Jim Preston: games as art debate is meaningless

by Scott Jon Siegel { Feb 12th 2008 at 9:00AM }

Are games art? It's a question that comes up more and more, as the medium slowly grows out of its awkward, teenage years. EA producer Jim Preston thinks the debate is a meaningless one, as he explains in an incredibly well-thought-out feature on Gamasutra.

Preston takes his time to remind of us the state of art in general, and how art is continuously judged by its relative place in culture: a urinal can be art if Marcel Duchamp says so, and places it in an art gallery. Since it's all a matter of perspective, Preston argues that we shouldn't be bickering with Roger Ebert over whether games can be art, but instead spending our time improving the medium, and awaiting further artistic recognition from the community at large.

Makes sense to us. We'll stop waiting by the mailbox for our invite to the arty party, then.

[Image via this post]

Tags: art, roger-ebert, rogerebert

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

WiNG @ Feb 12th 2008 9:08AM

Goddamn that dog is scary.

...Bear?

Ben @ Feb 12th 2008 9:35AM

It's a brown Newfoundland puppy with fake horns on its head (at least I think those are horns, my monitor at work is horrible)... how could anyone think it's scary? Besides that guy riding his horse full speed away from it at the bottom of the picture (Is there a person on that horse, again, I can't tell what is going on there because of my blurry, old CRT monitor).

Jason @ Feb 12th 2008 10:06AM

Shadow of the Colossus, anyone?

ck @ Feb 12th 2008 10:36AM

Ben, it seems that what you lack in a sense of humor is made up in an abundance of useless dog knowledge.

kevinski @ Feb 12th 2008 9:13AM

Hahahaha...I love that picture.

paragraph @ Feb 12th 2008 9:15AM

If Jackson Pollock could program video games, what kind of video games would he program (i'd reckon they would smell of fish.... i see what i did there)

Honestly, some of the best art isn't art...

Dada... my Anti-art. If you just call Videogames Dada, there is an excuse for the so called "Lack of Artistic Value", because it's Dada, it's not art... but it's art...

Everyone wins? No? Fine...

Lets ship Mr. Preston a copy of Shadow of the Colosus, a PS2, and a Strategy Guide (since he'll probably need it ;)) and see what he thinks of games as art then...

also: @WiNG

It looks like a horribly giant evil demon-spawned puppy...

Ben @ Feb 12th 2008 9:54AM

Well, Marc Ecko is a fashion designer and I'm sure many people would consider that art... his "entertainment studio" (Marc Ecko Entertainment) worked with the developer Human Head to create Prey. I think he had a big role in the creation process... Not that I've ever played it, or had the desire to.

Korova @ Feb 12th 2008 5:01PM

Excuse me, gotta run to the Museum of Modern Art and check if they have a video game on exhibit. They have an iPod.

Of course games are art. Ebert is just being parochial. Once the gaming generation grows up, they will consider games as stores of cultural value, i.e. art. Its actually happening already with all the 8bit music.

I once saw a gigantic mario-based video installation in a SoHo gallery and thought it would be cool to have at my house for a party.

Nigeria @ Feb 12th 2008 9:25AM

This art argument again?

hmmm.

Games have only just started to challenge the players viewpoint of the world. And isn't that what art is?

But, as most gamers have noticed, as the consoles have become more powerful, the games produced are becoming less adventurous and more "realistic". "Realistic" translates to browns and greys and dark greens. If there is any art in games, artists really have to step out of the mould and avoid the convergence that is taking place. There really is too much sameness. Too much to be even calling for a debate.

paragraph @ Feb 12th 2008 9:35AM

I think it's hard for traditionalists (that is to say, a traditional artist) to see games as art, because they only focus on the visual. Visually, no, games are not art, they are not meant to be art, if someone manages to sell a screen of centepede for $10,000,000 i'd kill Mr. Atari...

The art in videogames is the same art in programming, it's the neatly timed choriography of bits and bytes dancing around... umm... something...

You get what i mean right? Games are not art in the traditional sense, they are art because of the interactive aspect...

or not... i don't know anything about art...

Nigeria @ Feb 12th 2008 9:48AM

I understand.

A Pissed-off English Gamer @ Feb 12th 2008 11:09AM

Saying that games are "just data" is like saying that writing is "just ink" or "dots on a screen". What's important is the effect on the viewer/listener/interacter. Games can be massive collaborative projects, does this preclude them from being art? Hell no. How can people entertain the thought that it isn't a complex form of expression? Surely that's what art is.

Korova @ Feb 12th 2008 5:11PM

Art is anything that has substantial recognized cultural value. Its a roadpost on the road of cultural exploration. A support beam of the cultural superstructure. To the extent games reflect our culture and are valued as orienting us in our culture, games are art. If not, then not.

There is a bit of a relativism in art too. Art is what people say is art. But its more than that because art is a cultural communication device, so a substantial portion of a culture's members need to agree that something is art. Sort of like that a certain word has meaning. It does cause a lot of people understand what the word means.

So in a culture where games are perceived as cultural orientation devices (such as the college boys dorm culture) games are already art. For American society, arguably yes, but is 20 years very likely yes.

For me? Not yet.

deABREU @ Feb 12th 2008 11:15AM

his argument is lunatic. since when does cultural diversity invalidates art? it's the opposite!!!

but really, in order to say "this is art, that isn't" objectively, you have to define what art is, and that is something very subjective, to define art...

so, the question "is games art" is stupid in itself, as it is a completely subjective matter.

The Artist formally known as Jesus @ Feb 12th 2008 9:39AM

I thought that was a picture from a new Shadow of the Colossus game

paragraph @ Feb 12th 2008 9:44AM

DS Port: Shadow of the Nintendogs

Nigeria @ Feb 12th 2008 9:46AM

I laughed.

That would be awesome.

heckthor @ Feb 12th 2008 1:52PM

U know, i actually thought it was a collectible item from Shadow of Colossus, which it would be so FREAKING COOL... but oh well, no Luck Here...

Synner @ Feb 12th 2008 9:47AM

Someone at the company needs to tell Mr. Preston what the "A" in EA stands for.

Maybe he should read one of those "history of the company" bullshit memos I had to read for every job I ever accepted.

For those of you too lazy to do the research, I'll enlighten you.

Electronic ARTS was a new type of game company that emerged in the days of anonymous programmers who were paid next to nothing for the work they put into a game.

In its infancy EA concentrated all its advertising and recognition on the people behind the games you loved, featuring group photos on the box of the team responsible for the product you bought.

Their stance was that the games were art produced by artists, who were skilled at their craft.

Too bad this company devolved into a factory churning out uninspired sequels to 20 year old games year after year.

ck @ Feb 12th 2008 10:43AM

Wow. Did Mr. Preston and EA kill your mother when you were a child? I've never seen someone so mad at a person they've probably never met. And why all the hate for EA? What have they done/haven't done? Make some great games? Some really bad ones?

ThornedVenom @ Feb 12th 2008 10:44AM

I learn something new everyday thanks to the internet. =)

Synner @ Feb 13th 2008 5:44AM

Where you get anger and hate out of that is beyond me, but then, the touchiest people on the net seem to frequent Joystiq, so what do I know.

baby sea tuna @ Feb 12th 2008 10:16AM

Do game designers really aspire to be artists? I mean, every artist I know is a total asshole (myself included). Who's life-aspiration is to be an asshole (albeit a respected asshole)?

ThornedVenom @ Feb 12th 2008 10:45AM

I have no idea, but I'm an artist aspiring to be a game designer. =) (the other way around of what you just said)

NeverSage @ Feb 12th 2008 1:17PM

I'm diggin the avatar.

Korova @ Feb 12th 2008 5:15PM

babes, you sound just like McElroy.

koehler83 @ Feb 12th 2008 10:45AM

I think anyone who dares define what is and isnt art is really over-stepping their bounds. There really is nothing in the world more subjective. It is completely in the eye of the beholder.

Korova @ Feb 12th 2008 5:16PM

Oops, I think I did it again. See posts above.

ThornedVenom @ Feb 12th 2008 10:46AM

Preston is essentially saying this:

"Shut up and get back to work".

Jim Preston @ Feb 12th 2008 10:53AM

Thanks to Joystiq for the nice write up and link to my article. I think a couple of people in this thread may be mistaken on what I'm saying. I'm neither affirming nor denying that games are art. Instead I am saying that in order to even come to an agreement on what qualifies as art we need to have a common conception of what art really means. Just as we all need to have a common conception of what english is in order to understand each others' comments in this thread.

Yet I feel that most people I meet don't really have a thoughtful conception of art, but just regard it as an extension of their emotions. While the culture as a whole holds a wide variety and often conflicting conceptions of art. I simply suggest we as gamers should not even bother with the debate, but simply work on the conditions by which games will be viewed as art by the majority of the people in the culture, regardless of what their underlying conception of art is. That is, my argument is a political one, not an aesthetic one.

Scott Jon Siegel @ Feb 12th 2008 12:14PM

Thanks for the clarification, Jim. Once again, the essay was a great read, and rightly labeled by Gamasutra as an "important" one.

Korova @ Feb 12th 2008 5:25PM

I agree, Jim. Games will be recognized as art by the society as a whole when they make an impact on the cultural dynamics of our society.

Too often todays games treat trite topics in a conventional way not contributing much to development of cultural values. But as programmers and designers become more comfortable with electronic technologies, they will have more leisure to contemplate social and cultural conditions and make a contribution to advancing the debate.

For now, they spend endless hours making sure a commando is able to jump over every crate in every corridor. Art requires relative technological simplicity and leisure.

Bugenhagen @ Feb 13th 2008 1:35AM

Epic article Jim. Mad love. I feel you, my unrelenting apathy towards the subject stems more from the fact that half of the world is a warzone and we are all born to die. " And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Marty @ Feb 12th 2008 11:10AM

Are games art? They damn well better be - if they aren't art, then they aren't protected under the same freedom of speech laws that film and literature are.

Korova @ Feb 12th 2008 5:26PM

they are speech, you mean

kbomb1upc @ Feb 12th 2008 11:43AM

Cool pic

AnonyMack @ Feb 12th 2008 12:39PM

Preston is right. We DO need a Shadow of the Colossus sequel.

License to ill @ Feb 12th 2008 2:48PM

They are working on something for the PS3 they haven't said what it is yet...

RadCap @ Feb 12th 2008 1:05PM

Claiming the debate about whether something is or is not 'art' is meaningless is simply claiming that the term 'art' is meaningless. It is the claim one cannot define a term and thus cannot identify its referents in reality. The individual who makes such a claim removes himself from any conversation about the term and referents because he is claiming there is no such thing. Any ongoing discussion on his part is simply a blatant (and very extended) contradiction.

NeverSage @ Feb 12th 2008 1:09PM

All I know is that I beat HL2 EP2 last night, and I don't remember the last time any type of entertainment has moved me so much.

Mr Khan @ Feb 12th 2008 3:25PM

Art = Subjective

/debate

RadCap @ Feb 12th 2008 3:47PM

Art = Subjective

=

Art = nothing (ie no definition/no referents in reality)

This is simply the attempt to eliminate the concept art from rational discussion.

bitpicnic @ Feb 12th 2008 7:47PM

His argument doesn't show that the debate is meaningless, it just shows that the debate is really about the definition of "art" and not about games , per se.

Batzarro @ Feb 12th 2008 8:23PM

Shea! Like this guy once put a refrigerator in a pedestal, and called it art. I was like "shouldn't the men, woman and factory machines that made it be the artists?

Crappy art anecdotes aside, I see the point. Art=relative = videogames-as-art=relative. I HATE relativism, though...

RadCap @ Feb 12th 2008 11:39PM

"His argument doesn't show that the debate is meaningless, it just shows that the debate is really about the definition of "art" and not about games , per se."

Except that even the editorial introduction says his argument shows the debate is meaningless, not to mention the fact that his position is that we shouldn't be "adopting a philosophical or aesthetic strategy" - ie we shouldn't worry about the definition of art at all. (Why? See above.)