ABSTRACT
Attacks on the value of computer art often echo doubts about its status as genuine art. Yet CAF blithely assumes that at least some interactive, computerbased works are genuine art, and chapter 4 builds on this assumption by naming folks like Goldberg, Lopes, Shaw, Snibbe, and Yamakawa as playing the role of computer artist. But why assume that they really create works of art? Why, in other words, classify computer art as an appreciative art kind and not simply as an appreciative kind? After all, not everything we appreciate is art. To spice up the question, consider the analogy between computer art and games. Video games are run on computers, they’re interactive, and they’re interactive because they’re run on computers, and yet many people, including avid gamers, find it quite comical to dignify such productions as Pong and Grand Theft Auto with the label of “art.”
