1 - I note most saying he's wrong aren't actually posting any arguments that actually give weight to their denial - sorry, but true, and just going 'you're old and wrong' doesn't actually argue anything
2 - most games clearly aren't Art (in the sense of high Art, not a pretty picture) because most games, as Ebert notes, are games, just like Chess or Badminton. As he notes, few are falling over demanding Badminton be seen as Art (and Badminton was sure interactive the last time I checked)
3 - to be Art, whatever the actual definition, their has to be an intent to create Art I believe - for example Kubrick was most certainly aiming to create Art using cinema as the medium whereas (obviously to all I hope) Michael Bay isn't. And by the same token I'm not really sure who, apart from a small number of individuals, are really trying to create Art using videogames as the medium. I'm not buying accidental Art or the artistic creation of a level or a creature design - that's the same as all the cool designs we see in films all the time, and it's just craftsmanship, not Art.
Now, despite seeming to argue for Ebert, I will say that, because I believe anything can be used to create Art, then in principle videogames can of course be Art (and it's on this point I guess I diverge from Ebert a little).
But have any so far? None I've played. Although some tell a great tale well and certainly show the ability to deliver a fun game and a good narrative too (although the actual number of games I'm thinking of is tiny compared to the actual number of games out there).
Will videogames get there someday? Maybe. Ebert acknowledges that. I suspect he's out in thinking it's quite as far off as he states, but I suspect it ain't going to be anytime soon either.
But as Ebert notes - will a videogame that is recognized as Art actually be a videogame in the traditional sense? Has any gameplay mechanic ever felt like Art? The elements of videogames that feel like Art tend to be those that don't involve you actually playing - a created mood, an evocation of an emotion - which raises the question is the gameplay actually getting in the way of creating Art?
Anyway - I'm just going to say I'm sure videogames can be Art, but that they haven't achieved that yet and I agree with Ebert that it'll be a while before we see it happen.
I also agree with him the interesting question is the increasing focus around this very topic. With videogames big business now and a lot of creative energy being expended to develop them, does the industry and those who enjoy it (us the gamers) feel a need to have that recognition?
Does it matter? Should videogames not be seen as either pure games or the equivalent of a decent Hollywood popcorn movie? Isn't that really where the industry is right now?
He does ask a damn good question there.
Try to be reasonable... its easier than you think...
