Video Games Are Art

What is art, Walter Benjamin, the German Philosopher, says art is anything that’s

authentic, anything that’s been created through some sort of craft giving it an aura breathing life

into the art piece. Coming from the opposite Duchamp perspective, art privileges the idea and it

is this idea that gives art its meaning and its aura making it an authentic piece of work. It is when

a living breathing organism puts a piece of themselves into the work that it becomes art; it is

when an artist uses the object or canvas to express their thoughts, feelings, and emotions through

the piece as a way of communicating their ideas. In today’s day in age technology continuously

grows, broadening the canvas upon which artists are able to express themselves through various

art forms. One of these forms have become a controversial topic of discussion among the art

world questioning its place among the field of human expression. Video games are an interactive

digital entertainment experience where one plays against a computer or another person for the

simple purpose of having fun. Video games take millions of different styles and forms there are

sports games, there interactive TV shows and interactive movies, there are digital board games

and card games, there are rough simulations of everyday life as well as simulations in the realm

of imaginary and fantasy. Anything you can possibly imagine there is a video game for it that

just so happens to be someone’s favorite way to spend their time in this world. Some video

games are works of artistic expression others don’t know what artistic expression is or why one

would even care about bringing that element into their work.

Roger Ebert, a long time American film critic, historian, journalist, screenwriter, and

author has much to say about the rising artistic form. In his article “Video games can never be

art” he says that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium
as an artistic art form (Ebert, Roger). Ebert’s main argument is that there are no citable game

worthy comparisons to that of an already well-established art forms such as painting, writing,

and film. Acknowledging a comment towards Ebert in her TED talk given at USC by Kellee

Santiago, a designer and producer of video games, Santiago agrees that there are no noteworthy

comparisons to already well-established art forms but says Ebert is foolish for not thinking of it

as an art form. Santiago compares video games as well as notable art forms to that of prehistoric

cave paintings saying that the cave paintings are just “chicken scratches on walls” but these

chicken scratches eventually evolved to become the magnificent art of painting that we know

today. She claims that while video games are closer to the chicken scratches on the wall then to a

breathtaking piece of work it is in fact still art. I entirely agree with Santiago’s point as it only

takes one person to make something art while the majority of people wouldn’t find cave painting

to be an emotionally enticing piece it doesn’t matter because to the one person who made it is or

was at least. It only takes one to make art, it doesn’t require validation from others in fact an art

piece could never even be seen or experienced apart from the person who created it. To that one

person it still means something, it still has a part of their aura in it, it is still a form of self-

expression, it is still a way of communicating their thoughts, ideas, and emotions even if they are

only communicating to themselves. So, while it could be considered true that there are no citable

game worthy comparisons to that of already well-established art forms Video games are still very

young and have a way to go before, they are on par with what critics today consider real art.

Roger however makes another valid point in saying “we could play all day with

definitions and find exceptions to every one of them” (Ebert, Roger). In other words, my

definition of art may differentiate from his, to yours, to Aristotle, to Plato, to Benjamin, or even

to Duchamp everyone has a different perspective or idea of what defines something so it’s
almost impossible to truly define art and fit various forms of expression into that category. One

clear distinction between a game and art Ebert suggests is that you can win a game that has rules,

points, objectives, and an outcome (Ebert, Roger). “One might then cite an immersive game

without points or rules, but I would say this then ceases to be a game and becomes a

representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film, etc. These are things you cannot win; you

can only experience them” (Ebert, Roger). This argument of Ebert’s is a poor attempt to discredit

the integrity of video games as an art form simply because you can win, and it has an ending

means there’s no experience to be had? Films have endings does this means there is no

experience to be had through watching them, of course not. At least with video games you are

rewarded with a victory at the end for the hard work and time you put into it has opposed to

watching a film where you just sit there and do nothing waiting for the clock to run out. In a

video game you are completely emerged and attached to the experience being had as you are the

main character watching your own story be told right in front of you as you live it. Whereas in

films the best chance of emerging you in the experience is having you identify with a character

whose story is being told to rather then made by you other than this you are completely removed

from the reality you are attempting to place yourself into and completely removed from the

reality of which we live in. Yes, video games share the same issue of removing you from

the reality of which we live in, but it does places you into the reality you are viewing a million

times better than any film you could ever watch.

Ebert proceeds to attack gamers for their lack of experiencing real life saying this is why

the community is so desperate to have Video games be a recognized art form as a way of

justifying what it is, they are doing. “Do they require validation? In defending their gaming

against parents, spouses, children, partners, co-workers or other critics, do they want to be able to
look up from the screen and explain, "I'm studying a great form of art?" (Ebert, Roger). What

Ebert fails to see or even recognize is the development process of a video game, is someone who

is watching a film an artist of that film no, is someone playing a video game an artist of that

game of course not. What about the collaboration of a community that goes into filmmaking the

writers, the actors, the producers, the director, the editors, the list goes on and all these people

are artist collaborating on a single goal a single piece of art work all these people put a piece of

themselves into the piece allowing it to be art. The same goes for game development the writers,

the graphic designers, the programmers, again the list can go on, and again all these people put a

piece of themselves into the work giving it an aura. So yes, these chicken scratches are in fact art

and I would even go as far as to argue that these chicken scratches do a better job of

communicating thought, ideas, and emotions as an artistic form then Ebert’s beloved already

well established and evolved films.

Works Cited

Ebert, Roger. “Video Games Can Never Be Art: Roger Ebert: Roger Ebert.” Roger Ebert | Roger

Ebert, www.rogerebert.com/roger-ebert/video-games-can-never-be-art.