Art, who decides what is and what isn't art. Many people look at a movie, comic book, paintings, sculptures, music, and even nature for the matter and call it "artistic" or it has an "artistic style". But when someone try's to mention video games into the fray people are like "What? Games as art? That's preposterous! Games can't be art because they don't have a meaning/emotion and they are made on a computer."

Here's definition of art. The quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

Now mine. Art: Anything that displays a unique/unusual perception, beauty of something.

Two different definitions with the same meaning/context.

I mean really if something like this can be art.

Why can't this?

I think anything can be art as long as it has unique properties to it, and also tries to express or convey some sort of emotion from the person looking at it. I really hope that this debate doesn't get dragged on forever. I mean really, it doesn't take a physicist to figure out what type of objects has physics, so why does an artist or person to look at a game and take so long to judge whether it's art or not?


Thanks for reading!