One word - creativity. I believe that if something is incredibly creative, it MAY transcend into what we commonly call "art". It appears Ebert is saying, because "something" can have an outcome it cannot be classed as "art". Is it he who made this "rule" up? He then refers to sports stars to support his logic. He is getting mixed up with the players and the sport. I am the video game player, not the video game. Jordan is the basketball player, not "basketball". I am not necessarily saying basketball is art, either. I am just trying to point out that if Ebert is using this point to logically support his view... well it's flawed logic, lol.
It shows to me that this person is "old fashion" and cannot and will not take into account any "new" paradigm shifting media.
Existing User Log In
New User Registration
Register for a free account to gain full access to the VGChartz Network and join our thriving community.
