The Failed Defence of Video Games as Art
When those who speak against games are obtuse, and those who speak for games present weak arguments -- in the end video games will speak for themselves.
Many game enthusiasts have viewed a large number of varied discussions on whether or not games are art. Two very famous opinions on this debate are that of Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago. Roger Ebert is a movie critic who has the strong view that video games could never be art. Kellee Santiago is a successful game creator who is well known as the co-founder of thatgamecompany (recently left) and is also known for giving a TED talk in the defense of video games as art. While her lecture for TED is relatively old news, the way she established her defense of video games as art has been prevalent in the discussion at large for quite some time. This is a major concern for me, because I believe that Kellee Santiago failed horribly to defend the artistic potential of video games, especially to those well versed in art concepts such as Roger Ebert. While I firmly believe Roger Ebert is wrong in his viewpoint against video games as art, I also feel video games have been poorly represented and that may be due to the conflicting rationale of video game culture and the fine art culture. When Kellee Santiago lists the groups of people that she wants to employ in discovering the artistic potential of games she didn't include artists nor art historians among the list. I think this is evidence that Kellee Santiago hasnt presented a strong argument in favor of games as art. As a person who studied painting, I have to confess I cringed when Kellee Santiago compared the artistic potential of video games to that of painting. Not because I think painting is superior to video games, but rather I feel the way she compared them pigeonholed painting. She stated that video games are like the cave paintings of the Chauvet Cave and as painting "progressed" to the works of Michelangelo, so will video games. She even went to the point of saying that the cave paintings were pretty much just chicken scratches. They are not actually, considering the original artists would put pigment in their mouths and blow the paint onto the cave walls either directly from their mouths or through bone tubes. Painting a cave full of drawings by spitting pigment at a wall is kind of impressive in my book. Comparing the artistic quality of that work to Michelangelo is just iniquitous. Of course so is Roger Ebert's comparison of Mark Twain to video games but we'll get to that. Comparing video games to movies, or to literature, or to painting is just not fair to video games as they are entirely different mediums. That isn't to say these things can not have influence on games or that they can not be in a dialogue with games -- comparison in that sense is fine. It's comparison in weighing the quality of the mediums that I don't think is fair. They are all mediums that can express art, but as a medium alone they are not always art. There is more to defining art then its medium. There is also more to artistic achievement than realism. I feel Kellee Santiago is so passionate about Art giving video games a chance, that she hasn't quite allowed herself to truly respect Art. Even if one were to assume realism alone is the defining factor of an artwork, the work of Michelangelo isn't the moment of conception for realistic artwork. In fact such technical skills were mastered in art long before in cultures such as Ancient Greece or Ancient China. It's the influences of Christianity that make it seem that works of those such as Michelangelo represent the pinnacle of art. When Christianity emerged and became a cultural norm within Europe there was a large debate over the accurate representation of Christ, and it was due to this debate art became more about iconic representations, or abstracted representations. Because of the progression of the Italian Renaissance it's often misunderstood that from Giotto to Michelangelo realism was first achieved. The shift towards realism is more shift in culture to accept realistic art, and so the tools to achieve realism were discovered again. It is a common cultural phenomenon to revere realistic art as superior art, and I fear that phenomenon has trickled into video game culture. While I personally share the sense of awe at technical achievement, there is more to art than how realistic it looks. I fear this viewpoint will actually subdue the case for video games as art. It is here that the art philosophies of video game culture may continue to clash with the fine art culture. While it is understandable why realism is revered in games due to the continual excitement around graphics, yet it could also deeply limit the potential of video games. It could even degrading video game history. Those 8-bit games I used to play on my huge tube TV were beautiful, and I wouldn't question the artistic ability to depict such an enamoring world in such a minimalist style. If all video games sought to be realistic we wouldn't have the likes of Mario, Limbo or even Journey which is a recent creation of Kellee Santiago's very own thatgamecompany. I find it comforting that games such a Braid, Flower or Fez are embraced within the industry. I just worry that the graphics obsession has overly influenced the viewpoint of what qualifies as art. While it is exciting to see the progression of graphics, and important for realism to be achieved so video games can venture into a new form of artistic expression, I think it's safe to say realism isn't what makes a video game creation an astounding artistic achievement such as the Sistine Chapel. The Sistine Chapel is more than just realistic painting and lavish architecture; it's a truly successful expression of a culture. If only realistic paintings were valued than Van Gogh's Starry Night would not reside on millions of walls. In 2010 Roger Ebert posted a poll on his twitter whether people would choose a great game or Huckleberry Finn. After some time it was revealed that 60% would choose a great game and Roger Ebert criticized anyone who did due to the strong impact Huckleberry Finn had on American literature. To abandon Huckleberry Finn for an un-named great game is to abandon an extremely influential part of American culture. I think Roger Ebert knew this when he posted the poll, and it's easy to suspect he intended to have intense grounds to argue upon if the poll ever did sway in favor of video games. One would think Roger Ebert would see this poll as a sign that Video Games have impacted our culture in a unique way, much like Huckleberry Finn impacted our culture. He has since apologized for making such bold statements, while still holding to his viewpoint. Now, rather than argue whether or not games are art, why not question the reason for their cultural impact? It was truly unfair to put "any great game" up against Mark Twain's work merely for the opportunity to demean games. The culture of today and the culture of Mark Twain are both very different, so a direct comparison is not fair to video games and it is not fair to Mark Twain. It is even more unfair for Kellee Santiago to quote Wikipedia as her source for defining art and expect anyone from a fine art background to take her seriously. No one can deny Kellee Santiago's passion for games, I just wish she would have more passion in truly investigating games as a form of artistic expression (dare I say to look further than a Google search?). Video games are art and should to be part of contemporary artistic movements. This requires those in the fine art world to consider games, and investigate the cultural implications of their popularity. This also requires those in the video game industry to dive deeper into the fine art world and familiarize themselves more with contemporary movements. Art has moved so far from the masters of the Academy and so the video game industry must allow a more sophisticated assessment of a games artistic qualities. For me, the most important thing to consider in assessing art is the artwork's successful expression of culture, or the successful expression of an artists viewpoint. In fact I can think of a large number of games that have already done these things. In April 2012, the Smithsonian decided to show a small selection of such games to the world. There have even been games made for the sole purpose of showing in a gallery such as Mel Chin's Knowmad. Perhaps there has not yet been a game that is as strong of an expression of our culture than the Sistine Chapel was of Michelangelo's culture. Perhaps there has not yet been a game that is as compelling of an individual's expression as were Van Gogh's paintings. Even so, I personally believe there have been great works of art that also happen to be video games. So when those who speak against games are obtuse, and those who speak for games present weak arguments -- in the end video games will speak for themselves.