Recognizing the gaming art form

They’re far from Vincent Van Gogh’s one-eared impressionist paintings or Martin Scorsese’s brutally masterful cinematography but they’re art all the same. Many callously fight them for their misguided negative connotations, but I’m not wrong; video games are art. Highly developed, greatly evolved and frustratingly denied forms of art.

Wikipedia, everyone’s best friend (secretly or overtly), defines art as a “process or product of deliberately arranging elements in a way to affect the senses or emotions,” which sounds a heck of a lot like a video game to me.

In a 2000 Newsweek article penned by the late critic Jack Kroll, Kroll claimed video games are incapable of harnessing the essence of what could be deemed as art.

“Games can be fun and rewarding in many ways, but they can’t transmit the emotional complexity that is the root of art,” he wrote.

Now, Kroll made that statement ten years ago, a length of time in technology terms that’s hard to imagine. Apple’s now hugely popular iPod didn’t even exist until a year later in 2001 compared to Microsoft’s original Xbox in the same year and Sony’s PlayStation 2 a year before.

The games Kroll must have examined to make that bold statement pale in comparison to the emotional intensity and visual fidelity found in a select few, socially defining, games of today. So I forgive him.

In order for video games to be considered art they must, in a way, affect the senses or emotions, according to our Wikipedia definition. And they most certainly do on both counts.
Video games are crafted by teams of unbelievably creative, dedicated and, from what I’ve gathered, intelligent individuals.

The basis of every video game is its art direction; the way in which it’s drawn. Every asset in every video game, from Mario’s mushrooms to Master Chief’s Battle Rifle and even the expansive environments of “Modern Warfare 2,” were drawn by some man or woman with a pencil on paper before they made it into our living rooms.
If that’s not art, what is?

The second half of that definition said video games, if they are to be considered art, must affect gamers’ emotion.

This is where Kroll likely based the central analysis of video games as non-art.
To evoke emotion from the gamer, he or she must feel compelled to care about what’s happening on screen. It’s a damn hard endeavor to embark upon for sure, but it’s not an impossible task.

Emotional engagement stems from voice acting.

You can build the prettiest game in the world but it’s hollow without solid storytelling backed by powerful voice-acting. And in the year 2000, voice-acting in video games was a more painful experience for the gamer than trying to whistle after eating too many saltines.
Voice-acting in today’s gaming sphere is almost scary-good. However, excellence in this department is few and far between.

Typically, only the big budget games ($20-$50 million) can succeed here. An intelligent team of writers is needed first, followed by some A-list voice actors, who, believe it or not, get paid well to hold digital conversations with each other. However, there is almost no middle ground here. Either a publisher has copious amounts of money to spend on producing what is called a AAA title or they don’t; and thus the problem arises.
Video games, like other mediums, are often judged on their lowest forms. But I urge you to ignore this ignorance and see through the muddy waters of crappy games.

Video games are art. They are the products of years of tiring effort, painstaking sessions in the voice-recording booth and need to be seen in this light. 
 
Eddie Makuch can be contacted at emakuch@keeneequinox.com.