This has to be one of the worst straw man arguments I've read on this subject, and I'm in favor of seeing games as art. Yes, if you reduce art to prints, it does seem like games have a leg up. However, film and theatre and music have long since been considered to he art, and this is usually where the debate takes place.
The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen as a great art form, IMO, it can't be that they simply provide a vehicle for other art forms, such as music and film (I.e. cutscenes).
The key dimension that games add is interactivity...in that sense, the art of games is more along the lines of modern performance art in which the viewers actions amplifies the artistic meaning.
The first time I really felt that a game had hit me in a narrative way that was impossible in film/theater/literature was in Portal, in the scene in which Glados compels you to "kill" the Companion Cube. At the end of it, I felt this huge sense of comic relief because I half expected the box to start screaming, and then I laughed and marveled at how the gamewriters were able to create a sense of attachment to an inanimate box, merely by having you pick it up and move it to places. I haven't played portal 2 yet, but I can't think of any other game that elicited such a strong emotional reaction from me through the mechanism of interactivity.
This is satire, and is a direct response to how several art critics have dismissed "games" as capable of being considered fine art for reasons that are just as silly as this blog post, which is precisely why it's funny.
The "[x] isn't art" op-ed seems to be that particular Guardian blogger's specialty. Last year, he caused a flurry of outraged discussion in a different set of communities for roughly similar reasons, when he wrote an op-ed on why neither cuisine nor high fashion are art: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/201...
I think the post was supposed to be satire. I didn't really get that either, but the reactions I'm hearing in other places seem to be along the lines of, "Ha ha, that was funny."
That's the part that ruined the entire article for me. To quote these games as hallmarks of emotional or intrinsic value in games is to me as clueless as to talk about paintings as 'things that you just look at', renders the person in the article clueless about both art and games, and destroys the sarcasm imho.
I took it more as showing the bare minimum that needs to be achieved, i.e. "these are the games that are at the lowest of the ranking list, that I still consider to be capable of eliciting an acceptably genuine emotional response from me".
The examples she cites aren't convincing either. For games to really be seen as a great art form, IMO, it can't be that they simply provide a vehicle for other art forms, such as music and film (I.e. cutscenes).
The key dimension that games add is interactivity...in that sense, the art of games is more along the lines of modern performance art in which the viewers actions amplifies the artistic meaning.
The first time I really felt that a game had hit me in a narrative way that was impossible in film/theater/literature was in Portal, in the scene in which Glados compels you to "kill" the Companion Cube. At the end of it, I felt this huge sense of comic relief because I half expected the box to start screaming, and then I laughed and marveled at how the gamewriters were able to create a sense of attachment to an inanimate box, merely by having you pick it up and move it to places. I haven't played portal 2 yet, but I can't think of any other game that elicited such a strong emotional reaction from me through the mechanism of interactivity.