[QUOTE="LoG-Sacrament"] its can just as easily be used to apply to nothing at all. its precisely why prestige cannot be the deciding factor for calling something art.RiskAverseStock
You're right. The only reason I included "prestige" is because people are so eager to have video games considered art, that there's obviously something about the word "art" and its definition that elevates video games in some way -- makes video games a more prestigious affair. Of course, there are other definitions of art:1.) There's the definition of art which is synonymous for a craft (such as the Art of War),
2.) There's the definition of art which is synonymous for a visual medium (painting, sketching, etc.),
3.) There's the sardonic definition of art (which implies a prestigious definition of art -- "you're a real work of art" -- but in this case the existence of a commonly-accepted definition that implies prestige is not necessary because the intent is obvious),
and
4.) There's the implied definition of art which denotes something of high quality (people apply the term "art" to things they like, unless they wish to invalidate the term itself (such as Clive Barker claiming that everything and anything, including bowel movements, can be art) -- though the idea that one can like every piece of music, every painting, or every video game is preposterous, so it is accurately applied to individual works instead of the entire thing to which that individual work belongs -- Beethoven's 9th Symphony is a work of art, but I can't say I'd use the same word to describe any of Wagner's symphonies, etc.).
Utilizing the last definition, individual games -- great games -- can be considered "art", but not video games as a whole.
Thats because Wagner wasn't famous for his symphonies (though he did write some)it was his operas that he was famous for.
Log in to comment