[Omega]

Haha. Love the story. People have thought me mean or disrespectful of others for refusing to "agree to disagree" so frequently. But I was never a huge fan of the vast subjectivity some people seem to want in the world. I believe in the existence of truth, and therefore falseness. Glad at least someone else is on the same page.

This has gone quite off topic. I'm bad for taking off on the tangent.

[whenitbegan]

some games are definitely art. flower is art by most definitions. everything's art to someone

[TheySayRococo]

I think art is related to the level of thought that the creator puts in to it. You can judge whether a work is art based on how much though the artist -- in this case, the video game designer -- puts in to the work, compared to other artists of similar ambitions.

Based on this definition, I would say that some games are art. While some are designed to be immersive and captivate players with rich, lush worlds that send them on an emotional trip, it's clear that others are simply designed to stuff the corporate coffers. I believe that there are also games that could be considered "bad art," where the designers sought to create great, emotion-inducing experiences, but for whatever reason ended up with junk.

In more practical terms, this would mean that games like Mirror's Edge and World of Goo are art, as clearly a lot of original thought has been put in to them, while games that simply rehash old ideas or grasp at the tail-feathers of other, more successful games are not. Think: any generic first-person shooter or button-masher. Games like Spore would be bad art -- the designer had an ambitious plan and put a lot of work in to accomplish it, but failed to reach the desired level in the end.

[Amandine]

The best definition of art that I have ever heard is that whatever the item or concept is, it must not serve any specific purpose.

"Art for art's sake"

[Omega]

Originally Posted by Amandine

The best definition of art that I have ever heard is that whatever the item or concept is, it must not serve any specific purpose.

"Art for art's sake"

I have heard something similar. I've been told that something is only art if it can be interpreted differently by different people. It's interesting to think of viewing art as being so intimate and personal.

[planckman]

This question is not as much about games as it is about one's personal definition of art. My general definition is "Anything perceived to represent an element of humanity". This general definition allows for all things we could call art such as a way of speaking (artfully), a movement(she walked as art in motion),or actual produced work such as sculpture. Video games by nature include audio and videio stimuli that qualify as art just as movies or other animation.