Full disclosure: I cringe whenever I hear someone--especially someone within the games industry--suggest that games aren't an art form. And when that someone takes things a step further and suggests they never will be an art form? Well, I smack my head against the nearest wall.
You can just imagine, then, the condition my head is in after reading
Charles J. Pratt's coverage (over at
gamasutra.com) of last week's
Art History of Games conference.
For starters, Michael Samyn, founder of
Tale of Tales, the Belgian-based developer of such "art games" as
The Endless Forest and
The Path, suggests that games are not and never will be art because "play was driven by a biological need, and that over time play had been turned into games. On the other hand, art was not created out of a physical need but in a search for higher purposes."
Later, Samym says that "computers offered the way forward for art, but at this point it is being held hostage by the video game industry."
I can't say I agree with those or any of the other comments attributed to Samym in
Pratt's article--I'm a firm believer that games, like movies and music,
are a form of art--but that's certainly not the first time that's happened since this conversation started way back when.
That said, if you're at all interested in this topic I suggest you read Pratt's article in full--especially since it includes a section titled "When Art and Games Collide," which contains comments from Celia Pearce, assistant professor of digital media at Georgia Institute of Technology.
See also: '
What do you think: Are video games art?'
