Fantastic Blognanza!

This is Greg’s (deservedly brief) response to my response to his response to my original post about video games as art, as well as Colin’s response to my original post!

Greg’s response:

Myst: I agree with you that Myst probably doesn’t quite cross the boundary into “art”. I think of it as more of a precursor, I guess? A game that could be considered an important breakthrough on video games’ path to artdom? Something like that?

Eternal Darkness: I agree that this also probably isn’t “Art” in the way that we’re discussing. The insanity bar was cool, but I think it was more a gimmick than anything else. I mostly just brought it up to note that the game’s innovations could be theoretically be used in some kind of artistic way unique to the video game medium.

Shadow of the Colossus: Yeah — Taeil didn’t really get into the game either. Still, if I had to argue for some game as art, I would probably choose this one. The fact that I’m still thinking about the game a year after finishing it signifies something to me (hopefully something more than that I have a terrible eye for art). But I would never attempt an argument before playing through the game again and taking a real critical look at it. So don’t ask.

Colin’s response:

Honestly, I don’t really care if people think the video games are art, nor whether they actually are. They are, first and foremost, a form of entertainment. The problem with classifying any video game as art is that when a developer sets out to make a game, they try to make it fun. That is the overarching goal for any game developer I can think of. They are creating entertainment. Undoubtedly, there are some people out there who would like video games to be art, and if these people work for a developer, they put their own little piece of art into the game. That’s hardly the entire experience though.

I also need to call into question your definition of art, which requires art to be reviewable and comment on the State of Things and the human condition. First, I think commenting on the State of Thigns and the human condition is inherently impossible, at least both at the same time. While the human condition does not change, it is what fuels the State of Things, which in its phrasing seems to implicate that the State of Things is subject to change. This is not so. While the world may change, governments rise and fall, the State of Things remains the same because the human condition never changes. People are the same now as they were a thousand years ago. We may think we’re different, but that’s simply not true.

Furthermore, is music art? To clarify, is simple instrumental music art? You would piss off a lot more people than the gaming community if you denounced Beetoven’s 5th Symphony as art. Does Beetoven’s 5th comment on the human condition? On the state of things? Is it any more reviewable than a video game?

All that aside, and assuming that I’m wrong in every point I’ve made so far (it’s a risk I often take), can you draw what I’ll call the “Art Line?” Can something *almost* be art? *Barely* art? Rather than classifying something as “art” or “not art,” it’s more important to characterize something’s whole artistic value. Classifying anything as art is an incorrect perception, as is denouncing something as art.

In summary, the question should not be “is this art,” rather, “what artistic value does this hold?”