In Gamasutra's latest feature
, art historian Diana Poulsen inspects the games as art debate, writing that while "many of the arguments have been overly simplistic," games "are worth as much scholarly devotion as a work of art."
The feature's author, who wrote her thesis on games and art and who teaches art history at Ontario, Canada's Fanshawe College, doesn't think much of many of the arguments that have been put forward so far.
"Many of the arguments have been overly simplistic, relying on art's beauty and stating that if a work is beautiful or evokes emotion, it must be art. However there are artworks that are outright ugly or evoke no emotion in a viewer, but are considered works of art," she writes.
She continues, "So far in the games as art debate there is a struggle to define art in relation to gaming. There is no easy definition for art and for every example a counter-argument can be provided."
"The big question is: does it matter if a video game is a work of art?
"No, it does not make a difference. A video game declared as a work of art does not increase its value, cause it to become intellectual, cultural, or more enjoyable. Video games are already valuable, intellectual, cultural, and enjoyable without the 'work of art' label."
To find out more about her argument and the ways in which she sees games and art interplay -- both in works produced as commercial products and those produced for museums -- read the full feature, Art and Video Games: Intersections, which is live now on Gamasutra