Are video games art?

Art is any work that is honed and detailed and of a high degree of effort.

Video games can be generic ****. Video games can be art. Depends on the work itself.

Idk, I mean I would say a lot of video games are art. I have seen NES games that look like a cheap and effortless attempt at making a buck, back in the day before quality control. Those aren't art, nobody takes pride in the work that went into it.

If you can't in detail explain the quality of the work and all the things that make it superior and that you are proud of, then it isn't art. If you can, it is.

Even if you master the art of making ramen noodle, if you have effort and honed skill and detailed qualities in it, that ramen is art.

I'll also add that people who usually decide the value of art (art critics, etc) usually ONLY see traditional or quirky experimentation as art - contemporary art is a joke now because anyone can just do something stupid but visually striking and say it represents something.
Film critics are only a step above because they'll say THEIR medium is art but no other media else can possibly.

In short, why bother chasing a pointless term like "art" and trying to justify our medium to people who won't care anyway? Just make something cool and get on with your life

Day One: Garry's Incident
Air Control
Earth: Year 2066

" Art" is simply a word used to described a certain something. Therefore what is the definition of the word "Art"?

"The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power"

I'm pretty sure video games fit this definition. And just like a bad painting or sculpture, a bad movie or a bad video game is just bad art; it doesn't change the fact that it is still art.

"bad" is actually a very subjective, there is no "bad art" just art you may dislike personally.

Well actually, technically there is "bad art" but WHAT IS "bad art" is subjective.

The word "bad" is defined - "of poor quality or a low standard". Therefore we need to ask "by who's standard?"

10/10 -IGN

Bit cubist / impressionist. But nothing objectively bad about this painting. As Plank stated, bad is an inherently subjective term. Even if a large group of people agree a piece of art is "bad" it doesn't necessarily make it so.

Maybe there are some objective criteria that all humans, without exception, would find so abhorrent, it would be considered bad. But to my knowledge, we haven't encountered that yet.. Well, except Justin Bieber. (I'm kidding! I'm kidding! Don't hurt me, Beliebers.)

Ooh ooh! I've got one!

Origin?

I'm not sure if you're familiar with the story behind that one or not.

No clue, but the internet's a big place. I'd be shocked if I did. I could tell it was pretty recent / modern, but other than that, just another random image.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecce_Homo_(Elías_García_Martínez)

Yes of COURSE they are.



......that is it.