Peng Feng/ Peking University School of Arts
Abstract: In the debate on whether video games are art, this paper supports that video games are art. This paper first examines the views of the main opponents of video games as art, then analyzes the conditions that video games can meet the definition of art from the perspective of cluster art definition, and finally classifies video games as interactive art from the perspective of art classification. With the changes in artistic concepts and the advancement of technology, interactive art has become the main form of contemporary art.
Keywords: video games, art definition, art classification, interactive art
Can video games be considered art? This has been a hot topic in aesthetics and art studies in recent years, and it is also the most hotly debated topic in history: opponents argue that video games can never be art, while supporters argue that video games are already art. This article will analyze the opinions of the main opponents, and then support video games as art from the perspective of art definition and art classification.
- Is it impossible for video games to become art?
Just as the artistic identity of movies a hundred years ago caused heated debate, today the debate surrounding the artistic identity of video games is raging. When the influential Routledge Companion to Aesthetics published its third edition in 2013 , it listed video games as an art category along with literature, poetry, drama, film, comics, photography, painting, sculpture, design, architecture, music, dance, etc. However, there are also many people who oppose video games as art, among which the most representative is the view of film critic Ebert. In Ebert’s view, video games can never become art, and his reasons are as follows:
( 1 ) Games are a lower form of culture, not comparable to classical paintings, novels, or films. Games are entertainment for children, not for adults, who have or should have better things to do than play games, namely appreciate finer art. To put it bluntly, games are a waste of precious free time.
( 2 ) Games lack the ability to “value-add.” Video games do not tell ethical, existential, or aesthetic stories, and people become better off when they contemplate real art rather than playing games.
( 3 ) Video games are more like sports than art, as they necessarily involve scoring and scoring systems, rules, winning and losing conditions, and goals to be achieved. In contrast, true art lacks all of these elements; we simply experience art.
( 4 ) Video games lack “authorial control,” meaning that the game is under the control of the player-reader rather than the developer-author, which prevents them from being considered art.
Ebert’s reasons against video games as art are all empirical opinions. Without rigorous arguments, they are difficult to stand up to scrutiny. As for the first reason, the practice of distinguishing culture into high and low has been criticized by contemporary aestheticians. For example, Cohen argues that tastes are not high or low, but only different, so culture also has different types, not high and low. Even if culture is distinguished between high and low, it cannot be concluded that vulgar culture cannot become art. Shakespeare’s plays were regarded as vulgar acrobatics at the time, but later became high-class dramas; novels, movies, design, jazz, rap, etc. are all the same. As for the fact that games are entertainment for children rather than adults, this judgment is also untenable. Today’s video games are no longer just for children. More and more video games are developed for adults, and more and more adults are playing video games. Even if the main players of video games are children, it cannot be excluded from art. Children’s literature will not be excluded from literature because its main readers are children. In short, Ebert’s first reason is untenable.
Ebert’s second reason also does not stand up to scrutiny. It is not true that video games do not tell stories about ethics, existence and aesthetics. For example, the video game “Black Myth: Wukong” tells stories related to ethics, existence and aesthetics. The story of “Black Myth: Wukong” is a continuation of “Journey to the West”, which is one of the four great novels in ancient my country. The literary nature of “Journey to the West” and the literary image of Wukong make this game related to classic literature. The story of the game takes place after Tang Monk went to the West to seek Buddhist scriptures. The collapse of the Buddhist and Taoist systems caused chaos in the world. Game players play the role of the destined person to fight against the suppression of the heaven and various monsters to uncover the truth of the collapse of the world. The story of the characters in the game fighting against fate can give people a sense of sublimity. The game scene design uses traditional Chinese murals and architectural elements, embodies the strong Chinese aesthetic spirit and humanistic color, and has a high aesthetic value. There is no doubt that the game “Black Myth: Wukong” has the ability to “value-added”. The values and aesthetic tastes of this game can make players better. Its aesthetic and educational functions are no less than those of movies and novels. However, from another perspective, people may not necessarily become better when they contemplate true art. This is not only reflected in the fact that so-called true art is also obviously entertaining, but also that many art forms are derived from entertainment. More importantly, so-called true art does not necessarily have a moral education function, and therefore does not necessarily make the audience who contemplate it better. Analytical aestheticians have proved that art has nothing to do with ethics from the three aspects of epistemology, ontology and aesthetics. From the perspective of epistemology, the ethical knowledge conveyed by works of art is insignificant. It is difficult to say that a person gains ethical knowledge through works of art. More usually, a person should have some ethical knowledge to appreciate the moral tendencies implied in works of art, rather than learning ethical knowledge from the moral tendencies in works of art. The ethical knowledge in works of art is empirically unreliable because works of art are virtual. Virtual works of art can take the fake as real and the real as fake. Therefore, works of art can express evil. Just as works of art that express evil are not promoting evil, works of art that express good are not necessarily promoting good. Ethical knowledge or norms are established on the basis of clear arguments and analysis, but the ethical knowledge in works of art has no arguments, so it is unreliable to say that works of art have ethical value. From an ontological point of view, only people have the distinction between morality and immorality, and objects do not have such a distinction. Works of art are objects, so works of art do not distinguish between morality and immorality. From an aesthetic point of view, if works of art have ethical value, they do give us moral enlightenment, but the moral evaluation of works of art has nothing to do with the aesthetic evaluation of works of art. Works of art may be evil, but evil will not become a factor in judging the aesthetic quality of works. In short, if art has the ability to “value-added”, games also have it; if games do not have the ability to “value-added”, art does not have it either. Therefore, Ebert’s proof that games are not art from the perspective of value is untenable.
Figure 1 The image of Wukong in the game Black Myth: Wukong
The third reason is that Ebert said that video games are more like sports, while art is not sports, so video games are not art. This argument is not tenable. Many art projects can be competitive like sports, for example, international standard dance is not only art but also competitive sports. In ancient times, music, chess, calligraphy and painting were considered high-level arts, among which chess is Go, which is classified as sports today. This shows that the boundary between art and sports is not clear.
The fourth reason is that Ebert said that video games lack authorial control, while art is controlled by the author, so video games are not art. This argument is also untenable. First, video games are not completely without authorial control. Game designers have control over the process and ending of the game, but they just give players multiple choices. In other words, game designers have logically restricted the game, and players can play different endings in different forms, but the players’ playing methods are still within logical restrictions . Second, art is not completely controlled by the author. The debate between intentionalism and anti-intentionalism on artistic interpretation highlights the complexity of artistic meaning or artistic effect. According to intentionalism, the meaning of art is the artist’s intention, so the meaning and effect of art are controlled by the artist. According to anti-intentionalism, the meaning of art has nothing to do with the artist’s intention. For example, readers of poetry do not understand poetry according to the poet’s intention, but according to the meaning and grammar of words. The meaning and grammar of words are not controlled by the poet. If the poet wants to use the word “red” to express green, readers will still understand “red” as red rather than green. More importantly, the meaning of literary and artistic works has a lot of flexibility, and different readers can obtain different meanings. When talking about people’s views on the book Dream of the Red Chamber, Lu Xun said: “Confucian scholars see the Book of Changes, Taoists see lewdness, talented people see lingering love, revolutionaries see the expulsion of the Manchus, and gossipers see the secret affairs of the imperial court…” From this, we can see that the meaning of Dream of the Red Chamber is not entirely controlled by the author Cao Xueqin. Different readers read different meanings, just like different game players play different endings. Given that there are situations where the author controls the game, there are also situations where the author loses control in art, so author control is not the key factor in judging whether a game is art.
After the above analysis, Ibert’s several reasons for opposing games becoming art are all untenable. Of course, this analysis only shows that we cannot unconditionally exclude games from art, but it cannot prove that games are art. To prove that games are art, other arguments are needed.
- The artistic identity of video games from the perspective of artistic definition
After the above analysis, we have refuted Ebert’s assertion that games can never be art. But are games art? How do we judge whether something is art? Generally speaking, we judge whether something is art by the definition of art: what meets the definition of art is art, and what does not meet the definition of art is not art.
Traditional art definition theory usually defines art based on its essential characteristics. This essential characteristic may refer to a recognizable appearance such as beauty, or a function such as pleasure, or both. For example, Bell’s popular definition of “art is meaningful form” has both explicit characteristics and functions. Bell said: “In different works, lines and colors form a certain form or relationship between forms in a special way, which arouses our aesthetic emotions. This relationship and combination of lines and colors, these aesthetically touching forms, I call meaningful form. ‘Meaningful form’ is the common property of all visual arts.” In Bell’s definition, “form” is the characteristic of art and “meaning” is the function of art. Bell defines art as “form inspires meaning”, so we say that his definition takes into account both the characteristics and functions of art. However, the shortcomings of Bell’s definition of art are also very obvious. First of all, this definition can only cover a small part of all art, and those representational arts are completely excluded. If “meaningful form” is only one element of art, although it is an ideal element in Bell’s view, as long as it is not the only element, this definition is imperfect. Secondly, Bell’s definition is a circular argument. When Bell argued about “meaning”, he emphasized that this “meaning” was caused by “form” or “pure form”; when he defined “form”, he emphasized that only the “form” that caused “meaning” was the “real form” or “pure form”. This circular argument caused dissatisfaction among contemporary aestheticians who pursue rigorous logic.
Is there a flawless definition of art that we can use to determine whether video games are art? At present, it seems that traditional definitions of art are difficult to satisfy. When defining art, aestheticians always tend to find a sufficient and necessary condition, or to find an essential characteristic of art. However, since art has different categories and art plays a multi-faceted role, there may be more than one condition to define art. If you must find a condition, you may fall into the misunderstanding of art definition. Bond mentioned that art definition is prone to three misunderstandings: ( 1 ) Art has many characteristics, and definers are accustomed to regard one characteristic, such as aesthetic characteristics, as the essential characteristic of art. ( 2 ) Definers are accustomed to regard the characteristics of a certain art, such as painting, as the characteristics of all art, but the characteristics that are suitable for defining a certain art, such as painting, may not be suitable for defining the characteristics of another art, such as music. ( 3 ) Definers are accustomed to regard the characteristics of successful art or good art as the characteristics of all art, so bad art is excluded, but bad art is also art. In order to avoid these misunderstandings, Bond advocates using the following set of conditions or standards to define art: ( 1 ) intentional human activities, ( 2 ) value, ( 3 ) primary value as an object of experience, ( 4 ) ability to reflect skill, technology and craftsmanship, ( 5 ) ability to stimulate creative imagination, ( 6 ) meaning or significance, and ( 7 ) worthy of appreciation, discrimination and serious criticism. Except for the first condition, which can be met by most works of art, the other conditions are optional. This definition of art that gives multiple conditions is a cluster definition of art.
There is a relatively strict cluster definition that advocates that works of art should meet all the conditions. For example, Parker advocates that the three characteristics of “imagination”, “social significance” and “harmony” can serve as sufficient and necessary conditions for defining art. Art is the product of imagination and will not be accompanied by actual action. In this sense, art is like a daydream. However, daydreams are not art because they cannot communicate and have no social significance. Communication involves artistic language. No matter what form of language, it involves the relationship between language expression and the object being expressed (imagination in art). Harmony refers to the relationship between language and imagination. This strict cluster definition can be regarded as a definition that combines characteristics and functions, and it is not yet a cluster definition in contemporary art philosophy.
The conditions in the cluster definition in contemporary art philosophy are all optional. Of course, if something meets all the conditions, it is typical art or ideal art; if something only meets the minimum conditions, it is marginal art. Similar to Bond, Gott lists 10 characteristics as the defining conditions or criteria of art: ( 1 ) having positive aesthetic qualities, ( 2 ) being emotionally expressive, ( 3 ) being intellectually challenging, ( 4 ) having a complex and coherent form, ( 5 ) being able to convey complex meanings, ( 6 ) expressing personal opinions, ( 7 ) using creative imagination, ( 8 ) being a highly skilled work or performance, ( 9 ) belonging to an established art form, and ( 10 ) being the product of intentional artistic creation. Gott argues that according to the extreme cluster definition, as long as any one of these 10 characteristics or criteria is met, it can be called art. Later, Gott revised his cluster definition. To be considered art, at least one of the conditions must be met, that is, it must be “the product of an action”, which is the 10th of the 10 characteristics he listed . Therefore, according to Gott’s cluster definition, anything that has the 10th characteristic and any of the previous 9 characteristics can be considered art. Gott believes that the cluster definition is not a definition of art, and even believes that it is an anti-definition art theory. However, given that Gott gave the conditions that need to be met to become art, his anti-definition cluster definition is still included in the art definition theory. The emergence of cluster definitions is not only because art has become increasingly complex, but also related to the increasing pursuit of precision in art philosophy.
Given that the art world had become quite complex when video games emerged, in order to identify whether video games are art based on the definition of art, it is necessary to update the concept and method of art definition, and update the traditional definition based on one essential feature to a definition based on multiple optional features, which is the so-called optional cluster definition. Moreover, the optional definition conditions can be supplemented. In other words, the cluster of conditions for defining art is open. Let us judge whether video games are art based on the 10 definition conditions listed by Gotte.
Regarding positive aesthetic characteristics. The design of video games, especially the visual design, has obvious positive aesthetic characteristics. Of course, this does not rule out that the design of some video games is not so perfect, but from the subjective intention of the game designer, the game should be designed to have positive aesthetic characteristics.
About emotional expression. The design of video games, especially the sound design, has obvious emotional expression functions. The emotional expression of video games is not like primary arts such as painting, which can be felt directly from the picture, but secondary arts such as music and drama, which are reflected through performance. The emotions expressed by video games are a bit like the theory of evocation advocated by Ji Kang in “On the Sound of No Sadness and Joy” when he argued the relationship between music and emotions. Music itself has no emotions, and music only evokes the emotions of the listeners. Similarly, it can be said that video games have no emotions, and video games evoke the emotions of players.
Regarding intellectual challenges. Video games involve logical reasoning, spatial cognition, strategic planning, reaction speed, etc., all of which involve intellectual challenges. Since video games require player operation to complete, players cannot avoid the intellectual challenges designed in the game, so it can be said that the intellectual challenges in the game are hard challenges. Correspondingly, intellectual challenges in other art forms are soft challenges, and the audience can choose to avoid these challenges. In other words, video game players must accept challenges to pass the level, while appreciators of art forms such as painting, music, drama, and film can muddle through even if they do not understand them, until they complete the appreciation process.
About complex meanings. Video games can convey complex meanings. Video games make players think about philosophical issues. Players of Black Myth: Wukong need to comprehend Buddhist metaphors. Video games also put players in ethical dilemmas. The choices made by players in the game may conflict with the choices made in life, thus triggering players to think deeply about ethical issues. There are even more cases where video games put players in traditional art scenarios. It should be pointed out that video games usually do not express complex meanings directly like classic works of art, but guide players to produce complex meanings themselves. In this sense, the meaning conveyed by video games is similar to its emotional expression, which is more about evoking or triggering players’ meaning production rather than delivering meaning and value to players.
Figure 2 Scenes in the game Black Myth: Wukong
About personal opinions. Video games can express personal opinions. Game designers can embed their own values into the game and let players accept their values. In order to allow players to have a better gaming experience, designers usually give players multiple choices. In other words, the designer’s values exist in the form of possibilities. Designers do not instill but induce players to identify with their own values. In order to provide players with more space and more choices, designers try to accommodate more possibilities. It is difficult for us to judge which possibility is the designer’s true intention. However, we also encounter this situation in narrative art such as novels, dramas and movies, that is, the meaning we understand from the work may not be the author’s true intention. However, this does not prevent the work from expressing personal opinions. The personal opinions here can be held by the actual author or by the hypothetical author.
About creative imagination. Video games not only have audio-visual design, but also storytelling and world construction, all of which can reflect the creative imagination of game designers. Video games can not only reflect the creative imagination of designers, but also the creative imagination of players. Video games usually give players multiple possibilities, leaving players with enough room for creative imagination.
Regarding superb skills. Video games can reflect superb skills, especially e-sports games like League of Legends, where both designers and players possess superb skills, so that its world-wide competition is no less than the Olympic Games.
About established art forms. Video games are related to many established art forms, such as painting, music, drama, and film. From the perspective of comprehensive audio-visual art, video games are closer to movies.
About intentional artistic creation. Video game designers do not necessarily create them as works of art, especially when video games have not yet been classified as art. However, the visual design, sound design, and narrative design of the game are all designed for artistic effects. Therefore, even if the overall designer of the video game does not design it as a work of art, the participants or collaborators of the game design still have obvious artistic creation intentions. With the advancement of technology and the renewal of concepts, there are also many people who design games as art as a whole.
After the above simple comparative analysis, we found that video games are related to all 10 art definition conditions mentioned by Gotte , and fully meet the requirements of the definition of cluster art. Not only that, video games may meet more conditions than other art forms. In this sense, we can even say that video games have the potential to become a more typical art.
- The artistic identity of video games from the perspective of art classification
The characteristics of existing art forms can be found in video games. In fact, what prevents video games from becoming art is not what they lack compared to existing art forms, but what they have more than existing art forms. Video games can meet the requirements of all existing art forms. In other words, all existing art forms can find their home in video games. However, the interactive feature of video games is not possessed by most existing art forms. It is this extra feature that prevents video games from becoming art.
Most aestheticians who study video games regard interaction as its fundamental characteristic. It is precisely because video games have interactive characteristics that existing art forms lack that Ibert excluded them from art. However, from the perspective of artistic development and technological progress, moving towards interaction has become a development trend of art. The opposite of interaction is contemplation. Contemplation is an aesthetic method established in Europe in the 18th century. With disinterested contemplation, art can be distinguished from other cultural forms, forming today’s modern art centered on aesthetics or beautiful art, which has become a necessary condition for aestheticians to define art. However, the meaning of disinterested contemplation is quite vague, and the detached attitude contained in it is particularly questionable. Some aestheticians have found that attitudes only differ in concentration and inattention, not in interests and disinterest. If disinterested contemplation does not exist, then it is a fictitious condition to define art.
Even if disinterested contemplation is valid, it tends to consider art issues from the perspective of audience appreciation rather than from the perspective of author creation. In fact, the aesthetics established in the 18th century focused on solving the problem of art appreciation rather than the problem of art creation. From the perspective of art creation, the interaction between artists and works is inevitable. Barthes emphasized that literary works should be read in an authorial way, “the purpose of literary works is not to make readers consumers of texts, but producers of texts .” Carroll emphasized the importance of authorial reading from another perspective. In order to avoid subjectivity in art evaluation, Carroll asked critics to shift their focus from the acceptance value of works to the achievement value of works. The so-called acceptance value refers to viewing art from the perspective of the recipient. Art that conforms to the aesthetic taste of the recipient has acceptance value and will therefore receive good reviews. The so-called achievement value refers to viewing art from the perspective of the creator. Art that conforms to the creator’s creative intention has achievement value and should be well received regardless of whether the recipient likes it or not. The taste of the appreciator is subjective, and the evaluation based on acceptance value is also subjective. Whether the work conforms to the creator’s intention is objective, and the evaluation based on achievement value can avoid subjectivity. In short, if the audience appreciates art as much as the creator does, then disinterested contemplation is not a necessary condition for defining art.
I do not intend to further analyze disinterested contemplation here, but just want to point out that since the 20th century, art with disinterested contemplation as its core has been challenged by artists. The challenge from artists mainly comes from two aspects: on the one hand, the change of artistic concepts, and on the other hand, the application of new technologies.
Dadaism in the first half of the 20th century was committed to subverting contemplative art. New artists represented by Duchamp challenged the art system established in the 18th century, and disinterested contemplation became their main target of challenge. For the infamous “Fountain”, any form of contemplation is absurd. In order to challenge contemplation, Duchamp created interactive installations such as “Rotating Glass Plates”, where the audience can interact with the images on the rotating glass plates by adjusting the distance and posture.
Although Duchamp’s interactive installation also used some mechanical devices, it was mainly a challenge brought about by the change of artistic concepts. With the development of sensor technology and its application in art, the interaction between the audience and the work has become more convenient and common. The experience of “Rain Room” exhibited in domestic art museums is completely different from the experience of static observation: in the room where heavy rain continues, no matter where the audience goes, they will not get wet. The interaction between the audience and the work has become an important part of “Rain Room”. Interactive installations like “Rain Room” have become the main form of contemporary art. If in the 18th century, interaction was not a condition for defining art, in the 21st century, interaction is indispensable in the cluster conditions for defining art.
Since interaction is opposite to contemplation, and existing art forms are centered on contemplation, it is difficult for interactive art to be properly placed in the existing art system. One of the reasons why Ebert refused to include video games in the art family is that existing art forms do not have the interactivity of video games. However, since the artistic identity of interactive art has been established, the reclassification of art is imminent.
Art classification, like the identification of artistic styles, is done in pairs. For example, Danto observed that artistic styles always appear in pairs: representation versus expression, representational expressionism (such as Fauvism) versus representational non-expressionism (such as Classicism), non-representational expressionism (such as Abstract Expressionism) versus non-representational non-expressionism (such as Hard Edge Abstraction). Taminiau also noted that because art always establishes itself in contrast to previous art, artistic styles are formed in pairs. Once art has achieved autonomy, it always defines itself in contrast to each other: “Impressionism defines itself in contrast to Naturalism, Fauvism in contrast to Impressionism, Cubism in contrast to Cézanne’s paintings; Expressionism defines itself in complete opposition to Impressionism, geometric abstraction in opposition to all of the above, lyrical abstraction in opposition to geometric abstraction, ‘Pop’ art in opposition to all of abstraction, conceptual art in opposition to ‘Pop’ art and hyperrealism, and so on.” It is important to point out that because art defines itself in contrast to each other, styles in the art world always appear in pairs. Although the styles mentioned by Danto and Taminiau appear in pairs, the aesthetic values they embody are not completely opposite. In other words, it is not that one style embodies positive aesthetic values and the other style embodies negative aesthetic values. Although they are opposite in style, they are not opposite in aesthetic value. Just like beauty and sublimity, tragedy and comedy, they often define themselves in contrast to each other, but it does not mean that they are completely opposite in aesthetic value.
Similar to style identification, art classification is also mostly divided into two categories, such as time art versus space art, visual art versus auditory art, imitative art versus free art, etc. For example, Dessault’s art classification is based on the principle of two categories, as shown in the following table:
After incorporating interactive art according to the binary principle, all art can be divided into two categories: interactive art and contemplative art. This classification not only incorporates emerging art, but also promotes our understanding of existing art. It should be pointed out that it is not video games that drive this new art classification, but the various interactive art forms that continue to emerge. If interaction is no longer a factor that prevents video games from becoming art, and video games have the characteristics of existing art, then we have no reason not to include video games in the art family. (Original text can be found in “Chinese Art” 2025 Issue 2, Total Issue 145, notes omitted)
