Ask John: Why Aren’t Video Games Given the Same Artistic Respect as Anime?

Question:
While anime fans take issues when elements in an anime are altered, for the most part, video games fans do not have the same concern if it happens in a video game. For example, anime purists will take issue when a character’s Japanese name is Americanized, but when a prominent video game company like Nintendo changed a female character from “Rosetta” to “Rosalina” in the English version (a localization, not a translation) of “Super Mario Galaxy,” there are nearly no protests by video game fans. Why the double-standard?

Answer:
The video game and anime communities – both creative industries and fan markets – are definitely affiliated, but observers mustn’t forget that the two mediums are not the same. There’s a lot of creative sharing between video games and anime. Video games spawn anime adaptations, and anime titles commonly get video game spin-offs. Japanese artists frequently work in both anime and video game creation. Fans of video games are often also interested in anime, and vice versa. However, there are three primary reasons why the smallest alterations to the content of anime generate significant consumer protest while video games can undergo extensive alteration with little or no objection. Anime is an older, more inherently respected medium than video games. Anime is perceived as creative expression while video games are considered a commodity. And most importantly, anime is a passive medium while video games are an interactive medium.

Anime has roots in ancient Japanese painting, illustration, and theater. Anime consists of photography and film; cinema has always been classified as a form of art. Modern anime is approaching its 50th birthday while video games are less than 30 years old. Anime, unlike video games, evolved out of an artistic medium and inherited a classification as an art form. Furthermore, America’s first devoted anime fans were people who had to import anime themselves, and cherish the few, rare examples of anime which they were able to acquire. So, in America, from its earliest introduction as a hobby, anime was a cherished and respected commodity. America’s first anime fans perceived anime as imported Japanese culture and modern art, and it was those fans and that sentiment which influenced the perception of all American anime fans that have followed. Contemporary American anime fans may debate the artistic status of anime, but they do so because the seeds of the debate were sown in the late 1970s by America’s earliest hardcore anime fans.

Intertwined with the perception of anime as art because it’s hand drawn illustration and film is the fact that anime is a creative expression made by artists. Anime has its roots in ancient hand crafted art, but video games originated in software and programming. The common perception is that anime is created by artists while video games are created by technicians or craftsmen. Regardless of the accuracy of the perception, anime is perceived as a singular creative concept conveyed by a director to the audience; video games are perceived as an impersonal commercial product. In the eyes of fans, changing even small details of an anime is the same as changing a direct quotation. Once changed, it’s no longer exactly what the original speaker expressed. So even minor changes are still a corruption of the original concept that the creator was trying to convey to an audience. But video games aren’t perceived as a singular message from a creator to an audience. Video games are widely considered a mere product. One doesn’t think of customizing a car as corrupting an artist’s artistic expression. Refrigerator magnets don’t obscure an appliance’s original beauty. Video games simply aren’t thought of as “art.”

The debate over whether or not video games constitute “art” is a relatively recent development. Noted film critic Roger Ebert argued in 2005 that video games are capable of being exceptional, but aren’t capable of being “art” because they are an interactive medium that users control rather than an artist’s expression which an audience apprehends. However, in response, respected artist Clive Barker rebutted at the June 2007 Hollywood & Games Summit that video games may represent exhibit the artistic ability of an artist to construct a fictional world that users immerse themselves in and interact with. Regardless of who is right, I think that average Americans unconsciously side with Mr. Ebert’s opinion. We perceive anime as art because it’s something which we passively observe; it’s a message delivered from artist to audience. We perceive interactive media as something which we influence and control ourselves. Games allow users to control the outcome of the story, and select the game’s character names, attributes, and in certain cases, even the game’s music. If games are a sandbox that allows users to build their own sand castles, we don’t think of the craftsmen that built the sandbox as artists, nor do we instinctively think of the sand as “art.”

The perception of video games may evolve and change. Ten or twenty years from now video games may be widely recognized as a legitimate art form. But right now video games are not widely perceived as art, so they don’t earn the same respect for artistic integrity that acknowledged art forms receive. Video games aren’t an outgrowth of an artistic movement, so they’ve never inherited the status of “art.” Video games have never been routinely marketed or promoted as an art form. Rather, video games are sold as a commodity to be used rather than appreciated. And unlike traditional art forms that are delivered from artists to passive audiences, video games are interactive. These three characteristics influence the reason why anime is regarded as an art form that should be unmolested while video games aren’t given the same regard.