A fatal problem with the "games as art" conversation | Hacker News Reader

A fatal problem with the "games as art" conversation

gamasutra.com

12 pointsmakimaki7 comments

It just depends on the game itself. Auditorium is art, Whack-a-mole is not art. Same as for any type of media - The Godfather is art, a video teaching you how to play golf is not art.

By the way, if you haven't played Auditorium, you should!

http://playauditorium.com/

I've pretty much decided that after the 20th century, the only correct answer to the question, "Is this art?" is, "Does someone think it is?"

I'm guessing there is at least one person who espouses the theory "Everything is art." Then you would have to agree that everything is art. But then art loses its utility as terminology. I think you should at least accept that some things are not art. For example, I claim the number 13589999047 is not art, because I just typed it randomly and it has no meaning whatsoever.

Of course 13589999047 is art! It's a incono reactive absurdist challenge to those who would have us destroy the sanctity of art!

... Not quite sure what point exactly I was trying to make, but yes, I made several words up to make it with, and I stand by my point!

IMO, GTA IV is art the same way pulp novels and Dickens is art. Yes, they where created to make money and entertainment, but entertainment is art by definition. "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature." It's still a silly question.

PS: The question of good vs bad art is a separate issue.

To carry your movie analogy a bit further, video games can be categorized as commerical art as are movies. For games, like motion pictures, the ratio of art to commerce varies for each game. Some are designed to sell tickets/game tokens, while others attempt to tell us something about the human condition.

That was fun. Does that stop at spring 3:5? It seems like an odd point to end it.

Edit: NM, that was just a bug.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com