Following the ruling that Manhunt 2 be banned from release that age-old question of art once again decides to rear it's ugly head and plague thought.

The answer is of course they are, as anyone who's played (and enjoyed) Ico will agree thoroughly, presumably shaking their head frantically in the process. But that's not to say all videogames should be classified as art, something that's partly ensured as a result of the masses of dull dreary First-Person-Shooters. But then there's that ongoing mini-debate and disillusion that art is in the eye of the beholder, opening up the ground and ruining any past foundation as to the answer and meaning of art, and what it is and isn't. As a visual experience predominantly, of course videogames should at least be considered as being art, but the emotions and feelings that some evoke, like that of any "proper art" is perhaps reinforcement if any was needed that they are indeed an artform.

But there's more to it than that, because it's hard to determine what art is and isn't in the here and now present day. The impact of something creative can only be measured and observed across time, seeing likewise how it's moved and affected other individuals, as well as the impact it's had on the rest of it's peers. Already this is something that takes place in the videogame industry with one new conceptual movement leading way to a dozen hundreds utilising similar notions, but here they shouldn't be regarded as art, at least the subsequent titles, because they're based on founding ideas and creation, and not unique in the slightest. Essentially, they're someone else's idea, and this is perhaps the reason why the FPS genre can never be art, because it's all the same idea, just with different execution. But then, going back to entire art-movements, unfortunately this argument doesn't and shouldn't work.

Again to Ico, the same can be said here as it is a very standard platformer 3D adventure. But the argument for it being classified art as already mentioned, is the impact it leaves on each individual player, and the things they take away from that playthrough. But execution of that tried and tested idea, a twenty-first century equivelent to painting is where the argument lies, and the steps the creative forces have taken to build this particular title and experience. Again, time dictates how much of an effect it will have on generations to come, as well as on the industry itself, and perhaps, only then, we can look back and define something as being truly artistic, something invariably happening a lot nowadays with modern art and it's numerous states of confusion. As a loose example, Damien Hirst doesn't appeal to everyone at the moment, but already his art has created an impact on the art industry, and indeed, added further considerations into that age-old question of what art is, something that's happened hundreds of times before throughout history.

EDGE declared outright that videogames could be art, with choices contrasting with my own as to what art was and what defined it, but art as a whole should be an individual experience of emotion and wonder rather than endless lists of yes/no categories. It depends on your emotions, background, ideas and thoughts yes, but simply put, art is what you make it, and what you make is art.