Who gets to decide what is "art", anyways?

Who gets to decide what is "art", anyways?

When critics (including Ebert) from outside the game industry drop in to claim that games can't possibly be art, what leg do they have to stand on? Who made them the sole arbiter of what is or isn't art? Instead of paying any attention to them, let's look at the definition of the word "art" itself.

art (noun) - the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. (courtesy dictionary.com)

"Art" is simply something that is appealing, or is better than ordinary. Now, to dig deeper, let's look at what "appealing" really means.

appealing (adjective) - evoking or attracting interest, desire, curiosity, sympathy, or the like; attractive.

While videogames might not attract any interest from old fashioned people who lack an open mind to try new things, they obviously appeal to a large segment of the population. Otherwise, there wouldn't be billions of games sold! Since some people are interested in games, therefore, games have "appeal".

Now, when you consider the spectrum of videogames available, some are simply better than others. "Not ordinary," in other words. If you take these two parts together, you'll see that videogames easily fit the definition of the word "art".

Of course, some people won't understand. Personally, I don't see any appeal in impressionistic paintings. I just don't "get" them. But just because I don't like them doesn't mean they suddenly stop becoming art. They are art because people appreciate them. And so it is with videogames.

Sources
This argument has no sources attached.

Posted by Game Eyeball

Views: 262     Votes: 2

Share