Games aren't art, says Kojima

By Ellie Gibson Published 24 January, 2006

MGS creator gets philosophical.

MGS creator Hideo Kojima has joined in with the "But are games art?" debate, arguing that, well, no they're not.

In an interview with OPSM2 US, Kojima said: "Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum - how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets?

"For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

Kojima was responding to a question about recent comments made by US film critic Roger Ebert, who said: "To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers."

Perhaps surprisingly, Kojima said he agreed with Ebert, stating: "I don't think they're art either, videogames."

Kojima went on to say that "Art is something that radiates the artist," arguing that "If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art.

"But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

Kojima went on to discuss the nature of interactivity, using the example of concept cars. "You don't have to be able to drive a car, but if it's called a car and it has artistic elements in the visuals, then it's art.

"But an actual car, like a videogame, is interactive, so it's something used by people, so it's like a car where you have to drive it. There are 100 people driving a car; they have 100 ways of driving it and using it. It could be families driving the car. It could be a couple driving a car. The owner of the car could be driving along the coastline or they could go up into the mountains, so this car has to be able to be driven by all 100 of these people, so in that sense, it's totally not art."

So there you have it: games aren't art, and neither are cars. Cheers for clearing that up.

Picture of Ellie.

About Ellie Gibson

Since joining Eurogamer in the mid 2000s, Ellie has written about subjects as diverse as the fall of Gizmondo, the rise of Hollyoaks actresses in Red Alert games and the noise a bear makes under NSFW circumstances.

Read more articles from Ellie by visiting the Ellie Gibson archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (71) Latest comment 6 years ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Darkedge #1 6 years ago

    "For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

    So the textures in the game are art? WTF??
    Make up your mind Hideo. Idiot.

  • Teeth #2 6 years ago

    Hidiot, heheh. I think it's a silly discussion anyway. If it's good, it's good. Some art is good, some books are good, some movies are good, and some games are good. Some cars are quite good too.

  • freedumb #3 6 years ago

    Is there really a point to this discussion and does anyone REALLY care? A game can have its artistic elements, like ICO, but the bottom line is, its still interactive entertainment, you're not supposed to just FEEL it, you're mainly supposed to enjoy playing it...and feeling it, or something. So I suppose he sort of has a point. I think.
    Edited by freedumb at 24/01/06 @ 13:22

  • Freek #4 6 years ago

    Don't see much music or cinema in museums.
    Classic cars aren't art either? I'm sure allot car nutts would object to that. And if you look at the amount of styling and filosify behind some of the worlds classics I can't say'd blame them for it.

    But I think Tycho still made the most interesting observation at the time Egbert made his silly rantings; the discusion is about what peoples defenition of art is, not wether games belong to it.

    You can see that here again where Kojima defines what he thinks is art and excludes a good number of things other people would include in it. Using intereactivity as a theme. When artists themselfs are discovering the new technologies that electronics and computers have to offer and are making interactive art with them.

    Video games will be considered art, not when people have agreed upon a single definition of art, but when the medium has matured enough that certain games will have been made that are universally seen as masterpieces. Just like film and photography before them it will take a while to get there.

  • Carpathian #5 6 years ago

    Beaten to it by freedumb !

    Games aren't art, per se, but they can be artistic.

    It's a line approaching pedantry but an important distinction all the same !

  • Scientist #6 6 years ago

    "Is there really a point to this discussion and does anyone REALLY care?"

    Journalists seem to ask about "art" these game creators all the time. In my experience, German and Swedish game journos (who take themselves very seriously) always try to explore the "is it art?" angle. And usually fail.

    I agree with your post. I think. :-)

  • Rociel #7 6 years ago

    I think there is a misunderstanding as to what Kojima meant. I think he meant that individual games CAN be art but because of the massive cash-in games (movie games for example) they as a medium cannot be considered art

  • Rambaldi #8 6 years ago

    Anything that's aesthetic, conceptual or emotive qualities can be appreciated is Art..end of.

  • Markusdragon #9 6 years ago

    If movies, literature and plays are art, then games are art. It's as simple as that; because if movies, literature and plays are art, then art is all about the presentation around conveying an idea, usually, in the case of the entertainment industry, a story.

  • cubbymoore #10 6 years ago

    Art is anything that is not intrinsic to human survival, examples of human survival being eating and procreating. The quality of that art however is completely subjective to any one person. So both Ebert and Kojima are wrong because they don't understand the nature of art. There, settled.

  • Rambaldi #11 6 years ago

    If some daft cow's bed can be art in the Tate gallery then PGR3 can be too

  • Sko #12 6 years ago

    Heh. With interminably long cut-scenes, everyone assumed he was trying to create 'art'. I guess someone should probably explain to him what a game is instead.

  • Rambaldi #13 6 years ago

    My own farts are art because I like them. My wife does not appreciate my art :0

  • Rambaldi #14 6 years ago

    @Sko: NO SHIT!!! 80% movie, 20% dated crappy top down view gameplay...YAY!!

  • GregorV #15 6 years ago

    Great... that made just as much sense as the ending of MGS2... or the whole game for that matter

  • citizenHUNTER #16 6 years ago

    Hmmm.. *ponders*

    Isn't the question here not whether videogames are art.. but what art is itself...

    As far as I'm aware art is pretty much anything created by an individual or group of people. There's plenty of art installations that are 'interactive'.. so saying cos games are interactive they're not art is wrong.

    If something can be enjoyed, appreciated, or draws an emotional response of some sort or another then surely it can be classed as.. involving.. as art.

    That's what I say. I know plenty of games have given me feelings of awe, fear, anger (stupid controls or impossibly evil boss fights is what I'm thinking ;), excitement, joy, and to be honest, I'm not some phillistine but 'art' normally makes me just shrug or say "Ohh, that's.. nice". Walking into some huge chasm in Tomb Raider for the first time in a fully 3D environment, gave me shivers down my spine.

    But in the end though all this talk is just gibberish, who the hell knows anything! :p

  • lasersrule #17 6 years ago

    Congratulations to Hideo for the worst definition of Art ever.

  • theidiotsarewinning #18 6 years ago

    it's art if someone says it is. art does not have to be exclusive, or in a gallery. if i want it to be art, it is. the reason theres a lot of crap in galleries is because it provides a context...it makes the piece into art. art is (or should be)entirely subjective, and (ideally) entirely democratic. just like gaming. i see no reason why games can't be art.

  • Darren #19 6 years ago

    "Heh. With interminably long cut-scenes, everyone assumed he was trying to create 'art'. I guess someone should probably explain to him what a game is instead."

    LOL!

  • Tyronne #20 6 years ago

    Thing is a good majority of art may be in a museum but thats not necessarily where it started out.There is every possibility that the originals of game cover art,development sketches and the like could end up being shown to the public.

    So in my mind games are art,after all one of the definitions of art is the ` Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature` which games could be said to do all the time.

  • theidiotsarewinning #21 6 years ago

    "There is every possibility that the originals of game cover art,development sketches and the like could end up being shown to the public. "

    they have been already...major exhibitions of video game art have been held in the us and europe.

  • Moonprince #22 6 years ago

    "Isn't the question here not whether videogames are art.. but what art is itself...

    As far as I'm aware art is pretty much anything created by an individual or group of people. There's plenty of art installations that are 'interactive'.. so saying cos games are interactive they're not art is wrong.

    If something can be enjoyed, appreciated, or draws an emotional response of some sort or another then surely it can be classed as.. involving.. as art."

    Winner. Is this so hard to realise?

  • Stormflood_UK #23 6 years ago

    Art is purposely created yet has no purpose. You look at art, listen, touch, appreciate, ponder on its meaning... but it has no practical purpose.

    Videogames are created specifically for interactive entertainment and revenue. They are not art. Yet some games have a unique quality that goes beyond their primary purpose - they can possibly be considered a work of art. ICO being one such candidate.

  • cubbymoore #24 6 years ago

    "Isn't the question here not whether videogames are art.. but what art is itself...

    As far as I'm aware art is pretty much anything created by an individual or group of people. There's plenty of art installations that are 'interactive'.. so saying cos games are interactive they're not art is wrong.

    If something can be enjoyed, appreciated, or draws an emotional response of some sort or another then surely it can be classed as.. involving.. as art."

    That's slightly too broad in my opinion, that definition can include sex as well which is part of human survival and therefore natural instinct.

  • djchump #25 6 years ago

    As soon as someone comes up with a definition of "art", an "artist" will deliberately make some "art" that doesn't fit the definition.

    Go figure.

  • cubbymoore #26 6 years ago

    Hmm, so if they were to see the definition of art as "Any human activity that doesn't grow out of either human's two basic instincts: survival and reproduction." How could he consciously create something that would fly in the face of that discription, it would be totally contradictory.

  • alimokrane #27 6 years ago

    that has got to be the most confusing explanation I have ever read .. make up your freaking mind IDIOT!

  • #28 6 years ago

    "For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

    Games aren't art, says Kojima

    What the hell is this guy smoking?

  • Zuiyo #29 6 years ago

    It's obvious to me that Kojima does believe games are art, but to explain that to someone like Ebert, ignorant of the medium and still bold enough to make such statements, would be a waste of time. Then he takes the oportunity to actually educate about what games are and mean. From his responses you will tell that obviously, games for Kojima are not only an art but his own, much loved way of art and entertainment, but that is a fight Kojima knows he can't win right now, because he is smart. Because all all the American public opinion can see about games are "Hot Coffee" patches. It's his way to avoid polemic and to educate the public a little bit more about what videogames are and represent.

  • UncleLou #30 6 years ago

    He's as concise as in his games. :)

  • jack_klugman #31 6 years ago

    It's obvious to me that Kojima does believe games are art, but to explain that to someone like Ebert, ignorant of the medium and still bold enough to make such statements, would be a waste of time.

    What a ridiculous comment. If anything Kojima was further emphasising the point that by definition a video game, inherently, is by definition not art, irrelavent of whether it involves creativity and stimulates emotion. I mean... that in no way devalues computer games. It's just the nature of the beast.

  • #32 6 years ago

    It's obvious to me that Kojima does believe games are art, but to explain that to someone like Ebert, ignorant of the medium and still bold enough to make such statements, would be a waste of time. Then he takes the oportunity to actually educate about what games are and mean. From his responses you will tell that obviously, games for Kojima are not only an art but his own, much loved way of art and entertainment, but that is a fight Kojima knows he can't win right now, because he is smart. Because all all the American public opinion can see about games are "Hot Coffee" patches. It's his way to avoid polemic and to educate the public a little bit more about what videogames are and represent.

    Bollocks.

  • Zuiyo #33 6 years ago

    And would you care to elaborate why my comment is ridiculous and your for instance is not?

  • Zuiyo #34 6 years ago

    "Bollocks"

    You gotta love the elaborate level of response around.

  • Zuiyo #35 6 years ago

    The definition of art is as subjective as it gets, but you can always go to a minimum common starting point to what can be art which obviously includes videogames, and in my opinion Kojima knows this. However it is easy to manipulate this debate because "art" can mean a lot of things in different contexts.

  • Kalinin #36 6 years ago

    This isn't the first time I've read Kojima saying that he doesn't think games can be art.

    http://www.insertcredit.com/features/fukubukuro/2004/february.html

    "Games are a transitory medium by nature, says he; it is more difficult for a hypothetical alien-landing-on-earth-in-30XX to play Metal Gear Solid 2 (required: PlayStation2, controller, memory card, game disc, AV cable, AC cable, compatible television and/or RF switch) than it is for him to read CS Lewis' From the Silent Planet (required: paperback, knowledge of English). He explained with an open-handed gesture that, therefore, games are not, really, anything that special."

  • Zuiyo #37 6 years ago

    I can make a very long list of all the stuff you need to watch "Citizen Kane" and that doesn't make it less artistic than a renaissance painting which was after all, beautifully drawn religious propaganda.

  • jack_klugman #38 6 years ago

    And would you care to elaborate why my comment is ridiculous and your for instance is not?

    Well... because I'm right. Okay - saying it was ridiculous was a little too dismissive. But there's something fundementally at odds with the aims of video games and "a work of art". It's something in the nature of interactivity, in that games establish a framework and rules by which you must enjoy them and experience them maybe? I really don't know how to articulate the distinction. But in my mind I know it's there.

    Ultimately the experiences and emotions you derive from playing games are just as justified irrelavent of whether or not you can categorise a video game as art. I, personally, just do not think of games as art. I admire their craft and hold a great respect and adoration for those which I believe are good. But they do not provide the same personal experience or stimulation that a film or book or a work of music does.

  • alimokrane #39 6 years ago

    Making games is in fact an Art wether Kojima likes it or not, that's a fact. If making games wasnt an artisticly inspired activity then we wouldnt have the likes of psychonauts and Shadow of the colossus around. stop for a minute and think why is it that just a few games manage to convince almost everybody that they, actually, are good ? IMO, this is the very definition of being artistic: being able to stand out from the crowd.
    Edited by alimokrane at 24/01/06 @ 15:01

  • Zuiyo #40 6 years ago

    Well Jack, going by your criteria, which is that art is created with the purpose of art in mind, leaves out of the category of art many creations which are considered classic works of art. And the interactivity of many installations which are generally contemplated as art would leave them also out of your categorisation.

    The fact that games are made with a main purpose does not deny the artistic sensibility that creators use when they realise them, and that makes them pieces of art in the same way that a building is architectonic art even if it's in its basic concept a chunk of concrete built for people to have a place to live.

  • Xerx3s #41 6 years ago

    Well, his games arnt. ^_^

    Hes wrong though. He could start with studieng the four art theories. I think you could fit games in with all of them (one way or another). And even then they all conclude that art is open to oppinion. In fact, there is a butugly golden statue of micheal jackson that is considerd art, its lame and stupid, but never the less art. Everything could be conciderd art. From writing to painting to placing lights or objects in a certain order to create a mood. And a museum isnt the only place for art. Most of the artistic expressions can be found in our daily lives in the house, on the street and at work.

  • jack_klugman #42 6 years ago

    Who made the quote? Sounds like a cunt.

  • Zuiyo #43 6 years ago

    Ha ha

  • jonthepymm #44 6 years ago

    "To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers."

    Final Fantasy VII. A game clearly worthy of comparison. Case closed.

  • jack_klugman #45 6 years ago

    jonthepymm - A good game, but not art. FOR I AM ART LAW!
    Edited by jack_klugman at 24/01/06 @ 15:52

  • jack_klugman #46 6 years ago

    Plenty of cunts talk about video games don't you think? Mostly on forums....

    But... but not in the comment sections right, Bored_Gamer? o_O

    Dont' tar me with that brush! For what it's worth I didn't like the quote's dismissive tone. The discussion (or even debate) on the artistic merits of video games is a perfectly valid one and one I certainly wish to participate in.
    Edited by jack_klugman at 24/01/06 @ 15:56

  • Evil_Badger #47 6 years ago

    "Art is purposely created yet has no purpose. You look at art, listen, touch, appreciate, ponder on its meaning... but it has no practical purpose."

    I understand that by that tight definition, games aren't art, BUT would you describe TV avertising or film posters as art as they certainly serve as purpose.

    Despite their clearly profit-based intentions and usually cliched and lazy design I'd say most games ARE art.
    Edited by Evil_Badger at 24/01/06 @ 17:05

  • Nikanoru #48 6 years ago

    The magazine 'Edge' used to ask programmers the question "video games:art or entertainment?" until one of the fellas who worked at Big Blue Box said "people who think video games are art are pretentious arseholes who deperately want to get invited to parties populated by other pretentious arseholes"

    Actually, I think that the pretentious fuckheads are the people who think they are enough of an authority on things that they can exclude something from being art, setting the standards all by themselves, while even the most renowned philosophers cannot seem to come to an agreement about its definition.

    Cunts.

  • caligari #49 6 years ago

    Actually, I think that the pretentious fuckheads are the people who think they are enough of an authority on things that they can exclude something from being art, setting the standards all by themselves, while even the most renowned philosophers cannot seem to come to an agreement about its definition

    So...the thing I just left in the toilet. I can call THAT art?

  • jack_klugman #50 6 years ago

    Blimey. That was succinct. Sir, I salute you.

  • nickyickywickywoo #51 6 years ago

    @Arbiter - great post and spot on. But it still leaves me wondering - could someone write a videogame as a piece of art? If you write it yourself, if you are doing it less for money and more for "expression of self". Is it possible?

  • Kalinin #52 6 years ago

    re: Zuiyo

    "I can make a very long list of all the stuff you need to watch "Citizen Kane" and that doesn't make it less artistic than a renaissance painting which was after all, beautifully drawn religious propaganda."

    Firstly, there are those that still wouldn't accept film as an art, or certainly not as an art of the same order as a renaissance painting - in part, this is the case with games, it's too young to have any prestige.

    Secondly, make the list of things you need to watch Citizen Kane if you would. It isn't anything like the list of requirements to experience a game. If you are to understand the entire content of the film, or of even a painting, you need to know the history and other references it makes, and that's an element of deep and true understanding. On terms of pure access you need your eyes, your hearing, an understanding of english, a TV and a DVD/VCR plus a copy of the film.

    The point about a game is that you require not just more technical equipment but also a large set of additional skills, the ability to learn a control scheme - which often draw on legacy of prior games and a pre-existing audience - and ultimately the full content of a game is locked away further by your own skill at playing it.

    As a further point, Citizen Kane, if the film was unaccessable, could be presented as a script, novellisation or recreation for enchanced access. Games are immutably interactive, they cannot be replicated without losing their crucial element.
    Edited by Kalinin at 24/01/06 @ 20:25

  • Nikanoru #53 6 years ago

    So...the thing I just left in the toilet. I can call THAT art?

    HARDY HAR

    Theorethically? Why not? People pass completely random form off as art all the time (i.e. chuck a bucket of paint at the canvas). In fact, there are definitely things sitting in museums out there that are at least as weird and/or controversial as a piece of excrement presented as a sculpture, and I can definitely see it happen. Thanks for proving my point, seriously. :p

  • captain-future #54 6 years ago

    Ebert has a fascistoid definition of art IMHO.

    Who cares whether games are art? They should be fun!

  • Cyhwuhx #55 6 years ago

    .::: I liked his dinner comparisons better.

  • Aegus #56 6 years ago

    I'm hoping that someone has already pointed out that this interview was probably conducted in Japanese with a translator, so most of the things that Kojima actually said probably got lost a bit in the translation.

  • Carrybagma #57 6 years ago

    Perhaps Jeremy Clarksons books and videos are art too.

  • Talha #58 6 years ago

    Yesterday I was crounching through a tropical jungle. There were ruins of a temple all around me, and somewhere a bell was ringing. Crickets sounded, and the place was abuzz with flies. Sunlight dappled through the leaves onto a green-gold ground. I made my way further and suddenly found myself looking down from some height, a shallow pond reflecting the sun back at me.

    I was of course, entering the River level of Far Cry.

    All the Hideo Kojimas of the world cannot convince me that this was not art. Art takes you to a special place, right? Art makes you ponder the bigger meaning of life, right? And art remains art, whether in itself or part of something else, right? So, in modern games like Colossus and Prince of Persia and Far Cry and even HL2, the lighting work, the landscaping, the textures - they do look like art to me. Yes, there are some elements that take the aura of art apart - but then, MOVIES (hello, Mr Ebert) get away with calling themselves art, no matter what. In the eyes of the world, LOTR (the movie) is art, and so is Citizen Kane, and so is There's Something About Mary. Why such liberal standards for movies and why such dreadful tunnel vision for games? Today's most movies are cynical cash-in exercises made as a vehicle for their lead, without a good script and haphazardly cobbled together story - yet they are still smug in being art. The same goes for most television shows - but hey, that is art too. At the same time, games like RE4, HL2, Psychonauts, Colossus - they go to extraordinary length to establish characters, create environments and yet no one will see them as art. And even games like GT4 and PGR3 show a lot of artistic merit - but no, heaven forbid, they are not art.

    There have been some games that have not only entertained but inspired me, as much as ANY good movie. Inspiration - I think that is the criteria for art. If it does not inspire, it is not art - be it a movie, an album, a book or a game. Also, most games today reflect the creative vision of their director, like movies - no matter how many people participated in actual construction of the work. So I think in essence a harmonious creative vision is required for anything to be a work of art, even if it is an automobile bodyshell.

    So Mr Ebert can snuggle up with his copies of 'artistic' gems like Get Rich or Die Tryin', or Grandma's Boy, for all I care. I know art when I see (or hear) it, it is simple as that.
    Edited by Talha at 25/01/06 @ 04:33

  • Genji #59 6 years ago

    I think I discussed this way too much before, so I'm not going to delve into it too much now. All I think Ebert was saying is that the interactive nature of games stops it from being in the same league of art as films, sculpture, theatre and painting.

    Basically, it depends on your definition. And that's it.

  • Milbe #60 6 years ago

    Maybe "art" was not meant for everyone...

  • Kalinin #61 6 years ago

    "I think I discussed this way too much before, so I'm not going to delve into it too much now. All I think Ebert was saying is that the interactive nature of games stops it from being in the same league of art as films, sculpture, theatre and painting. "

    The only point of Ebert's that I'd really quibble with is that he said games lack authorial control because of the presence of the player. I would argue that, from a narrative point at least, the author has a unique point of control in that he can weave a story arround the audience, make them participate and perhaps even garrotte them with it.

    There's a deep control to be had in actually mapping out a role for your audience and forcing them, through their avatar, to do things and even judge their choices.

    Overall, I think there's no precident to call games art by what you suggest Ebert's definition is either. They aren't of the same nature as any purely observational media, if we remove narrative, which is an alien aspect, and leave gameplay only there's no real comparison to be drawn.

    Doesn't mean they aren't enjoyable, worthwhile or important, even if it is only within our domain, which is probably the real cause of anxiety when learned people deny them art status. I think the majority of these same people would be hard pressed to deny that the music, visuals and overall asethetic design of some games isn't art though.

  • GregorV #62 6 years ago

    As was already pointed out, what is and what is not art depends solely on one's definition. What is called art in a certain society is something that fits to a commonly established concept which is usually not even explicit. Of course, such concepts evolved with time as more and more artforms became socially accepted. It was never the conservative part of the society that helped alter that definition, but the insistence and growing influence of the avantgarde towards gaining own credibility.

    If games are to be treated as art (which in my opinion they most certainly are, as I shall explain below) it would be most welcome to establish what the criteria of judging the artistic merits of a game should be. Sites like Eurogamer and Escapist magazine, knowingly or not, already have that notion well ingrained into their writing, yet the general feeling within society is that gaming is quickly dismissed as a frivolous activity, with most of the games produced actually supporting that notion. Once the community or at least the protagonists within this community establish games as an artistic form, their general acceptance will slowly but consistently follow. But it all has to start from within.

    One of the main problems in accepting games as art is trying to use generally accepted definitions of art and then predictably failing at establishing that point. Games have traditionally been mostly compared to films as they tend to present a story with some of the tools usually used in film (cinematics). This model can very likely be traced back to the aptly named Cinemaware, which used an amalgam of minigames to support a larger story. Adventure games like Maniac Mansion are also to be noted, although most games of today much more closely follow the Cinemaware template. Before this, however, the majority of games were purely about the interactive experience itself, which may or may not have had anything to do with the real world (think Breakout for an example of abstraction and Tetris as a more recent one). I would argue that the artistic merit of both the cinematic and abstract games is on an equal level, yet, using the criteria by which films are judged, the bias is clearly towards cinematic games. However, even the best of those usually fail to be as good as an average film causing a lot of people to say that games may be art, but very poor art.

    Let us for a moment not compare games to films but rather to music, which is another commonly accepted art form. The comparison should not be done using the criteria used to judge music but to draw analogies, as flawed as they may be. Why music? The main reason is that unlike most other art forms it was established as an abstract art from almost from its very beginning. While lyrics are often a part of music and convey a certain emotion through words they are by no means necessary, as most of classical music shows. It is the purely abstract harmonies that cause us to respond emotionally to music without a story in sight. What harmonies do for music the interactivity does for games. It is the cylcic relationship between our inputs and the subsequent responses of the game that make gaming compelling, creating an array of emotions not accessible via other art forms. While one could argue all this interaction is simply a way towards winning and that the emotions come from the fact that obstacles were disposed of, that is by no means the only way games function (think The Sims). Besides, even with the games with the objective of winning it was the path itself that was enjoyable, and the winning itself being a reward for the frustration moments along the way.

    How should we define art that games fit within it then? Art is certainly something intentional made by people, and noone can argue games are anything else. My favourite definition of art is that it is something intended for an audience (often the only audience is the author herself, but that is a whole different topic) in order to extend their experience beyond what is some common world in which we live. Within this definition, the artistic merit of an artwork is then to do with how much of a unique and intense an experience it can produce.

    Certain games may use music, story and graphics to present such an experience, but those are just some of the tools used towards creation of immersion and may not even be all that necessary (again, think Tetris). What is at the core of all the games and what actually defines them is the interactivity. People always say that certain games may have amazing graphics but awkward gameplay, and those are the games that fail at their most basic. Then again there are games that do nothing particularly spectacular yet allow you to get into "the zone", which means that the interactive experience has such a clear and ballanced relationship between cause and effect that, after your brain has figured it out, it presents a unique experience no other medium can produce. The best games usually ballance all their assests (graphics, sound etc.) to create an interactive experience that one can relate to due to one's previous experience with the common world (which may include previous games) and therefore can invest emotionally into the game on levels other than pure interactivity.

    While you may or may not agree with the above, the point still remains that the gaming community first needs to establish its own criteria for artistic merit, and once that is done games will slowly become accepted as art in the more common populace.

  • kangarootoo #63 6 years ago

    Holy crap.

    Famous person applies age old, wholly subjective, semantic dependant, "it is art?" question to games. And nearly 70 posts later people are fightin each other over it.

    Hideo is no more qualified to comment on this subject than any person who has ever lived. Billions of years from now, when the galaxy is reduced to dust, two aliens in a flying saucer will look at a bit of plasma tumbling into a black hole and one will ask "is it art?".

    And they will probably end up fighting over it.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 25/01/06 @ 12:43

  • GregorV #64 6 years ago

    Well, good question... it might be considered art if it was the aliens who destroyed the galaxy

  • Genji #65 6 years ago

    @kangarootwo

    I think there's a difference between "fighting" and just having a discussion. Most of the people here seem to be very level-headed about the topic.

    I think it's interesting to talk about this, even if it doesn't change anyone's minds.

  • kangarootoo #66 6 years ago

    @Genji

    "I think there's a difference between "fighting" and just having a discussion."

    This is very true. OK, confession time on my part. I scanned through the posts without properly reading them (as there were so many by the time I came to this article, plus I was a little nonplussed by the subject) and I read a few along the lines of "bollocks" and "what a ridiculous question" and jumped the gun.

    I'm all for discussion and I'll be at the front of the queue to jump on people making "this is a pointless discussion" comments.

    So apologies all round. Thats what happens when I climb in the window of the party, having not properly read the invitation.
    Edited by kangarootoo at 25/01/06 @ 14:11

  • Cheapshot #67 6 years ago

    I'm sorry Greg I couldn't be arsed to read your massive post.

  • Genji #68 6 years ago

    "I'm sorry Greg I couldn't be arsed to read your massive post."

    Did you really need to point that out?

  • Fokofsnake #69 6 years ago

    Can a game then be art if you watch a game being played?

  • Teeth #70 6 years ago

    Is shit art if you smear it onto stained glass using your knob like Gilbert and George do?

  • chronom4n #71 6 years ago

    this hideo-us guy as much as i love his games, is a complete nutcase. how can he say that a car is more of a work of art than a videogame. yes there may be 100 ways to drive a car, but there are also 100 ways of playing hisi game. some people do not even drive their cars they just love looking at them. so if his (and our) games are not art then why does he produce coffee table books on the metal gear solid franchise? (i hope i am not mistaken with that fact) again if games are not art, then why is there a photo mode in GT4, PGR3, and every other game that offers unlockable ARTWORK? I had a level of respect for Hideo-us Kojima, but not anymore. The level of enjoyment i gained from looking at his work... I can't view it in the same way after he made these comments now as opposed to before. Well that is my piece. Our games are works of art. They are more of a work of art then some of the works that are produced literally by monkeys.