Personally I believe video games are a form of art, but not all video games are artful. A game like Grim Fandango which has a distinct aesthetic and design I would say is more artful than say, Cookie Clicker.
Again though, art is a study but it also relies on subjectivity.
More or less, any game with a story of sorts or one that uses highly interpretive art styles should be called art. Anything other than that should not.
But its also the worst drug out there. What music, movies, and pictures couldnt do, video games have surpassed them all, almost too good for their own good
And also if this is considered art, then freaking video games are as well.
.
My brother used to work for a college art gallery and he said he hated art like that, mostly because he draws realism but people appreciate dumb things like white blocks.
Seriously, that takes NO skill to make. Art should also be about skill AND the thought behind it. It makes art a joke.
So as you said, video games are kinds art. It’s an art you can get into, something that can wow your eyes and interact with.
Ugh, I don’t want this discussed on the message boards. It’s such a complicated issue (when it doesn’t need to be).
But here is my simple solution to this issue: If a game is intended to be art, it should be considered art. If a game is intended to be entertainment, it should be considered entertainment. If it is intended to be both, it should be counted as both.