Granted I haven't read all the posts...but I'm not seeing this being brought up, the fact that there are plenty of "art games" already in existence and are being displayed and played in galleries and on the web all the time.
So in regards to this article, it seems that this is less about if games are art but more about the fact that because "video games" are already being assumed to follow certain processes (which have been mentioned numerous times in previous comments...ie the film comparison) and distribution paths that this issue arises.
Museums and galleries are in a sense "safe houses" where creations are freed of censorship, for the most part,(and in a sense the internet falls under this category...which is where many art/conceptual video games exist) but as soon as you mass distribute anything to the public you lose those protections.
I'm glad that people are mentioning the intention behind creation factor too. In regards to the use of violence or sexuality, in my mind it really comes down to the intentions behind their use...is it for creative expression or to make a sale? Which is, and has been a major argument within the art world. It's kind of like comparing Thomas Kinkade with Performance Artists for example. One is largely created for an audience with profit in mind (mass produced/marketed video games) and one is for experience/expression (free video games/interactive installations motivated by creative expression that in many cases can never be sold)
Both are considered forms of art but are regarded differently based on the intention behind their conception.
Slashdot Mirror
Nicely put. :)
Granted I haven't read all the posts...but I'm not seeing this being brought up, the fact that there are plenty of "art games" already in existence and are being displayed and played in galleries and on the web all the time. So in regards to this article, it seems that this is less about if games are art but more about the fact that because "video games" are already being assumed to follow certain processes (which have been mentioned numerous times in previous comments...ie the film comparison) and distribution paths that this issue arises. Museums and galleries are in a sense "safe houses" where creations are freed of censorship, for the most part,(and in a sense the internet falls under this category...which is where many art/conceptual video games exist) but as soon as you mass distribute anything to the public you lose those protections. I'm glad that people are mentioning the intention behind creation factor too. In regards to the use of violence or sexuality, in my mind it really comes down to the intentions behind their use...is it for creative expression or to make a sale? Which is, and has been a major argument within the art world. It's kind of like comparing Thomas Kinkade with Performance Artists for example. One is largely created for an audience with profit in mind (mass produced/marketed video games) and one is for experience/expression (free video games/interactive installations motivated by creative expression that in many cases can never be sold) Both are considered forms of art but are regarded differently based on the intention behind their conception.