Firstly, it seems obvious to me that any argument differentiating video games and film by labeling one 'art' and the other 'not art' misses the fact that a lot of games these days play like films. Heavy Rain etc etc. Some games these days have scripts that are far better written than a lot of films. Games and film crossover, if only in one direction (gaming doesnt exactly manifest itself in film, although, saying that, the style of some games has been used in film). So to call one art and the other not is a little shortsighted.
On the topic of defining art, its a tricky fucker. Many have tried and failed to do it. This is due not really to the subjective nature of artistic experience but to the nature of language. Use of the word 'art' covers many different phenomena. It is much like the word 'game'. There are some activites you would call a game which have no characteristics in common with other activities you would call games, but you still name them all 'games'. Much like art. Some art is merely aesthetic. Some expressive of emotion. etc etc. A multitude of artifacts and activities bear the label art, some having nothing in common with one another. A definition cannot encompass them all.
As for Yahtzee's definition, i recently wrote an essay criticizing a similar position. The problem is, its very easy to find counterexamples to definitions. Artists spend a lot of time purposefully creating these counterexamples.
A created work that provokes strong, personal emotions. Well, something that belonged to my dead grandfather might provoke strong emotions in me, but its not art.
Also, conceptual art like One and Three Chairs or Four Minutes and Thirty Three provokes ideas, or contemplation of the nature of art, or music. In most cases it likely doesnt provoke any strong emotions, but these surely must be accepted (and have been) as artworks.
On the topic of defining art, its a tricky fucker. Many have tried and failed to do it. This is due not really to the subjective nature of artistic experience but to the nature of language. Use of the word 'art' covers many different phenomena. It is much like the word 'game'. There are some activites you would call a game which have no characteristics in common with other activities you would call games, but you still name them all 'games'. Much like art. Some art is merely aesthetic. Some expressive of emotion. etc etc. A multitude of artifacts and activities bear the label art, some having nothing in common with one another. A definition cannot encompass them all.
As for Yahtzee's definition, i recently wrote an essay criticizing a similar position. The problem is, its very easy to find counterexamples to definitions. Artists spend a lot of time purposefully creating these counterexamples.
A created work that provokes strong, personal emotions. Well, something that belonged to my dead grandfather might provoke strong emotions in me, but its not art.
Also, conceptual art like One and Three Chairs or Four Minutes and Thirty Three provokes ideas, or contemplation of the nature of art, or music. In most cases it likely doesnt provoke any strong emotions, but these surely must be accepted (and have been) as artworks.
I think many agree that art is subjective, and it's meaning isn't really something that can be controlled.
