Can a computer game be considered as a piece of art ?
Interesting question that divides lots of people around me, and I'd like to say a little word here if you allow me <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />
Certainly nobody would deny the first goal of computer games is entertainment. But sometimes we tend to forget that games - and computer technology more generally speaking - is a new medium that recently appeared in the human history, and it's a medium which is starting to get into its mature state.
What is annoying with "Art" nowadays, is that the rules which define it became less obvious and more blurry to grasp. Do you consider cuisine as art ? Many would agree to say yes. But isn't the act of cooking in the absolute just a simple daily task to assure our surviving ?
When can we start to say something is artistic, when it is not ? We usually tend to underestimate what is new. New mediums are generally depreciated, because it changes habits.
In the early 19 century when photography was invented and started to get popular, traditional painters who used to have the first credit for artistic productions in it's daily basis, raised scandals. People who wanted their family portraits as faithful to reality as possible would get them more realistic on a photo than a painter could ever paint them. So to speak, photography was killing art. It was just a cold and emotionless imitation of nature ! Now look where we are. Photography is widely considered as art as well as cinema (which is basically just a succession of photos). Why ?
Because the opinions evolved. Minds opened to new ways of using this tool that was the camera. They used it in a way to push back the boundaries of art further than it was with painted canvas and more ancient techniques(attention, I am not saying that photography is a superior medium than painting. Just that it is a different medium, thus implying different ways of using it that will allow more discoveries in the field of art in general). But what is good in art, is that a medium NEVER replaces an older one, because the purpose is not the apology of the medium but... well Art itself (and what is Art? I don't want to enter that endless philosophical debate, that's another story <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/winkwink.gif" alt="" />)
To come back to my question: 'can we call computer games art ?' I would answer: 'Certainly'. Of course, if you take a look at the game industry, it is in the big majority composed of entertaining games and crap <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" /> However it is possible to make art out of a game. The efforts spent to manage huge amount of money, people dedicating usually 3-4 years of their life to make a big project come true, like ingredients you mix and stir in a big pan for hours to get this incredible tasty dish like mother used to do it (and god knows how easy it is to fail it), all of that is just so formidable -when it is succeeded- because it's creates stories, emotions, dreams, it transfers messages, experiences... like a piece of art would do. That's what matters, if after playing a game you feel literally transcended (it only happened once or twice in my player experience), the game really changed your way to see things durably in the real life, you might call that art. That's what art do, in my opinion, to change your perspective and way to look at things in life.
Currently games still have way to go before reaching a status of recognized art, but I'm confident it will be so one day. This is just what I think, but I hope other people do feel the same way as me...
Jesus, I talked too much and it's already 2 am ! Quickly come here my bed <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />
