A little while ago, God of War designer David Jaffe wrote a scathing editorial on games stating that people who write about games are not true Journalists, and are not in the Games Industry.
Gamespot editor Bob Colayco fired back a rebuttalclaiming that the focus of game journalism is on the game, not the people who make the game.
Former Game Designer Ron Gilbert throws his two cents in as well, on the side of it not being art because "true art is something that makes you think (and not in the puzzle-solving way) long after you're done with it. It's something that changes a little bit of who you are."
Completely unaware of this topic unfolding in Game Dev Land,
Roger Ebert chimes in on Video Games, considering "video games inherently inferior to film and literature".
Having just finished my eighth year in the game development industry, I've heard this topic brought up many times. I've been to academic lectures on gaming, I've heard developers speak at the Game Developer's Conference, and of course I've had my own discussions about it next to the water cooler at work. At the Digital Arts and Culture conference in Bergen (August 2nd-4th 2000) Jesper Juul presented a paper on What Computer Games can and Can't Do, attempting
" to create a theoretical framework that can tell us A) what is a game, B) what is not a game, C) give us the terminology and distinctions needed to describe historical developments in games", in short, to form a game theory that applies to computer games. A couple of years ago at GDC (San Jose 2004), Will Wright brought up in his talk the need for the games industry to critique games instead of just reviewing them if games are to make the transition to being an art. (Which may well be the inspiration for David Jaffe's statement)
Which all comes back to the question -- are video games art? My answer? It depends on the video game. There are some games out there that are definitely instruments of art -- without Super Mario Bros. we wouldn't have art pieces like the four-story Super Mario Mural made of Post-It-Notes, of course, that's a bit like saying that without Jesus there would be no "The Last Supper". So clearly, inspiring artwork does not by itself label the inspiration as art. However, some functional objects that are designed by man double as both art as well as inspiration for art. An example of this would be the new VW Beetle -- clearly functional, but artsy enough to earn a place inside museums (it is an example of retrofuturism). We can see that just because something works isn't enough to exclude it as being "art".
We see art in everyday life -- from the product design of the package you picked up at the grocery store, to the advertisements in magazines to the sculptures that line the fronts of people's houses. It seems that we are surrounded by art. Is literature art? Yes. Is film art? Yes. Is opera art? Yes. Is ballet an art? Yes. Is playing an instrument art? Yes. Is playing a sport like Tennis art? No. What about something like figure skating? Figure skating has elements of dance and hours and hours of practice and rehearsals, and yet, I think I'd be hard pressed to find someone who would say that figure skating is an art.
The question then becomes what differentiates art from sports? One might try and say that when you have a team working for a common goal, it turns from being an art to being a sport -- but clearly that is not so, or else orchestras and theater performances would be labeled sport and not art. It seems to me that there is no real difference between labeling it an art or a sport so long as the person with whom you are labeling it with agrees with you.
If I as an artist were to pick up a hammer, prop it up 45 degrees and glue it in that position, I could call it art. Some might disagree and call it merely a tool (or even more simply a hammer propped up and glued), but I, as the artist, hold the right to proclaim it as art.
That is the way that I think video games should be handled -- if the creators of the game want them considered as art, then they should be considered art. If they just want them considered as games, that's fully within their rights to do so. However, given the amount of artistic resources required in a game these days, I think it does a large discredit to the people working on the games not to consider the work they do an art. Game studios have musicians, artists and animators just like Hollywood does. Games also have a large amount of engineers to build the framework for the artists -- the stage builders so the artists can perform. If movies and television are considered art, then games should too.
I consider game journalists an essential part of the games industry -- the games industry is not just the developers working in the industry -- but everyone connected as well -- that goes from the disk manufacturers, to the people who design the boxes to the marketing and sales people (who ultimately decide if a game is made or not), to the guy who sells the box to the customer. Everyone in that cycle -- from the designer to the store owner is part of the games industry. The game journalist is an essential part -- with so many games out there these days, they provide the reviews that let the buyer know whether a game is worth their money or not. Yes, game journalists might not be as focused on the personalities behind the game -- but let's be honest here, a game is a collaborative project between dozens of people -- while one person may have designed it, it was the art director who took the concept artist's design and gave it to a modeler, who then gave it to a texture artist, who then passed it along to an animator, who passed it to a programmer to put it into the game. So while Mr. Jaffe wants to play the part of big celebrity name (and is whining about why he doesn't get asked more questions about himself and not the game), the truth of the matter is that there are a hundred more people who worked on God of War whose contributions are far more visible than David Jaffe's work.
As for Ron Gilbert's assertation that art is "something that changes a little bit of who you are", games and the creation process of games have certainly had that effect on me, else I would not be in this industry now.
"true art is something that makes you think (and not in the puzzle-solving way) long after you're done with it."
um... kinda like Final Fantasy VII? (yeah, I'm going back a few years. forgive me, I'm not much of a gamer.) I knew some real macho guy's guys who cried their eyes out over the narrative in that game.
the "is it art?" question so often bugs me because I think what is (usually) really being asked is "is it good art?" and thus the asker is trying to turn a question of taste into something more. "that's not art" is a much stronger judgment to make than "i don't think that's good art".
--------