Roger Ebert says video games can never be art

[r505Matt]

I took an evolutionary psychology class actually, but that's besides the point. Good points about "how" you play Wii Fit, makes a big difference. But, in the end, if no one's really getting fit from Wii Fit (like that 2nd linked study suggests), that says something. People who don't like to exercise, but like games, aren't going to suddenly drop 20 lbs with Wii Fit (or 10). A real lifestyle change is needed to drop weight (real exercise + diet).

I know that's the popular opinion among critics, but that is ridiculous to me. It's almost like if something is popular, it can't be regarded as art. To say that popular things can't be regarded as art is ridiculous. On the other side, and I'm not sure if you thought I was saying this (I wasn't), but just because something's popular, and moves a lot of people, (like I said was important for art) that doesn't make it art either. I think if something moves someone or people, then it can be art, regardless of popularity. Fuck the critics, we're seeing here with Ebert that they might not understand much of anything after all (even if he had 1 good point). In general, critics should stay within their realm of expertise.

And while we're on the subject of critics, and I'll talk music, if one of them thinks Mozart's Requiem is a work of art, and another doesn't, is one of them wrong? Does it take a general consensus of critics to say "Yes, it is art" or "No it is not"? Critics' opinions have no bearing on whether a work is art or not. Art is a very personal thing, and no critic can tell you whether your perspective of art is right or wrong. Granted, this is my opinion, but this is an opinion I feel VERY strongly about; as opposed to pretty strongly about like most of my other opinions =)