Pissing in the Fountain: Videogames and Expressive Performance

Karhulahti's essay examines whether single-player videogames can be considered art, using the ongoing philosophical debate about sport as art as its framework. The discussion is prompted by two developments in 2011: the United States National Endowment for the Arts adding digital games to its supported art forms, and game developer Brian Moriarty's defense of the claim that games can be art in response to Roger Ebert's dismissal. The author argues that the central question is not whether games are beautiful or entertaining but whether they possess a unique mode of expression and a relation between artist and audience.

The essay's key argument is that most single-player videogames avoid the competitive aspect that disqualifies sport from being art, since their performances are driven by purpose without being purposive in the competitive sense. It further contends that the audience question, usually cited as an obstacle, is resolved by the distinctive reception of single-player play, in which the player is both performer and sole spectator. This dual role creates tension, because adopting a contemplative, interpretive stance disrupts the player's engagement with the game's action. The author suggests that, unlike traditional arts that invite constant interpretation, videogames may offer aesthetic value experienced without interpretation at all.

The essay concludes that the expressive power of single-player games lies in personal, unshown experience rather than public display, drawing a contrast with Duchamp's Fountain. It cites role-playing games, strategy titles such as Civilization III, and action games as examples of expressive systems, and it argues that aesthetic value and art should be distinguished, since beauty alone does not confer artistic status. The work is a theoretical contribution drawing on aesthetics and philosophy of sport, supported by references to existing game studies scholarship rather than empirical data.