My point is that while you can’t give a definition that would properly satisfy any and every possible form of art, you can still go and look at a thing, find properties that match certain views of art and then call it art. But it doesn’t mean that because some weird/shitty art out there is called art, that other things like games suddenly can’t be called art anymore. The properties and definition of art may vary between pieces of art, but they are still art after all.
As an example take the Wikipedia definition of art:
Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author’s imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art.
This matches up with the good-old art and the idea-guy art. It applies to games and pretty much anything and everything I could think of art. But I’m sure there is some art form that somehow isn’t fully covered by this definition.
But in reverse if you take a game:
- visual, auditory or performing artifacts ✔
- expressing the author’s imaginative or technical skill ✔
- intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power ✔
As for limitations, I agree, games should not be limited in anyway, however I don’t think art does impose such limitations, in fact art strives to exactly be that limitless (and timeless) medium, breaking all the rules, pushing boundaries of society and technicality.
The only limits that I can see, is when people try to cater to what current society in general thinks of being nice/attractive, usually while aiming to optimize for higher revenue. So all we can hope for is that game developers help shape the future definition of “beauty”.
