If anything, this only reinforces the fact there isn't any universal truth as to what art is. It's all about opinions, wich are fruit of a certain culture in a specific time.

As for games, I'd argue that while most have very strong artistic elements, especially visual and acustic, that isn't enough to make them art. Nor I believe that's what they were ever intended to be, a game doesn't really have the freedom of expression that an art piece can afford. It needs to follow too many practical rules, it needs to be functional before being "artistic".

As an example, could anyone tell with a straight face that playing Arkham Asylum is an artistic experience? I know I couldn't. Do I consider the Batman (or Ivy, or Joker) model as an oustanding piece of art? Yes, absolutely. When playing, do I have the time to stop and admire or even notice the beautiful models, textures and music? Generally no, because I'm more invested in playing the game as I'm supposed to in order to beat it.

Far as I know many of the theories cross cultures, because they are more based on how humans perceive their environment which is a trait based upon both nature and nurture (thus the nature aspects remain fairly universal nomatter where you grow up). Factors on upbringing and influence can change, but as far as I know its a hard area to study in the modern world because western influences and art have imposed themselves very heavily upon most cultures to the point where western direction is now the "nurtured" direction.
A good example being that its taught that art is "read/viewed" left to right - even in modern cultures where they might read in different directions.



Arkham Asylum might well be a more functional and less visually artistic work. Again the argument is that games are art - not that all games are great art. The vast majority won't be heavily artistic or will only manage to get to a base average level - its the very few that take things into the more extreme direction

Irritatingly vague, isn't it?

OK, maybe a few additional thoughts on the subject.

I'm actually coming from the "wrong" way of the discussion, I've been playing games for over 20 years, and for most of the time, I've considered the medium a genuine art form. I guess most people who change their minds are doing it the other way around. On the other hand, considering games to be art seems to be the more logical, immidiate conclusion. I mean, if a bunch of often extremely talented people, many of them accepted artists like musicians, writers or, well, artists, meaning the folks who come up with character designs and such, plus all the programmers and various designers, work together to create something unique, surely that has to be art?

All I can say is that to me personally, it doesn't feel that way. One way I can desribe this feeling is that I don't really think that someone's taste in games says something fundamental about said person. My favourite game is Baldur's Gate. I like it a lot, but if I meet someone else who thinks the same way, that merely provides a conversational topic, it doesn't make me interested in the person in question. Bit like sports, I guess. If someone loves football, that's great, we can talk about that and all, but it doesn't really tell me anything. Neither does liking Ice Hockey, which I don't enjoy at all.

So yeah, I think a comprehensive list of the movies one likes and dislikes says something deeper about human beings. Even more so, of course, actually discussing why exactly one likes or dislikes them. Don't think it works the same way for games. Personally, I am deeply interested in anyone who calls The Passion of Joan of Arc one of his favourite films.

So what do I reply to someone like Fenixp, who says that Planescape: Torment genuinely changed his view of the world? Well, nothing really, it's obviously true for him, replying "No, you're wrong!" would be pretty insulting, how could he be wrong? I guess the best I can do is say, while I enjoyed Torment as a game, I think it could have been a more powerful work in movie form, when the creators wouldn't have to worry so much about the rules and workings of an interactive medium. And that's admittedly not much.

Are computer games 'art'?

- There's no unambiguous definition of 'art'.

- There's no unambiguous definition of 'game'.

That said, if a movie can be art, I don't see why a video game can't be art.

An easy answer would be to point to Okami, Ico, etc. A more complete would be to look at it more carefully:

- game music composition is 'art';
- sprite and background drawing / painting is 'art';
- animation is 'art';
- story writing is 'art';
- programming is more a 'craft' that a technical skill.

There is no proven recipe to make a successful game. A lot of games fails, even with experienced developers. There is a lot of bad games, yes, but there is a lot of bad 'art' too. But even with the more industrious studio, you find thoughts-provoking true creative gems. It's not because it can be replicated that it can't be original pieces: building a new game is more akin to producing a movie that to design a new car.

An easy answer would to point to Okami, Ico, etc. The Shadow of the Beast would qualify, too...

Most adventure games are first a story, then a puzzle. I didn't care for the mediocre puzzles of the Longest Journey, or the simple ones of Syberia, but theses are an amazing experience with a good story, and if a good fiction can be art, they can't be denied to be art pieces too.

Most RPG are story driven, along with a wonderful description of an fictional world. Japanese ones are sometimes more story that game, and would be great movie by themselves. The Final Fantasy movie was bad because it lost all epic aspects of Final Fantasy. Final Fantasy games are operas, with a musical theme for each character, numerous surprises, and a truly epic plot:

- With Final Fantasy 4, the hero takes the path from evil to good, there is treachery from is closest friend, and who can't remember Cid, or the Big Whale unveiling.

- "I'm not a thief, I'm a treasure hunter!" Between memorable quotes, the Ceres / Celes storyline (and Tina / Terra's one, to a lesser degree - hey, nearly each character Gau, Shadow, etc. has a good story), can we really says "It's just a game." and claims it's any lesser that the cinema can produce these days as movies?

- Just stop for a while and look around in any Elder Scrolls.

Even shooter and plate-former are arguably art: the gothic Castevania with his powerful characters and haunting soundtracks stands better that the Van Helsing movie, and just look at bullet hell classics like Touhou - the screen are hypnotizing.

Not convinced? Ok, play Galatea by Emily Short,

It's a textual text adventure / interactive fiction for the Z-machine - there are various interpreters, but but can be played online too, here:
http://nickm.com/if/emshort/galatea.html

Text adventures have one of the most potent prose of any media, if only because words are the world they describe. In this case, Emily Short goes beyond what seems possible with this medium, with a character taking life, reacting, evolving with the player interaction.

I don't really know WHAT is it. A game? An automaton? Even it/she questions its/her nature. What I do know it's I'm still shaken of the first time I played it.

'Video games' are a new medium, even a new class of mediums. It can be art, or not, but not less or more that any other mediums.

Seriously, just think of Art as being physically manifested thought. It is as simple as that.

I don't believe this to be true, I think you can find out a lot about a person by which games he prefers. But I digress, that's not really what I wanted to say. Because what can really, really tell you a lot about a person is how he plays a game, and there's the important bit. Movies, paintings, statues - all that is static. People can interpret them, but they can't change them. As I understand what you're saying, you think that interactivity takes away ability to relay message from the hands of the artist, but I believe that's where your reasoning is flawed. Stories in games and even games themselves can be made to convey a message, it's just a much, much harder task to do so for the artist (artists,) and, in the end, actually tells you much more about a person that what movies he enjoys. What choices he makes when nobody else is looking, which route he takes. That reflects upon his personality much more.

And how about discussing why he did this and that in a situation that would never emerge in his everyday life? You nearly make it sound like art is just a way of social interaction.

I haven't actively searched for them, but I've seen quite a few, and some crazy ones for music as well. None of the ones I've seen are what I would describe as well defined (in lack of a better word). What I mean by that is that the definitions rely on subjective consideration when it comes to deciding what they cover and what they do not.

As I see it, Tatarkiewicz's disjunctive definition covers all reproductions of things, constructions of forms, and expressions of experiences because it could be argued that everything perceivable or imaginable could evoke all kinds of emotions (like these letters here could shock someone :p ). I don't mind if it's supposed to be taken like that, because then it's as well defined as things like "construction of forms" can be, but if that capability to evoke emotion is supposed to be a limiting factor, I've no idea how to apply it so that everyone will agree.

Mostly what I'm getting at is that with these definitions, it's often quite hard to convincingly prove that you're right.

My approach wouldn't work either, since it's not so easy to define what "a picture of a cat" means (how much cat must there be for it to be a picture of a cat etc.). Now that I think about it, even if there was a proper definition container for art, the "concept of art" would probably leak all over the carpet anyway. I feel it's better for the nature of art to evade definition, because then it can remain mysterious and sparkly, and people can debate about it if they're bored or in need of their debate fix.

Anyway, in my world, games are art and everyone poops butterflies.

Just a sidenote, you have no clue what his definition would be if he were BORN in 1980. Culture changes.

I think they can change them in their minds, their meaning, their form, everything. Games let you do more things, but somewhat paradoxical limit your imagination exactly because of that.

Yup, exactly. I believe the problem with games and their interactivity is that there are simply too many rules that have to be established and understood and followed, and that this means that the artistic vision of the creator, if there is any to begin with, gets crippled by having to be pressed into this framework of rules.

Really, it's just great that I can make myself clear, I'm not really trying to convince anyone. That's the thing with internet discussions, I feel, people complain that after lots and lots of posts, no one changes their minds, but there's actually a lot of worth in simply learning to understand the reasons behind different opinions, and even in having to formulate one's own.

But can't you have the same discussion after watching a movie? "What would you have done in this situation?" Personally, I think that all art is the act of someone saying something about something, and that the interactivity of games is a hinderance, not an aid, in this regard. Of course, that's an allegation that I can't really substantiate, and should I ever have the same reaction to a video game that you had to Torment, it'll most likely change my mind immediately.

That's moot when you realize that (post)modern art finds DELIGHT in transcending or putting into question the very definitions. Sometimes the only POINT of it was to find a new form that didn't fit classification, if only to make the... more bright viewers ask "Is this STILL art ? If it is - what IS art ? If it isn't... what IS ?". The less bright merely nod their heads, emperor's-new-clothes style.

To say anything even remotly entertaining - have you heard of "glitch art" ?

I know. That's probably the most helpless definition of them all - he took all the 6 (IIRC) previous ones and mashed them together. Bam - instant definition ;P.

I'd probably be among the ones nodding their heads, since if there is a normal definition for art and something doesn't fit the definition, then it's not art, and if there is no definition, then it's either subjective to the extent that I would simply accept it like an opinion, or something so beyond my reasoning capabilities that I'd use the "got tangled up in your reasoning - pick the left one" algorithm. If the definition is dynamic and allows on the spot adjustments, it'll again become subjective to an extent. If it has a definition with "superhuman" reasoning that defines it exactly but doesn't define it exactly, I'll accept it as something that exists on a plane incomprehensible to humans, just like an omnipotent god that can create a rock the god itself can't lift and then lift it. In the case of that superhuman definition, I'd just nod and hope no one notices me.

I hadn't heard of "glitch art". Seems like something that might cause headaches. Since we're already talking about definitions and whatnot, I feel like calling that lazy (and possibly parodic) art.

I've tried and failed to briefly respond to this. In a nutshell: we'd have to ask where the definitions of words come from and what dictates how they're used. Contrary to what one might think, this is likely quite a complicated issue.

Be glad I couldn't find the link to altimeter music. That stuff's NASTY.
They, basically, take the readout of some satellite that measures its distance from ground and - after modifying the numbers to be somewhere within audible spectrum - they change them into sound waves. It sounds just as amazing as you think.

Parodic, huh ;) ? Unless we're already past this (I don't think so), our contemporary art is mostly postmodern... which entails self-reference, parody, deconstruction, etc. After all - why is it that everyone and their grandma is making games that parody other games / genres -_-?

I was just playing Journey last night. I went in blind, I had absolutely no idea what to expect. While I was running across a large desert another character exactly the same as mine appeared, and after a bit I realized it was another person playing through the game with me. We communicated with the simplistic game mechanics as best we could to finish the tasks before us. Soon we ended up in the scarier bit of the game, not longer than an hour in. And he quit, his character sat down and slowly disappeared into nothing.

At this point the game had managed to communicate to me the experience of becoming attached to a friend that I had communicated and traveled with, and it was a bit disconcerting how disappointed I was when the other player's avatar disappeared with the animation it did. The interactivity only served to drive this point home, leaving me imagining what the other player would have been doing with me as I continued on through the game alone.

Basically, I'm saying you're wrong. Your point about interactivity being a hindrance is baseless unless you care to explain it, of course you acknowledge this as well. Why even say it? Just a gut feeling?

EDIT: I just remembered your point on game mechanics being too complex. No game has to be complex. There's a ton of art games that prove that point, as well as play with the concept of a mechanic ultimately driving an artist's point home itself, through the player coming to understand it.

Games are a different form of art. They are different from paintings, movies, books, or music because they add the element of interactivity. Games combine elements of visual artistry, cinematography, storytelling, and music that we interact with through game mechanics for unique experiences not capable of being produced separately in those other art forms.