People are always questioning what art is and what it is not. Gaming has become a new source of debate; is game making an art? The article Persuasive Games: The Proceduralist Style by Ian Bogost answers this question. Bogost gives a brief description of the major art ‘eras’ through history, which gives us the context of his argument. Basically, he displays the erratic, defiant, and unpredictable nature of art throughout its history. He continues his argument by displaying the functions of the different styles of games, how they perform, the question the games arise, how people interact with games, etc. Overall, he makes a solid case for his belief that gaming is an art due to its overall function.
Human’s have a general tendency to shy-away from change and the new frontiers of concepts–especially the concept of art. This inability to accept new forms/styles/mediums as art has been a reoccurring habit of humanity as Bogost begins to display. Of course, there is a need to draw a line somewhere. We can’t just say that that any object is art. Or can we? What the concept of art incorporates, and what it does not, is a tricky question to say the least.
Gaming is not the only new art frontier that has been having trouble acquiring the title of ‘art’ in recent times. Graffiti has also encountered the same issues. It seems that certain people have trouble seeing art in certain forms of self-expression, because they do not understand the media or are culturally opposed it.
“Human’s have a general tendency to shy-away from change and the new frontiers of concepts–especially the concept of art.” I totally agree with you on this and believe that humans tend to always be afraid of new things and things which they cannot understand. To me creating a game, very much a work of art.