I have given this topic a lot of thought and I have come to the conclusion that gaming has evolved enough to be considered art, in a few cases.
During the Space Invaders and Pac-Man age, no one ever thought games could be a form of art. They were made simply to be entertaining and fun. Then we had games like Legend of Zelda, that were made not only to be fun, but to strike a certain emotion in people.
Graphics and sound became advanced enough that games could create deep atmosphere, immersing players in a world.

Here are some examples of games I consider art:




1. GTA: IV

A dark exaggerated play on gangstar life, and a thoughtful satire on American society and government.


2. Silent Hill:

An amazing study of various tortured characters in a supernatural town that forces them to literally face their demons. How you play the game depends how the story will end up - and how you perceive the protagonist.


3. Limbo:

A game that makes you fear death more than you already do. Not through violence or horror, but through hopelessness and depression


4. Fallout 3:

A game that allows the player to create their own adventure through a gritty post apocalyptic land. A sci-fi world stuck in the 1950's, the atmosphere in this game is dark, lonely, and even funny. The game does not strive to be entertaining or fun, it strives to immerse you in a believable world where you can experience living the life of someone else. Corruption, hopelessness, and propaganda are all themes engraved naturally in Fallout 3's world. In Fallout 3, you hear an 8 year old tell you to f*** off. And it feels completely normal. (In the context of the game.)

I think games can be consitered art, the detail put in on characters, the music and the landscapes (sometimes there's picture perfect moments in some areas, Oblivion is a great exsample of this).

I agree that games can be considered art.

Most games I play, I play for the story. To me they are almost like interactive books.

I consider a book to be art, and a game requires a lot more work than a book does.

Yes but art is not about graphics. You think the Mona Lisa was famous because of the realism?

It's about presenting an emotion to the gamer, through creative and thought provoking ways. Graphics and sound contribute to this for sure, but you can't say a game is art because it looks good.

If carved frozen poo can be considered modern art, then, yeah, I don't see why video games can't be.

In other words - these days, there's no real rules on what can and can't be art. If it is an expression of something, then it is art. If it is creative, it is art.

Could not each and every texture be considered a painting? Each polygon model a sculpture? Each animation a dance or ballet? Each soundtrack a musical piece? Each story/cinematic a play?

As far as I'm concerned, there's no question: video games can be an artform. Not only that, they are composed of many different types of art, and they are interactive, with the audience able to create their own unique experience.

It certainly wasn't for her looks.

I definitely think they can be art - I think Alaisiage put it nicely too.

Oblivion's been mentioned already, and I'd like to add LA Noire and Amnesia to the list as well, although there's plenty more I'm sure.

I definitely won't be employing that argument among people I know who don't see the point in advlts playing videogames though - I can imagine the scorn I'd have rained down on me.

That's what I just said...

The Mona Lisa was famous for the emotion that it struck in people. There was no way to describe her expression, was it happy? Sad?
Her smile has a subject of thousands of different interpretations, some complete opposites.

Actually I don't care that much for the Mona Lisa lol , I prefer paintings of landscapes and the more close to realistic the landscape the more I love it. But as for games I conciter Portal 2 a masterpiece because it has everything: A great plot, characters you love or hate, an excellent atmosphere (like going back to the sealed off section of Aperture Labs), great gameplay, the Turret Opera at the end and nice graphics. But like I've said on issues like these graphics don't make the game, good controls, music, story and gameplay do...graphics are just extras. However bad graphics CAN ruin a good game.

Video games are, like film, a combination of various art forms. Writers, composers, artists, etc. For one reason or another, the resulting film itself is also considered art, where as a video game is still just "made up of art." Interactivity seems to be the deal breaker, the fact that a player can have varying degrees of influence on this game somehow keeps it from being art. However, players are still bound by the limitations imposed by developers, even if those possibilities are seemingly endless. How we play a game, our choices and their effects, and so on. It's really no different in my eyes than a painting or film that's intentionally left open to the viewer's interpretation.

That's also assuming the game in question is something of the sandbox variety. There are many more games that are more linear, with far fewer variables. I don't think every game is art, but then again there are attempts at "legitimate" art that I don't agree with either (such as a blank canvas and a ton of what makes up modern art).

The main reason behind games like pac man or space invaders lacking art is because the art used in it doesn't yield any sort of emotion to the viewer. Its all very generic and gameplay focused.

Thats not to say that all games created before 2005 are not art.

http://www.bghq.com/bgs/gen/s/s2/366.png This is from Sonic the hedgehog 2. http://sost.emulationzone.org/oldsosth/oldsosth/images/casino.jpg

What kind of feelings does this evoke from you?

I'd challenge you to choose more titles that have more elusive stories like Portal. Its too easy to call something like Fallout 3 or GTA IV due to how story driven they are.

Art doesn't have to be emotional or thought-provoking or pretentious. Art is anything or nothing. Like time, it's not something tangible and it only really exists in our heads. When we point at something and say "this is art" we don't mean that literally, just like when we point at a portrait of a woman and say "this is a woman", we damn well know it's really just a picture of a woman.

Humans will typically percieve their own cultural crafts as art. Painting, modeling, writing, music, etc. Video games have many of these aspects. And hell, even a programmer/coder might look at a game and appreciate the craftmanship behind the coding, and think of that as art.

Just to put forward a different view, here's an article from someone who doesn't see games as art:

http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html

Part of me doesn't know what to say, because I haven't played the games which are cited, and neither has the author I think (it definitely seems that way from what he writes). But he writes nicely.

I've always found it silly that anyone has ever even considered the subject debatable. The one and only consistent definition of whether something is art is, and always has been, whether somebody calls it art.

Video games are art and are considered an art just like cinema, which imo makes perfect sense

game themselves no. what goes into them(concept art, stories, world, etc), and putting it all together, that is art, yes. but not games themselves. games themselves are just that, games, tools to entertain, maybe learn from, etc, but not art.

Art - 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. (Dictionary.com)

With that, I would say games can definitely be art.

Actually the Mona Lisa is famous for realism. It was among the first paintings to use depth. Before this everything was painted on the same plane, but the Mona Lisa had things off in the background, something you never saw in other paintings of the time.



This^

Art is subjective to the viewer. Not everyone looks for the same things in art.

I don't see why not. Art is a medium that covers many different things, if not all things. I see no reason to exclude video games.

Art: The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.


Yes, you can find art in everything, but that does not mean it in itself is art.

Good point. But I never said that games created before 2005 were not art. I quoted Zelda, which was 1988 I believe. And my point was that, even though games like Sonic could be considered art, the mainstream population did not believe it so, because games like Pac-Man and Space Invaders were what represented games at that time.

I didn't choose Fallout 3 or GTA:IV because they were story driven. I chose them because like a good movie or song, the games portray different themes in a fluid, natural, and beautiful way.