I registered on this site just to get my nose wet in this debate, because I feel this shit is getting way out of hand. Might continue writing, or might not, depends. Anyway.
So I have to say, that first of, I found this thread very amusing. I'm basically a student in arts, aesthetics, design and other kinds of visual pretty-names. I sent the link to this thread to my classmate, whom found this equally amusing as me. We both have a fairly large interest in arts, which goes beyond just doing some assignment in school to get our grades. We can enjoy it in our free time, and wouldn't mind going to a vernissage on a friday night. No, I don't consider us artists, or art critics, or something. Just that we at least know some shit about this stuff.
First of all, art and art form or two different things. That too many people seem to miss. The recent new where that the US government?s National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) admitted to considering games an art form. This does not mean that games are art, and especially not every game in existence. It means that games are considered as an art form, as said.
An art form is pretty much something that art can form from.
It must be noted that pretty much anything can be, and should be considered, an art form, seeing as you can create art from pretty much anything as long as it exists. Considering games as an art form is something that should've been done years ago, and most other countries already did accept it.
Again, this does not mean games are art.
But games can be, like anything else. This doesn't mean that any game in existence would necessarily be considered art.
Moving on, I've read what you've written about art. And what is art.
In short words, art is subjective.
Anything could be considered art, yes. That does not mean EVERYTHING could be considered art. Have you seen Ratatouille? It was stated in that movie that anyone could cook, but at the end, it is explained in other terms. The cooking can come from anyone.
This is exactly the same thing right here. The art can come from anywhere, but everything isn't art.
There is a reason that there is a word called art, and that it has a very high value and reputation. Because art isn't everything, absolutely not. I've seen some people think art is pretty much the same word as medium. That is highly untrue and incorrect.
As I stated before, some of you must've gotten things confused here.
Now, what exactly should be considered art? What is art?
Art isn't really something you give a clear definition. It means many things. One of the most accepted definitions is that it's a way of expressing yourself. This doesn't mean anything creative is art, by the way. Different stuff.
I've seen some people's motivations for what games are art, and there seems to be two very dominant descriptions that appear very often.
The first is that the game would have pretty specific or beautiful visuals. I just need to blow this one right of the air. Art does not mean pretty things. Have you ever visited a museum of modern arts? (If you don't know, modern art is basically everything that's been made after the camera rendered photorealism useless.) As I said, art is not about being pretty. People don't frame and hang up stuff on the premise that "This looks beautiful", but has no meaning whatsoever. You pretty much misunderstood the very basics of art there.
The second common motivation seem to be that the game in question portrays something specific, or tells a specific story. These are things called portrayal and storytelling. Yes, art can have that, but I don't think anyone would disagree that this is an element that pretty much any medium, art or not, has. It doesn't define something as art, per se.
So, should any game be considered art? And could it be?
I see absolutely no problem in a game being considered art, but for that game to be considered art, it would very likely not be any mainstream game, created for the sole purpose of earning money. But these are very much the only kind of games that are made in the business. Considering games like these, made to make people money, as art is at the level of considering hollywood blockbusters art movies. It is solely for entertainment, not for art. A game that could potentially be considered art would probably be found among the indie games.
In my eyes, and this is just my opinion, a game would only be considered art when one is put on display in a museum, and people play it to appreciate the actual art and not to be entertained.
You may agree or disagree, but I just want to but the importance of the actual exhibition in people's sight, as it has always had an important role in the history of art.
Bottom line;
I've seen films and listened to music at museums, which has been very far off from my usual film watching and music listening. I wouldn't mind playing an art game there, but I'm very sure that would be very different from my usual game playing.
Hope you found the read constructive. I haven't talked about any of you in specific, so don't feel like I'm calling you out. Don't mind my swearing, that's just something I do. Oh, and don't list your favorite games as art candidates because you like them. I fucking love Ristar and Final Fantasy, but I would never, ever call those art.
