Video games and art

Video games are interactive forms of entertainment that utilize engineering processes, which means that the software and artwork recorded are what make up the art component. But doesn't that interactive aspect render them anything, but art?

The concept of computer/videogames as art is problematic because art is thought of as being representational. So the question would be, what do videogames represent? Sculpting and painting, for example, represent people, objects, people, except abstract art is more representative of artists' mindsets or an expression of their thought process, perhaps.

Interaction by necessity interrupts the narrative and impedes the flow of information from author to gamer. Videogames can have themes, just like literature, paintings, through simulations. For videogames to be considered art, they should contain aesthetics; we must be able to assess their artistic merit in terms of design, role play, simulation, visuals, etc, and how all these things work together, just like we do movies and literature.

"Ultimately, whether or not interactive entertainment can be a legitimate art form is up to us. We’ll have to put out a lot of PR material, to let the public and the press know that we ourselves believe that what we do is an art form" (263).

video games and art

Video game art speaks of video games produced as art; art as in literature, as in film. They are a source of inspiration and a source of material for artists, who use videogame art to create even more games. Love them or hate them, videogames are now entrenched in our culture, and, more importantly are a multi-billion dollar industry. But can video games legitimately be called art? Mitchell and Clarke think so. While videogames boast richer and more realistic graphics, but I doubt that I can equate them with, say, film and literature, which are wholly dependent of the control of the producer author, respectively, rather than the gamer.

Is getting lost in a fantasy world all that there is to the gaming experience? Is there an art, or even a language of videogames significantly different from fine art, literature, and cinema/film, respectively?

What's up with creating videogames based on, say, blockbusters? So you watch Alvin and the Chipmunks in the theater and then before you know it you are playing it in a videogame, do you get a sense of newness or do you feel that it is a remix or revisioning or worse, recycling all so that a gamer can gain or feel a sense of control.

For the most part, games pander to gamers fantasies: physical looks, agility, prowess, --in a word-mindless! All these aspects are not typical of life or even of movie-like art, which embraces comedy, tragedy, life, loss, gain--the essence of life. In that sense, videogames are not quite art.

Perhaps it's all about what the definition of art and its understanding is across the board. Whatever the case may be, Art seeks to lead you to an inevitable conclusion, not a range of choices.

I don't know; is this art?



Still, the claim to art by videogames is centered around intervention and interaction.

The Purpose of rhetoric

How do we know when we've persuaded someone? I am thinking specifically about video games that make explicit arguments about violence and representation....what happens if a game is not successful in persuading every gamer.

Is engaging with processes a useful way of understanding the real-world phenomena that they represent?

I wonder if there is supplemental theoretical literature out there that might lend credence to the idea that personal engagement is important in persuasion.

Are there known instances of gamers changing their mind or behavior after playing a game?





Procedural rhetoric is persuasion through the procedures of the game.
It emphasizes the breakdown between the game and the user