art+quest+(ele)

**History**
(There is no text here yet.)

**Opinion**
Despite my limited experience with video games, I am more than willing to accept its potential as art. That being said, asking whether or not video games are an art form prompts a discussion more philosophical then the superficial analysis of game composition and process. With this question comes the centuries-old can of worms: what is art? In my mind, the definition has always been subjective and after searching various online dictionaries, I was more satisfied with a particular disclaimer than with its subsequent definition: “The definition of art is controversial in contemporary philosophy. Whether art can be defined has also been a matter of controversy. The philosophical usefulness of a definition of art has also been debated ([|Stanford Encyclopedia])”. The notion of controversy implies limitless liberation from constraints. If something declares itself as art, or if someone finds artistic value in something, then it simply is art. While the consensus may not be universal, a boot placed upon a stool can be an artistic masterpiece. Therefore, when I think of video games, and I think of the intent and deliberation that went into creating those games, I am inclined to recognize their artistic merit. Although some may take the opposite stance, I believe controversy to be one of the most stable characteristics of potential artwork. In a blog entry by Roger Ebert for example, he presents the sweeping statement, “video games cannot be art.. No video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form ([|Ebert blog])”. He goes on to give pictorial representations of cave art juxtaposed with video game images. While I recognize the obvious difference, I also see literature, movies, music, sculpture, as a web of differences where one is entitled to search for their own meaning and reach their own conclusion.

**Future Trends?**
(There is no text here yet.)