I started writing an article a couple of weeks back considering whether games should be considered art. Ultimately I came to the conclusion that games are indeed a form of art. It wasn’t an easy decision though. I hit road blocks at every turn. Every argument I started to reason, I thought of a counter argument. I found a lot of reasons why some games should be considered art and some games shouldn’t be. I found a lot of reasons why some pieces of art should be considered art and some shouldn’t be.

Let me try and explain.

I originally argued that all art can be classified as art because it delivers a message. That’s what separates the arts and crafts, the message from the utilitarian use. That definition didn’t always hold up though. The best example I can think of is listed below in my original piece – Tony Smith’s “Die”. It’s supposed to mean many different things. Its six foot by six foot in size so it represents death. I personally don’t see it. I don’t understand it. I see a large box.

I have other examples. Salvador dali, for instance, creates some very interesting work. I like it. I’ll admit, I am a fan. It has no common message though. The same goes for the countless pictures of Christian art created through the renaissance. They typically tell a story and warn people of not offending the church. They are basically period propaganda pieces. Would the propaganda posters of WW2 or today be considered art?

What about architecture? Why is that considered art while pottery is not? Both are utilitarian in nature. Both serve a purpose and neither (usually) share any message.

So what is art then? I still firmly believe that the difference between art and crafts is that art shares a message of some kind. Art will often deliver an emotional message. That is what separates literature from art; art delivers its message through emotions and images while literature delivers it through reason and words. Crafts don’t deliver a message but are merely aesthetically pleasing and help accomplish a task. Because of that definition, art may not mean the same to all people. It also encompasses my biggest conflict; why are films considered art and not video games?

Certainly, not all films are art nor are all games. Like film though, games can make a person feel. They can transmit a state of being, a sense of urgency, and transplant the thoughts or a person in some other time or universe. They can deliver a message. They can provoke players to feel and to respond in the same way that traditional art would.

If one would think that games can’t make audiences feel then I would remind people of the death of Aerith. The death of Aerith at Sephiroth’s hands (Final Fantasy 7) sparked massive fan fair and rumors. Players couldn’t handle her death. Rumors spread all over the internet that Aerith was coming back and that she wasn’t really dead. (I should remind readers that these rumors spread during the early days of the computer boom and internet adoption, back during the hay days of AOL to put it into perspective. Internet use wasn’t the same then as it is now which only furthers the proof of impact of Aeirth’s death) Players actually mourned her death. They wanted to seek redemption. Her death made players feel. The Battlefield series, as much as I wouldn’t want to admit it, force players to realize the angst and destruction of war. “I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream” generally make people feel despair.

Games do provoke an emotion and response. They deliver a message in a way that neither film, nor traditional art, nor literature can. It’s a new media that is still very much in its infancy. The level of detail and creativity required to provoke such response have only come about in the last 20 years, a short time in the world of art. I think that’s why many critiques don’t consider games to be art. It’s to new. I assure everyone though that games are both a form of art and entertainment. They liven the soul and speak to people. They make players react and think in ways that other media can’t.

It's confusing at best. I have been trying to write an article relating to this for weeks and finally gave up and ended up with what I have above. I've never found a good definition of art. There's always a counter argument for personal definitions I've heard. During my art appreciation class, the text books eluded to defining art as being a medium to deliver a message of some sort, much like literature. Instead of delivering that message through words though, it delivered it through a visual medium that provoked an emotion. The emotional response is is the passage of that message from the piece of art to the viewer.

I've had trouble finding a better definition. For instance, like I mentioned above (I think) why is pottery not considered art but architecture is? If something is created through artistic means and is aesthetically pleasing, is it still considered art? Why would film be considered art but video games are generally accepted as not being art? Why is modern art considered art? Why is expressionism considered art? This is what I mean. I haven't been able to place a definition on it.

I figured I would post that here to hear what others say. This community is generally very intelligent and I'm curious what others reasoning might be.

I think to answer your response about asking a different question, I think this is the reason why games should be considered art. (Based on my version of the definition) games can elicit an emotional response and deliver some kind of message, whether it be more narrative or emotional. They have the capability. The medium is different and it has to be shared differently than a painting, a drawing, or film. But some sort of logic, much like modern art, classical, impressionism, cubism, film, et all, has to be used with some aesthetic response to elicit an emotional response and message passage.

It doesn't help to create a definition to better state a reason when the art world is so big.

I only got time to read a couple paragraphs. I consider video games to be art, because animation is art. Video games are animation with user input.

But why? Why would animations be considered art and why would the simple use of animations make it be considered an art? Commercials use animations but I wouldn't always consider them art. (Not trying to disagree but just promote conversation.)

Instead of "should x be art", why not ask "can an x be art"? IMHO, for every x, the answer to latter question is always yes.

No need for stupid complex debates making arbitrary declarations on which mediums cannot possibly ever produce art.

Instead, you get to debate why one particular thing (one game, one animation, one photo) is art to you, which is a personal belief based on personal feelings, so again the big complex debates trying to make arbitrary borders are irrelevant.

Can a chess set be art?

I think most people would say yes. It certainly involves art (sculpture, wood work, inlays, etc).

Can a game of chess itself be art? At it's core chess can be reduced down to simple notation: Be5, Nf3, c5. Can that be art?

But what if we go the other way? I can take a seemingly dull set of numbers and render them into art quite easily, we call it music.

So why can't a game of chess be art? It's a duet, a collaboration, two artists riffing off each others ideas.

So, if game assets can be art (and they clearly are) and an instance of a game itself can be art (maybe?), what about the mechanics of a game?

Can they provide an artistic view? Do they have something to say?

Watch this and then tell me what you think.

So, if game assets can be art (and they clearly are) and an instance of a game itself can be art (maybe?), what about the mechanics of a game?

Can they provide an artistic view? Do they have something to say?

I'm leaving work so I'll get in a more detailed response to everyone later but I wanted to comment on this quick while me knee-jerk response is still there. I would question the same thing about film though to. The individual acts and pieces of a movie may not be considered art. The post production and what not may not be considered. (? debatable when thinking about it.) The end production can be considered art though. Would it not be the same for a game? The mechanics, the act of controlling a character itself, I don't know if I would call that art. But the entire production (assests, mechanics, and all) I would consider an art form. I would argue that it could be art while individual pieces that build the whole may still not be considered art.

I've struggled with this question and similar ones as well.

A lot of art can exist as a form of self-expression and not meant to be entertaining for anyone who doesn't "get" the artist's view (a lot of times the only person who truly "gets it" is the artist). These kinds of artists that make paintings, videos, and songs only for themselves may not gain a lot of fans but they are still considered by most people as artists. But what about video games? Isn't the entire point of a video game to let the player (not the developer) express themselves? The graphics, music, and even code that goes into the game can be considered art but if the game is just one big monologue about the developer's life with little or no user-interaction then is the video game itself considered art?

This brings up even more questions. At what point does a game stop being a game? At this point does the game become a movie/animation or is it just nothing? As you try to answer more questions about any kind of art (especially games) you just end up with even more questions at the end.