Miyamoto: Video Games AREN'T ART?

This is denying the possibility that products cannot function as art. It follows an older (modern, yet dated) view that for something to be true 'art', it needs to be virtuous, self-sacrificing (as in, spiritually gifted from god, and cannot make money), and, in some way, valueless. That's where a lot of the modern (Duchamps-style) ideas of 'art' come from, that the real essence of art is in the thoughts and revelations it creates, and the less useful it is, unsullied by desires like practicality, the more raw that feeling is. (Duchamp's ideas were... kind of championed out of context, in an attempt to make rich people feel smart by separating them both from the lower classes and their money, which I personally think is an art in itself)

On top of that, Miyamoto, despite being the identity behind many pivotal video games, is far from a be-all-end-all authority on all of videogames. He doesn't speak for Triple-A studios, or indie coders, or small companies. But thoughts like his, those are the kinds of bad examples that make living as an actual artist difficult, to convince people to support you making a living off your work and trade. (Oh, and keep prices low for studio artists. After all, it's not like coding is a skill that makes "art", after all.)

I still think this is my favorite definition of art.

I like how studios have art departments, but video games aren't art. But Miyamoto's not wrong really, since it's his opinion. I think they are totally art.

Welll, guess he's never played Journey. And yes, FFXV. If you play on easy, it can be very hard to lose because Carbuncle, the heavenly fennec baby pupper, revives you. 

I'm not sure why a random person like Roger Ebert's opinion has any bearing here. It's not his field, so why is his opinion being taken seriously?

Games are all in what you make of of them.  So they can be art or they cannot.

This is also putting down the amazing time, dedication and skill that a lot of coders put into their work - the programmers of physics engines, graphics engines (it's in the name even in this case) and the like require at least as much skill as carpenters, painters or authors. Then you have the artists and the musicians that add to the work, possibly the best comparison for a game is an orchestral work. Many people are involved in doing their part and doing it well to even show the piece of art in a way most people understand it, you've the designers who write the template but without the players of each instrument (artists, musicians, coders etc.) and the conductor (player) you haven't got a work of art (except to those who can envision the music/game in their head).

That it is a product might be more important to the creator than its being a piece of art but that is irrelevant... just look at the fact most "classical" artists/composers were poor as dirt, they created all their works of art to make money to keep themselves alive, some of them failed or did a bad job of it in their lifetimes but none of that makes them any the less artists... how many artists/coders get recognition in their lifetime (or even seek it?)... few, but I'll bet you'll find that in the future shining examples will be found - even though a lot of us gamers already know who they are Miyamoto! :D

I graduated in Digital Arts & Entertainment and the traditional art schools were up in arms about the word art in it. The problem lays that the definition of art is so different depending on the person and even on the situation. There are few games that are made with no regard for their audience, and are all about the game design and the journey to get there. If you believe that all beautiful pictures, drawings, paintings are art then sure games can be art. If you're looking deeper than the face value of these for art, games will have a harder time to be classified as art. 

It's like looking at "Tableau I" of Mondriaan and saying that's not art, I can do that. Then sure games can be art. 

But if you look at "Tableau I" as the result of Mondriaan's journey of extracting the essence of a tree that started with "Evening; Red Tree" over "Gray Tree" to end up with his abstract representation of that tree. Then games get harder to be classified as art. 

And in the end it doesn't matter one bit enjoy what you enjoy and who cares about what classification others give it. 

Absolutely the hang up on this debate of 'Is a video game art?' is the defining word itself; art.  In a strange but similar debate BBC's Top Gear asked if an automobile could be considered art based on the argument that driving a stylish, handcrafted car can evoke an emotional response.  At the end, if I am recalling right they said cars cannot be considered art as art should not have any function outside of expressionism.

That definition actually really limits what is considered art, excluding things like books, movies or plays because these things serve to entertain.  Games fall into the category too.  They entertain an audience in a 2-way experience.  The audience (or player) interacts with the game and the game reacts to them.  That is not the same as art.  Looking at Munch's The Scream or da Vinci's Mona Lisa does not have that interaction.  The viewer is not entertained, it is simply an emotional experience (if you are someone that is moved by paintings).

That being said, games like movies, books, plays or music can be artist and/or be an expression of artist quality.  But to me, like Miyamoto said, they are not art unto itself.

maybe I'm just out of the loop, but I don't really get why the idea that it's a product would have to exclude the notion of it being art. I think what Miyamoto was getting at is that he just wants to design the best thing he can for people to enjoy, and that "art" isn't the primary label he would attribute to it. Besides, pretty much every anti-art argument they brought up weren't exclusive to video games. >_>

I'll be honest, you're clickbait title drew me in. (Clickbait as in super generalized title that isn't a lie necessarily, but still designed to get a rise out of someone to draw them in)

I get what Miyamoto is saying. For reference, art for me is creation. Miyamoto doesn't consider HIS videogames art because they were constructed with a set rules from his company. OTHER videogames can be art if they are built purely from an idea and not because a company wants something to make them a profit. One could make the argument that if commissioned paintings are art, then videogames from big companies can be too.

Also if it didn't matter if games were called art or not, then it wouldn't be a big deal, but everyone including me is still talking about this years later. Best opinion on videogames being art is still Sessler's Soapbox for me