By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - Art, Objective Reviews, And David Lynch.

Are videogames art or not? How do we even define art? I can’t possibly be sure, but that didn’t stop me from writing this. Please read and enjoy! Or not, whatever you like!

For me, art is something someone created with an intent to express emotions, which in turn resonates with me on a unique, subjective and emotional level. That means whether or not I actually like what I see is irrelevant. For example, when I look at a painting, I might find it beautiful or repulsive, and both of those reactions are obviously very strong, meaning the person who created the painting succeeded in getting an emotional reaction out of me. The great thing about art is that another person who looks at the same painting can have a completely different reaction, or see an entirely different meaning in it, and both of us would still be right and wrong if we were to discuss the quality of the painting or the skills of the painter. The worst thing in my opinion is when a piece of art, be it a painting, song, book, movie or videogame doesn’t make me feel anything and just leaves me cold.

I always like to bring up David Lynch when I talk about this subject, because I have a very strong love/hate relationship with his creations. They contain certain elements that I find absolutely fascinating, creative and inventive, but also stuff that makes me want to shout at the screen out of pure frustration and anger. Which is precisely why I think this guy is so special and even if I find a lot to criticise about his work, I still think he is an amazing artist and I would never ridicule anyone who loves everything about his movies.

Now, a lot of people argue that videogames should be reviewed „objectively“  instead of „subjectively“, because things like graphics, engine, technical quality of sound or functionality of controls don’t have anything to do with „art“ after all. But here‘ s the thing: None of this has to matter. Let’s take Deadly Premonition, for example. If I would try to see the game objectively, I couldn’t possibly give the game a great review because the graphics are hideous from a purely technical standpoint, the music sometimes stutters (at least in the PS3 version) and the framerate often drops to remarkably cinematic levels. Furthermore, the controls, as well as character-animations, can only be described as „pretty clunky.“

And yet, I still think Deadly Premonition is one of the most amazing games I ever played, because I adore the atmosphere and general artisitc look of the game, absolutely love the music, quickly got used to the controls and admire the fact that despite all the wonderfully crazy characters and outstanding lunacy of the plot, the director still managed to make me care deeply about Mr. Francis York Morgan and his gripping story.  

On the contrary, another game may have incredibly tight controls (not to mention the fact that whether or not something feels tight for you is pretty subjective as well), has a perfectly recorded orchestral score, remarkable graphics in a technical sense and uses motion capture to portray the characters as best as possible, but what do these things matter if the gameplay bores me, the music just doesn’t excite me, the art-direction makes me yawn and the story utterly fails to grab my attention?

My point is, games, as well as all the other forms of art, have the ability to create purely emotional responses that are totally unique to everyone who experiences them and I also think that even though most videogames are of course made to make money, they can’t really be created without any form of artistic and emotional input. And hey, it’s not like people don’t intend to make money with their movies, novels, songs or whatever.

Thank you for your attention and have a nice day!