Video Games are officially recognized as an Art form.

[Zakharra]

 Considering some of the utter crap, real and figuratively, that is listed as art, video games should definately be on the art list. Today's generation doesn't visit the museums and art galleries, they play video games and online stuff. That is their medium and where they see art.

[GilmooDaddy]

Considering some of the utter crap, real and figuratively, that is listed as art, video games should definitely be on the art list. Today's generation doesn't visit the museums and art galleries, they play video games and online stuff. That is their medium and where they see art.

I agree with this statement entirely Zakharra. I have been playing video games since I was about 4 (around the same time the original NES came into being) and have found sheer beauty in countless video games. Although I have visited several galleries for one of my college course requirements, including the famous Museum of Modern Art in NYC, I generally can't relate to the pieces, nor do I enjoy being in the galleries period. Embracing myself in a video game world allows the enjoyment to come naturally and I honestly think that it's ridiculous that it has taken this long for video games to be considered an art form. Most video games take more time, effort, money, and dare I be so bold to say, creativity than any piece of art I've ever seen. As a matter of fact, most games all have countless amounts of pre production art (that can be absolutely wonderful) before the wheels are even in motion.

[Wolfy]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110273-Fox-News-Attacks-NEA-for-Classifying-Games-as-Art

Well, I certainly saw this coming.

What is with Fox and video games..geez...>_> Is Jack Thompson one of their primary funders?

And, seeing the actual segment will give you brain damage, fair warning.

Seriously, it will kill your brain cells with stupidity.

[Brandon]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/110273-Fox-News-Attacks-NEA-for-Classifying-Games-as-Art

Well, I certainly saw this coming.

What is with Fox and video games..geez...>_> Is Jack Thompson one of their primary funders?

And, seeing the actual segment will give you brain damage, fair warning.

Seriously, it will kill your brain cells with stupidity.

I kind of expected that to be honest. Fox seems to be very anti-gamer in general and Im not even talking about violent or even somewhat controversial video games. Im talking like so anti-gamer they would outlaw minecraft if they could.

Actually I sometimes wonder if they take that stance purely because we, the gamers, watch them? Here me out here. The video game industry and what you could loosely call a community does IMO seem to have a bit of a self esteem issue. We tend to get outraged at any negative publicity easily as if we crave it. However if someones on our side we flock to them and seek all the sympathy we can get. Similar to what Ive seen by another movement which I will not name at this time

Anyway, Ive been wondering how to best express my absolute joy at the recognition of my favorite medium being recognized as a legitimate art form and after much thought I dont think I can. There just arent words in any language I know to say how awesome it is

[Wolfy]

I'm hoping that one day in the future, Fox News will piss off Anonymous, and get wiped off the map.

[TheGlyphstone]

Fox already did an expose special on Anonymous - the "hackers who blow up yellow vans" story. Much lulz were had.

[Harley]

I think Minecraft is a great example of art.

Now I want to play...  <_<

[Shjade]

I think Minecraft is a great example of art.

Now I want to play...  <_<

Ehhh...I'd say Minecraft is a medium for creating art, maybe. Paint's not art until you make something with it, ne?

[Harley]

Ehhh...I'd say Minecraft is a medium for creating art, maybe. Paint's not art until you make something with it, ne?

Well, that is what I meant, yes.  A medium.   ^^

[DudelRok]

The "before I begin" note:

1) I am a gamer.

2) I play a LOT of games.

3) I watch and listen to video games (outside of playing them).

4) Some games have, indeed, moved me to a great deal.

5) My opinion on games can apply to all "modern media."

Video games are not art, they are a medium to which art can be created and shared (at best), or an application which allows others to create their own art (as per usual).

See: Minecraft

Ehhh...I'd say Minecraft is a medium for creating art, maybe. Paint's not art until you make something with it, ne?

Games have art in them but are not art as a whole. I play games, unlike Mr. Ebert, and I still have to agree with him. Art is a passive experience, and the very second you add to that experience by directly influencing it... you are either the artist or what you are interacting with is not art. Then again, I've also had quite a fair share with *cough* actual art in my life. Shadow of the Colossus, like Ebert, is the closest that I can come to an agreement as "Artistic." However, "artistic" =/= "art." I'm "artistic" but I dare you to call this art with a straight face.

Chose your own adventure books, visual novels... you'd be hard pressed to find anyone, even within their own community, to classify such things as "art." They might say, "The writing was really well done," Or, "The still images were drawn with grace and style," But they wont tell you either are art. Come next, Anime is never classified as art in most instances. Even on sites made for it, Anime is given it's own little sub-category and stashed off in the corner.

Now the difference is this: Anime artists, adventure book writers and visual novel creators don't seek the validation.

Why do we (as a collective group) seek that validation? Why do we need it?

We couple this with the fact that games are formed based on business model (what will sell vs what wont) and the slow tainting of the independent market via XBL and PSN, you have yourself a consumerist product and nothing anyone with any lick of education could honestly call art. Though movies, music and even paintings are like this (now), so maybe the word art is the problem.

tl;dr Gamer to gamer, video games ain't art, and I agree with Ebert.

[Will]

Games have art in them but are not art as a whole. I play games, unlike Mr. Ebert, and I still have to agree with him. Art is a passive experience, and the very second you add to that experience by directly influencing it... you are either the artist or what you are interacting with is not art.

An awful lot of postmodern art explicitly breaks that rule.  Of course, a lot of people don't call it "art," but I disagree.

Interacting with art changes the way you view it.  It changes how it affects you.  I don't see how that prevents it from being art.  You can't do anything in a game that the developers didn't mean for you to do (excluding bugs, of course), so why is the experience suddenly "off the tracks" of art?  It's just... more expansive.  You're still having the experience they intended you to have.

[Shjade]

Dude, I can see your position and it's not entirely goofy, but you lost me at this point:

Come next, Anime is never classified as art in most instances. Even on sites made for it, Anime is given it's own little sub-category and stashed off in the corner.

That's just...no. Anime is art. Is it "high" or "fine" art? No, no more than the sketchy purple bunny you linked (at least not most of it), but it's certainly art. It's not "stashed off in the corner" on sites that include it; it's set aside as its own category for people to find it apart from other kinds of art, much as you might separate sculpture from photography. It's not its own medium, but it's something that appeals greatly to one group and is a total turn-off to another, so it's segregated. That doesn't mean anything about its status as art.

It seems like there's a disconnect in your argument where something can't be considered art if it's not above a certain quality and/or suits your taste, which is problematic.

[Oniya]

I see your bunny, and raise you a banana.

[Saerrael]

I'm feeling a bit off, so.. this will probably be half ramble/ lot of quoting. I hope it makes sense anyway.

"What Is Art?" (Russian: Что такое искусство? [Chto takoye iskusstvo?]; 1897 Leo Tolstoy

According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is. He believed that the concept of art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings.

So, basically, art needs to 'infect'. Pull emotion from the viewer.

Interactive =/= art?

Interactive art is a genre of art in which the viewers participate in some way by providing an input in order to determine the outcome. Unlike traditional art forms wherein the interaction of the spectator is merely a mental event, interactivity allows for various types of navigation, assembly, and/or contribution to an artwork, which goes far beyond purely psychological activity. Interactivity as a medium produces meaning.

The earliest example of this would from the 1920s, but I found that to be quite meagre by our current standard. This was an interesting read to me, though.
By the way;

Art is a passive experience, and the very second you add to that experience by directly influencing it... you are either the artist or what you are interacting with is not art.

Doesn't that fall into the same category as saying you become a fashion designer when you put on clothes? And, no, not trying to be funny, here. Interactive art is designed to be interacted with and will follow patterns when interacted with. Those who created this are the artist, those who manipulate the art, are viewers.
Unless you hack into the pattern, of course. But, coming back to my fashion idea, that would be same as to unravel a sweater and make something else out of it.

I think, basing on 'art needs to infect' and on the definition of interactive art, one can see a game as art.
The 'infection' doesn't need to be strong. Poor art is still art. One might just not enjoy it.

Anyway!
[/my two cents]

[DudelRok]

An awful lot of postmodern art explicitly breaks that rule.  Of course, a lot of people don't call it "art," but I disagree.

Interacting with art changes the way you view it.  It changes how it affects you.  I don't see how that prevents it from being art.  You can't do anything in a game that the developers didn't mean for you to do (excluding bugs, of course), so why is the experience suddenly "off the tracks" of art?  It's just... more expansive.  You're still having the experience they intended you to have.

Games with multiple endings? (Like Drakengard)

Games with no ending or point? (Minecraft)

Sandbox games?

The FPS?

Games who's purpose is to repulse?

Movie tie in games?

Game sequels?

Final Fantasy (Insert Number Here)?

Also: Postmodern art isn't art.

Dude, I can see your position and it's not entirely goofy, but you lost me at this point:

Games have art in them but are not art as a whole. I play games, unlike Mr. Ebert, and I still have to agree with him. Art is a passive experience, and the very second you add to that experience by directly influencing it... you are either the artist or what you are interacting with is not art.

That's just...no. Anime is art. Is it "high" or "fine" art? No, no more than the sketchy purple bunny you linked (at least not most of it), but it's certainly art. It's not "stashed off in the corner" on sites that include it; it's set aside as its own category for people to find it apart from other kinds of art, much as you might separate sculpture from photography. It's not its own medium, but it's something that appeals greatly to one group and is a total turn-off to another, so it's segregated. That doesn't mean anything about its status as art.

It seems like there's a disconnect in your argument where something can't be considered art if it's not above a certain quality and/or suits your taste, which is problematic.

1) I like Anime.

2) Quality is an issue, indeed.

3) Segregation does, indeed, say something about it's status as art.

Anything separated very specifically from everything else is either superior to the majority or inferior to the majority. That's basic sociology and psychology. In western culture, at least, Anime is very much considered an inferior form of art but cartoons and animations are already on the bridge as it is. Again, the definition of art could be the problem.

The rest of this breaks down to consumerism. Anime is something fed to people, it isn't made to be artistic or even sourced as art. It's created as a means to make money, which is inherently against common art concepts.

If it's a product is it not art.

I see your bunny, and raise you a banana.

Yet you say this in jest.

However, banana wasn't done in paint, banana shows a clear understanding of color contrast and banana was done by freaking Andy Warhol. "Banana" in that instance, is product sold by name. It isn't art. If I went "lol rabbit" (which I did) and made money of fit, I'd STILL not call "Rabbit" art.

Soup can isn't art, either.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

I'm feeling a bit off, so.. this will probably be half ramble/ lot of quoting. I hope it makes sense anyway.

"What Is Art?" (Russian: Что такое искусство? [Chto takoye iskusstvo?]; 1897 Leo Tolstoy

According to Tolstoy, art must create a specific emotional link between artist and audience, one that "infects" the viewer. Thus, real art requires the capacity to unite people via communication (clearness and genuineness are therefore crucial values). This aesthetic conception led Tolstoy to widen the criteria of what exactly a work of art is. He believed that the concept of art embraces any human activity in which one emitter, by means of external signs, transmits previously experienced feelings.

So, basically, art needs to 'infect'. Pull emotion from the viewer.

Interactive =/= art?

Interactive art is a genre of art in which the viewers participate in some way by providing an input in order to determine the outcome. Unlike traditional art forms wherein the interaction of the spectator is merely a mental event, interactivity allows for various types of navigation, assembly, and/or contribution to an artwork, which goes far beyond purely psychological activity. Interactivity as a medium produces meaning.

The earliest example of this would from the 1920s, but I found that to be quite meagre by our current standard. This was an interesting read to me, though.
By the way; Doesn't that fall into the same category as saying you become a fashion designer when you put on clothes? And, no, not trying to be funny, here. Interactive art is designed to be interacted with and will follow patterns when interacted with. Those who created this are the artist, those who manipulate the art, are viewers.
Unless you hack into the pattern, of course. But, coming back to my fashion idea, that would be same as to unravel a sweater and make something else out of it.

I think, basing on 'art needs to infect' and on the definition of interactive art, one can see a game as art.
The 'infection' doesn't need to be strong. Poor art is still art. One might just not enjoy it.

Anyway!
[/my two cents]

Spoiler-ed for size.

I can honestly say I hate the argument: "Poor art is still art." Attempting art and failing at it isn't art. Hitting the ball is not the same as not hitting the ball, It's missing the ball.

This is another situation where it would be hard pressed to even find "fellow artists" would accept their own "bad art" as, well, "actually art." In my opinion it's also a horrible mentality to have. It's like blind acceptance or "keeping an open mind without critical thought."

You accept all the rubbish and can't see the gems through it.

Your argument for interactive art is a very interesting one, though. I want to say there is, however, a difference between what Leo Tolstoy has in mind and what video games are. Tolstoy is talking a singular experience that is the same for everyone who participates in it. See my response to Will on that one. It's a very large vague area which people either blindly accept or, like me, call bullshit.

[Oniya]

Yet you say this in jest.

However, banana wasn't done in paint, banana shows a clear understanding of color contrast and banana was done by freaking Andy Warhol. "Banana" in that instance, is product sold by name. It isn't art. If I went "lol rabbit" (which I did) and made money of fit, I'd STILL not call "Rabbit" art.

Soup can isn't art, either.

I do say it in jest - to some extent.  There are apparently enough people that do consider this and 'Soup can' to be art to put it in museums, though.

[NotoriusBEN]

Games with multiple endings? (Like Drakengard)
However, banana wasn't done in paint, banana shows a clear understanding of color contrast and banana was done by freaking Andy Warhol. "Banana" in that instance, is product sold by name. It isn't art. If I went "lol rabbit" (which I did) and made money of fit, I'd STILL not call "Rabbit" art.

So it is art because it was done by Andy Warhol?

****************************************

On my viewpoint...

not everything is art. and it is increasingly difficult to tell what *is* art in an increasingly media saturated world.

not all paintings are art, nor sculptures, nor books, nor movies, and neither should all games be considered art.
there are some things that just exist as a good experience because it is escapist.
a bunch of RA Salvatore's books, pulp comics, some action flicks, most games.


I think it becomes difficult to tell what is art or worthwhile is because we have developed a ways to literally store *everything*
for practical *eternity*.  Case and point, this here internet.

Im sure there was tons of material from the egyptians and romans and others throughout history, but because they didnt have
a reliable storage medium, only the most pertinent things (or well stored things) made it to our present day.

I wouldnt put it past them to have had as much garbage information as we do, they just threw it away because they couldnt store it.
and it rotted away because they couldnt store it.

hopefully im making sense. (its late)

[DudelRok]

First: I repeat my question...

Why do we (as a collective group of gamers) seek validation? Why do we need it?

I do say it in jest - to some extent.  There are apparently enough people that do consider this and 'Soup can' to be art to put it in museums, though.

Well in the case of Banana and Soup Can there is either a message trying to be said or a point to be made. There purpose is not money as a game's purpose is. Though Banana is as it is because Andy Warhol, which could mean it's simply product but because it is Andy Warhol it tends to get a pass on the assumption it isn't product. Team Ico works like this (as does Kojima with his storytelling), which is why their video games are typically seen as art by many who play them.

Funny Thing: If Kojima turned his stories (Metal Gear, Zone of the Enders, etc) into a different medium he'd be a world rounded and famous artist/author, I guarantee. He'd be seen more by the entire world than just us gamers.

Soup Can (Also Andy Warhol) get's it's pass because it freaking invented pop-art, and because of the so called message.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell%27s_Soup_Cans#Message

In this instance I suppose you could say, "I don't get it." The video game argument, however, I DO get... I just don't think it qualifies because:

It's interactive.

It can be altered by the viewer

It is usually created for the purpose of money.

So it is art because it was done by Andy Warhol?

No. I probably was not clear so I clarified above. (Oniya saw what I meant fairly well, though.)

On my viewpoint...

not everything is art. and it is increasingly difficult to tell what *is* art in an increasingly media saturated world.

not all paintings are art, nor sculptures, nor books, nor movies, and neither should all games be considered art.
there are some things that just exist as a good experience because it is escapist.
a bunch of RA Salvatore's books, pulp comics, some action flicks, most games.

Agreed.

I think it becomes difficult to tell what is art or worthwhile is because we have developed a ways to literally store *everything*
for practical *eternity*.  Case and point, this here internet.

Arguable... people have the ability to reach the classics, things that are new and even stuff from their peers and typically only focus on their own thing. It's less the internet and currently a mind-set held by the younger demographic.

Im sure there was tons of material from the egyptians and romans and others throughout history, but because they didnt have
a reliable storage medium, only the most pertinent things (or well stored things) made it to our present day.

I wouldnt put it past them to have had as much garbage information as we do, they just threw it away because they couldnt store it.
and it rotted away because they couldnt store it.

hopefully im making sense. (its late)

The gems will survive history, indeed. The crap will perish.

It is why everything Team Ico touches gets the "art" flag thrown at it (and it's still the only game I can think of that I'd qualify as art as I've not played Flower and Okami's art style is the only thing artistic about it). It's also why you don't hear about all the very horrible video games that exist on 8 and 16-bit platforms. It's why the only people who know about Kane & Lynch are the poor saps that had the misfortune of playing their games and the folks that went "lawl" at said poor saps. Good games are good games. Good writing is good writing. Good movies are good movies. Good music is good music. And crap is crap is crap...

The primary problem, though, is still that video games are created as a product to be sold and are not used as an artistic medium at all. Again, this goes for 90% of everything created since the 1980's, especially movies and music. (Mind you of that 10%, only about 1% of it is good and of the other 90% only half of that is tolerable by most.) A lot of that 90% is "arty," though... but that's not the same.


Art is judged by three things: artists intention, the pieces message and the artists skill.

Video games fail the first two 9.9999~ times out of 10.

Art is also a passive viewer experience, which sends one message (admitting that can be interpreted by others in many ways). Art should also not directly punish (or reward) you for experiencing it outside of the conclusion being punishment or reward enough.

Side: I can think of a TON of games that qualify even under Ebert's line of what art is but they are all independent games and/or flash. With a few PSN/XBL exceptions and already mentioned Team Ico stuff. (Gravity Bone and K.O.L.M. being two very personal favorites.) But that doesn't mean games, in their form and spot light, have any business being seen as art.

[TheGlyphstone]

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.

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.

[Will]

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.

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.

[DudelRok]

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, porn.

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.

[TheGlyphstone]

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.

Shakespeare's plays weren't a product? Dude, he basically wrote the South Park of his era - his plays were performed for the low and middle-class crowds of London, so he wrote them to draw the maximum number of people to see it. That meant crude jokes and puns, lots of violence, and a fair amount of political/social commentary. A playwright's success was determined by the crowds his plays could attract, and Shakespeare was very, very good at that.

Even the 'classical' artists I listed still did it for money; they didn't mass-market their creations, but everything they made was done on commission or for a patron. They still produced for a paycheck, it's just that their paychecks were always handed out by one or a very small group of people.

[Will]

Tits and blood aren't art because you think it's crass?  Lady Gaga isn't art because you think she's not good enough?

What makes you believe that your taste is the universal criterion for what makes art?

[DudelRok]

Shakespeare's plays weren't a product? Dude, he basically wrote the South Park of his era - his plays were performed for the low and middle-class crowds of London, so he wrote them to draw the maximum number of people to see it. That meant crude jokes and puns, lots of violence, and a fair amount of political/social commentary. A playwright's success was determined by the crowds his plays could attract, and Shakespeare was very, very good at that.

Even the 'classical' artists I listed still did it for money; they didn't mass-market their creations, but everything they made was done on commission or for a patron. They still produced for a paycheck, it's just that their paychecks were always handed out by one or a very small group of people.

You missed: "created as"

Shakespeare's plays where not created to be mass produced and sold to the highest bidder. That's product.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_%28business%29

And, no, Shakespeare didn't do it "for cash." He profited from it, yes, but he didn't do it for money. He did it because he wanted to, he wrote as he pleased and most of his work didn't see the light of day until past his death. Video games are done for the money. Shakespeare did it because he's an asshole and liked poking fun at people.

Anything else requires an economic lesson which I am, quite frankly, not going to do.

Tits and blood aren't art because you think it's crass?  Lady Gaga isn't art because you think she's not good enough?

What makes you believe that your taste is the universal criterion for what makes art?

You missed the word "always." Or, rather, you read it incorrectly.

Blood and tits tend to be crass in most situations. It's how they are used that matters. Intent and message are two factors, here. My tastes are not universal, but I am offering up the general consensus of opinion. You would be, again, hard pressed to find many people who disagree with my points of view on this subject. Tits and blood only make things "good" if you are a 14 year old male. Not to say I don't like tits and blood (Zombie Grindhouse being a favorite theme of mine), but it isn't art. They are called exploitation films for a reason.

Lady Gaga isn't an artist because she produces product. She's also not an artist because she's a sideshow. And I mean her act, her dancing, etc... Brittaney Spears and all them are as equally sideshows. "Pay a ticket to see the monkey dance," Kind of thing. But, like many other people, I like to watch the monkey dance.

[Shjade]

3) Segregation does, indeed, say something about it's status as art.

Anything separated very specifically from everything else is either superior to the majority or inferior to the majority. That's basic sociology and psychology. In western culture, at least, Anime is very much considered an inferior form of art but cartoons and animations are already on the bridge as it is. Again, the definition of art could be the problem.

The rest of this breaks down to consumerism. Anime is something fed to people, it isn't made to be artistic or even sourced as art. It's created as a means to make money, which is inherently against common art concepts.

If it's a product is it not art.

Pasta is separated very specifically from lettuce. Is pasta better or worse than lettuce? No, but it is very different and not all audiences interested in the one are interested in the other.

Your assumption is flawed. Quality is not the only quantifier for categorization.

As to the latter part, I'd like you to show me how profit invalidates a creation's art status. Your declaration that it is the case is not convincing on its own.

Thirdly, a game having multiple endings as opposed to only one doesn't really matter; it's interactive either way. Having multiple endings is no different than the way a painting will elicit multiple emotional and intellectual responses depending on how you view it on any given day, or the reaction you have to a song depending on when and where you hear it. Clair d'lune (I'm sure I fucked up that spelling) is one of my favorite pieces to hear on piano partly because I have a new, if only slightly different from previous, reaction to it every time I hear it: always a bit haunting, always a bit mournful, but always bringing up different memories to mull over. Likewise, the player can change a song simply by how it's performed - a little softer, a little louder, tiny tweaks here or there can have a curious amount of influence on the piece overall. Does that make it not art?

Your rules about what makes something not art just seem awfully arbitrary and based on your preferences and point of view rather than some concrete ruleset for what is and is not art, which is what you sound like you'd have us believe.