This column runs every other week in the Arts section of the Daily Cardinal, but are video games really art? My editors seem to think so. And I believe that this section is the most natural fit for them in the paper. However, I've been plagued for a long time with the question as to the true artistic nature of games, or if they even have one.
There are generally two camps concerning the matter'those that think games are art and those that do not. People in the first camp tend to like games. They play and understand most gaming concepts. People from the second camp do not really understand games. They have never liked them, probably never will and generally still think of them as nothing more than adolescent male entertainment, despite growing statistics asserting the contrary.
Of course, there is some crossover. I find myself on the fence a lot when I really think about it. The problem with the whole issue really has nothing to do with the games themselves, but more with the definition of art.
There is no checklist of criteria to meet in order for something to be considered art. All we have are a list of some media generally considered art for one reason or another: painting/drawing, sculpture, music, film, dance, etc.
I think it is dangerous to have a set list of things that are art. It leaves no method for new media, like video games, to be classified as art. So I would like to propose my own general method of classifying art.
My method is as simple as thinking about whether a society at a certain time needed whatever it is they created. To qualify as art, something must be in excess of what people need to survive. At different points throughout history people were capable of pretty much ensuring the continuation of the human species, and different forms of art arose at different times when people had the time to create it.
When they got bored, they did other things to amuse themselves, resulting in much of what we consider art today. When humans found caves to hide in to avoid being eaten by sabertooth tigers, they drew on walls. People figured out ways to make and manipulate pleasing noises and presto'music. Motion pictures caught on and thrived during the early 20th century because people had more free time and didn't constantly worry about famine, pestilence and man-eating deer.
The computer was invented to do work. Somebody saw the possibilities of the machine to do other types of computations and, despite being totally unnecessary, started amusing themselves by playing games with it. Today those games have advanced into fantastic interactive worlds complete with plots, character development, orchestral scores and experiences that cannot be found anywhere else.
But recall when I said that it has nothing to do with video games themselves, yet. Despite something qualifying as art, I believe there is still the matter of deciding whether it is artistic. This is a much trickier topic.
If you agree that something excessive to the survival of our species is art, then you'll realize there's a ton of stuff around today that we do not need. Most people don't consider these things art mainly they don't seem artistic. Games are a casualty of that train of thought.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter. People that play games aren't going to stop playing them because they are or aren't art, and the people that don't play aren't going to start for the same reason. It is funny, and kind of sad, how there are some of us that need games to be considered art to justify our pastime.
Do I think games are art? Yes, but I know it doesn't really matter.
