Games are the ultimate art form
by James Simpson on Friday, April 8, 2011Far too often do I hear the words "games can never be art." It is a shame that people believe this because in my eyes games are the ultimate art form.
Game creation challenges the artist to reach for every region of their brain. You don't simply go for the area that allows you to paint, or the one that gives you writing. With games, you must bring together all forms of art: drawing, painting, writing, music, voice, etc. All of these pieces on their own are art, but bring them together in a meaningful way and you have something more.
You may be wondering if I really think Pong and Duke Nukem can be considered art. Yes! They absolutely are art. Do they not cover the bases I just mentioned? Now, it should be made clear that these forms of art are at a much lower level than games I would consider to be on the higher end such as Rockstar Games' Red Dead Redemption or their upcoming L.A. Noire, which I might add was the first game to play at the Tribeca Film Festival.
While I do firmly believe that games are the ultimate art form, I do acknowledge that today's games come closer to the cave paintings of the past millennia than to the likes of the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa. Games are still very new, and thus they are very early in their evolution. However, their growth has been at a very rapid pace and I don't think we will have to wait another couple thousand years before we can see them reach their potential.
So what do all of you think? Am I just biased or are games really the ultimate art form?
Game creation challenges the artist to reach for every region of their brain. You don't simply go for the area that allows you to paint, or the one that gives you writing. With games, you must bring together all forms of art: drawing, painting, writing, music, voice, etc. All of these pieces on their own are art, but bring them together in a meaningful way and you have something more.
You may be wondering if I really think Pong and Duke Nukem can be considered art. Yes! They absolutely are art. Do they not cover the bases I just mentioned? Now, it should be made clear that these forms of art are at a much lower level than games I would consider to be on the higher end such as Rockstar Games' Red Dead Redemption or their upcoming L.A. Noire, which I might add was the first game to play at the Tribeca Film Festival.
While I do firmly believe that games are the ultimate art form, I do acknowledge that today's games come closer to the cave paintings of the past millennia than to the likes of the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa. Games are still very new, and thus they are very early in their evolution. However, their growth has been at a very rapid pace and I don't think we will have to wait another couple thousand years before we can see them reach their potential.
So what do all of you think? Am I just biased or are games really the ultimate art form?
|
Tweet |
|
Comments
|
Dadfish April 8, 2011. 19:01
I totally agree..Art (by definition and quoting Wikipedia)) 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". As an older man, I have been blessed to see the evolution of games and gaming. From the simple Pong to the elaborate likes of Red Dead Redemption and Sniper: Ghost Warrior, the art factor is definitely there. Players demand that a game be visually stimulating. And like any other art form, the visuals evolve from simple pixels, to elaborate scenery that is almost indiscernible from the real thing. Match that with musical scores that rival anything that Hollywood produces, and game play that is more and more complex with each game, and we're talking about pure art. |