Any form of art is 'art' long before acceptance by the mainstream. Most art forms are never accepted by the mainstream. But games are mainstream already - so it's more of a chicken or egg debate. But an egg will always turn into a chicken.

My underlying message isn't really that just because the NYT now lists games in the Arts section makes it so. Uncharted 2 actually is the catalyst. It affects change in thought. This change in thinking is apparent in traditional media outlets (newspaper, television, film, etc) with their attitude towards games. Although it is still an attitude of: 'you provide excellent entertainment, and make lots of money doing it, can you share some with us?'

The role of media is still primarily to inform, with entertainment being secondary (or should be). Don't get the wrong impression that money = value. MTV makes a lot of money, but what value does The Hills add to our daily lives? We can't go through life fully entertained. Some of us live to be informed rather than entertained, and once games mature to that notion, they will become an even greater force to inflict change of thought - as that is the role of art.

I think so far with games, the eggs (those considered art) already are prevalent, but not recognized in the same regard (that is changing thankfully). Just look at what Valve has done. Half-Life was incredible not only for its technical achievements of the time, but the impact they had with story, character development and interaction, subsequent mods, and cult following.

As for other mediums, the Coen Brothers also are strong technically, with incredible elements of story and characters, that develops a cult following. I'm sure they realize what they do is an art form, and they largely leave it up to viewer interpretation through their art.

My uncle is a contemporary artist who went from art school to making out-of-gallery installations, to abstract painting for contemporary art galleries and teaching fine art at college. He definitely knows what he is doing is art, and caters to a certain art culture that consumes and defines what Art is (as taught in Art History class).

The conscious decisions made by designers, programmers, artists, and developers today to make 'indie' games is what currently is the game industry's closest way of defining between art or not. Conscious decisions are made to make games a certain way - to serve a certain audience, broad or narrow. But also that largely stems from financial reasons and a defined means to work within.

The sum of its parts definitely stem from the part of the game that is art. And that part of the game is a decision of making art, whether conscious or not. Valve hired Marc Laidlaw, who brought in many elements that contribute to making the Half-Life series art. Whether they were consciously striving to make it into a work of art is up for Gabe Newell to say.

Thanks for the article Andrew, good find and I think you captured the right perspective. The is it/isn't it discussion isn't the point here so much as marking a milestone in respectable games coverage from not games press.

Am I the only one who doesn't understand the "games as art" discussion? There is a spectrum running from art to entertainment, but the two things aren't mutually exclusive. Even if you take a game that is designed purely and solely as entertainment, the type of craftsmanship it takes to make that game a success is an artform in itself (a great example of this is Bungie's "30 seconds of fun" model). My two cents anyway. Thanks again

I guess my use of the word milestone was a bit hyperbolic... I think I had too much coffee this morning.
Good point on the movie/game tip Brian. Do you guys have any predictions about future Heavy Rain coverage in light of this? Arguably it can be even more of a movie/game than Uncharted, and it is quite clear that it is an artistic endeavor on behalf of the David Cage and Quantic Dream. I'm curious to see how this will push nongamers' perspective on games.

I would love to speak further on whether games actually are an art form, but I think it is generally seen either way. That is what NYT sees. While they do still see the game resembling a film, that is where convergence takes place - recognizing the similarity.

The demographic in my high school that played games were heaviest in the computer labs, but I hung out in the art room. That was a few years ago, and most have jobs now: selling cookies, working in the games industry, media business, farming, etc.

What I believe this article to really be about is the convergence of media. It is happening with everyone. Look at EA's shake up emerging today, as a result of acquiring a social gaming company. What happens when you place the power of popular games with easy-to-purchase-straight-from-the-maker service? Steam. Where gamers have been traditionally split up, they consolidate in other places by the masses.

There is a convergence of audience stemming from web 2.0, and it looks like what a lot of gamers were doing or attempting to do for years prior to the mainstream accepting and using it. My Grandma is on Facebook.

Games are popular culture, is probably the easiest way to put it. Pop Culture is Pop Art.

I don't think Uncharted 2 makes any particular stride towards "art," whether or not games are already there. To me, characterizing the game as having that kind of impact drastically confuses craft with artistry. It's a phenomenally well-made game, in terms of having gorgeous graphics, well-directed cutscenes and voice acting, and playable, clean gameplay. But it's largely a better-executed version of what's already a well-defined game framework: the linear action-adventure in which players essentially push a completely static, defined story along.

That's fine, but executing it on a grander scale than most of its predecessors doesn't make it any more or less art. It's like saying that because the latest and greatest shiny action film is greater and shinier than the previous one, movies are more art than they were before.

That's not to say one can't consider Uncharted 2 art, or great art. I'm not commenting on that one way or the other. But I just don't see how it can be said to have somehow elevated the artistry of the entire medium into some new sphere, or higher within that sphere (for the record, I own and have played the game).

As far as the New York Times goes, it's a great newspaper and I subscribe to its Sunday edition, but they seem to make similar comments about games once every few months. I don't think this effusive Uncharted 2 statement is unique. The few staffers who write about games for the Times seem to have a vested interest in depicting games this way, because by their coverage, you'd think the game medium is reinventing itself and exploding with previously unseen artistry several times a year.

I can't believe throughout this entire discussion, where the word 'art' is bandied about at least once per paragraph, that no one has actually taken the care to define their term.

Simply, art is any man-made object (artefact) that offers a meaningful aesthetic experience.

This is why, for example, The Great Gatsby is art, and the phone book is not, in accordance with the established aesthetics of literature.

Therefore, if we want to discuss whether games are art (tiresome as it is), let us first rate it depending upon the medium's own aesthetics, and stop trying to fit square pegs in round holes; stop judging games in comparison to literature, film, painting, or any other form of art.

Games have their own aesthetic system, both representational and ludic, let us judge it by them.

If you feel Uncharted 2 elevated the aesthetics of the videogame form (graphics, sound, GAMEPLAY etc.) to such a level that you found the experience meaningful, beyond simple consumption, then feel absolutely assured in calling it art.

But of course, beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

I agree with Steven that the term "art" should be defined for purposes of good conversation, but I disagree with his notion that art must have a meaningful aesthetic experience. That notion is over a century old, and has been successfully challenged (according to most modern philosophers) by many artists. See Arthur Danto's "The Artworld."

I don't think there is a "good" general definition of art, and I'm not sure such a definition is even possible, but one place to start is George Dickie's "The New Institutional Theory of Art." In essence, he says art is an artifact created by an artist for an art world - appreciation for the artifact as art, along with an intention for it to be art, is required. The definition is circular in that the components are defined in terms of each other (purposefully, according to Dickie), but is still of practical use to us. See the revised version of his theory for more arguments against the most common objections.

This is why Marcel Duchamp's 1917 work "Fountain" is art, where as a urinal is not.

You can see then that for proponents of Dickie's institutional theory of art the NYT article is a significant step towards games as art, since it grows the artworld system for games. Not that it REALLY matters whether they are classified as such - I'm just selfishly hoping that games as art will raise the bar for game criticism and correspondingly raise the bar for game quality.

Chris, as you said the NYT are already publishing about games, and since it falls under the NYT Arts section, it is being considered an art form shaping society, as film, painting, photography, music, etc, offers us.

It could hardly qualify as such by other readers' standards, but the point that it is gaining the exposure, and up to the industry to provide them with the form of art. It is still the early years of growth for games, and it is evident that those who grew up on games, especially on the Internet, will go on to fill in the gaps left by previous generations in satisfying the broader audience. It is already a natural growth through its maturity of contemporary audiences, along with the addition of the gamer gap (more male 13 - 30 range).

Duchamp was conscious he was an artist and placed a urinal in a gallery, giving its context as art and not what its typical function was. Did anyone try to pee in it, or know that it wasn't functional? Or was it functional? Magritte painted a pipe and declared it not to be a pipe within the same canvas, telling the viewer it is not a physical pipe - yet it is a physical representation of a pipe. It certainly wasn't functional.

These artists were making art from functional objects, although in an entirely different medium that spoke to its audience. Games do, and have always, spoken to a certain audience. It has always been expanding its audience in ways that designers did not foresee (nor does any form of art).

There will always be that screaming scared audience for Saw XVII.

Now they come out and say it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/magazine/15videogames-t.html

Can D.I.Y. Supplant the First-Person Shooter? By JOSHUAH BEARMAN
"A group of young designers is redefining what makes a video game a game."