I think his definition of art is pretty weird. So, it's only art if only 1% of the people seeing it can appreciate it? I bet about 99% of the people seeing the Mona Lisa can appreciate it. Does that mean that it isn't a piece of art?Harvest said:kojima btw. does not regard games as art:
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2098≈Itemid=2
Just because lots of people appreciate something doesn't mean it's not art.
Games are made to be sold, which means there are going to be quite a few compromises in it compared to the original vision the developer team had in order to appeal to more people. But the same could be said about lots of pieces of art. Art doesn't mean there weren't any tradeoffs made. I bet Mozart, Bach, Beethoven and the likes made quite a few compromises in their work in order to appeal to their respective employers more. Artists have to eat, too. An artist not ready to make any compromises is a pretty hungry one. I wouldn't be able to define what art is, but I'm pretty sure that Kojima's criteria why games aren't art (at least those given in that excerpt) are pretty much crap, at least for me.