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.

  • Ephera
    2·
    3 years ago

    I don’t see why interactivity should disqualify video games from being art. Reading a book is also very different from looking at a painting, so it seems arbitrary to pick out interactivity as the one aspect where art shouldn’t differ.

    But since this is a difference either way, the interactive aspect is what distinguishes them as a new art form, in my opinion.
    Interactivity offers you to experience the role of a character. You’re no longer looking at Mona Lisa or reading about Romeo and Juliet, you are Mona Lisa or Romeo, Juliet.

    In particular, it also helps more emotions and experiences to be conveyed by the artist. Interactive media can for example more easily convey helplessness, failure, perseverance, moral conflicts, the experience of exploration, destructivism etc…

    • uberstarOP
      2·
      3 years ago

      Interactivity offers you to experience the role of a character. You’re no longer looking at Mona Lisa or reading about Romeo and Juliet, you are Mona Lisa or Romeo, Juliet.

      I love that example, this is something that’s not given much attention especially when considering that in the internet age, you can make Mona Lisa, Romeo or Juliet do just about whatever comes to the imagination of the player (provided that it is within the boundaries of the game developed) and you’ll be able to experience it first-hand in front of a monitor.

    • Ephera
      1·
      3 years ago

      As for commercial, mass-marketed titles not being art, I think it depends. These often are just copies of some other game’s concept with different graphics, sound files and maybe a few gameplay tweaks.

      The individual graphics and sound files are obviously artworks in their own right, but for a game to be more than just a collection of artworks, and rather an artwork in its own right, I think, there needs to be some spark of genius or something extraordinary about it. It needs to be creative as a whole.

      Most mass-marketed titles don’t go the extraordinary route. There’s just so much money involved that they would rather play it safe and therefore go with concepts that have been done before.

      But there’s exceptions to that rule. Death Stranding is an oddball game and in my opinion a piece of art. Whether it’s particularly good art, is a different question, though.