In 2010, critic Roger Ebert proclaimed that “video games can never be art.” Up against gamers who appreciate the increasingly cinematic qualities of the medium, the debate over whether video games are a legitimate avenue for art is a contentious one that has been invigorated by new graphic and technological capabilities. Unfortunately, the new Smithsonian exhibit The Art of Video Games ignores the artistic process in the development of video games, focusing instead on the 40-year history of video game consoles.
Walking into The Art of Video Games, the viewer immediately encounters multiple screens mounted on the wall, which play interviews with various game developers who explaining, literally, why video games are cool. Oh, and there are about 10 or so pieces of concept art used in the development of games ranging from Epic Mickey to Fallout 3. And that’s it; these are the only actual drawings used in the entire exhibit. So what else is could there be in this sizeable gallery?
The next room is entirely comprised of video game stations set up for the public to play. Seriously? At least half the guests at the exhibit looked like they had mustered up just enough energy to put down their controllers, get off their couch, and head over to the Smithsonian to justify their life-consuming habit as an artistic exercise. But no: all that they are greeted with are 10 mediocre concept drawings and stations for games that they’ve probably already beaten 200 times.
The last room brought the exhibit together in a console-by-console timeline accompanied by appropriate informational videos. Again, gamers and non-gamers alike are probably aware of the evolution of the Playstation—first came Playstation 1, then Playstation 2, and finally, Playstation 3. This redundant information could have been provided in a short introduction to guests unfamiliar with games, but instead, it became the focal point of the entire exhibit.
The most frustrating thing about the exhibit is that video games truly are an incredible medium for art, and there are artists behind these games who pump out thousands of sketches and storyboards that would be perfect for an art gallery. The artistic development is precisely what doubters like Roger Ebert need to see, because in these ways the originality and imagination running this industry present themselves as formidable opponents to the sequel-ridden world of film. The solution for another attempt at an exhibit like this could not be simpler: next time another Art of Video Games gallery opens, curators should probably plan for more than a trip to Best Buy when acquiring pieces for the exhibit.
