Are Videogames Art?

[Sky Render]

Reasonable said:

Sky Render said:
Art is subjective. There is no certainty implied in the definition, because honestly, what one persons sees as art another will not see as art at all. The most popular solution to this is that of pseudo-elitist groups and institutions defining given objects as art, but as with all pseudo-elitists, their efforts are accepted almost exclusively by their groups and not by the mainstream.

Now if you look at "art" in quantitative terms instead of the slippery slope of qualitative, then "art" is defined by that which has the most impact on the largest number of people. In video games, that would be the games which have sold the most. You have to remember, when using this definition, that there is absolutely NO consideration for standards of "quality", only for sheer numbers of copies in circulation. The quantitative definition of "art" is mainstream-accurate, while the myriad qualitative definitions are antimainstream-accurate.

 

Is 'mainstream-accurate the new populist? Call me elitist but populist doesn't automatically equal and attempt at Art. While Art is absolutely in the eye of the beholder it remains something you try for creatively.

I believe there is a lot of confusion between Art, Marketing and Entertainment - not that they're mutually exclusive, but sometimes a creative endevour is only to entertain, sometimes great art is employed just to sell something, while othertimes its only for the sake of Art, and sometimes its for both or all three.

BTW I have to confess I shudder (and not in a good way) at the thought of quantitive Art - by that yardstick a MacDonalds would be the finest meal known to man... something it clearly isn't. Quantitiave Art to me is simply a concession to the mass-media/you-tube content where accessibility and low thresholds for entry outweigh quality and capability.

 

 

 

 You fell into the most dangerous caveat of "quantitative art" there, trying to give it qualitative backing.  You must never do this.  "Quantitative art" must never be taken beyond its numeric side: it is a measure of scope, of popularity, of awareness, but not of any trait which indicates quality.  As I said, it is an accurate portrayal of how the mainstream perceives the subject, as anything authentically popular enough to register that way with the mainstream is a cultural phenomenon, and thus has a sort of "social art" status if you will.  It's not the object, in that case, which is art; it is the RESPONSE to the object by culture at large which is the art, the object simply being the catalyst for the event.  Some would argue that the only true art is that which does cause such a large-scale social reaction, as this means that it has had a true impact and thus can be appreciated without explanation or institutional background by nearly anybody.

 What I'm really encouraging is that you look beyond institutional definitions of art, ones which involve subjective instead of objective terms, and see that the concept of art can in fact extend to a more universal level.