What you said made no sense. You know what the limitation of Music is? Being music. Even if BS no sound was considered music. Can you paint something and call it music? No, because it has limitations. You need to think about it rationally. I am lost, how can you complain about the base of games, when Music, drawings have a base etc. Also, I just wanna point out how silly a blank canvas is. A blank canvas can be considered a drawing, a painting etc by your logic, but a painting contains paint etc. It's not art created by a person, just a thought while the canvas, which is created by machines isn't. This is just stealing work from a machine. If a canvas with nothing is art, everything in the world is art, since it has no limitations, making your argument completely invalid anyways. I won't reply no more, you won't accept the contradiction you've made and I won't be bothered to go further into it, it's sad ppl believe games are not art but a movie is. PS a movie with 1000 frames with no pixel adjustment is not a movie, it is a frozen image considered as 1 single frame repeated, concluding it being a picture, a movie basic definition "a story or event recorded by a camera as a set of 'moving images' and shown in a theater or on television; a motion picture." a MOTION PICTURE. If it has no motion it isn't a movie. Good day

Except for the fact that you totally missed the point.  The fact that those things exist does not change my point at all.  I was totally aware they existed, too.  HOWEVER, it seems like you're the one who fails to comprehend the fact that ART needs a MEDIUM.  VIDEO GAMES are a MEDIUM. ALL MEDIUMS have LIMITATIONS.  THEREFORE, calling a painting that is a BLANK CANVAS, or calling a song with no sound MUSIC doesn't actually make sense.  BY DEFINITION, a PAINTING needs PAINT, and by definition MUSIC needs actual SOUNDS to perceive.  DANCING also needs MOVEMENT to be a DANCE. The LACK of it pretty much means that the "ART" is overtaking these definitions for those examples as well. The very same can be done with video games.  How do you not see this?  

Also, like nomad has said, challenge and fun are relative.  Subjective.  And like I have been saying over and over again, but you keep ignoring is that CHALLENGE is being very loosely defined with you.  Anything that requires ANY interaction can be defined as a "challenge."  A game like Kirby's Epic Yarn is not CHALLENGING, but presents a CHALLENGE.  A game like a Visual Novel that mostly relies on making choices at key moments are not CHALLENGING, but it is a CHALLENGE in order to determine what choice you would like to go with.  These are games, and to say otherwise would mean you forfeit your entire argument that any of the things you mentioned are valid points.

And these forms of art are all new forms of art.  To assume it would never happen with video games (in fact, it may have already been done... perhaps similar to the 'press spacebar to win' game) is ridiculous.  If you look at art's history, you'll see that there will be very few examples of what you're talking about besides what's happened within our life times.  

I'm done with this thread guys, to be honest after my last post I didn't read your posts because prove how wrong you are would take me all day. If you want to believe a product itself is art do it.

Lol you shure showed them...

OT: I'll get to that soon. This questioned can't be talked about without lots of examples. It takes a bit to find them all.

Well, that's one of the things about art. It's not the creator that decides what is art or not - it's the interpretation.  While I personally like the Aesthetics for art evaluation, they have been thrown out for many years.  Now anything that inspires other to look, or think about something different or provoke though is consider art.

What about Poetry?  It isn’t looked at its – read.  Music?  Is music art?

So if you put a Space Shuttule in a museum - is it art?

@Bold: Yes.  This is one of the points I think some people don't understand.  If a creator of a piece of work says it's not "art," it doesn't suddenly become "not art."  Many times, we disregard the thoughts of the original creator when analyzing these things.  That's kind of what they teach in Literature classes.

@Italics:  Another point I was trying to make.  Some try to define art as something that must be observed.  Reading something is not observing.  Listening to something is not observing.  If we make these limitations on art, we have to take away a lot of things that have already become established as art forms.

I think we have a very similar definition of art.  I was going to point out John Cage's 4'33" music piece, but you already covered it so well with the black and white canvases I didn't think it was needed. 

I think many missed the revolution.  Yes, art can be an oil painting someone places in a museum.  The defination of art has expanced in the last 200 years.  During the Bauhaus movement this chair was considered art.  And when I first saw one as a little kid I was blown away by the design.  I loved how it looked like you were sitting on nothing.

But the adults thought I was wacky.  And they might have been right, but then again, so was I.  The design didn’t inspire them, they just saw it as something to sit on, but I saw it as a revolution.

With art there isn't always a wrong.  There can be right, and a different right.

Games are not art, they're games. They do have art in them though. Saying they are art is underrepresenting what videogames actually are.

Teachers have a very strong argument. Gamers dont really, especially teachers who have been doing this for years understand the difference between art and design. Videogames are complex designs and 99% of them aren't created to evoke emotions.

Probably true, but that doesn't dismiss that you're probably still talking about 1% of what most game art direction is focused on. There is a difference between art and design. A games primary function is to be played first. As long as the primary objective trumps the secondary in execution it cannot be art.