If 'intended to be sold for money' disqualifies something as art, wouldn't that also rule out people like Piccasso, Van Gogh, and Michaelangelo? They didn't paint for charity, after all. Shakespeare is regarded as 'great literature', despite almost all of his surviving material being the equivalent of pop culture plays aimed at the lowest common denominator.
These things were not created as a product
. Most of those you listed died poor and hungry. What happens to it after the fact, after big business gets it's hands in and sucks at the teet, is not the art's fault.
If, however, the source and point of these creations were to "make a bucK" we are talking an entire different beast. Think "The Blockbuster Movie" and "The Single" as the equal to what video games basically are. It's about selling consoles and game copies, nothing else. It is not, nor has it ever been, "about the experience." Art is "about the experience."
As for 'validation' - who says we do? I think the problem here is that you view 'gamers' as a separate subculture or culture, rather than the literal 'people who play games'. Games being considered a valid artistic medium like film or literature or canvas would only benefit everyone; a wider supply of options for 'gamers', and a wider pool of people who would expose themselves to games.
The behavior of gamers (as a whole) clearly states that the validation is, indeed, needed
. Even game reporting/news asks this very question: Why does everyone raise such a stink? Gamers flock to people who agree and yell at those who don't. Someone else within the thread made mention of this, I don't recall who off the top of my head.
When film was created, film makers didn't shout at the top of their lungs that they where artists and had an art form. Musicians, too. They let it happen naturally and continued with their art regardless of naysayers.
That point is, the community (as a whole) is childish and juvenile. They demand be treated like art and call cave paintings scribbles. If a group of people act like children, you then treat them like children.
Game marketing doesn't help the issue, either.http://youtu.be/nKkPFDEiC6Q
But this is a divergence from the topic and mostly my opinion on my little community
as a whole.
Dudel, you still didn't really address anything I said. All I can gather from your response is that you don't like Final Fantasy or postmodern art.
Oh, no, I like those things just fine... doesn't make them art. I like me some Lady Gaga, too, but to call her an artist
is to shit on Beethoven.
Could you possibly tell me why interacting with art suddenly makes it something else? As I said, you can't do anything that isn't coded into the game to begin with, so you aren't 'breaking the experience' or any such thing. You're still having the intended experience.
Pardon me, I did answer your question with a question. (Er... questions.)
I offered up example of games
which do not offer you up an intended experience, Drakengard offers up several with with both "official" and "unofficial" endings (a few of which only exist to be "lulzy"). No ending at all, not point at all (Minecraft) or shear market share on name (Final Fantasy).
The FPS is an example of "Tits and Blood is always art." If you agree, well, then I only have question your tastes and the argument is fairly pointless.
Then again, this touches on the "When is nudity art and when is it porn?" But, this too is answered with my previous criteria.
Art is judged by three things: artists intention, the pieces message and the artists skill.
If the intention is to only show tits
(or get views 'cause of tits
etc), there isn't a message to be conveyed (it's just a girl with a penis in her) and the photo is crap... porn. It'd very difficult for you to find anyone to disagree with that. If they take photos of naked girls cause they know it sells
This is also not counting game overs, kill screens, corrupted save files and all the other hoop jumping that requires one to play/enjoy their game (PC gaming excluded). And there are things like "the full experience" winch happens, mostly, in RPGs. Hidden items, extra content... stuff most people will never see. Can you call it art
if people aren't getting the full (or same) experience? SotC, again, only has that one beautiful story... which is why it gets counted by most in the art department
Another thing that is problematic is that art is a culture, a culture which gaming and gamers directly go against. You have to look at the examples given to see what art is
. SotC is considered on the art level by most, so examine it and see what it is and isn't vs everything else
then tell me why you can honestly think video games count as art
to any degree. SotC is knocking on the door to the art club
and almost looks the part, sure, but the rest of it is frat boys throwing a kegger across the street.
But, again, my primary issue
is that video games are a product and nothing else. It's also my issue with modern music, movies, literature and art.