Nihal
Vala
The first thing I've heard at my History of the Art classes at university is that you can't define "art". Numbers of intellectuals discussed the matter and attempted to fight to death over their preferred definitions, but "art" cannot be easily defined because it's a matter of taste. What moves a person, speaks to him/her looks like utterly **** to another. Attempting to define it to include or exclude certain works or categories is a major waste of time.
Having this in mind, I personally consider games as a branch of art. I'm not talking about concept art, what is, as the name hints, easily accepted as "art" for being nothing more than an illustrated designs and conceptual ideas. I'm talking of the work as whole, the combination of storytelling, music, visual and how it speaks to me. I fail to see how the interactive factor eliminates games as a form of art. Surely it can't be the "entertainment" factor, since movies, books and paintings are forms of entertainments (and they also present certain degrees of interactiveness).
Having this in mind, I personally consider games as a branch of art. I'm not talking about concept art, what is, as the name hints, easily accepted as "art" for being nothing more than an illustrated designs and conceptual ideas. I'm talking of the work as whole, the combination of storytelling, music, visual and how it speaks to me. I fail to see how the interactive factor eliminates games as a form of art. Surely it can't be the "entertainment" factor, since movies, books and paintings are forms of entertainments (and they also present certain degrees of interactiveness).