You're absolutely right! Most people of all ages aren't interested in art. The few people that are, generally speaking, are:

1) Well educated

2) Adults

Do you see a problem here? I do! The last time they took a census of video gamers (the same ones where they find the "Average age" of gamers), they found that the average gamer was

1) Less educated than average

2) About 23

Look, if you're just going to insist that well educated adults aren't going to want artistic games (although they've shown some signs of it already, as The Sims and Civilization are certainly both artistic and both were played much more heavily by adults than the average game), but somehow 23 year old males are going to love games that are intellectually and emotionally sophisticated (even though the games you name that might be directed at them -- Okami and Ico, as best examples, have bombed) then I'm not sure this conversation can go on. Of course we're speaking in generalities here; there are no grand studies that give us a good concensus on such things, nor can we even come to a conclusion on what "art" is. This is an abstract discussion about psychological sophistication. All we can possibly have in this discussion are generalities, and yours is a generality that is so obviously false I don't know how to continue.

Just get back to me when you can reasonably claim that any serious artistic medium -- with sophisticated intellectual, thematic, or emotional content -- is thoroughly enjoyed by masses of young, less educated males, but is of no interest to well educated adults.

Okay, I've now said this three times, Ck. Three times. I'm just going to copy and paste my reply: 

Again, you can insist that it's not "art," but the essential component of art I'm most concerned with is intellect or emotional sophistication, and Brain Age is clearly and directly more intellectually provocative.

 umm... if we are talking about games that will twist your mind with it's puzzle or mind bending challenges, tomb raider, god of war, Command and Conquer, and Warcraft (not WoW) all have insanely difficult puzzles or tests that will take you a while figure out how to solve the problem in order to move on. I've played Brain Age and Big Brain Academy. I had a more fun and difficulty solving the puzzles in God of War and God of War 2 then playing the Brain games.

Firstly I'll correct you on the average age of gamers. According to the ESA "The average game player is 33 years old and has been playing games for 12 years." link  They also say that "In 2005, 25 percent of Americans over the age of 50 played video games, an increase from nine percent in 1999." Looks like there is quite a large number of gamers who would fall into the age group you suggest 'knows art'.

Now they don't give stats on the average intellegence of gamers, but I think you're trying to objectify the definition of art. You'll notice I've bolded a section of your paragraph. I'd suggest that you can never come to a concensus of what art is. Art is subjective. Just because it caters to different people, doesn't mean its any less artistic. You also suggest artwork is 'sophisticated intellectual, thematic, or emotional content'. Now while most art that people in your definition of art would probably agree with that, there are also works of art which don't fall into any of those. The one which came to mind while reading that is John Cage's 4:33. If you aren't familar with this peice, it is a song which consists of 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence. This is pretty much as minimalist as music gets (although one could argue the peice could be shorter :P) and really contains no sophistication at all. Yet musical scholars around the world consider this musical work art.

The problem with defining art to be high art, is that artworks that fall into this category a) have withstood the test of time and b) are classified by, as you've mentioned, older people. Firstly, video games have only been around for approximately 40 years, approximately half the lifespan of someone. They've been around even less in the mainstream. This leads me to my second point, that these older people didn't grow up playing games. They don't have the early life experience of video games. I'm sure if younger people these days didn't have video games, they would enjoy more of the things you consider art. It is just games offer something which almost all of these classic artworks don't. Interactivity. Theater and music sometime supply this (hence why people would prefer to go to the theater or see a concert rather than just watch it on tv) and it is a big drawcard.

This interactivity leads me to my next point. Why do people only focus on the 'interactivity' of games when trying to argue them as art. Last time I checked, games had a lot of the same elements as movies. Sound, visuals and storyline. If any of these three were extracted from a game, they would most likely be considered art (in regards to most of these, you'll probably want to consider an RPG to be the best example). So why now, when we place these into a game, does the resulting product not get classified as art? Using our rpg example, many of them have ochestral soundtracks, impressive visuals (if you want to argue that computer rendering isn't art, remember there are computer generated movies) and sophistcated and indepth story lines.

You definition of art is out of whack, just because something makes you think it's not art. I go back to the example of puzzles and crosswords. How is Brain Age art at all? Also, aesthetics are a huge part of art to ppl saying aesthetics in games aren't art.

This whole idea of Brain Age being appealing because it is art is bogus. Almost no one (except you) buying this game is sitting there and enjoying the 'art' in it. They are buying it to play a fun passtime game. It's a fun brain teaser not art and it's further from art than other games that only have some artistic elements as this doesn't have any artistic element in it whatsoever.

 I agree with a lot of what you just said and especially that point. When the video game generation gets older and video games are accepted media for art rather than seen as little fun games (see Brain Age) there will be an acceptance of the fact that games can be art and have artistic elements.

    Like I said, I'm sure most art connaisseurs didn't think movies were art when they first started either. 

You guys could argue with a brick wall. :D

BinA DS is one of those rare DS games that's all about the graphics but the gameplay is weak. :p I won't make any comparison to any other shooters. ;>

Just to throw you all off-topic and 'cause it'd be fun to watch:

Is graffiti art?

 I say graffiti could definitely be art.

Oh man...I go to sleep and come back and you guys are debating about what constitutes art and which games are mature =).

Hell, consider anything whatever you like, since everyone has the right to their own opinions. Nobody will agree on every point because everyone is different. Some people like the Marylin Mansons or 50 cents of the world, and think they are superior to classical composers. Some people think that anything not composed by Beethoven, Strauss or Bach is like nails being scratched down a chalkboard. Y'all need to stop being so critical of others personal tastes.

My point was that whether you like casual GAMES or not is up to you, but looking down on casual GAMERS, or actively insulting them or saying you hate them or saying that they are ruining gaming, or ruining the industry, or are to blame for less super high budget hardcore games being released, is false, stupid and incredibly shortsighted.

Casual gamers are responsible for this industry's survival and they always have. They are the investors that buy a few shares here and there and all of them combined make up the vast majority of all purchases. The hardcore gamers up until now have been able to control the direction the industry has gone in. They are the board of directors (well not really but thats the best analogy I could think of), each individually investing much more heavily than the casual gamer, but all together they only make up a very small portion of purchases.

What we are seeing now, is that companies are waking up and realizing that the people who pay their paychecks are in fact important. The hardcore gamers will always need to be placated, because they are the most vocal and critical group and have the power to change the casual gamer perceptions. BUT, at the same time these companies are realizing that they can't keep ignoring the people who make up the biggest portion of their investors. So they are developing games that are trying to target them directly.

You guys just have to chill and relax a little. There will always be hardcore games (or what you think of as hardcore). Game developers are gamers too, so there will always be titles that interest you. You need to wait out the current re-adjustments that are being made right now while companies try and support the casual gamers more fully. Hell, Nintendo has been hugely successful over the years in catering both to their hardcore gamers AND to their casual gamers. If they can do it why can't EA, Sony, M$, SE, etc...?

Some graffiti is definitly art.  I've seen buildings that had a graffiti feel that was done with full consent of the owner =).  The problem with graffiti is that it'll never become mainstream because 99% of the artists are doing it in the wrong places and annoying everyone around them.

At the same time, spray painting your street signature on every building you see is a nuisance to everyone and just causes bad feelings and eventually prosecution against the "artist".