Gaming as an art form.

[Bodhesatva]

SamuelRSmith said:

Bodhesatva said:

Given the lengthy discussion about what "art" is in this thread, I suggest we all drop that avenue. It's a semantic dead end that will absolutely never be resolved.

Instead, I think we should all say this: video games are capable of being intelligent, provocative, edifying and sophisticated. I'm not sure that makes games art, but I hope it's really those qualities we're after, not the actual "art" label.

To a certain extent, I do agree with you.

But can you say, that in 50 years, when gaming has developed beyond what think is imaginable now. Possibly
when game designers are striving to be as far away from photorealism as possible. And anything that they
want to happen, can happen. That gaming still wouldn't be considered an art.

By then, gaming would have developed so much. There will be languages and techniques used to develop
stories and convey emotions, that other mediums wouldn't be able to use thanks to their lack of inteactvity.

Also, for gaming to be worldly recognised as an art form, it'd need recognition from the vast majority. It means
that the game industry will need to grow, as well as develop, before it can be considered an art form.

 But this is precisely the sort of discussion I'm trying to avoid: how can we have reasonable, conclusive discussions about how this medium will look in 50 years? Good lord, we have big fights over what it will look like in five. What will the PS4 do? Will the Wii2 have PS3 level graphics? No one can decide. 50 years in the future is so open to possibility that it's really impossible to do much more than dream. 

As a counterpoint, I could absolutely imagine video games evolving as a sport and an entertainment medium, and never as an art form. It's already being used as a sport, and I don't think we have any "sport" that is also "art" simultaneously. Again, not saying that will necessarily be the case -- just pointing out that anything is really possible that far down the line.