There are a few, mostly indie, games that consider pure art. There are more that I consider artistic. Most games are like most movies. Fun, entertaining, even touching, but not art. They take artists to make and are full of art assets, but puting it all together doesn't not automaticly make games art no more than it automaticly makes movies art.

However, because games can be art I would argue that they should be given the same respect that film, literature, musics, etc. are afforded. Not every painting is art, but we consider the concept of painting to be art.

The problem is that people think the definition of art is black and white. It's all art or it all isn't art. That's a falacy. What I consider fine art someone else considered pop art. Art can be anything, but not just anything is art.

Superb post. I agree 100%.

I'm glad you both agree however you're only partly correct (which is a nice way to say you are wrong). You make the point that some people may consider something art and some would not. If you went to some secluded village would you mock there drawings on there pots because they lack depth perception or would you consider it art. Fortunately or unfortunately your opinion does get to define what art is. By definition, which is already posted, art is an expession. There can be no debate on that. However, you are entitled to your opinion as to whether or not you like the art. Art is black and white. It's all art. Some of it may be offensive, crude, and in poor taste for me but it does change the Fact that it was an expression of its creator. (Therefore art). Now you may only like high-brow art so to speak or cartoons but it's an expression. I can't stand some movies and video games (pirates, dead mans chest... I'm looking at you), but for me to go as far as remove it from the consideration of art is disrespectful to its participants, creators and the medium. You may argue the quality of art ad nausea , and in most cases I'm sure we would agree, but definition is black and white. 

...

I can't agree with that. Just expressing something doesn't make it qualify as art.

You don't have to agree with it, look up the definition, that is what it is.

And who decides what 'the' definition is? Could it be wrong?

Whether games are art is subjective based on what you think art is. It's useful to have a common definition of, say, a table, but people's likes and dislikes will not match up no matter how much you argue.

let me give you another scenario. You walk by someone's pathetic attempt at painting a sunset. You look at it and ever part of you is annoyed that this is considered anything. Then another person walks by the same painting and begins to get misty eyed. "This brings me back to my childhood" the person says with a smile. Now you have a dilemma , you have dismissed something as art that clearly is art to someone else. So either that person is wrong for feeling something and you let them know that, Or you realize that the painting is art that you don't like. 

Or, you realise that they think it's art and you don't think it is and that isn't contradictory and it we should instead focus on what art means: how can we make beautiful things, is it worth doing so, should art be protected speech under a First Amendment like law, and so on.

Real life example: I went to a south Florida museum of modern art. One exhibit was literally just steel wool. I could not believe what a piece of crap it was. Literal steel wool on a podium. While I hate it and mock it. That piece was made, bought, donated, accepted and displayed. So someone enjoyed it. 

The viewing of art is subjective but not it's definition. 

You are claiming the definition is objective? If that was so, arguing against it would be irrational. And yet, any definition you could present has obvious weaknesses. And there isn't one clear choice.

Now, the interesting part. You went to a museum of art? Do things have to be in a museum to be art?

Who decides the definition? Lets not start down the path of questioning established definitions because then the conversation might get too philosophical. 

"established" by WHOM? A good answer is, by a rough and undirected agreement of those using the term. And not by a dictionary, is the important part.

I think this is a good point. I looked up the definition in different places and noticed that they were all different. Wiki even commented that the definition of art has been debated for centuries. So I guess disagreements on this stem from a different starting point of "defintion of art".

let me give you another scenario. .... 

Or, you realise that they think it's art and you don't think it is and that isn't contradictory and it we should instead focus on what art means: how can we make beautiful things, is it worth doing so, should art be protected speech under a First Amendment like law, and so on.

the two peopl in question have contradictory ideas. So that kinda is contradictory. But I'd rather move past this scernario. 

Real life example: I went to a south Florida museum of modern art. One exhibit was literally just steel wool. I could not believe what a piece of crap it was. Literal steel wool on a podium. While I hate it and mock it. That piece was made, bought, donated, accepted and displayed. So someone enjoyed it. 

The viewing of art is subjective but not it's definition. 

You are claiming the definition is objective? If that was so, arguing against it would be irrational. And yet, any definition you could present has obvious weaknesses. And there isn't one clear choice.

My whole arguement is based on Art as an expression of its creator. Given that defintion, I believe my arguements are spot it. Now if we change the defintion then yes, Not everything qualifies as Art. I guess the first post on this thread should have been "define art." 

Now, the interesting part. You went to a museum of art? Yes Do things have to be in a museum to be art? Not at all Games are in art museums.  I believe games are art.