Over at The-Inbetween.com, Mike Nowak has a thoughprovoking, vaguely snarling blog post on games as art, and why asking if they are is missing the point somewhat.

He notes on the whole odd 'are games art?' discussion: "It's already there. It doesn't matter if Hideo Kojima doesn't think games are art and says art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. The organizers of the "Controller" exhibit have already contradicted his statement by showcasing their work in a gallery. They have already turned classic games, like Super Mario Bros., into art (mario_battle_no.1) and into something entirely different in the same manner that LHOOQ turned a classic painting into its own distinct work of art."

Overall, Nowak concludes, stridently: "It doesn't matter whether the games of yore are art or were art. What matters is that there exists an entire generation of artists that grew up with them and continues to live with them. An entire generation defined by them. In their eyes, those games that resonate aren't just mindless entertainment, they're mythology... That's what makes game art. Not renders and sprites, but artists' interpretations of them; their reworking of the systems and rules of games; and their use of interactivity to make a statement." I say, a little intelligent fire is good for a 'debate' like this.