What was the question again? Games and art?

Brett, I agree with a lot of your points, but I disagree on the issue of consumerism. Just because something is expected to make money doesn't mean it inherently cannot be art. To me, in fact, the greatest art is that which works within the mainstream to create meaning. In that sense, it isn't just art which has created itself a niche, where only an informed and art-literate audience view it. That is almost a pointless exercise, in my view, as the only ones who will consume it will have often already thought about the issues contained within.

The best art is that which can speak to the mainstream, those for whom the ideas presented within are new. Anyway, I think what we are talking about here is a sort of inherent segregation of art: as obviously a cultural product can be called 'art' whether it is speaking to mainstream or niche groups. It's a question of 'high art' here, and I guess to a certain extent I find that sort of discussion unhelpful, and slightly irrelevant.

Yes indeed. The best art creates meaning within the mainstream. I fail to see much meaning within Big Brother.

I disagree. I think one of the more common fallacies of talking about games is to assume that they are inherently capable of more meaning than other art forms. Sure, they are interactive, but only to the point of 'literacy', i.e. the amount of skill required to move the game-fiction along. You could draw the same line in literature. When a writer says "John walked into the room", the reader is working to imagine the non-described universe. You don't need to be told "the room had four walls and a ceiling", just the same as a gamer doesn't need to be told that a giant flashing X is a weak-spot. Obviously it gets more complex than that, but the essential argument is the same. In terms of interactivity - sure, games are more interactive than other mediums. The audience doesn't have as much say in the narrative or outcome of a film as in some games, but that doesn't mean that a game can inherently have more range of meaning. One person can view a film and interpret it completely differently than another viewer; the audience is as active in creating meanings as in games.

Where games and other art differs is in the consumer choosing, to an extent, the way that the narrative, or fiction, flows. You may choose to be 'good' or 'evil' in BioShock, and that dictates the ending. But the endings are still created by the author of the game, and the gamer has only chosen that ending in their play through.

Yes, that's a very interesting point. In a slightly stretched way, it's almost like fan-fiction, or mash-ups, or something like that. While the author produces the work, it can mutate into innumerable fan-created meanings. But in the case of something like Spore, it is inherently 'mutatable' ( ) instead of fan-fic, which happens usually in spite of the author.

However, while it's interesting to talk about the possibilities of games, it's a little too 'Nostradamus' for me. We can argue all day about what games can be, but we won't really be talking 'honestly', if you like, until we are talking about what games are. I find that a lot of debate on the intellectual merit of games focuses on possibilities to shy away from the fact that, by most standards, games now are not particularly great on the intellectual scale.

Absolutely. I think this is a very important point, and I tried to emphasise it in my article. It seems that quite often, when people argue for games-as-art, they forget the actual 'game' aspect of it. It isn't just an interactive film: there are choices to be made, strategies to be employed, obstacles to be overcome. It's an issue that requires serious thought. I don't think it inherently prevents games being regarded as art, but it does mean we need to rethink our approach, somewhat.

Indeed, it is my first non-news article! Thank you very much. I've found the small debate here very encouraging indeed, and will be looking to do more one-off articles like this.

Interestingly enough, I just read a book on this subject. It was quite interesting, but focused more on the visual aspect of games than anything else. It's an avenue worth pursuing. After all - the soundtrack of a film is usually considered to be capable of art, and it's likely the same principle at work.

Or are they simply devices for gameplay, rather than narrative, as Mark is almost suggesting?

I actually tend to think of a definition of art as something which has authorial meaning. So I guess you are on to something, in my opinion, there. Do any games have something to say? I'm sure there are some fairly long bows to be drawn here, but I'd say 'yes'. You can certainly read a lot of meaning into numerous games. Does, Spider-Man 2, for example, embody Corbusierian ideals of domesticising the modern city, where everything is known (as a lot of superheros in general are read)? It certainly provides the player with an authentic modern city (NY) and the tools to protect its citizens against daily perils (falling from a skyscraper, losing a balloon ), and any time a citizen is in distress the HUD immediately lets you know (everything is knowable). That's a pretty basic reading, but the principles are there. I suspect the majority of art-critics simply haven't developed the academic tools or even the desire to read meaning in games.

The idea of enriching us as humans or the like is often touted in relation to art. But, honestly, does the Mona Lisa enrich us as humans? Really? Does Mozart's Requiem? Does Plato's The Republic? If the answer to any of these is "no", does that mean they aren't art? I think, in reality, very, very few cultural products will enrich us as humans, and even then, will only do so to a select few. While I agree some definitions of art are ridiculously large, I don't think it is helpful to restrict 'art' to epiphany-inducing miracles of creation. You almost have to wonder how useful the term 'art' is: but then remember that speaking, again, in the mainstream, it has enormous clout, and often decides which 'artist' gets to eat that evening!

Talking about art as simply a way of bestowing a certain amount of meaning, and even legitimacy of meaning, is probably the most realistic approach. Remember that the title of 'art' alone doesn't make it worthwhile: there is good art and bad art. Monkey with paintbrush? Not so hot. Da Vinci? Somewhat better. Video games? I guess we'll just have to wait and see.