They exist. Film critics like Roger Ebert or Jonathan Jones and other feature writers who vehemently oppose the fact that computer games are viewed as an art form. Video games like the Rise of Kingdoms are creatively designed. The graphics are beautiful, the soundtrack is successful, but in the end, games are just what the name suggests: a gimmick. No more than entertainment or entertaining fun without depth. Every artistic intention is watered down by the interactivity and arbitrarily.
Are Video Games Art?
What Exactly Is Art?
Aha! Counter question: What exactly is art? In the 19th century, the Impressionists were seen by critics at the time as pure splashes of paint that would be so brazen to deliver unfinished paintings. Today the paintings of Claude Monet or Edgar Degas are traded as works of art worth millions. 30 years ago, music critics rejected many things that even sounded like synthesizers. Guitar sounds, on the other hand, were “still genuine, honest, handmade music”. Just a few weeks ago, the synth artists Kraftwerk, as one of the pioneers and pioneers of electronic music in the USA, received the Grammy for their life’s work.
The understanding of art changes over time. Drawing absolute boundaries is just as effective as trying to close a revolving door. But where does the vehement rejection of computer games as art come from?
Maybe it’s ignorance. A film, a piece of music, a concert or an opera and a book only requires one thing: the time to watch, to listen, to read. Not more. And everyone can have a say and share their more or less sophisticated thoughts, which tend towards intellectual self-expression, to the more or less waiting world.
The hurdle is higher with computer games. You have to be able to use a controller or a mouse and a keyboard to discover a game. Computer games are an art form that actually demands something from the user – the ability to handle it. Especially since a film or a concert ends in two to three hours. A game, on the other hand, often takes twice the time and much more.