Hello, one and all. Yes, that is my real name, and I have no relation to the football guy. With that clarified, let me dive into my first article, and why I feel, in answer to the question posed, they are NOT art.

"Wait," you say. "Did he really go against the grain and declare them NOT to be art?"

I did, and here's why. Some people would probably bore you with the history of traditional art, which, in reality, has little to do with video games. Instead, I want to look at what games really are: interactive entertainment. The idea of interactive, hands-on play is nothing new, as it has been around for as long as children have played with dolls, to wooden horses and vehicles, up to popular board games and toys with five thousand points of articulation in their pinkies. Video games are essentially interactive toys that consist of a box with wires and motherboards inside and a DVD.

Now, you wouldn't call those toys I just mentioned art, or at least most wouldn't. It is true that artistic processes are involved in a toy's creation: designing/drafting it on paper, determining paint and color schemes, making art for the box or package, etc. This is all well and good...but games are essentially the same. People create concept art, then they fire up computers to render graphics and iron out gameplay bugs and flow, they add music, voice acting, create a marketing campaign and disc case art...it is similar in many ways to the toy creeation process, because video games are not "art"; they're toys. Toys that run in 720p and over the Internet, but still toys.

I understand that some people feel the need to argue that games are art as a sort of validation of their hobby. Is that really necessary? Do stamp collectors, hikers, gardeners, people who watch movies or read books feel the need to justify their activity with an arbitrary label that will only matter to the snobs who think Mario is on the level of a Michelangelo? No, not really. While I understand wanting to seek validation for something you love, video games, unlike art, really don't contribute to artistic culture in the same way the works of Raphael or Beethoven or Mozart or Rembrandt do. It's just a video game, and more importantly, it's FUN. Do we need any justification beyond that?

Just because a game has an interesting play mechanic or art direction, that does not make it art. Yes, the video game is composed of various artistic aspects, such as storyboarding, visual design, graphic style, music, movies and cutscenes, etc. But in this case, the sum of the parts does not equal the characteristics of the individual pieces. A game is primarily created as entertainment. Art does not necessarily have to be "entertaining", and very few forms of art are "interactive". And while I am aware that "art" is open to interpretation for many, and its definition can be changed to suit one's needs, I honestly do not think games belong in the same order as The Last Supper, Fugue in G Minor, or even the latest issue of Spider-Man, which is a form of sequential art. The key with art is that while it can be observed and talked about, you cannot interact or impact it in some way; although with video games your "impact" on the world is limited (indeed, the author is merely giving you a lease to play in the world of his creation, rather than making it completely your own), it still matters in some way or another, and you do even have games that allow for freedom by at least giving you, say, a choice between pursuing storyline path A and storyline path B.

So does this mean I think video games have no value at all? No. They are a form of entertainment, and entertainment helps us escape this sometimes dull and boring world by allowing us to become part of the fantastic. In that sense, games do serve a purpose.

They just aren't art.