I suppose it depends on how you view "art".
If the purpose of art is to convey a message or intent some sort through creative (possibly interpretative) means, then it's impossible for games to not at least be capable* of behaving like art in its most important function.
This is what I haven't understood thus far...why I see so many arguments against games being art that rely on purely-arbitrary definitions that seem to dance around the actual point of art for the sake of exclusion.
Perhaps I'm guilty of the same thing here, but at I'm attempting to define it IMPLICITLY rather than by just pulling shit out of my ass and claiming it as fact.
I've seen people who assumed others could not have a legitimately fulfilling or polarizing experience through games because they see them as nothing more than an elaborate logical toy rather than a form of (potential*) expression solely because of the interactive elements.
Why? Because those elements could evoke unreliable responses from the audience; it can vary.
However, those elements are always confined by logical limits, and within those limits one can define and create their message as with the limits of any other medium.
(and this is ignoring the entire branch of "interpretative art" where the intent is to evoke personal inspiration. I find it kind of flaky since I can find inspiration from all manner of mundane things too. I dunno. Maybe I'm nuts.)
*[sub]I say "capable" and "potential" because I do not believe all works in their respective mediums are done for the sake of art, or have some sort of artistic intent. There's a difference between attempting to convey an artistic message/intent, failing at it horribly, and not having a message at all.[/sub]
If the purpose of art is to convey a message or intent some sort through creative (possibly interpretative) means, then it's impossible for games to not at least be capable* of behaving like art in its most important function.
This is what I haven't understood thus far...why I see so many arguments against games being art that rely on purely-arbitrary definitions that seem to dance around the actual point of art for the sake of exclusion.
Perhaps I'm guilty of the same thing here, but at I'm attempting to define it IMPLICITLY rather than by just pulling shit out of my ass and claiming it as fact.
I've seen people who assumed others could not have a legitimately fulfilling or polarizing experience through games because they see them as nothing more than an elaborate logical toy rather than a form of (potential*) expression solely because of the interactive elements.
Why? Because those elements could evoke unreliable responses from the audience; it can vary.
However, those elements are always confined by logical limits, and within those limits one can define and create their message as with the limits of any other medium.
(and this is ignoring the entire branch of "interpretative art" where the intent is to evoke personal inspiration. I find it kind of flaky since I can find inspiration from all manner of mundane things too. I dunno. Maybe I'm nuts.)
*[sub]I say "capable" and "potential" because I do not believe all works in their respective mediums are done for the sake of art, or have some sort of artistic intent. There's a difference between attempting to convey an artistic message/intent, failing at it horribly, and not having a message at all.[/sub]
