What is art? Is it painting or sculpture, music or literature? Do we include film and television? What about abstract and modern art, which often bare no resemblance to things real. What if art is something that stirs emotion, that allows the observer to connect with the artist? Does that then make one thing art for one person but not another? In that case, are they both still art?

The reason I bring up these questions is this; lately the topic has been bandied about as to whether or not video games are art. Some people, such as Clive Barker, argue that video games are art because of the emotional aspect they convey to the player. Roger Ebert, on the other hand, believes that games are not art primarily because the medium is malleable; the agency of the player takes away from the artistic intentions of the artist. Both sides have argued vehemently on the subject and no real progress has been made. Sure, we now have symphony orchestras playing video game music in concert halls and game artwork given awards, but there exists no general consensus on the issue, compared with the medium of paint or sculpture or even film.

I'm not going to argue one way or another. Personally, I believe that video games are art, but I'm not going to argue for that. My purpose is to propose I more immediate and more relevant question: does it really matter if video games are art? Consider the question for yourself, honestly; if video games were considered art, would you enjoy them more? Would their validation by society as an art form make the gameplay better, or the music more eloquent? Would the graphics suddenly become sharper, more realistic, more emotionally evocative? Would stories improve? I think we can probably all agree that none of that is going to happen simply because the status of "art" has been applied to the medium.

Think about the alternate side, though; if video games were never considered art, would that decrease your enjoyment of them? Unless you're that hung up on status, I doubt it. If you're not enjoying the "game" aspect of video games, but rather the "art" aspect of it, then you've probably lost focus on what the original purpose of a game is: to provide entertainment, allow the player to obtain and use skills, and (often times) challenge. Two of those things are irrelevant to art, and for art that is intensely personal to the artist, probably all three. But if games don't have those three elements, they stop being games. By focusing on the "art" label, one loses sight of the purpose of a game. I personally don't want my games diluted as such.

This brings me to the reasoning behind my point. It seems as if the push for art status for video games comes from the need of fans to legitimize their hobby. What better way to remove their feelings of social stigma than to get everyone to agree that games are art? At the core, I think a lot of gamers feel as if playing a game is the province of children, and that they are therefore seen as juvenile for holding on to childish things. I certainly can understand that mindset, as at least in America, there is a big emphasis on leaving behind things of childhood (early potty training, the notion of every level of school preparing you for more "adult" things, pushing for children to get out of the house as soon as possible, etc.). However, attempting to garner a more "respectable" status for your hobby just reinforces the notion that it's not respectable to have a hobby. The effort gamers put forth to argue for games as art would be better spent reinforcing that games are respectable as games. Then each person could decide for themselves whether or not games are art or pastime and not feel stigmatized either way.

So next time you feel the need to throw in your opinion on whether Ebert or Barker has it right, try looking past the narrow two-sided view to the bedrock, and make your case for games as independent, and good enough for you.