Video Games as Art

Can a video game be a work of art? In 2010, Roger Ebert angered gamers by insisting that "video games can never be art." The response to Ebert was book-length. The debate renewed recently when the Museum of Modern Art in New York announced its intention to display several video games in its Architecture and Design collection. Jonathan Jones of the Guardian responded with "Sorry MoMA, video games are not art." Not surprisingly, the counter-response to Jones was heated. I don't necessarily endorse the arguments made either by Ebert or Jones, but I agree that no video game can be a work of art.

Let's clear some brush. It's notoriously difficult to specify the necessary and sufficient conditions that make something a work of art. Nonetheless, it's not quite so difficult to specify at least one necessary condition that something has to meet in order to be a work of art. If our candidate doesn't meet that condition, then it's not a work of art. That's my approach here. My argument runs:

1. Something is a work of art only if it is an object of aesthetic contemplation.
2. Video games are not objects of aesthetic contemplation.
3. Therefore, video games are not works of art.

Both of these premises are likely to raise eyebrows, if not blood pressure, so let me defend them. In regards to the first premise, think about the items that we put in the category "works of art": paintings, sculptures, poems, novels, short stories, plays, films, and musical compositions. Now think about things that we don't put in that category: lectures, non-fiction books, instructional manuals, rodeos, and bingo games. What these two categories have in common is that they include things intended for an audience. However, the items in the category "works of art" are intended to invoke an aesthetic reaction in the audience; the items in the other category are meant to edify, instruct, or entertain, but they don't invoke an aesthetic reaction. Grandma might yell "bingo!" with excitement, but that's not an aesthetic response. A lecturer might move an audience to tears, but that, too, is not an aesthetic response. Whatever a work of art is, it is intended to invoke an aesthetic response and hence is intended to be an object of aesthetic contemplation.

So why isn't a video game an object of aesthetic contemplation? After all, MoMA has put several video games on display. True enough, but let's think about the logistics of putting a video game on display in an art museum (indeed, MoMA has to deal with these logistics). Suppose we're the curator of an art museum, and we've been tasked with putting video games on display. Our first video game is Pac-Man in one of its original cabinet incarnations.

We put a Pac-Man cabinet on display with the requisite captions, and now patrons can view Pac-Man as easily as they can view the Mona Lisa. Hence, both are objects of aesthetic contemplation, right? Well, not quite. Here's the problem: we've displayed the Pac-Man cabinet, but we haven't displayed Pac-Man the video game. A video game is a computer program that is executed by hardware and displays a virtual world containing a challenge for a player to overcome. A video game is fully realized only when it is played.

Paola Antonelli, the curator of MoMA's video game collection, recognizes this problem:

For games that take longer to play, but still require interaction for full appreciation, an interactive demonstration, in which the game can be played for a limited amount of time, will be the answer. In concert with programmers and designers, we will devise a way to play a game for a limited time and enable visitors to experience the game firsthand, without frustrations.

The problem with this solution is that at best it only presents a slice of the video game, and at worst it turns the video game into an interactive movie or demo. To sharpen this point, let's imagine that we're tasked with putting Bioshock Infinite on display. Bioshock Infinite is a visually stunning game with a complex story; if any video game is a work of art, it is a work of art. However, can we make it into a work of aesthetic contemplation?

To answer this, let's expand the collection in our museum. First, we have the Mona Lisa. Next, we have a large television screen that plays Citizen Kane from start to finish in a continuous loop. Next to the screen is a quad-core computer with a high-end video card and monitor. Each day, before we open the door for visitors, we turn on the computer and start Bioshock Infinite. Our visitors can gaze upon the Mona Lisa. They can watch Citizen Kane from start to finish. What, however, can they do in regards to Bioshock Infinite? They can look at the computer; they can look at the monitor; and they can gaze upon the opening screen that tells them to "press any key":

At no point has Bioshock Infinite become an object of contemplation, let alone an act of aesthetic contemplation.

Let's, then, take Antonelli's approach and "devise a way to play a game." I assume that this means that visitors will be able to play a game for some amount of time. Note that the solution cannot be to record someone playing a game and then to display the resulting footage, because that's not the same thing as putting an actual video game on display. Suppose, then, that a visitor steps up to the computer running Bioshock Infinite and begins to play. What, now, do visitors see? They see a human playing Bioshock Infinite. They can contemplate this scene all they want, but it is not an object of aesthetic contemplation. It's a scene that takes place in homes all over the world. What, then, about the player? The player is, to state the obvious, playing a game. The player could do the same thing at home.

Indeed, this sets up a very basic argument against video games as art:

1. No game is a work of art.
2. All video games are games.
3. Therefore, no video game is a work of art.

Let me defend the first premise by enumerative induction. Checkers is not a work of art; tennis is not a work of art; charades is not a work of art; tiddlywinks is not a work of art; Hungry Hungry Hippos is not a work of art; rock-paper-scissors is not a work of art; and so on. No game is a work of art. Hence, no video game is a work of art.

Now let's take the sting out of this conclusion: to say that something is not a work of art is not to say that it is trivial or less worthy or lacking in gravitas. I suspect that many gamers perceive a slight against video games in regards to the claim that they're not art. However, whether a thing belongs in a category or not hinges on the properties of that thing and not on the perceived motives of those who deny that it belongs in a certain category.

One final point: a video game is not a work of art, but it has artistic elements, namely, graphics and music. In fact, Jeremy Soule's soundtracks to the Elder Scrolls series are works of arts that can be enjoyed aesthetically on their own. Likewise, the visual assets of a video game can be enjoyed aesthetically on their own. Modern video games are not possible without artists and musicians, so modern video games do have an intimate connection to art. Bioshock Infinite would not be possible without artists, musicians, and actors. However, when all is said and done, it is not a work of art, because it is a game.