It is very easy to prove that the question "Can video games be art?" can be reduced to "Can movies be art?".
Let F be the set of frames (picture and sound).
Let I be the set of all possible user inputs.
Movies are elements of M := F^ℕ, i.e. a tuple of frames.
Games are functions: I^ℕ -> F^ℕ
Let m ∊ M be a movie.
Let g be a game so that:
∀ i∊I^ℕ: g(i) := m
Clearly, g is art if and only if m is art. So if there is one movie that is art, there clearly must be a game that is art: The game that consists just of cut scenes from that movie no matter what input.
In fact, you could have a game where your actions determine what artful movie you get to watch. It could be called "menu"... ;)
Seriously, how much interaction do you have to add before a "movie" stops being art? Trying to understand such arbitrarily marked-off black and white opinions just breaks my mind.
Your Comment:
Hey! Pay attention! Except where otherwise noted, this site is
licensed under a Creative Commons License.
You are replying to this comment:
Posted by Nik on Apr 17, 2010 six am
Let F be the set of frames (picture and sound).
Let I be the set of all possible user inputs.
Movies are elements of M := F^ℕ, i.e. a tuple of frames.
Games are functions: I^ℕ -> F^ℕ
Let m ∊ M be a movie.
Let g be a game so that:
∀ i∊I^ℕ: g(i) := m
Clearly, g is art if and only if m is art. So if there is one movie that is art, there clearly must be a game that is art: The game that consists just of cut scenes from that movie no matter what input.
In fact, you could have a game where your actions determine what artful movie you get to watch. It could be called "menu"... ;)
Seriously, how much interaction do you have to add before a "movie" stops being art? Trying to understand such arbitrarily marked-off black and white opinions just breaks my mind.