Are video games art? Draw your own conclusions

Mike Snider:
Sure, the three-dimensional vistas explored in video games such as Super Mario Galaxy and Halo are enchanting, immersive and often dramatic. But, as the age-old question goes, are they art?

[Marked]

I didnt even read this and will share my opinion without caring about this tired debate.

Under the definition of art: My proud act of writing this with a hunt peck method would be art if I did so for someone to admire. Philosophicaly speaking everything is the art of something....I have the art of picking my nose perfected to the point of not bleeding.

For the developers of the video game, the marketing department and sluts that buy the premium editions...YES its clearly art.

For the average gamer...I believe it falls under self gratification and an experience at least. NO....it is not art for the average gamer.

[mabreu]

Art is subjective by nature. It's a way of celebrating our human nature and explore our humanity. So in a way, all forms of entertainment is art. The real question is: Is it good art?

[Clayman]

"Good art" is also entirely subjective, don't you think?

[MrMister]

Oh boy...this is bringing back horrible memories of Philosophy/Astheatics of Art class again.... Look, who cares if its subjective? this arguement has been going on since Platos day, and all it has caused Philosophers to do is come down to te conclusion that it's up to the individual to decide. Let the mindless masses try to find their one voice that determines their mind for them. As for us, let's neither be lemmings, nor pointless debaters over the topic. I think it's art. It's as simple as that for me. But i do agree that some games evoke more emotion/humanity then others. But I wont dare say its "better art" as that would lead to another pointless debate as to whether I can "prove it" or not. Blah! No thank you.

[MrMister]

@ mabreu:

Perfect. Couldn't have said it better myself.

Some games are in the realm of other art forms that invoke a human-ness or emotional state that brings humanity TOGETHER (other then excitement or anger). just like music and movies can do.

Games like Journey, Heavy Rain, Flower, etc can bring these feelings.

HOWEVER, games like Mario Sunshine 2 and Zelda are art too, but not so much in its ability to evoke sadness, joy, etc, but because they have amazing level design and puzzles.

So this discussion of whether or not games are art is not worth having. Roger Ebert was sent a PS3 by "thatgamecompany" and a copy of Flower for FREE a year ago. HE still never played it. So, why would anyone take the opinion of an old man who won't even test the game out to see if he is capable of being wrong about his stance in the game/art debate? His opinion cannot be taken seriously anymore since he has clearly never played a game before (or at least not a modern one). Unlike movies, you must PLAY a game to experience it. However, he's only seen them visually and thinks that somehow he's experienced it. He started it, yet wont back it up by playing it. It takes less time to complete that game then it does to watch a movie, yet he wont play it.

Some even say they should send him "Journey". But he likely wont play it either. Which is a pity, because it's a game about loneliness, and I'm sure that a fat, ugly, stubborn, overly-opinionated old man like Roger Ebert would be able to relate to being lonely.

Also, I didn't read the article either, because IDGAF about this stupid debate anymore. ROGER EBERT instigated it--that's reason enough for people to stop caring.

[palaeomerus]

Art when used to describe content (as opposed an art which is to a skilled methodology for producing something) is short for artifact.

If humans or a human made it on purpose or intentionally caused it to be made, then it is art. It just means something that is not naturally occurring.