Some questions don't get answers simply because no one thinks to ask them.

Take one of the central questions of video games--are they or can they be consider a form of art?

The question goes unasked most of the time for a fairly simple reason: If video games can be considered art, then asking and answering the question may not appear to provide a lot of value. If games are not art, then why waste the time trying to show that a form of leisure is more than just a way to kill time? if they are art, why bother to try and prove it?

Actually, I think both of these questions are worth answering. And like a lot of the better questions you can ask, just explaining why the question matters takes some time before you can ever set off to actually start providing any answers.

So why is the "Are games art?" question worth answering? That's a good question.

The central question of whether games are art or not is actually a more complex way of answering a simpler question which is--do video games deserve protection from censorship?

If games are just for fun, then the answer is probably, "No. You can censor entertainment. Just because it is fun, doesn't mean you should allow it." A well-worn notion around freedom of speech is that all forms of communication are not created equally. Political and religious speech generally get a higher regard from the courts and from the average censor than does advertising or entertainment, for example. Likewise, if you can show something is art, then that does not cloak it in a, invulnerable shield, but it does make everyone think twice before removing it from the public eye.

If games are art, the there is a clear line to freedom of speech and expression that runs straight through to painting, dance, photography music and other forms of popular and fine art. If you're going to protect one, you end up needing to protect them all.

Of course, even if games are not art, they still might deserve protection under the concept of freedom of speech.

But let's settle first things first. Are games art?

One of the purposes of this site is to explore that question and provide rationale to support my belief that in fact, games are art. In fact, I think they are emerging as the pre-eminent art form of the 21st century.

And if games are art, we need to move past the issues of whether or not Walmart should ban a game with nudity. We might as well ask if they should stock an Academy Award winning film with a little flesh--of course they should. If games are art, then we need to get on with the more important business of considering this proto art form from a critical perspective and urge on its development.

Then again, if we fail to show that games should be considered as a modern art form, at least we will know from that point on that video games are just an amusement and we can drop the pretense.

Those that want to can still take them seriously--like the millions of sports fans that make a Sunday football ritual a spiritual event. But we can't expect that the world at large will. And as far as the issues of freedom of speech go, if games are not art, then they may be more complex than juggling knives on a street corner for loose change. But they are not more special.

Are games art? That's a question that's worth the trouble to answer.