Are Trading Games Works of Art? A Response to Ed's Question

Though Ed's questions originated from a topic on which I am nearly absolutely ignorant, I found they led down an intriguing path.

Question 1.
Would these pieces, commissioned specifically to appear on a trading card, be considered works of art?

I think we would all agree from studies in this class and the Philosophy of Art course that some of the greatest works of art are commissioned pieces. So we cannot exclude the illustrations on Magic Cards as art because they are commissioned.

Question 2.
Would the cards on which the artwork appears be considered works of art, themselves?

I can relate this to previous chapters on art forgeries and reproductions. It is my belief that this is more a question of morality than one of art. In the case of Magic: the Gathering, the illustrations were created intentionally and specifically for reproduction as an artistic component of the game. I think the caliber of the illustrations themselves, as they appear as reproductions, should be the determinant factor as to whether or not the cards can be considered as containing works of art. I question whether one could consider the entire card as a work of art because then one is also evaluating whatever is written on the illustrated card. I am too ignorant of the game and these cards to respond strongly. If they are all similar to the card appearing on Tania’s blog, then I think the instructions appearing under the illustration might disqualify the individual cards themselves from consideration as individual works of art. I did find the quotation in this card quite clever, the reference to Borborygmus (stomach noises – growling or rumbling) with food and the boarish resemblance of the character on that card reflect the scope of knowledge of this game’s creator. I see no reason not to consider the artwork on these cards as similar to morally produced prints or reproductions of legitimate works of art – which leads to Ed’s last question.

Or the trading card game taken as a whole (be considered as works of art)?

If we take the trading card game as a whole to be a work of art, then we are necessarily including the instructions and the quotations, as well as the story and the illustrations.
Again, my ignorance of these games leaves me at a disadvantage. If the story were unalterable, as it is in literary works (which may be reprinted with new illustrations or photographs, but the literary text of the work is unchanged), then we would have to evaluate the game as a whole by assessing the artistic qualities of its parts. If the story qualifies as a literary work of art; and if the quotations and the illustrations deepen that story and are of the caliber necessary for consideration as works of art, then one still must determine whether or not the instructions are intrinsically considered as an aspect of the story AND as a result of this consideration OR on their separate merit, meet the requirements necessary to qualify as a work of art before one might consider evaluating the game as a work of art.

If the storyline itself were altered by individual players, then we would necessarily need to evaluate each new story (game) and judge the caliber of each new story (only if we had already granted work of art status to the original story and its instructions, quotes, and illustrations) in order to consider it as a work of art.

Given all this, I think we either have to conclude that these games as a whole, while comprised of artistic elements, which separately might be considered as works of art, are not works of art (as now classified and accepted), or we need to provide an additional category for works of art that allows us to evaluate, classify, and categorize them as works of art.

My Question
Are the categories or classifications of "works of art" as they currently exist, sufficient or insufficient? Do they invite or discourage art?