Video Games are not Art because they lack intrinsic value

The argument against video games as art can depend on the lack of intrinsic value. Intrinsic value is the belief that something is valuable both universally, naturally, and in itself. An act can lead to eventual intrinsic value, insofar as the value does not lead to something else. ‘Happiness’, for example, is an intrinsic value because its an ends in itself.

The other value is instrumental value. Instrumental value is when something is valuable because it leads to an intrinsic or instrumental value. Money, for example, is instrumentally valuable because it leads to food, which leads to life. You can argue that video games are not art because they lack intrinsic value. Instead, video games lead to instrumental value because they create utility, which is an intrinsic value. The value of art is in its potential to be an entirely intrinsic piece. Because video games are arguably impossible to achieve intrinsic value, they can’t be art.

Any game created purely to titillate and affirm, such as hentai flash games, dating sims, etc., are considered examples of video games being completely instrumental. Call of Duty games, additionally, are examples of instrumental value due to their creation to fuel a constant lucrative industry.

Video Games are not Art because they lack pure linearity

This is a thorny, but potentially compelling argument. Video games are different from traditional means of art because they provide nonlinearity. Novels, movies, radio, etc., are considered mediums of art and art because they have strict linearity.

Linearity is important to this argument because it clings to an older conception of artistic value. A piece of work is defined only by its efficacy in determining its ultimate message: as such, it requires linearity as its whole. Nonlinearity, critics argue, potentially dilute the value of the message and meaning of a video game, and therefore cannot be valued as art.

Though proponents of this argument concede that there are fairly linear games, they all have a level of customization and flexibility considered unfathomable compared to movies, novels, and paintings.

The Mass Effect series, for example, is an example of the argument for strict linearity. Because of the nonlinear nature of the game in the face of its linear ending, it’s hard to call the game artistic. You could say the ending was artistic, or attempting to be artistic, but that doesn’t mean the game itself was artistic. Parts do not necessarily define the whole.

Video Games are not Art because they must depend on structural rationality

This is the most difficult, and yet most interesting argument I’ve come across. All games require a structure to succeed, or else it becomes a gibbering mess. The problem with that, however, is that other mediums of art can be a gibbering mess for the sake of being a gibbering mess and still be considered artistic.

Dadaism and extreme German Expressionism can be applied to most mediums, but they are significantly more limited in video games. Video games depend on ergonomic consistency to function: at the end of the day, no matter how pretentious Indie Title A is, it can’t escape from basic foundations of controls. Along these lines, because Art can be a self-aware deconstruction of reality to a higher purpose, video games are not art because they can’t break out of the mold of good game design. If they do, they fail to effectively provide their message.

Fable 3 is an excellent example of how video games have difficulty escaping from the shackles of control design. It attempts to break the mold by eschewing most of its menu system, but reception was mixed, sometimes dismal. 

So, why is this important?

To be honest, the term ‘Art’ is ever-shifting, ever-changing, and isn’t terribly important. Its value is dependent on how strongly and maturely its proponents can take criticism. Video Games can only be considered art insofar as it innovates conceptions of reality, spirituality, and logos. But to do that, we need to approach the higher, more theoretical arguments that continue to plague us.

Sure, we have critics such as Roger Ebert arguing they’re not art, but he’s the tip of the iceberg. Video games can create work and narratives that are compelling, engaging, and enthralling: Dear Esther beats out Transformers’s narrative any day of the week. But pretty words, gloomy atmosphere, and words for the sake of words isn’t going to get the ‘video games are art’ field anywhere.

Ultimately, my position is ‘why bother?’. Video games can create art, or formulate pieces of art, yes. But are they art in themselves? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps we need a re-conception of the term ‘art’ to suit this relatively new medium before we can expect curators making a living on old Ataris and Mario pots. Perhaps we need to break away from calling certain games art games and just call them all pieces of art. But until then, there is one truth I believe in: we’re on the defensive.