True art is never designed for the masses, to be reproduced globally, like Stephen King's books, C. Nolan's movies, etc.

But there are several games that go really close to be considered art. But these are unpopular titles, like Dear Esther or The Void.

Unless you consider pop-art an art, then games can be and are art.

Movies also can be art. But nowadays? Maybe The Artist, but hardly. Most of the industry created products are as far from art as possible.

It's not so much that the quality of video games as art is low quality, but rather that the potential of video gaming to create art is not used in the mainstream to its fullest extent. Most mainstream titles seem to want to imitate film and introduce an interactive element.

It's when games abandon traditional film concepts like linearity, (so many so-called "open world" games, like GTA, are still linear in the round) pre-defined outcomes (as opposed to emergent gameplay) and fixed dialogue that the idea of gaming as art comes into its own.

I consider Minecraft, for example, to be a piece of art that cannot be reflected in any other medium. It makes statements on human survival and the development of the built environment in a way that no linear narrative could, not least in the way it organically makes statements about resource exploitation.

Braid is another example, whereby this kind of perception of time simply cannot be reflected in a linear narrative.

Another is Bastion, which enables the player to influence the narrator which his actions.

Edit: keeveek also mentioned a couple of excellent ones up there.

Games require the beholder to experience the consequences in a given situation resulting from their own actions, and linear games just cannot achieve this. If I play Call of Duty, failing to keep to the established narrative simply ends the game or forces limits upon me. Even Skyrim, the much-acclaimed bastion of freedom, doesn't fare much better in this regard, because the storyline threads are always set, no matter which order you play them in.

That is a silly statement. Unless you seriously meant to invalidate every single track of music, every single published book or printed picture or heck every single photograph.

Perhaps only creations with an arbitrary quantity of je ne sais quoi qualify for this personal definition.

Oh, lots of great movies are being made today, it's just that it's often harder to notice them, since they don't get a lot of promotion.

I guess that really is my problem. I see games as entertainment and entertainment only. Maybe I should just don my dunce hat and sit in my corner. =P I doubt I'll ever change my view on the subject matter though. *shrug*

True. This is why I've said that anything what is made for "massive" viewer shouldn't be considered art. Maybe pop-art at most. (i mean when it's designed to "suit" the tastes of the masses)

I could say the term art is overused these days, to the point where word "art" means nothing special.

But eventually, we'll see what from things made today will still be considered art in next 50 years, for example.

Personal taste is normally the baseline most people work with. However personal taste is also highly dependant upon that persons own experiences and breadth (as well as depth) of artistic influence.
The latter point is very key and is where a lot of difference shows up.

Keeveek meet Walter Benjamin. Walter, this is Keeveek. You might want to discuss Adorno.

It doesn't mean "special." Where did you get an idea like that?

what does interactivity have to do with the question of whether something is art or not? there are artistic exhibitions that let you try things out yourself. there are interactive films, too.

and if you read into reader response theory, you could even argue that books are interactive, to an extent.

makes no sense, sorry. a lot of art is also entertainment. every song ever written or performed. most books, most films. even paintings and sculptures.

entertainment and art are not mutually exclusive. to the contrary: one rarely exists without the other.

why is Gears not art but Eufloria or Braid is? would you also not consider a Michael Bay film 'art'? because by definiton it is...

I wonder, if someone believes that some games are art and some aren't, can this person then also think that Game A can be a better game, but worse art then Game B, or even no art at all?

That sounds crazy to me. Surely, if games are art, then the better the game, the greater a work of art it is?

PS: Sorry for all the posts, but I like this discussion.

I feel you're kind of confusing the difference between the average class of "art" (ie what appeals to the masses) and the more elusive kind that tends to appeal to those with a more experienced and discerning eye.
The thing is just because the latter might appeal or be marketed toward a smaller audience does not, necessarily, make it better or worse than that which appeals to the mass market audience (I mean look at many of the great works - they attract tourists in the millions).
Again don't factor "who its made for" into the equation as to if something is or isn't art - who its made for (Esp in the terms of market size) might affect what it looks like; but does not change the property on the quality of art produced.
You'll have to define "better" and then also realise that the artistic quality of a game may not be linked directly to the gameplay of the title.

Man, read what I wrote I said what is DESIGNED to be massively copied, to be sold in the biggest number of copies possible.

not what is copied in the process.

If something is made already only to suit the masses' tastes, etc.

Ps. I strongly believe, when you call everything an art, then nothing's an art

Also, art should be free. Video games and movies are strongly dependant on the industry, on the people "who have the money" that suppreses the true artism. Game designers often can't show what they'd want to show, they are severely limited.