Games are art?

Well, just about anyone who has ever played games seriously or developed them has come into contact with some that are still debating "whether games are art or not".

The question of whether games can be considered art is a difficult question, not only because of the fact that the whole definition of art has deteriorated in the last few years, but also because of the question whether something that is created for entertainment can be considered art.

When someone says that games cannot be considered art because it is commercial or meant for entertainment, it always makes me laugh. The works of Rembrandt were created with a commercial purpose; selling them. The works of all artists (be it music, be it in terms of expression, be it paintings) in the past were at some point created to sell them, artists cannot live of air alone after all. That makes the works in some way commercial. After all, the word commercial (derived from the word commerce) means the buying and selling of goods.

Also, if it is meant for entertainment, the same statements can be used for any medium that was written with the purpose of someone else to look at it. When I went to Mauritshuis a while ago (a Dutch museum featuring works of several famous painters like Rembrandt van Rijn, Johannes Vermeer and so on), I saw a lot of people there being interested in these paintings. They were there because they liked it there, they wanted to be there. In a way, they saw these paintings, these pieces of art as anyone would call it, as a form of entertainment, no matter how "intellectual" their form of entertainment was. There is no doubt that something painted by Rembrandt is art. But when it is looked at as a form of entertainment, does that immediately makes it any less art?

So, I think to say a game cannot be art because it is commercial or for entertainment is not a valid statement. Since the true definition of art has more or less disappeared due to the influence of the 20th century artists, we can even claim just about anything is art. However, I can see similarities between what people call art and what people do not call art; it seems as soon as someone can be mentally or intellectually stimulated by a certain creation they are more bound to call it art. In this perspective, games can be most definitely art.

Then, is any game art? No, I do not believe that to be true. Most of the games that have been considered art up until now (Shadow of the Colossus, Bioshock come to mind) were considered to be that because of their visuals, nothing else. I think this to be a shame. I think, to alleviate a certain medium to the level of art, that medium needs to have something unique. In the case of games, this is the direct interaction the player can have with the virtual world; something the likes of books and movies can never hope to do. The player can be a part, even become a part of the world, to the point that the player will become completely immersed in that world. It is an experience that is completely different from any other medium. But what is it that makes the player immersed? Is it the graphics? The story? Music?

I believe it to be the gameplay.

I think that when a game has truly unique gameplay that challenges the mind on an intellectual level, to the point where the player is completely immersed in what the player is doing, we can speak of games being art. It is unfortunate that this is the area that is so often overlooked as an element of art, but I believe that bad gameplay will hurt any game to the point that players just will not come back anymore. Much less call it art.

It is funny that when people who review games are talking about how some parts of the game play bad, they mostly talk about how design decisions were wrong. Design decisions as in decisions taken by the gamedesigners. Gamedesigners as in the people who create the game from scratch, only to let others "color" it and bring it to life. The gamedesigners create the game, where the art department (and other departments) only breathes life in the whole. Even the concept artists, no matter how big their influence over the graphical side of the game, have to listen to the game designers in the end. How can the results of a department that only helps to strengthen the experience that already existed in the core be called art? It is the same as calling the seller of the paints art, instead of the artist who applied it, or to call the drums art, because the music made with them is pleasant to listen to (and no, I am not talking about how the drums look).

So, the way as I see it, games are art because they are fun. And games that are fun should definitely be called art. Games are the canvas for game designers to paint on. It is after all, the art to have someone enjoy one experience for 20 hours or even more; only to have that someone come back for even more. If that is not worthy of being called art, then I do not know what is.