Art attack

The last couple weeks have seen a lot of back and forth on RogerEbert.com as to whether video games qualify as art. Not surprisingly, the gamers are defending their turf with all the sound and fury of evangelicals defending marriage (or Christmas). More ire here. A rebuttal here. And most recently, Ebert compiled some of the more thoughtful, scholarly responses.

It's fair to say that video games are artistic, and those who design and develop them are in fact artists. But I don't think the games themselves qualify as art. For one thing, they are games. (Is “Clue” a work of art?) Artistry is not the sole characteristic of art — the function of a thing is what primarily defines it. Thus, buildings and food* are not themselves art, even though architecture and cooking are art forms.

A distinction Ebert makes between movies and video games is that with games, the audience is more or less in control of the experience. With movies, the filmmaker is in control — and art depends on that control.

I can think of one example of a kind of video game that possibly qualifies as a work of art: Myst (and Riven, and their sequels). Although the player controls his/her path through these imaginary worlds, the main point of the game is simply to explore, observe, investigate, and discover. It is very much like wandering into a painting and looking around. It almost sounds incorrect even to say that one “plays” Myst — one “visits” or “explores” Myst. And one interacts with its puzzles and conundrums much as the audience attempts to find meaning in Mulholland Dr., or a reader struggles to comprehend Finnegan's Wake.

* Naturally, songs about buildings and food do qualify as art.