunk of part of his closing remarks:

"Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art? Bobby Fischer, Michael Jordan and Dick Butkus never said they thought their games were an art form. Nor did Shi Hua Chen, winner of the $500,000 World Series of Mah Jong in 2009. Why aren't gamers content to play their games and simply enjoy themselves? They have my blessing, not that they care.

Do they require validation? In defending their gaming against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" Then let them say it, if it makes them happy."

Ignoring the extremely patronizing tone, I take issue with this for two reasons. First, that performing in a sporting event isn't the same as creating a game. I understand that he is talking about how basketball and Mah Jong aren't art forms, but there is no room for development, expression or innovation in said games. They have stayed the same for years Even so, physical competitions are sometimes described as artistic, think about figure skating, dancing, Olympic gymnastics events and so on. Comparing video games to sports would be pointless to the argument if it were accurate. Which it is not.

My second issue is that Ebert seems to think that it doesn't matter if nobody called it art. Nothing would change, right? Unlikely. What would you say if I said writing, painting or film wasn't art. If you're a fan, you would likely get upset. That's because, not only has it trivialized a form of expression you cared about, but it has also taken the onus off the creators to hold their work up to a standard. When a medium is called "art," there is suddenly a whole lot of responsibility that goes with that. It silently requires that people innovate and develop new skills, refining the medium into something extraordinary.

I'm not really upset about the article, really. It was sort of the first time somebody from outside the realm of video games really took a serious, grown-up stab at it. That alone is something to appreciate. It wasn't what I'd hoped for, or expected from somebody as smart as Roger, but what can you do? It all worked out for the best, anyway.