Firstly, I would like to apologize for referring to Call Of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 as simply Call Of Duty 2 in the last blog. That was a shoddy bit of research on my part.
The last Blog did seem to elicit some argument from a few of its readers, and I would like to respond to some of the arguments brought forth.
As an art-form, video games are in their infancy as compared to film/literature. This is evidenced by the fact that their technology hasn’t stabilized as the film industry’s has. Filmmakers have been using (more or less) the same audio/video technology (minus special effects, of course) for at least the past 20 years. However, if you look at games from just 10 years ago, there is certainly a massive difference. The techniques for storytelling in games are still being developed, as they were in film for many years. I’m sure you wouldn’t call a film from the 1920’s truly meaningful art.
Metropolis, anyone? Nosferatu, anyone? Anyone? Video games are not in their infancy. They have been around since my mother was a child, and I would agree that they have grown by leaps and bounds over the course of the ensuing decades. My argument is not that video games are stagnant or in any way incapable of evolving as a medium, my argument is that they will never be art and always entertainment because the participatory element involved with games is by its very nature excluding the fundamental immutability of art. Claiming that video games are art is like claiming that paint-by-numbers is art or that hiking is art. Imagine if in Casablanca the viewer could choose to make Ilsa stay with Rick or make Rick go with Ilsa. The movie would be cheapened humongously if the decisions belonged not to the artist, but to the audience. The fact is that when an artist relinquishes his art to the viewer, the artist ceases to be an artist.
It’s all ultimately a question of how much you’re willing to broaden your definition of art, as I think it’s all ultimately subjective. Not everyone who watches The Dark Knight is going the contemplate the philosophical issues raised by the contrast between Batman and the Joker, for example.
A very solid point, but I think that the difference is this: Batman and The Joker are depicted making decisions and both the reasons behind those decisions and the implications of those decisions are shown in the film. When a decision is presented to a gamer, it is not really the decision of a character based on who that character is and how he interacts with the world, it is the decision of the gamer who is merely watching events unfold dispassionately. Art invites us into the mind and the world of another person, and superficially one would think that video games do that better than any other genre, but it has actually killed the connection between people and stories by removing immutability and cheapening the world before us by essentially revealing it as illusion that we can manipulate. Would you still find the Dark Knight a work of art if you could choose to make Batman go crazy and kill the citizens of Gotham? It would be fun, yes, but it would also cheapen Batman and make him less of a character and more of a puppet—which is exactly what the protagonists of video games like God Of War or FallOut 3 or Bioshock are.
I’m a fan of yours, but this is nonsense.
Why is film and literature more credible an artform than videogames? It makes no sense. Videogames require even more skill to develop, and the opportunity for creativity (both technically and artistically) reach much further than with films or literature.
I think that you underestimate the amount of work that goes into a film, but I digress.
Your argument is fairly useless. Video games require skill to develop? So do Ballistic Missiles, and yet no one is arguing that weapons manufacturing is an artform. You do raise a somewhat good point though (or, you get close to raising it): if video games are not art, then why are they made by artists? The levels are designed by artists. The characters are designed by artists. Dialogue is written by writers. Voices are provided by actors. How can all of this artistic collaboration result in a produce which is not art?
My answer is that while certain aspects of games by themselves are art, the game itself is not. For instance, if you have an artist pain a mural on the side of a building, is the building art? No. The mural is art. The building is still just a building. It serves a function. It stores objects. It can be accessed. It can shelter from rain. It is a useful thing to have, our building, but it is not a work of art. Now, perhaps a building designed by a famous architect built not just for functionality but appeal would be considered a work of art, but that’s because it is immutable.