Games are art, inherently. Any attempt to sift them out into higher or lower spheres falls into the same level of pretentiousness that "Art Rock" or anything that tries to sell itself as "Avant Garde," is.

Things have the merit they have, and they can inherently be a creative expression, which is art, or not.

Games being art is possibly the most ridiculous notion I have ever come across.
Actually, art in itself is the most ridiculous notion I have ever come across. If you can define it (in a way which does not allow a convincing argument for my spit being art), then hats off to you.
How the heck can you argue whether or not games are art if you don't have some sort of stringent definition for art itself?

My take is that society at large is what ultimately decides what art is, and it has to stand to test of time to be true art IMO. I see it as a commentary of society that acts as both a reflection of society and helps to shape it. But I agree, no individual can necessarilly claim something to be art as if it's fact just because they think so, the same way somebody claiming a game to be quality, or crap, doesn't make it a fact.

The problem with the entire discussion about art is that art is so individual. I agree that stating that something is art as a fact is pretentious, but I think stating the opposite is equally pretentious. My personal definition of art is that it is a piece of work that moves you emotionally. We have "art" because we want a term for the things that wow us, and while art itself may be considered pretentious to like, because of people who think they know better than so many others, we really ought to appreciate art more.

I don't get why some people are so against the idea that games are art, because games are really no different in that aspect from movies or books. Yes, games must entertain because that's what they do, but it's not wrong of someone to wish for a game to be more artistic, that's their right after all. If they are reviewing games and doesn't find it artistic enough to their liking, then they can rightfully mark the game down for it. Reviews are just personal opinions, nothing more, nothing less, and if the game isn't to the reviewer's liking for one reason or another, then the score should reflect that, so long as the review itself reflects it too. The developers can then take the critizism on board or leave it be.

I can understand fearing that artful games are too focused on being art rather than being entertaining, but a game that isn't entertaining will be shot down by reviewers and consumers, regardless of how artful it is. The reason I consider Flower art is because it's a great experience all around for me, and while it's not "fun" per se, it's still entertaining, while evoking deep emotional responses in me. I don't think it's wrong to want other games to reach for the same standard (not that every game should, but I would like for more games to do it still).

As for the people who think it's wrong to want games to be artistic... why? I don't have any illusions about gaming, I don't need to defend my hobby from the nay-sayers of the world and I certainly don't need it validated by some random critics who disagree with me. What I want is for people to acknowledge that games can be more than "just" entertainment and that they can be more than "just" fun. I want to create games that are artful, and it's hard to talk about those games if they are not acknowledged as proper ways of creating emotional experiences.

Not sure if this an actual response to the OP, but my view is:

1 - Art isn't an accident and first and foremost the question is whether the game, film, book, picture, sculpture, etc. was even intended to be art. Let's be blunt, a whole lot isn't. A lot of material is made simply for entertainment/commerce, be it a Vase to stick in your room from Ikea or a videogame like Super Mario Galaxy.

2 - A lot of people make the annoyingly common mistake of arguing about the whole topic in absolutes - games are Art or no they aren't, or the main goal of films is to entertain. Make a statement like that and you're probably already arguing from a false position. As per 1) it's important to separate the stuff aiming to be art from the stuff that isn't and understand their is a whole range of options

3 - With the rise in impact of games in terms of sales/cultural awareness there's been a perhaps understandable peak in the whole debate in the first place, and to be blunt due to the nature of games a lot of the arguments have been from people with completely uninformed opinions (I'll be blunt here, not all opinions carry the same weight for me based on a whole heap of stuff)

4 - Art that will stand the test of time is, as Rol notes, often nigh impossible to identify initially. Obviously some clear contenders exist, even in their own lifetime, but we'll never know for sure how enduring some art will be (mainly because we'll be pushing up daisies by the time it's classified as enduring art).

5 - Games right now are reactionary and in copying mode for the most part when it comes to many aspects of their content - be it Red Dead Redemption which clearly wouldn't even exist if there wasn't a whole heap of films the developers lovingly (and to be fair I do mean that positively) ripped off or something like copying and advancing a gameplay mechanic. I've yet to play any game that could even remotely claim to have some form of artistic merit without being aware of a heap of superior artistic material in multiple other formats. This isn't a good basis for good art.


So the bottom line for me is clear but perhaps not neat enough for the black/white internet - of course games can be art, probably very few (perhaps none) so far have been, most games are certainly today (and in the past) not created as art but as pure entertainment, and only if we're lucky will we see games that show some indication of being art or even art that has staying power and relevance.

So I do wish the whole topic got a whole lot less coverage, because games claim to being art is weak, that's obvious to anyone who appreciates art across different mediums, and pretty much every game is only made to entertain anyway and has no aspiration to being art in the first place.

Enjoy games for what they are is my view, and don't go trying to talk them up to be what they're not - GTAIV dialogue as good as the Godfather for example - and let's wait until we see some real contenders for art before we even make a big issue about it.

TBH I agree with Ebert's comment about why even argue games as art at this point in time?

People try to put art up on a big pedestal when it's really very simple, primal, and ubiquitous. Most art is primarily a form of entertainment; that's why Shakespeare wrote plays and why musicians perform concerts. The existence of highly sophisticated art doesn't invalidate more simplistic works of their artistic value, they still have their own aesthetic and they still embody certain ideas.

The expression of the game comes from the rules of play. You dismiss playing cards as having no artistic merit, but there are over a thousand different rule sets from idle solitaire games to raunchy party games, from slow and strategic to reflex-based, from chance to skill. The same deck of cards interpreted a thousand different ways using nothing more than rules. In much the same way that 12 notes can be structured in different patterns to evoke different emotions, the experience that you get from playing with 52 cards depends on how the game is structured.

Ironically, the people who put art up on a grand pedestal are actually diminishing its importance. Art is everywhere. It's not just confined to galleries and museums.

all of that stuff you mentioned could be art. It's in the eye of the beholder. I see it as art as well as movies,comic books and many other things. All of this stuff goes hand in hand,in my opinion.

The truly interesting thing about this is that so many people (HD-only gamers especially) tend to equate art with graphics, and (hence) imply that Wii Sports (for example) cannot be art.

This only proves how little actual art these people actually know. The aforementioned game uses minimalist visuals to great effect. Just try telling artists like Donald Judd and Steve Reich that minimalism doesn't work. Hell rock/pop music is inherently minimalist, yet you see lots of people on here who love Lady Gaga but hate Wii Sports.

IF you believe that games can be art, then you must accept that art comes in many forms. It isn't always meant to be beautiful or powerful, simple or complex and there are certainly different conceptions of it.

Oh well, this is wildly off topic.