Blurring Art Forms in the Digital Age

On November 6, 2015, Activision Blizzard, the commercial development studio responsible for video game series such as Call of Duty, announced that they will also be launching a film and TV studio (for more details, see this BBC article). This is not nearly the first time a video game company has taken its plot line to another medium.

Perhaps the most famous example is the Pokemon franchise. Pokemon, which initially launched as a video game collection in February 1996 in Japan, took only about 8 months to spread onto trading cards and develop an entirely separate culture based on this adopted art form (in October 1996). Shortly thereafter, in April 1997, the Pokemon animated series was released, annexing yet a third type of art form from the same initial concept. In July 1998, the first Pokemon feature film was released in theaters. Since, Pokemon branding and IP can be found on virtually any type of object. From paintings to backpacks to buildings, Pokemon (both as a company and as an idea) has crossed the borders of virtually all forms of art. While all of these mediums tend to have entirely separate characteristics, e.g. a building has a texture whereas a movie has a plot, they have been bound by this central branding which started off as a poorly-conceived video game for the Game Boy.

While part of this crossover is simply a marketing strategy and serves more as a business model rather than an artistic movement, such as the phenomena wherein most animated movies receive an ill-conceived video game as accompaniment, there is also a notable artistic component. As the President of the Stevens Game Development Club and the CEO of Shower Thoughts Development, one of my favorite questions to pose is "Are video games inherently an art? Or do video games just have art?" Without the second part of the question, many people will halfheartedly answer "yes, video games are an art." But when given the alternative that "video games just have art", the question suddenly becomes grounds for an argument.

It would seem to me that (current) video games combine all the art forms into one amazing collection. Video games can have storytelling (whether its via text, symbolism, or other forms of expression), they can have performing arts (such as acting), they can have visual art (such as a painting), they can have 3D art (such as a sculpture), they have an aesthetic (such as the type of textures or the artistic style chosen), they can have music, they can have sound effects, and finally (perhaps the cause for the discrepancy) games have design. I would expect some artists would argue that art also contains design, but is design an art in and of itself?

The reason this cultural phenomena of combined art is so interesting is because it takes this inherently artistic piece and translates it across art forms, often to art forms that were in some way included in the original piece (such as Call of Duty which already has cinematic cut-scenes). Moreover, as technology such as Virtual Reality slowly crawls into the spotlight, the lines will be blurred even further. With potential to change gaming, education, and any digital environment (from work spaces to social lounges), at what point is it no longer considered art? And with this begs the larger (and more annoying) question: What is art?

As technology grows and our ability to convey creative thoughts expands, so will the complexity of the definition of art. Is art based solely on intention? Is art anything with an implicit creative aspect? Is everything an art? Does art have to be on-purpose? And finally, can we categorize art in a shifting digital world?