Video Games As An Art?

The censorship of violent video games is a relatively new point societal contention. When considering the history of violent video games, it is commonly accepted that the first “violent video game” appeared in 1993 with the first installment of the acclaimed “Doom” series for the PC. This first-person shooter is arguably the first game in its genre to display the unnecessary, over-graphic depictions of violence. But are we really going to attribute violence in video games to the so-called violent behavior of our youth? If so, we as society have taken the blame-game to another level. How do we account for the Ted Bundys or Charles Mansons who were clearly not the product of violent video games, as even they pre-dated the very existence of such games? These questions are highly relevant to the topic at hand, and must be addressed delicately if we are ever going to find a reasonable solution (besides fining companies that sell video games to youth) to combating violent behavior in our youth. Perhaps this is where Plato and Aristotle help direct us to examine the art in question (in this case, videogames), and whether such art is worthy of harsh repudiation (i.e. censorship).

As it seems now, violent video games have become an uncanny source for blame. Proponents of censorship attack video games for their over-the-top depiction of violence and demand that such games not be accessible to our youth. The argument goes something like this: since violent video games depict acts of brutality, revenge, and other such vices, they inadvertently encourage such behavior in those who play the games. This far-fetched argument, however, and is hardly true.
To reiterate what Kip stated in his post, perhaps at first glance Plato would embrace a similar mentality of blame towards this form of “art”. Plato writes, “for it is given, I think, only to a few to figure out that the conduct of other people must necessarily influence our own, and that it is no easy matter, after feeding the strength of the principle of pity upon the sufferings of others, to keep it under restraint when we suffer” (Plato, 31). Here Plato wishes to advances the argument that those capable of seeing art’s destructive potential must oblige themselves to the censoring of such art. The problem with this claim, however, brings into question the “few” who are responsible for the censoring of such art. If society relies upon the opinions of those who claim that violent video games are the source of violent behavior, then how do we strike a balance between those who find it offensive and those who do not?

Nehamas suggest in his article that accusing violent video games as a source for violent behavior is considered by scholars “only as the result of ‘bad or irrelevant research, muddleheaded thinking and unfounded, simplistic news reports’” (Nehamas). Thus, we see there are two sides to the story between those who condemn violence in video games and those remain receptive to this particular form of “art”. The issue is hence two-fold: the first of which begin that, if video games are actually the source of violent behavior, then should they be censored? And secondly, who are the “few”, as Plato puts it, that are responsible for determining censorship, particularly if there is division even amongst the “few”?
In order to examine this problem furthermore, it is important first of all to give a proper representation of the art in question. Arguably (as according to my limited knowledge of gaming), violent video games are produced, developed, and sold for a single purpose: to depict a fanciful or, in some cases, real-life scenario involving a hero who must overcome the trials of evil, even at the cost of violently slaughtering every foe who might have the misfortunate of crossing paths with this him. In part, this provides the gamer with a false sense of accomplishment; as he/she lives vicariously through the necessary violent life of the game’s hero. Hence the purpose of most violent video games is not to depict a reality of all serial killers, but rather construct a world where you, as the gamer, prevail as the hero. However, this very point remains a problem for Plato.

In book X of the Republic, Nehamas notes Plato’s example of Achilles as misrepresentation of art. Homer portrayal Achilles character as being equally full of vice as he is virtue is problematic for Plato because the audience is led to sympathize with Achilles at the end of the Iliad, despite the untamed, violent nature of Homer’s hero. Thus Plato attacks this form of poetry as misrepresentation of the good and subsequently qualifies it as a form of art worthy of censorship.
Conversely, Aristotle finds hope in characters like Achilles for the cathartic sensation they impart upon the audience. In the Poetics, Aristotle defines what calls a cathartic experience, where the audience departs from the art with a feeling of emotional contentment. This contentment, however, does not result from the hero who always chooses to do the right thing, but rather, from the character who recognizes his error and embraces a willingness to redeem himself. If we make an Aristotelian comparison to modern video games, we can see a certain cathartic element in today’s most popularly condemned gaming series, “Grand Theft Auto”. At the end of one of the GTA installments, the main character is forced with a decision to either remain loyal to his family or to continue living the violent life to which he has become accustomed. Fortunately, the plot concludes with the hero abandoning his violent life for the tranquility of community and family. Thus, one could argue that even today’s most equally hated and loved game exudes some redeeming elements.
Yet does Aristotle’s cathartic experience help vindicate the mass production violent video games and their availability courtesy of our local “Game Stop”? Perhaps it should, but perhaps, more importantly, the “few” who condemn violent video games for their alleged influence on the youth ought to take a stronger stand against the pervasiveness of negligent and abusive parents. Put frankly, accusing video games for producing a violent youth excuses the responsibility of parents and the community who, in my opinion, are responsible for fostering a child to become more discerning in his behavior.

Additionally, those concerned with censorship should pressure the gaming industry into taking more initiative to produce games that are more artistic and less simplistic. The same must be true with all forms of art. The biggest problem with the gaming industry is how often it targets an audience that is susceptible to their base, carnal desires. Obviously, kids are going to continue playing video games that contain violence at catastrophic levels. Thus, the gaming industry – like the film and music industry – should be less concerned with what sells, and more concerned with the creative process and skill that help construct the piece of art.

Finally, to answer the question of video game censorship, I find Aristotle’s interpretation of art most convincing. If we as a society want to produce good art, then we must focus upon the relationship between the art and the artist. This means overlooking what may appear to be a direct consequence of the art (i.e. video games encourage violent behavior), instead paying more attention to the creativity involved in producing such art. Although this does not vindicate all violent video games, it does promote a more moderate approach. If games like GTA are capable giving the audience cathartic experience, then perhaps I find their censorship simply inexcusable.