It seems as though it should be an easy matter to solve—just look up what art is in a dictionary and see if video games fall into that category. Alas, due to its subjective nature, there are many forms and thus interpretations of what art is; some cite aesthetics, others the expression of emotion or the communication of a message, while the Surrealists say that art is simply what is allowed into an art gallery. If the latter is true then the advent of the Smithsonian American Art Museum’s The Art of Video Games exhibition signals the triumphant end of the long debate for video games as art, not to say that they ought to be seen as art solely according to the Surrealist interpretation. Perhaps an acceptable definition would be a mix of all of the above interpretations. The difficulty seems to lie in acceptance and whether video games can be considered art as we know it or if they can only be appreciated as a new form of art.
In the quest for validity video games are often compared to interactive art, but this may be a misstep. What differentiates the majority of games from interactive art is the presence of rules and objectives. A video game directs the audience along a well-defined, premeditated path; beginning, middle and end, while interactive art responds to the audience in a comparatively free and un-orchestrated way. An example is Scott Snibbe’s interactive work Boundary Functions (1998). As people stand or move around its four square metre floor space, a computer-directed projector draws lines of personal space between them. In the artist’s words: ‘It is a social work of art that’s as... The rest of this article is available to subscribers of Eyeline
Scott Snibbe, Boundary Functions, 1998. Courtesy the artist
Heavy Rain, 2010. Video game still. Courtesy Quantic Dream.
