Can videogames be considered

art?

Can videogames be considered

art?
31-05-15
Danil Veldhuizen

"Works of art make rules; rules do not make works of

art."

Art is a diverse range of human activities and the

products of those activities, usually involving
imaginative or technical skill.

Art you watch, listen to, or read. Games you play.

Can videogames be considered

art?

Contents
Statement of hypothesis

III

Methodology

III

Results & Analysis

IV

Discussion

Conclusion

Bibliography

VI

Can videogames be considered

art?

Statement of hypothesis
Can videogames be considered art? Video games can be very complicated; from
the game engine to the graphics to the music, there are a lot of things that go into
making one. Still, the topic of video games as an art form is very controversial.
Many people, especially developers and gamers, have no doubt that their games
are a form of art. And while it is true that many critics have admitted that games
do contain forms of art, some have also said that games are not artwork and thus
may never be considered art. I personally think that videogames are indeed art
for multiple reasons. Firstly, Ive played a decent amount of games over the past
few years and almost every one of them was a great experience with interesting
compositions of aesthetics and sounds. Secondly, I think games are a way for the
developers to express themselves, especially since games often has a story
element as well. However, I do think there is a difference between games artistic
level, some games are more artistic than others. I predict that this research will
lead to the following conclusion: the majority of people acknowledge games as
art, while a minority of critics does not.
In this report we will be looking from both perspectives and then draw the
conclusions from there. Can video games be considered art and why is it so
important to know?

Methodology
Because the research question is mostly a matter of opinion the majority of the
results are based on articles written on, for example, a game design forum. To
represent the critics we will be using articles written by Roger Ebert, who was an
American film critic. The arguments should refute each other so it is almost like a
debate: the party with the strongest arguments wins. The reliability of the sources
and their arguments and information will be checked. In the end, I will compare
my own opinion with the result and determine how and why they are different.
Additionally, the question whether it is actually possible to define what is art and
3

Can videogames be considered

art?

what isnt will be discussed since it is applicable to the research question. There is
a possibility that the result will not be completely one-sided. Finally, we have to
ask ourselves whether the result is even relevant or whether it serves no purpose
other than just another topic to have discussions about.

Results & Analysis

The following quote was taken from an article written by Roger Ebert.

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It
has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. [] create a game without points
or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a
representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you
cannot win; you can only experience them.1
What he is saying is that art is not something you can win but only look at, feel or
listen to. He claims that for this reason video games are not art. To further support
this statement he adds that when a game lacks a clear purpose or goal, it is no
longer a game, it is a mere simulation of a story.
Keith Stuart, author of the article Video games and art: why does the media get it
so wrong?, has a different opinion: For me, games transcend the question [Are
games art or aren't they?] because they are so wonderfully complex: they are
emergent and system-led, but also narrative and directed; they amalgamate
electronics, audio and visuals, but also often rely on text; they need user input,
and yet are authorial2. Even the complexity of some games alone makes
videogames so wonderful. This piece of text also displays why it is so difficult to
determine if videogames are art. Mainly because there is no clear definition of art,
but also because videogames are so inherently complex that it is hard to look at
them as a whole. Is the code art? Is the music art? Are the visuals art? Or is the
game as a whole art?
Another common argument against the statement is that videogames are only a
source of entertainment. In Stuarts article is mainly a response to an article by
Jonathan Jones, a well-respected critic who works for The Guardian. Jones asks the
question why can't games just be fun? To that question Keith has the following
answer:Why can't games just be fun? Because Ryan Green is making That
4

Can videogames be considered

art?

Dragon, Cancer, a game about how he and his wife are coping with the terminal
illness of their youngest son. Green has chosen games as his medium of
expression, his way of coping, because he is a game designer it is how he
thinks, and partly how he processes the world and what is happening to his
family. He also sees in games an accessible way of telling people about cancer,
and about hope and faith.2 His point is that some people would like to express
themselves trough a videogame, just like someone else expresses themselves
through a painting or a sculpture. While it might not be obvious at first, video
games can be a good way to tell a story and share an experience. Ryan Green has
a message for the world, and he uses his technical and artistic skill to bring it out
there.

Discussion
It is apparent that is it difficult to decide which group or person is right. Where do
we draw the line between entertainment and art? My hypothesis was that the
majority of people would agree that videogames are art. If we consider every
gamer and game developer as a proponent we are bound to find that this is
indeed the case. There arent many critics who delve into this question, and when
they do they are faced with a large amount of counterarguments.

Conclusion
What can we conclude from this research? The reason why I was interested in this
topic in the first place was because I was curious how people would argue over
something that is so vague. I still have the same opinion as before: I think
videogames are art. However, I do agree that when we start calling them so,
maybe in the future we might even have to call some playgrounds art. The
problem is that the concept art itself is such a broad concept, so much so that it
is almost impossible to define anything as art because we simply dont know its
true meaning. Is this really a problem? Does it matter whether videogames are
art, will it change the world? Probably not, though it is an interesting topic that
has probably not seen its last discussion.
Art is ethereal, boundless, its meaning as transient as the seasons. When you
5

Can videogames be considered

art?

think you have grasped it, it slips through your fingers.

Bibliography
1. Videogames can never be art, Roger Ebert (16-04-2010):
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art
2. Video games and art: why does the media get it so wrong? Keith Stuart (0801-2014):
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/gamesblog/2014/jan/08/videogames-art-and-the-shock-of-the-new

Can videogames be considered

art?