I don't know why art has to be placed on a pedestal, there can be "bad art". Also, I would rather watch a Raptors game (not art) than watch one of the Transformers movies(bad art).

Does a blind man trip if he drops acid? What the hell kind of a question is that. Since when does something have to be visual to be beautiful.

I believe that the video games themselves are not art but do contain examples of art. Some of the cut scenes from the final fantasy series are very artistic but the battle sequences are not. The same principles apply to movies in which some scenes may be artistic and others are not.

Oh dear, you've resorted to lying again.

The only reason this is a hot button issue right now is that Schwarzenegger and his state are trying to create a free speech exception by saying games aren't really art.

After all, obscenity only counts if there is no scientific, artistic, or social value. And they want to be able to say "but there's no artistic value, so it's obscene, so we can ban it."

This is particularly hypocritical because most Schwarzenegger movies have less artistic value than your average porno, but that's another story entirely.

The problem, as I say, is that there's a third side here that brought it up. We can whack philosophical until we're blue in the balls, talk about the inherrent nature of art, etc., but this is only really a point of contention because if they are not art, they can and will be restricted, and legally under the provisions of free speech as understood by obscenity.

So enjoy what you want, just remember that there's a real lawsuit out there that could (not will) redefine the status of the games medium. To that end, it does matter what others say. It even matters what shlubs like BDC say, because popular support is a big deal when it comes to whether these remain legal issues.

Populism is dumb, but it does dictate policy.

But enough verbal masturbation.

First of all, for people interested in a really interesting discussion of videogames as art, give a look at this book. Really fantastic read.

So, truth be told I haven't read through the whole debate in this thread thus far, and therefore I apologize if I'm rehashing points.

I think it comes down to this: if you take film or literature as art, you have to accept that videogames are, or at least can progress to be, art as well. Both film and literature deal primarily with the crafting of a story, be it fiction or nonfiction. For the most part, videogames do much the same thing, albeit at times in roundabout and minimalist manner (Mario, Street Fighter).

I think, at times, people get lost in just the simple narrative of the games, and when they see some kind of trite, shallow plot, they dismiss the medium as non-artistic. However, I think you have to look at the "grammar" of games in a sense, the manner in which they play, as a means to explicating their artistic merit. Much like the greatest authors tell not only fantastic stories, but display these stories in lucid prose, and great films not only track a plot but have wonderful cinematography, the way the game plays is in and of itself a facet of the art.

Think of playing a fighting game, experiencing the absolute struggle of being on the hardest possible difficulty, grappling with an opponent who can time and counter every button press. At that moment, the game is conveying to you the tension and anxiety in that conflict by transferring those feelings to you. To convey this type of emotion while in the realm of storytelling is a large facet of art, much like a camera panning over the sweeping plains of Middle Earth captures in the viewer the same sense of awe that Frodo Baggins feels.

Of course, not each and every game is successful at creating a transcendent experience, much like most books and movies fail. However, they are still making the attempt to craft, and pull the purveyor into, a story outside of their own locus, and to evoke some sort of emotion from that. Gaming too is in its infancy...while the written word has been around for eons, and film has at least had 100 years to go at it, gaming is only now really reaching its 30th year of life. Thus, game developers are really only beginning to encapsulate the potential of an interactive medium.

The struggle, too, it seems is that it IS interactive, and the inherent assumption is that because it lacks full passivity, its not art? That, to me, is ludicrous...and in fact, an interactive medium has the potential to engage and capture those who partake in it in new and wholly unique ways, foreign to passive art forms.

Wow, word vomit there. Thoughts BDC?

If trite, shallow plots aren't art, can we ban Transformers: RotF as obscenity?

Just sayin'.

I was making a point that most people count music as art and it is not visual. So I believed the definition he gave was a little short. Of course music is art.

Music is not art!

I don't think video games are "bad art" anymore though, can't really make broad generalizations. 10 years ago, sure...but now, I think games have really made a leap.

Completely fair. The beautiful thing about art is that its in the eye of the beholder. If you don't consider it art, that's your prerogative, much like I am wont to consider some modern "art" as art.

"What is art?" Should really only be argued in broad strokes. What people generally mean by it is "what is good art?"

It's kind of like saying "I don't like the Beach Boys, so they're not music."

But here we are. Again and again.

The Smithsonian is looking to put together an exhibit known as "The Art of Video Games." It will feature 80 games across different genres/eras. You can vote online right now at www.artofvideogames.org. I had a hard time choosing a few (like MM2 vs. SMB3 vs. Metroid) but it was fun to vote on some Atari 2600 and Commodore 64 games.

Burned by the Gummit.

Absolutely nothing.

Also, to your second retarded point, art can be practical and functional. A semblence to a spreadsheet does not preclude art.

Many of those same games have creative visual expressions, stories, and characters. Even if it were true they operate like a spreadsheet, that's kind of like saying you can't call it art if it uses letters because letters are also used for subpoenas.

"This painting has the same testure as sand. Sand makes glass. Glass makes windows. Windows are not art."

Except it's not "reading" like a technical manual, because "reading" is a story mechanic.

Hey, if you don't like my analogy, at least use a fair analogy.

When you come down to it, the "spreadsheet" argument can be used for most game genres. The underlying structure may be mechanical under the "optimum" circumstances do not set the sum of the game. There is generally an optimal path within any game structure, even outside of computer games. Only mutants and Koreans play RTS like that, though.

Given the right motivation you can strip the story and even the fun out of a game, the same way you can strip the beauty out of prose by analysing it. But games are more than the sum of their mechanics in the same way buildings are more than the sum of their construction process and music is more than the sum of a series of intervals and movements.

I'm still nto sure why I'm trying to argue this with you, since you've been arguing in bad faith, but whatever. Return to your bullshit, I guess.