Games: The New Hybrid Art Form

After reading one an.observer’s “Is it Art?” post, got me thinking and no doubt it’s had other people wondering if games can be considered an art. Roger Egbert not only says that games are not art, but goes one further to say that they will never be art is a bit extreme don’t you think? I mean, Egbert does include the ideas of chicken scratches on a cave wall evolving over time into paintings and many other early examples of what we consider art nowadays. Then is art some sort of passive medium only? That art is only meant to be viewed and discussed? Not interacted with?


Okay, then what is the meaning of art? I know Wikipedia isn’t always cited as an academic resource, but I think it’s pretty good – “Art is the product or process of deliberately arranging items (often with symbolic significance) in a way that influences and affects one or more of the senses, emotions, and intellect. It encompasses a diverse range of human activities, creations, and modes of expression, including music, literature, film, photography, sculpture, and paintings. The meaning of art is explored in a branch of philosophy known as aesthetics, and even disciplines such as history and psychology analyze its relationship with humans and generations.” (Wikipedia). It’s about the same as the Oxford meaning of it. Now if you’ve done any game programming like me, you’ll know that items are deliberately arranged because it can take hours or weeks to get it to work properly. For example, one could program a health bar; this is deliberate and can affect the emotions when it goes down as the player understands that if it reaches the end, the game will be over. Games can also encompass a huge range of human life, take GTA3 for example. It includes a massive amount of radio one could listen to, various cars and comments on the social culture of underground gangs at the time. So why can’t we call GTA3 a piece of art? Cos we can’t hang it on a wall? Or because people like Roger Egbert simple don’t have the mindset, capacity or desire to understand it?


People like Egbert probably just don’t understand the point of it perhaps. Personally I don’t understand most pieces of art, I mean, when I first learnt about the Statue of David, my reaction was more or less “great, a statue of some naked guy made by some old dead guy, why do millions of people want to go see it?” It was only after I took the time (emphasis on “I took the time”) to read about it (interacting with the art) and learning the story of David and its history did I better understand how it is artistic and what it represents. Can we not think of games in a similar manner? I took the time to play a game and learn the controls and story of the game and its history. I think one could better see it as an art form.


Sorry to make this a long blog post, but I want to present a new idea. Can we think of games as a new “hybrid” mix? Over time, many things are mashed together to create something new. Music and film are combined to create musicals, cartoons and film combined make animated films, books and pictures combined make comic books. Yet these are still considered art in some form or another. Video games are can be thought of as a combination of board/sports/misc games (participation) + pictures (visual) + music (audio) + dialogue (story). Perhaps we’re currently going through a phase in the baby boomers life they don’t understand. Just my thoughts.