Should Videogames be Accepted as Art?

yes.

Should they? It depends. Can they? Yes.

I think in this case you'd have to define "work of art" in terms of cinema (ie moving pictures) or abstract (logic/puzzle games)

Cinematic? Games like Call of Duty and BioShock certainly have a grand cinematic feel.

Abstract art? Portal is an Escher-like gem, and games Katamari Daimasu fits the bill.

Oddly engaging pop-art - anyone played Loco Roco?

But for all of that, there are plenty of cheesy anime-inspired eye candy that is heavy on style and lacking in substance. Too much emphasis on killing, gore, violence, and not enough on plot. Maybe I'm biased as a writer. I've been trashing a lot of movies of rthis very reason (Transformers, anyone?).

A game looking cool is not enough (for me) to qualify it as a work of art. It has to engage me mentally, emotionally, on some deeper level. Few games are able to do that.

As monkeywright pointed out, this is obviously going to depend on your definition of art. If you define art in the fine arts sense, essentially as "something you can get a fine arts degree in", obviously video games are not. If you define art as Scott McCloud does in the fascinating comic book about comics, "Understanding Comics" art is anything done not in the name of survival or reproduction, then obviously they are. Personally, I lean more towards the latter definition.

Consequently, I have to disagree with the "it depends" idea. I argue that all video games are art. I suggest that eye candy games, and those with nothing but, or too much emphasis on, killing, gore and violence are the equivalent to motel art and classical landscapes. They have nothing to say, they have no point or purpose, and they exist (almost?) entirely for the sake of mass consumption, but I wouldn't declare them non-art over it. The target market, or what constitutes "the masses," is simply different.

I think Doom 3 provides a superb parallel to draw to this effect.  You would probably be hard pressed to find someone that would claim that impressionistic painting isn't, or wasn't, art. However, impressionism had nothing to say, it was merely a representation of reality only done a different way. It was an exploration of light, and how it (as additive color) can be expressed through paint (subtractive color) on canvas.  Exactly like impressionism, Doom 3 has no real plot, purpose or idea, but it was an exploration of light. Instead of differences in forms of color under the limitations of paint as a medium, it was looking at ray tracing, bump mapping and vectors under the limitations of processing in real time with mathematically based machines as a medium. Plus, it was completely new (that level of light processing, I mean). I know when I saw the first screenshots, I was totally blown away, and I didn't really even believe there was a single computer that any reasonable person would have that could play it.  I say art. (And I'll point out that with this analog, I'm essentially arguing that the graphics engine itself was a distinct artistic work. Sub question: does that make the code the medium and the screen the canvas? In hypothetical land, if the game were compiled but never run, would it still count?)

Another way I think you could explore this that would be interesting, would be to look at what makes video games different from other art forms, assuming they are.  Artists make concept art sketching. Texture artists are just painters using bitmaps instead of paint (complete with landscapes!). Modelers are just sculpters with vertexes and wireframes instead of marble or bronze. Games are scored by composers and musicians. In that sense, the only thing that separates video games from any other amalgamated art project is the interactivity, and I think that's where the new art-form really lives. Non-interactive art is passive. The viewer/listener/whatever inherently determines their level of emotional and intellectual involvement. Thus, I would argue that games are exploring that level of involvement as a new art form itself. We had the (largely unpopular) interactive movie genre, that was mostly just clicking a few decisions or solving a puzzle to advance the story and see the next plot clip. We have FPSes, character RPGs like the Elder Scrolls games, and, to some extent, GTA, where the openendedness and/or camera perspective pretty much dictate that your involvement is as absolute as it's going to get without virtual reality. There are games that can be played either way, such as {War,Star}craft, where you can either micromanage like crazy, or build up an army and right click before sitting back and watching.

I think this evidenced, in a more practical sense, by the way we categorize games by gameplay. People don't tend to look for any old fantasy game, or a sci-fi game, or a real-world game, it's FPS, RPG, tactical, RTS, turn-based strategy, simulation, etc. I think this is the same as categorizing painting by the way the artist was looking at something (classical, impressionist, cubist), or categorizing music by similar sound (by instrumentation, rhythm, repetition), or dancing as a general method of expression by similar movements.

Anyway, I think I've made a fool of myself enough with my ramblings. It's an intriguing topic. Good luck on your thesis whether or not you pick it!

Almost anything can be considered art depending on how you look at it. A lot of people firmly believe that anything can be art. I often joke about the Art of Threadmaking. Is it an art? I would say No, it isn't, despite it containing artistic elements. Art can be in something and that doesn't neccesarily mean that that something is art. Like how a chicken sandwich isn't chicken. It's a sandwich.

Video games contain images, story, movies, and music, which are all considered art. But to me, the video game is, at its base, a functional game, an activity that you're involved in. It's no more art than is your house if you put a song on and decorate the walls with paintings. The house is not art. The house contains art.

Even though beauty can appear in the game, this beauty is no different than that of sport or any other game. Two people can sit on either side of a chess board and prepare beauty between them. It is a specific, but very basic design, with 32 pieces, six of which are unique, and these pieces dance across the surface of 64 squares propelled only by the minds, imaginations, and physical extensions of the people playing, and there is the essence of infinity as far as the human mind can grasp it in the amount of combinations available to be unveiled inside that game. Indeed, two men could play chess every day for twenty years and never have the same game twice.

If video games are to be considered art, so then should chess, and baseball, and threadmaking, and everything really.

Here's a take from a big video designer, Hideo Kojima (creator of Metal Gear Solid series)

"I don't think they're art either, videogames," he said, referring to Roger Ebert's recent commentary on the same subject. "The thing is, art is something that radiates the artist, the person who creates that piece of art. If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art. But videogames aren't trying to capture one person. A videogame should make sure that all 100 people that play that game should enjoy the service provided by that videogame. It's something of a service. It's not art. But I guess the way of providing service with that videogame is an artistic style, a form of art."

"Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum."

I can't really say it better than that. There's some more info here:

www.next-gen.biz/index.php

Clayton, I would like to say "DAMN YOU TO HELL" for making all my points for me, even the bit about impressionism.

But to me, the video game is, at its base, a functional game, an activity that you're involved in. It's no more art than is your house if you put a song on and decorate the walls with paintings. The house is not art. The house contains art.

Installations are exactly what you ware describing, and are considered art.  They allow the viewer to become part of the statement the artists was attempting to make.  An installation without a viewer is like a painting with no paint.

As for the comment about a house, architecture is very much an artform.  However, like all artforms it is bloated with a ton of garbage.  You have guys like Frank Llod Wright, who simply 'get' what it is to make a beautiful living space that fits in it's environment.  You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who would not agree that something like Falling Water isn't a work of art.  The home fits perfectly into it's natural environment and at the very least, embraces it's natural location.  Supposedly, this view is the one Wright planned the house from. 

All that said, most house are very cookie-cutter and utilitarian than others.  That doesn't mean that there was no artistic vision involved in the creation, it just means that the artist was probably limited by required functionality, ease of construction, budget or even any combination of the three.

So where does this rant on home construction fit into videogames? 

To me, they are very similar.  You have some game developers who have become known as putting out highly artistic titles that engage or challenge the user.  And you have some who make a game that is simply a shoot fest.  Though it was already mentioned, Call of Duty 4, fits the highly artists game segment.  At least if you consider movies to be art.  To me, this was very surprising because I was simply hoping for a fun shoot-fest. 

If you haen't played Call of Duty 4, I'll point out 2 parts in particular that makes the game move into an artistic statement than I think most movies are not capable of.  

1.  In one mission, your squad is escaping a middle-eastern city about to be leveled by a nuke.  As you make a daring escape by helicopter, you are freely looking over the city.  The nuke detonates and you see the destructive force blowing apart the city as it's shockwave catches up with your helicopter.  You helicopter is violently knocked from the sky, the screen goes black.  When the next mission begins, everything fades in from black, you heart a heart-beat, your controller vibrates to this beat.  Everything is fuzzy, you are still in the helicopter, only all of your squad is dead.  You see the devistated city, smoke and fire everywhere.  You are able to crawl around very slowly then everthing goes white, and you die.  You read that right.  YOU DIE.  No 1up this time.  When something like this happens, after several frantic resuce type missions I got a very strange feeling I've never had from a game.  The developers being capable of doing that to a player is art in it's purest form. 

2. The other mission is one in which you are a gunner on board a C-130 gunship and are killing supposed enemies from miles up in the sky, while an assult team moves into the area to secure a target.  This is exactly like the footage you see on CNN.  Other than seeming realistic, it gives you a very interesting thought while playing.  To me, I ralized I am only killing people because I am told they are an enemy.  For all I know the group of people fleeing a church once I begin shelling a city could be civilians.  From that far away, I only kill because I'm told to.  Unlike the rest of the game which is played up close, where the bad guys are firing directly at the player, this takes you out of that and makes your target small specs on the screen.  For all you know, you're killing groups of children.  The very fact that this came to me, as a player, is art.  If you're inerested in this, check out the following 2 videos.  The first is the game, the second is real footage.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xAscuD4loh8

http://youtube.com/watch?v=F6i3Pdm0jP4

So I know it was a long post to say that yes, games are art.  But just like all other artforms, some pieces of art are much more effective than others.

Wow, I'm very happy at the extent people are going into this.  But I do think there needs to be some further detail.

The dictionary definition of art (or the most common one I've found) is “the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects”.  Using Nightrious's point, under this definition, what isn't art?

The main point I am arguing is that all "standard" forms of art exist to tell a story.  Paintings, music, literature, cinema...etc all exist to tell a story.  Videogames are just another step in the evolution of the narrative.  In the media, most videogames are generalized as being either kiddy puzzles or mindless violence.  But, if one plays enough games they can see that at the heart of it all is a different method of storytelling.  Anybody who has played Bioshock will know exactly what I'm talking about.  The beauty of the pictures (any videogame really.  Just find a screenshot of Assassin's Creed for pure beauty) , the magnificance of the musical score (Halo would not be Halo without that music.  That music was what made everything in that game epic) all add to what makes the medium artistic.  But at the center of it all is story.

Now that I've made my main point, feel free to agree/disagree.

I think that the short answer is "yes, dummy."

Video games can do everything films, architecture, music, literature, and painting can do, and even surpass those other forms of art by allowing the viewer to control how the art projects itself.

Granted, the potential in video games for storytelling, art, etc. is nowhere near its full potential.

But, gradually, we are seeing game(Half Life2, Bioshock, S.T.A.L.K.E.R., Portal) that really can be considered an art form in the way they are presented and polished. Heck, Team Fortress 2 is a comic book. ha!

Games like Manhunt or Postal are NOT art. Just as movies with Steven Seagal are not art, and the stick figures I can draw are not art.

However, the mindless games of the past are starting to be replaced by the fully immersive and dramatic games of the future.

As time goes by, I think that gaming as an art form will advance in a very interesting sort of way.