The question of games as art is one that has been ground pounded to death, and ostensibly has imprinted a resounding yes into the cracked earth of the toil. The recent court ruling in the medium’s favor and the Smithsonian’s The Art of Video Games has helped solidify this claim. An important question was left mostly unanswered by gamers and one Roger Ebert (an infamous detractor) posed: Why do we care so much about defining games as an art form? Yes, of course, games should enjoy the rights the first amendment provides other mediums. However, if we consider the benefits afforded through artistic categorization, one reason sticks out like the marker for your next objective: To justify an activity that is generally perceived as a waste of time. While other arts are often entertainment, they’re also imbued with implicit self-enlightenment. The consumption of great art is rarely seen as unproductive. The reason being that, in theory, through this consumption one should learn something about oneself and the world we live in. You rarely see a parent yell at their child, “Stop reading that book; it’s a waste of time!” Of course there are examples of shitty literature, film, etc., but even the worst examples within those mediums are more culturally significant than the majority of games. Hell, Twilight has more to say about human relationships than 98% of video games. How do games expect to be taken seriously when a story about a teenage girl falling in love with a vampire covered in glitter speaks more effectively about the human condition than almost any game in our canon?

Essentially, the issue with (some) games as art is not a definitional one but a qualitative one. In other words, it’s not whether games are art but whether they are good art. There is a cliché that art is a mirror reflected against humanity. That being said, ask yourself, what has Super Mario reflected about humanity? Not much. Although one could argue that the game reveals the patriarchal ideology of a society through its gender dynamics or that it teaches us about heroic notions of perseverance. The hitch in these assertions is that the player isn’t really left with those ideas after playing the game and we are well aware that those notions don’t co-align with or spew forth from the game’s rules. Even if one were to take these readings seriously, any further digging isn’t really possible as the game’s potential themes are quite one dimensional. Of course, many of you could list some RPG, or the like, that does otherwise. However, these themes are usually expressed through other mediums like film that usually contradict the gameplay. Furthermore, games with a story, no matter how profound, do not make games good art. Art doesn’t necessitate story. There’s plenty of incredible abstract art that isn’t a vehicle for narrative and doesn’t have to justify its artistic worth. Games need to embrace their identity and the unique strengths the medium provides: Summed up (all too easily) as interactivity.

Most games fail at the task of communicating to the player in a way that is solely unique to the medium: player interaction. Games are not even conveying their tutorials, let alone their message, through utilizing what defines video games as its own medium. This means less reliance on cinematics, text, or any “passive” conventions from other mediums to tell story, and more emphasis on player interaction as a storytelling mechanic. The Half Life series is the go-to example. Otherwise, one could remove the cut scenes or script from a game, turning a game’s story into a film or text, leaving the gameplay essentially meaningless and without context.

All recognized art forms are established because they offer their audience an experience that can only be had through that medium. Literature provided the reader with linguistic representations of thought and the novel. Film differentiated itself through utilizing montage, editing, and creating its own unique aesthetic devices: the dolly zoom shot, etc. Video games must do the same. Interactivity seems to be the messiah that will solidify games as art. This notion though well-meant is a bit perfunctory, assuming that no art before was interactive. Anyone who has ever seriously dealt with a Shakespearian sonnet or analyzed a Kubrick film would hardly call those pieces of art passive. They are not interactive in the sense that you control outcomes and inputs, but to be experienced properly require serious personal engagement. In actuality performativity is usually what’s being touted as game interactivity: The performance of a role in the narrative or the performance of actions embedded in the art work that’s necessary to experience the art. This type of specificity is important, as it opens up new avenues of thought and furthers notions of interactivity. Performativity is especially relevant to narrative focused games, which allow people to virtually walk a mile in someone else’s shoes, a strength that should not be overlooked.

In terms of narrative games, if the story doesn’t work in conjunction with gameplay, the potential for the art of games is lost. The gameplay and narrative must be intimately intertwined. The goal is to reduce ludonarrative dissonance, a seemingly convoluted word that simply means that the gameplay, a game’s rules, contradict or don’t match up with a game’s narrative. The best way to avoid this is what both Jonathan Blow and game critic Yahtzee Croshaw have stated as a coupling of gameplay and narrative. Two less mainstream, but incredibly important examples are Anna Anthropy’s Dsy4ia and Richard Hofmeier’s Cart Life (both which are free and entirely change ideas of what games can be). The gameplay of both games reflects what is happening thematically and narratively. In other words, form and content reinforce one another. The result is something more powerful than each element could do on its own. Dsy4ia for instance has you perform different parts of Anthropy’s experience of being transgender and undergoing hormone treatment. This is an incredibly unique experience. Moreover, to perform the struggles and triumphs of her transformation as translated into gameplay can be transformative for the player.  Both these examples may not rid themselves completely of ludonarrative dissonance and still tell their stories through text. But they are a step in the right direction for narrative and gameplay to function as one and subsequently inject game rules with meaning.

I’ve focused on game narrative, as many do, because storytelling is a form that is so engrained that it’s easy for us to understand. However, games DO NOT need a story to be “artful” or profound. Games have the ability to produce a wide range of emotions and expressions through gameplay (look at Journey). Game designers have known this for years, but until this age has mostly been used to stroke the ego of gamers with controlled illusions of accomplishment because it sells. Undoubtedly, designers, especially in the indie space could offer players other possibilities. The recent emphasis on emergent gameplay is another interesting opportunity, creating gameplay systems that enable unique player narratives to arise. The point is that there are ways to make our games better, more “artful” in ways that embrace play and avoid turning to other forms for artistry.

It’s important to concede that interactivity is not enough; multiplayer, racing games, and RL sports are interactive games. Yet, these games wouldn’t be considered high artistic expressions. To achieve a higher level of artistry, gameplay must have some signification: Some feeling or meaning. In this way, games can present the player with an message that can be only communicated through the medium. This does not mean games should give up borrowing from other mediums, but that those appropriated techniques should be married with the gameplay, so that they work in tandem. I’m not saying that all games need to be profound. There’s room for all kinds of games. However, we should expect and design games that utilize the medium’s distinct strengths. This is the path that developers and gamers should head for, that is, if we are truly serious about substantiating our assertion that games are art. There are many ways to accomplish this goal, but the objective should be the same: Make the medium its own.



  1. I’ve been thinking increasingly much about the potential relevance of the Dada, Futurist, Happenings, Situationalist, Fluxus, and Conceptual art histories for burgeoning game designers. I mean, Vito Acconci’s “Following Piece,” which was a simple performance where he randomly chose someone in New York City to follow for as long as he could, seems so in the vein of the indie/underground game relevance. The classic Surrealist book “Paris Peasant” feels like it could have been done as a brilliant Twine piece if that tech had existed then ( Alan Kaprow’s Happenings might be a fantastic way to approach the structure and discussion around “performativity” –

    These are hardly a few cherry-picked examples in art history – any trip to the upper tier of museums in any major city will be filled with pieces of this history of performativity. The last 100 years of art have built a large array of interesting trials and errors in this field and I think it would really enrich the dialog as well as maybe even providing some inroads for folks who maybe don’t come from a video game background to experience these new digital works.

    (I mean, Duchamp’s thoughts on the relationship between chess and art are so incredibly relevant to the conversation around games and art that in my opinion, “The Art Of Chess” should be required reading for any non-AAA games developer!)


    • Man, would I love to play some games along these lines. There is a gold mine of thoughts and approaches to artistic expression in the critical art movements you mentioned. Imagine a game from Dali and Luis Buñuel or an interactive narrative from a modernist like Gertrude Stein. I’m not necessarily all for rehashing past movements, but it seems like such a great opportunity for designers to push the medium in interesting directions. We always hear that games are “a culmination of the great art forms,” but what if games actually interacted with that past discourse in a more explicit way? I honestly think that the result would be something original and enlightening. Kaprow’s notion of “blurring the line between art and life” is an unacknowledged part of playing if we consider the performative aspect of games. It seems like invaluable element game designers should push more. It’s disheartening that there’s such a gap between the plethora of progressive ideas the field of art history (theory included) produced and the games we play. Frankly, it seems you can chalk up this disparity to forms of pretension. Gamers (possibly rightly so) not wanting their hobby ruined by art house movements and academics too high-minded/inexperienced for a medium they consider trivial. Maybe a collaborative project is in order. I’ve heard arguments about chess being art and vice versa and can never make up my mind. Duchamps conviction that “all chess players are artists” is incredibly provocative, as this question of performativity is produced again. Is a gamer an artist? Many have used this as an argument against games as art because it negates authorial control, but then again there’s “the death of the author.” Thanks for the thought provoking comment and links, especially the one on Duchamp. I will definitely keep these ideas in mind as I go forward.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s