In what could be the biggest blow in the Art v Non-art bout, Forbes has reported that the National Endowment for the Arts has reclassified their defintion of ‘art’ to include interactive games.

The 2012 art reclassification was amended to include our favorite pastime possibly amidst growing discussion over whether games were in fact art or not. The reclassification reads:

“Projects may include high profile multi-part or single television and radio programs (documentaries and dramatic narratives); media created for theatrical release; performance programs; artistic segments for use within an existing series; multi-part webisodes; installations; and interactive games. Short films, five minutes and under, will be considered in packages of three or more.”

Interestingly, this now opens up video game developers for large government grants, however as is duefully noted, $200,000 isn’t likely to put much of a dent in the budget of large AAA titles, but it could definitely help out indie developers.

Are you pro or anti games as art? Let us know in the comments below.

Image Credit: [PlatformNation]


  1. Honestly, I’ve never considered games not to be art. It takes an artist on a concept level, character art, world art, design art, literature for the world that the game exists in, direction, story, acting, . Not to mention a more involved element with the game being interacive unlike a book or movie.

  2. While it’s great to see games legally considered an art form, at the end of the day it’s just another label. Whether we call it art or not, things like Limbo, and, well…I’m failing at thinking of more examples of “artsy” games, but they’re just very unique games that can only push the industry forward.

  3. Games can definitely be art. Examples include Shadow of the Colossus, LIMBO, Braid, Flower, Galatea, and some flash games, like Gyossait or Every Day the Same Dream.