This may be an instant “yes” for some of you, but there are actual proponents to this idea of video games being an art form, separate no less.
Arguments include (non-exhaustive list):
- Video games are just combinations of previously established art forms (music, fictional prose, visual art, etc…)
- Certain video games (think Pong and Tetris) weren’t made for the purpose of being “artistic”.
- Because video games are interactive, this positions video games outside of the area of the arts. No other types of art comes close to this level of interactivity.
- Video games (especially mass-marketed ones), regardless of their nature, are not recognized as art for as long as the purpose is solely for financial gain, which is the norm nowadays.
Personally, I believe that video games are flexible enough to possess unlimited art forms, ranging from being creatively artistic and visually stunning (e.g. Journey [2012]) to being only a tech demo or both, since they are an amalgamation of previously established art forms.
To make this discussion productive, I’d suggest approaching these arguments with an open-mind and/or coming up with an opinion supported by some video game example (note, this is only a mere suggestion).
EDIT: Just to be clear, the counter-arguments list above are NOT my take on the matter. They’re loosely taken from several sources, including an IRL discussion w/ a friend and articles online, e.g. Games aren’t art, says Kojima.
I think this is not an opinion shared among many people, but I don’t like to make that distinction between “art” and “commercial products”, not in video games, not in cinema, not in any art form.
Let me give some examples. We have GTA San Andreas, it is a misogynous, action based game developed by one of the biggest companies followed maybe by Activision in terms of popularity and sales. This work contains much of what could be considered a centerpiece when it comes to creating a marketable object, yet we can still see it has a compelling story telling, organic narrative where the player can create which version of CJ they want to be, good mechanics and an aesthetic that goes along with the topics of the story.
Mad Max: Fury Road is by all means an epitome of Hollywoodean cinexplosive action, it was a mass marketed film which features famous actors and it follows all the rules for being a commercial film yet its plot is also very rich and offers an awesome blend of feminism with adrenaline. I don’t think it’s less art because it is a capitalist product.
You mention Pong and Tetris, and while in the case of the latter I don’t think it’s so hard to prove it is art, it may be harder with the first one. Is this art, or just an archaeological piece of media? Does adding a plot to pong can make it art? What about an animated back ground? It is a matter of restrictions and additions, and presenting the first video game ever is a bit unfair maybe, but I don’t feel it is such a necessary point.
Thing is, the discussion shouldn’t be whether video games are art or not, that’s a scapegoat to address the real issues the industry has. We know they are art, either because of its visuals, because of its architecture, because of its music, because of its mechanics, because of its narrative, what we should be doing in my opinion is start to make readings of these pieces of media and start critiquing them, why are they all so self referential? Why are there so many works that show women as objects of desire but so little that explore love? Why are video games so long? And a lot of other questions that could help this artistic expression grow.
Regarding this typical question of whether or not “pop” culture is art or not, I recommend visiting Neil Cicierega’s works, which poses a lot of thought into this and brings new meaning to these “lower forms of art”.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtlOc-qya78