Today I received a shock, when the most artistic developer outside of Nintendo declared that in his opinions because video games appeal to a mass market rather than the individual they cannot be considered art. This was said by Metal Gear writer/producer/director/creator Hideo Kojima. (http://www.computerandvideogames.com/r/?page=http://www.computerandvideogames.com/news/ news_story.php?id=132943 referring to an interview in Official Playstation Magazine)
This is especially shocking because unlike Halo where you run around blowing stuff up with little or no plot to guide your actions, and unlike Grand Theft Auto which is clearly violence for the sake of violence Metal Gear has always been deeply artistic, political, and philosophical, delving into territory of deep thinking. To me, that makes it art. That it requires me to not only think about what I'm doing by way of action, or puzzle solving, but also the emotional and moral consequences of my actions, and the long term consequences that that action can have on a global scale (one man can make a difference for better or worse) that to me is art, in much the same was as books are art, and movies are art. Not all of them, but in general, yes, it is art.
Kojima goes on to say, "Art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person"
By that logic the Mona Lisa isn't art because she has appealed to millions of people all over the world despite the fact that according to Kojima art should only appeal to one person... Oh and the Sistine Chapel, and the Moses statue, and anything written by Edgar Allen Poe... Not art. Mozart should not be considered art because his work has appealed to millions for a few hundred years. HP Lovecraft still has a lot of fans the whole world over, yours truly included... I guess he can't be art either, especially since his book Call of Cthulu has been the basis for several games now, not to mention that both Eternal Darkness and Silent Hill drew heavy influence from his writings.
As a student developer I consider myself an artist, there's a lot of art that goes into making the game, from the conceptual drawings, to the story writing, to the cinematic directing. That the games often try to target a mass market isn't by itself a sin.
If English were Kojima's native language it's possible his statement would more resemble arguments that have been going on for the last several years. Games are becoming less about art, and more about mainstream appeal. This is only a slight difference from his original statement, and I think (knowing Kojima, whose work is extremely expressive) this is what he was getting at. It's true. People line up around the block for Halo and GTA, but who can say anything about the artistic appeal? Both are violence for the sake of violence. Neither have heroes who you truly care about, nor do they feature deep meaningful stories akin to Lovecraft, Poe, Tolkien, or CS Lewis. Yes Halo is fun, but one could certainly argue its lack of artistic merit. GTA, is neither fun, nor artistic, and is only cool because it's controversial. Kids only want it because they're not supposed to have it.
However, take a look at the Legend of Zelda, especially the last one subtitled "the Wind Waker". Nintendo has always been more focused on artistic appeal than mass-market appeal. They wanted to make a game as an extension of themselves, their ideals, and philosophies, in a story that is more or less about growing up. For artistic reasons they decided to go with a look that resembled a Saturday morning cartoon. The art was brilliant; the reaction from the mass market was not. Yet the game appealed to me nonetheless because I saw it's artistic merits.
Silicon Knights, likewise, is very vocal about games as an art form. Their games ranging from Legacy of Kain Blood Omen, to Eternal Darkness, and incidentally the Kojima produced remake of the original Metal Gear Solid have all received a great amount of critical praise, many critics stating that their games may not be top of the line graphically (they are only a 90 people large company) but they games manage to be artistically brilliant regardless. The games are often deeply philosophical, and Dennis Dyack (The president and CEO of SK) has been very vocal that their next game (Too Human) is very much the story he's wanted to write (and has been writing) for years. Inspired by Norse Mythology, and the Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche book "Human, all too human" Silicon Knights will set out to explore what it means to be human, and the costs of loosing our humanity.
To me, this sounds like art.
While I agree that there is far too much corporate manufactured fodder out there, especially by way of urban hip hop themed violence for the sake of violence material like Streets of New York, Gang Wars, GTA, and anything that bares the 50 Cent name I do not agree that games are not art.
If we rule out a medium as an art form simply because it somehow manages to captivate a mass audience despite being deeply philosophical, and meaningful then we would have to rule out books, movies, and even classic paintings as art form. The reason art is art is because it makes a statement to a mass audience, because it tells something to the people who read/watch/look at/play it, because it means something. It’s okay to make money off of it!
Right now vide games are an excellent place for designers to reach people, to hopefully cause them to reexamine humanity, the world, the universe and so on. Not every developer does, and many, in fact are more concerned with the financial bottom line, but so are most painters, cinematographers, writers and musicians. We all have something to say, and not one of us should feel ashamed for expecting to be paid for it, especially with the time and energy that making media of any kind takes.