Game Design 2 Journal #1: Games are not Art

I know we've had this discussion a lot, it's driven into the freaking ground. Are video games art? Roger Ebert has famously been quoted on the issue, originally denying video games as Art with an argument about "Authorial control," then in 2007 changing stances only slightly, comparing all games to sports and saying they cannot be "high art." Even Hideo Kojima, famously lauded for creating what some would call a work of art, Metal Gear Solid, admits games are not art. From Kotaku:

Hideo Kojima said: "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

I agree. But that's not the end of the discussion.

Art takes on many forms, from sculpture to the fine brush strokes of Van Gogh. It can be installation art, spanning many weeks or hours of time, or performance art that only exists while the performers deem it. You can Google "art" and get pictures, pictures of sculptures, videos of those performance art shows. Museums are, by and large, public and available for the viewing of great art. You don't pay to see the art, you pay to upkeep the building it is in. Now we get into the real meat: art can be bought and sold, value is placed on it by the artist and then a patron who finds it to their liking comes and picks it up. Art is unique. Even an artist that's made 1000 handpainted toilet seat covers uses a unique stroke or two each time. There is a sense of ownership. Art, though given value, has worth that can be assessed before it is bought, and exists as a singularity. There can be only one!

Video Games are mass produced, cannot be judged before being paid for (we hire people to review games for us, playing advanced copies so we can decide if we want to take the risk on spending 65 bucks), and is not unique. We all have (barring defects) the same game. Unlike art, the inability to judge and critique a game before it is purchased makes buying games risky. We wouldn't consider buying a painting a risk, when we can see and appreciate the whole thing before it is purchased. Video Games also lack that personal sense of "mine", like Kojima said "...A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame."

From that, we also glean the purpose for making games: to make money. Games are designed to sell like hotcakes, they're intention is to make money. Sure, you can make artwork for money, but video games are implicitly designed to make money. They have careful, government regulated prices, can be taxed and returned...etc. There is nothing personal in buying a video game that the GAME is providing. If Halo 4 comes out, and you're the biggest Halo fan in the world, Halo 4 has meaning to you. But Halo 4 doesn't know you, and doesn't care about you...the single. Halo 4 has a community, a large group of people with expectations ready to dive down the throats of the developers and rip their hearts out if Halo 4 isn't awesome.

There's a far higher stigma of "Must be successful" placed over video games. "Indie" games, games that are available for free or have no publisher, could be considered art. But it's not possible to call "Shadow of the Colossus", "Rez HD" or "Modern Warfare 2" art, when we examine them against my statements above. The bottom line is: if your game is art, it had better be either free, or there better only be one copy.