The problem with asking if games are art is that the answer can be as simple and as complicated as you have time for. In some sense, anyone trying to be stingy about what qualifies as art is fighting a battle that was decided a long time ago. Today, anything can be art if you're willing to give it your attention and let it move you.
"The problem with asking if games are art is that the answer can be as simple and as complicated as you have time for."
I actually think there is a separate danger. When someone asks "are games art?" I think they are provoking a different question, which is: "Is there a better reason to play a game than to have fun." A similar question is "are games therapeutic?" I think most of us would respond to "are games therapeutic?" with "Maybe, but nobody running a game should be trying to do therapy." In a similar way, I think we can say "Sure yeah, games are art, but primarily they are a way to have fun with one another." Or maybe that's not obvious!
To me the true art of RPG creation comes from the interaction between the game designer and the people playing it at the table. The goal of all art (well, perhaps I shouldn't say all but eh) is to convey a certain feeling or experience upon the audience. Games are a unusual (though not unique) form of art because they are highly interactive. This gives them a much greater opportunity for creating strong emotions, but also makes it a lot trickier because the designer really has very little control over how the game will actually be played at the table. But even that is not all that unique, as every piece of art only becomes true art by being interpreted by its audience. So yes, games are art.
I appreciate this question because it does enjoin discussion beyond just pretty pictures alongside the text. I think the Mörk Borg aesthetic is one of those objects which hits all three (design, art, and play). The art captures the eye, the design blows out the "what the heck is this?" aesthetic to such a marvelous "yes, we're doing this thing" degree that you can't help but marvel at it, and the actual ruleset is almost like poetry, in a sense. There's not a lot of wasted breath in that text.
"The problem with asking if games are art is that the answer can be as simple and as complicated as you have time for."
I actually think there is a separate danger. When someone asks "are games art?" I think they are provoking a different question, which is: "Is there a better reason to play a game than to have fun." A similar question is "are games therapeutic?" I think most of us would respond to "are games therapeutic?" with "Maybe, but nobody running a game should be trying to do therapy." In a similar way, I think we can say "Sure yeah, games are art, but primarily they are a way to have fun with one another." Or maybe that's not obvious!
Another great newsletter
To me the true art of RPG creation comes from the interaction between the game designer and the people playing it at the table. The goal of all art (well, perhaps I shouldn't say all but eh) is to convey a certain feeling or experience upon the audience. Games are a unusual (though not unique) form of art because they are highly interactive. This gives them a much greater opportunity for creating strong emotions, but also makes it a lot trickier because the designer really has very little control over how the game will actually be played at the table. But even that is not all that unique, as every piece of art only becomes true art by being interpreted by its audience. So yes, games are art.
I appreciate this question because it does enjoin discussion beyond just pretty pictures alongside the text. I think the Mörk Borg aesthetic is one of those objects which hits all three (design, art, and play). The art captures the eye, the design blows out the "what the heck is this?" aesthetic to such a marvelous "yes, we're doing this thing" degree that you can't help but marvel at it, and the actual ruleset is almost like poetry, in a sense. There's not a lot of wasted breath in that text.