The Video Game Art Ghetto

A la the Animation Age Ghetto, there seems to be a stigma that video games are not art.

Just a couple of minutes ago my father commented that video games will never be recognized as high art... but the argument that he used implied that he doesn't know story-based games exist (in fact, there's no evidence that he thinks there are any games that are neither casual arcade games or violent first person shooters).

I dislike the implication that games have to be story-based to be defined as art. There's a current erroneous belief that games are essentially interactive movies and that's an attitude we're going to have to throw aside, especially with the difficulties of creating a good game with a cinematic mindset. Games can have a deficiency of plot and characterisation while still being full to the brim with narrative.

Eh, doesn't matter, since Just Cause 2 has enough Hollywood in it to go around.

edited 14th Oct '11 6:19:23 PM by RocketDude

I think we've had this discussion before and it didn't end well.

I personally feel that games can be story heavy with no issue, but the main limitation is having to explain everything. Explanations and justifications should not ever be necessary.

Anybody who thinks games can never be art needs to go play Limbo and Bastion.

This won't work but I will try to kill this early anyway.

Your grandfather claimed games will never be recognized as high art. Who cares? Its not like he said they weren't art, just not the kind art snobs will pay obscene amounts of money for. Are basketball players complaining that their sport isn't considered high art? No? What about Poker players?

Everything made by humans is a basic form of art. But what are the purpose of games? To be played? Ya don't say. If you want to impress art snobs give them Love And Basketball or Casino Royale, which are basically dramatized tales of games but don't expect the game itself to do it. That's not why they are made. Show your grand father The Last Star Fighter or something.

Wait, what?

Two possible Weasel Words: "low art" and "high art." What on earth do these terms actually mean?

If you read Understanding Comics, then you'll see a discussion on what these two terms imply. "High art" is implied to be things such as prose, live theater, painting, and sculpture. The book doesn't really define "low art," but it seems to be used in reference to magazines, advertising, and comics. Looking at page 140, it looks like the author uses it to refer to contemporary movies and music. (If you haven't read this book, do so! It was written almost twenty years ago, but nearly all of it still seems relevant and worth discussing.)

I'm okay with video games in categories from "experimental indie game" and "edutainment software" all the way to "casual games for commutes" and "arcade style." The way I figure it, all of these types are necessary so that others can exist.

There's some small ghettoes which exist in video game fandom, especially if you look at demographics, aesthetics, themes, and gameplay styles which are considered outdated or unpopular. But that's probably a separate discussion.