PixlBit

First things first, I have a Twitter account now!  PixlAJ.  I’m warning all of you now though that I do NOT know how to use this thing, so take some pity on the old man trying to run with the hip teen funsters.

OK, let’s get started.  Before I really even bring video games into the mix, I need pick apart the question itself:  Are videogames art?  Honestly, that’s a stupid question.  Just about anything can or can’t be art.  Photographs can be art, or they can be everyday pictures.  Paintings can be art, or goo slopped on a canvas.  Movies can be art, or they can just be an entertaining flick.  Music can be art, or a song can be simple pop garbage (I’m looking at you “Lady” Gaga.)  So the only way I really know to address this is to rephrase the question into the following format:  Are Videogames capable of being art?

For those of you who just want to read a one word answer, I’ll give it to you now.  My opinion is that yes, Videogames are capable of being art, because there’s really only one thing that qualifies an object as art, and that would be appreciation.

Let’s start with the basics: Here’s the definition of art per the almighty Webster,

Art n

4 a : the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects; also :works so produced

Let’s also consider fine art, since I could reasonably rephrase the question “Should games be considered a card carrying member of the fine arts club;”

fine art n

a : art (as painting, sculpture, or music) concerned primarily with the creation of beautiful objects —usually used in plural

Notice the emphasis on skill and creativity in the definition of art, as well as the inclusion of “beautiful objects” in the definition of fine art.  For the remainder of this argument, I’ll be using the term appreciation to reflect these concepts.  Let me show you why.

Does anyone remember taking music appreciation classes in school?  Or appreciation of the arts courses in some other academic pursuit?  These focus on the recognition of artistic qualities in works produced, namely the qualities of creativity, imagination, and beauty.  These qualities, in turn, move the observer in an emotional or otherwise intangible manner.  Why is this important?  Because far too often people believe something is art because it moves them.  In reality, their response is not the measure of what constitutes a work of art, but a byproduct of their appreciation of the art itself.  In other words, art is first and foremost a work of skill, beauty, imagination, and creativity.  These qualities give it the power to “move” you, rather than your response granting the work the power to become art.

Here’s a more practical example.  I can sit at a keyboard and compose a basic melody, and you could love it or hate it, but as long as it meets the qualities listed above, it is art, and can therefore be appreciated as such.

Where this becomes complicated is when judging if a medium is qualified is added to the mix.  For an example this time, I’ll turn to sculpture, specifically Michelangelo’s famous statue of David.  His medium was a rock.  There’s a well-known story that goes something like this; when Michelangelo was asked how managed to create such a fantastic statue from a mere stone, he responded that the first time he saw the actual stone; he saw the statue as well.  All he needed to do was remove the extra rock around it, revealing the statue beneath. I may be stretching, but I’d be willing to say it was that vision that made the stone into art.  In the end, his skill with a chisel was a vehicle to relay his vision to the masses, generating appreciation.

It is the artist, therefore, that supplies the vision, and he uses the best medium he can to pass his vision to the masses.  If Michelangelo had been a modern graphic artist instead of a stoneworker, could he not have used software to create a 3d model of his vision?  Could he not have seen something impossible to tangibly create, such as a massive planet, and then conveyed this vision digitally?  Is the fact that the medium is digital, and the input a coding language rather than the written word or the painted image something that makes it invalid?

This is really the root of the issue, and personally, I cannot comprehend why there even is a medium debate.  I think if something so simple as rock qualifies, then how can something more complex and creative be disqualified? I propose that the issue is being examined improperly, and that there should be a blacklist, rather than whitelist approach to what mediums may be considered.  I’ve seen people use random scraps of metal, paper plates, a pile of postcards, and plastic bags to make art.  In fact, I think the idea that any medium can be used has been impressed on us since we were children making macaroni art in school.  I find it hypocritical that any art teacher can disqualify electronic entertainment after setting the barrier of entry so low.

So why is this important?  Well one reason that was discussed in depth on the latest PixlTalk Podcast is validation.  We, as gamers, feel that qualifying games as art validates the time and money we invest in appreciating it.  Since they’ve already done me the favor of discussing that in depth, I’m going to move on to something I think they overlooked (I’m not trying to be critical here, they had one heck of a topic to cover, and a very limited amount of time to do it.) It’s the last step a painter does when he completes his work; he takes credit for it by signing his name on the canvas.

Readers, I feel this is a crucial element to the debate.  If you care about nothing else I’ve said so far, I beg you to consider at least this point. When the credits role at the end of an artistic film, they role with more purpose than to provide credentials to flesh out the director’s resume, they provide the cast and crews signature at the end of their piece.  This is the reason works are listed by author rather than title.  This is the reason all sculptures have something on or near them stating the craftsman’s name and what he called the work.  When an artist does something that we appreciate, he deserves recognition.

This should have struck a chord with those who follow names in the industry.  Amano’s artwork and Umatu’s musical scores in the original Final Fantasy games designates the first time I started to do this.  Their styles became instantly recognizable to me, and I can still find their styles instantly recognizable in other projects they’ve done, like Vampire Hunter D for Amano, or Umatu’s score in Lost Odyssey.  These gentlemen are artists and deserve to be recognized as such, but if the medium they work with isn’t recognized in its entirety, it loses its value and its ability to be appreciated. 

Let’s look at Final Fantasy VI (III in the US) for an example of this.  The opening moments of that game stand out as one of the first times I began to think Games might possibly be art, and without the characters and score created by the earlier mentioned artists, it never would have existed.  Walking through the snow toward a mysterious, unnamed city to investigate a frozen creature that should not exist in the world while Amano’s characters  talk about slave crowns, magic and forgotten wars while listening to Umatsu’s haunting theme for Terra still causes me to respond emotionally, but any of those standing on their own fall flat.  Terra’s theme needs the empty plains and the drifting snow contrasted with soldiers in intimidating mechanical armor to feel the way it does, and Terra’s image on her own conveys her emotions, but without the background into her character the game provides, those observations will likewise go unappreciated.

So there you have the first part of my argument.  I have refined the question and stated why I feel the medium qualifies for this consideration.  My next entry is going to focus on games specifically and when, if ever, they became capable of being art.  My thoughts may surprise you.