args

Video games are a serious art form.

Note to contender: I don't mean for this to sound inflammatory, but since you're expressing admiration for certain video games, always make sure you capitalize their titles. Anyways, in his/her conclusion, the contender defined the video game as not only a serious art, but also the art for a variety of reasons: 1. It is interactive. 2. They combine multiple artistic mediums. 3. They are available to your doorstep/screen. 4. They entertain. 5. They transport the gamer from their life and into the life of the protagonists. So I'll admit one thing: the technical production of a video game is a display of creativity. OK, but I will be arguing against the judgement that the theory of the video game as a serious art is supported by any of the five reasons mentioned above. 1. "It is interactive art" Good enough. We must, however, remember, that if something is interactive, that typically means that whoever is experiencing it can change the outcome. When F. Scott Fitzgerald wrote The Great Gatsby, he was making a commentary on the American borgeoisie. (The following three sentences are typed in vague terms so that nothing is spoiled.) There is a break-up. Then there is an accidental death. Then there is a murder. No matter who read it, and no matter how quickly they read it, the same events occured at the end. When Stanley Kubrick directed 2001: A Space Odyssey, he wanted to warn us, as stated before, about the dangers of AI becoming too advanced. No matter who saw the movie, and no matter over how much time they saw it, the ending would be the same. Games, in a broad sense, are not like this. There are rules, and there is an objective. This is the primary difference between the video game and a high art like cinema or literature. Yes, people play video games with the intent of experiencing the atmosphere and the visuals, but the main motivation (and intended motivation by most game developers) for most people to keep playing is the desire to win the next level or beat the game. If something is expression, then the outcome should not be able to be changed all that much, whereas the way someone plays a video game could, in some cases, affect whether or not the entire game's universe ends. If people could change the ending of The Great Gatsby (like you can change the outcome of a video game by pressing the right buttons or going to the right places), F. Scott Fitzgerald's expression would not be much of an expression, because he would not actually write what it was he was trying to make commentary about. Likewise for Stanley Kubrick if filmgoers could change the outcome of 2001: A Space Odyssey and keep HAL 9000 obedient -- not all of Kubrick's vision would actually have been filmed. If someone could make Romeo not drink the poison by pressing the A button enough times and fast enough, would the ending of Romeo and Juliet have been half as emotionally profound? Video games are literally programmed to change themselves based on what the person playing them wants. 2. "They are a mix and mash and show the co-operation of next to all other artistic medium [sic] available to the common man" [...] "we [sic] have sculpturing [sic], architecture, CGI [...]" Okay, so video games combine music and visuals. Music: has any video game music had much of an influence on separately-released, commercial music? Also note that nearly all video game music is instrumental (if not, there are some vocal chants) and composed only to fit the tone and/or action of the game. In other words, video game music is generally made simply as accompaniment to something else. In addition, none of the music in the YouTube videos linked above compare to a "five-star orchestra piece." The first song linked is not even an orchestra piece; it is a piano piece. Few things grant it any more attention than elevator music. OK, so maybe the last one linked sounds as if it could have been played with five or six different instrumentalists. But this is not "five-star." The great composers of two hundred years ago, on the other hand, were estimated to have often used over 100 people in an orchestra. Visuals: some game designs are quite impressive, but not even the best are comparable to the best paintings or sculptures. Most visuals are made to make the game more visually appealing to gamers. 3. "They offer art right to your doorstep and to your screen" This is not a video-games exclusive; just about all of today's popular arts have some form of availability to one's home. Books/e-Books can be purchased and kept on a reader's bookshelf. Albums can be bought, then shipped to your doorstep and imported to iTunes so you can play any of the songs from your computer screen whenever you want. Movies can be viewed with a Blu-ray/DVD player. 4. "Video games [...] entertain you" So do sports. But nobody calls basketball an art. We all refer to it as a sport, which is something that has rules and an objective, and an outcome that can be changed... 5. "Video games [...] transport you from your life and into the life [sic] of the characters that inhabit them" This goes back to the argument issue of games being "interactive" (mentioned in rebuttal to quoted reason #1). Heavy Rain (2010) was not about teaching the gamer what to do for someone they loved so much as simply seeing what the gamer would do for someone they loved...that's even pretty similar to the game's tagline: "How far will you go to save someone you love?" Rather than making a statement (like art does), it asks a question. The narrative completely changes based on what the gamer wants, meaning it is chaste -- something Pablo Picasso once said art can never be. Oh, and I never said that art MUST influence other art. I simply typed that video games not having as much crossover influence as music, film, et cetera is a sign that the video game is not a high art form. Bobby Fischer wasn't afraid to admit that chess was a sport. As with chess and other sports, video games: 1. are limited by rules. 2. have objectives. 3. have outcomes that can be changed according to what the person playing them wants. The design of a video game may show artistic talent, but video games are called video games for a reason. They are not made to satirize or comment; they are made to be played. Notice how when you go to a museum, you are not allowed to touch the paintings? What about when you listen to an album, and the disc is in the player where you finger can't reach it? Games operate the opposite way; they are made to be modified by people who didn't make them. I won't pull a Roger Ebert and stubbornly say that video games can NEVER be art, but so far it's not impressive enough. No video game designer has made a game worthy of comparison with the masterpieces by Orson Welles, F. Scott Fitzgerald, the Velvet Underground, etc. Maybe the defink this is what makes the average gamer appreciate the games he/she plays. If you took away his/her ability to change the outcome, a gamer's temptation to keep playing for five/10 more minutes than planned would not be half as strong. [1] 2001: A Space Odyssey. Dir. Stanley Kubrick. Prod. Stanley Kubrick. By Stanley Kubrick, Arthur C. Clarke, Geoffrey Unsworth, and Ray Lovejoy. Perf. Keir Dullea and Gary Lockwood. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1968. Blu-ray Disc. [2] Fitzgerald, Francis Scott. The Great Gatsby. New York, NY: Scribner, 1925. Print. [3] http://en.wikipedia.org... [4] http://www.ign.com... [5] http://www.metacritic.com... [6] http://www.rogerebert.com... [7] http://www.theguardian.com... [8] Shakespeare, William. Romeo and Juliet. District of Columbia: Folger Shakespeare Library, 2004. Print. [9] Wikipedia