To be art or not to be art.

One of the resounding sentiments seen in the first readers’ posts as well as comments in Tuesday’s class is the limitless definition of art. Many students have said that art “lacks a definition” and have “undefined boundaries”. But to what point does art stop being art in video games? I understand that hardcore games have artistic sense to them as well as some casual games, but what about simplistic games? Many argued that there is art in all games but I have to disagree. I feel that at some point games are no longer art. Tetris is an example of my opinion on art. The game is simply stacking blocks in a confined area. I feel no emotion or wonder when I play Tetris. The same goes for computer games like Solitaire and Minesweeper. Those games possess no real defining contributions to art.

A game came out recently for Playstation 3 users over the server called Journey. The game is about a silent protagonist that travels on a pilgrimage in the desert to discover themselves. The game radiates beauty and inspires thoughts and feelings. Many players, including yours truly, were deeply moved by the artistic feel of the game. Feelings of wonder and loneliness are felt when traversing across the barren, yet vivid landscape. This game is truly art. So I agree with Roger Ebert in the sense that art inspires feelings, including sadness. So while games like Journey or Limbo are art, games like Hearts and Backgammon are not because of the lack of emotional depth. Unless you cry bitter tears because of a bad click in Minesweeper.

This entry was posted in Respondents. Bookmark the permalink.