I'd uh... I'd actually call Monopoly art.  The creation of Monopoly was designing gameplay rules, and a way to win, for an artistic endeavor.  It was a social commentary on the way capitalism forces regular people to become selfish landlords who will stop at nothing to destroy their neighbors, who are now "opponents."  It almost always results in somebody crying or throwing the board.  It's almost like an interactive film in a way, always ending in the horrible defeat of the many and the glorious rise to power of one evil fat cat.  And if Monopoly is art, then Monopoly on the NES is art.  And other games that force you to go down a certain path for a certain feeling or lesson can be art.

I'd uh... I'd actually call Monopoly art.  The creation of Monopoly was designing gameplay rules, and a way to win, for an artistic endeavor.  It was a social commentary on the way capitalism forces regular people to become selfish landlords who will stop at nothing to destroy their neighbors, who are now "opponents."  It almost always results in somebody crying or throwing the board.  It's almost like an interactive film in a way, always ending in the horrible defeat of the many and the glorious rise to power of one evil fat cat.  And if Monopoly is art, then Monopoly on the NES is art.  And other games that force you to go down a certain path for a certain feeling or lesson can be art.

Also, I feel like... before we could consider videogames art we need to DRASTICALLY change the dynamic as far as remakes are concerned.

I mean, compare the reaction to the changes George Lucas made in Star Wars....

To the reaction to even a HINT that FF7 may be remade, or the remakes of the other Final Fantasy games.

In general we are supportive of the industry remaking and in ways ruining the original artistic quality and intent of the game made itself.

I've got no problems with remakes... although I find it hard to count remakes as "art".  Another reason the "art in reviews" thing doesn't work yet in my mind.

Outside of "presentation" anyway.

I'll jump in here if that's okay?

In terms of Art it's so hard to put down something short, but my own, personal view from both academic studies plus just my own, spare time interest in Art, is that:

Art is the deliberate process of using a medium (could be your own body a'la performance art, could be cinema, clay, paint, computer generated, etc) to create a thematic work that invokes emotion, thought or speculation in the observer (or participant if the form of the medium is interactive) regarding the human experience or the Universe we inhabit or aspects of its (and our) nature.

I think I've been overly wordy previously but put simply I've very comfortable the videogame medium can be used to create Art, I just think that a) very few developers are actually trying to create art in the medium and that b) those that do are at the very embryonic phase of the medium's development.

I do see an element of quality, too.  In a sense everyone is capable of anything, be it painting or running or whatever, but of course some of us are terrible at those - to me there is obviously a cut off (that is probably as hard to define as art itself) where someone or the art they create is so poor as to not be worth particularly considering (possibly Mr Bay?).

To use a potentially odd source, consider Ratatouille (which I hope you've seen as it's rather fantastic).  We are given the presupposition that "anyone can cook" and we are then shown a variety of people with various skills and abilities as to cooking.  Within the film there is a clear examination (in my view) of what these differing levels mean and the film mediates this to a reflection or artistic work (as well as, which I won't dive into, the relationship between artistic creation and artistic criticism of the creation).

The conclusion I felt was accurate and summed things up nicely if we look at the core three characters (let's skip Skinner, etc).

Remy simply has natural skills and abilities that enable him to create individual and original works beyond the concept and capability of most other cooks.  He is a Kubrick of cooking.  A Shakespeare of cooking.  He is an Artist and he creates works of Art with food.  Those who eat his food are moved emotionally, and he even gets a bitter critic to recant his ways.

Collete is a craftsman (sorry, craftswoman).  She has been taught, she has studied.  She is a good cook and can recreate or replicate very, very well.  you would love to eat what she cooks.  but she isn't an artist.  she has skill but simply learnt, repetitive skills coupled with a decent native talent but she lacks the creative spark that would make her a true artist on the level of Remy.

Linguini can cook, but you wouldn't want to eat what he cooks.  He lacks both the creative spark or even the talent to be a craftsman.  He is how most of us are at certain things - lacking in anything but basic ability.

Now you could apply this to anything, and that includes Artists and Art.  Quality does matter, and while hard to define exactly where the line in the sand is, there is nonetheless clear differences between artistic masters - be it cooking, film, etc. - craftsmen (and women) and Michael Bay (okay, enough of Mr Bay actually).  The reality I believe from observation is that the majority of us are Linguini's at something or other, there are a smaller number of Collete's (of varying skill levels) and that, perhaps inevitably, there really are only a few at the peak of any human endevour with the skills and talent of a Remy.

However, I don't agree with Ebert that the quality can only be understood or appraised by an educated view.  I think most of us have pretty good abiltiy, if we take a moment to consider, to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff.  Differences of view (one man's Art is another's Trash, etc) will produce differences of exact opinion, but I don't think the ability to evaluate is limited just to academics (I certainly hope this isn't the case).  I will concede though, that if you want to really understand a medium you yourself are going to have to put in some effort and learn some basics about the medium to fully understand it.

I'm personally talking about the quality of the artist and what they produce, not some designated academic quality, and as the basis for attempting to sort out the true creative, origianl artists from the craftspeople who reproduce with skill but no creative ability and the Linguinis.

I am of the opinion that most of what some would argue is art in games is craftmanship, wonderfully done, and relying on artistic skill, but craftmanship nonetheless.

A key missing element for me is the desire (and talent) to use the medium with the goal of producing a work of Art vs a work of entertainment for commercial purposes using gameplay mechanics (this isn't to say Art can't be entertaining or commercial, just that for me there has to be a desire to also create Art even if you intend it to be both entertaining and commercial).

But as I stated there are games that have convinced me the medium can deliver.  Ico, Shadow of the Colossus and Silent Hill 2 for example, all have clear thematic elements beyond being just a game - they have intent in their design and construction to evoke thought, emotions and contemplate aspects of human behaviour and they use the medium of videogames to mediate their themes for the person playing them.

I've no doubt that, looking at current trends, we are going to see more people stepping us to this challenge.

One final point though, I wonder if, as Ebert notes, we'll consider the result a videogame as we currently define them, or something else entirely?

Like I said, there could be art IN games, but the games themselves are not art. It is never the primary focus of games. Games are related more closely to math and physics than art, in that they are based around rules and specific mechanics. The "art" in games is just the exterior. Monopoly may have an artistic message as you say, but it is not the central focus of the game. People play monopoly to have fun and use their mind to make decisions themselves, not to be moved emotionally or get political messages.

Art and games serve different purposes. Art is meant to "do all the work" for the person experiencing it so to speak. It is meant to move people emotionally, to send a message, comment on society, or wow people visually. Games are meant to entertain people through interaction, and to make the user be maker of the outcome. They give the user an array of options and let the user logically and strategically select from these options what they think is the best outcome to "win" the game. You cannot "win" art.

In a sense, games are really the anti art. Games give an array of options and lets the user provide their own course and experience, art provides it for them.

Like I said, there could be art IN games, but the games themselves are not art. It is never the primary focus of games. Games are related more closely to math and physics than art, in that they are based around rules and specific mechanics. The "art" in games is just the exterior. Monopoly may have an artistic message as you say, but it is not the central focus of the game. People play monopoly to have fun and use their mind to make decisions themselves, not to be moved emotionally or get political messages.

Art and games serve different purposes. Art is meant to "do all the work" for the person experiencing it so to speak. It is meant to move people emotionally, to send a message, comment on society, or wow people visually. Games are meant to entertain people through interaction, and to make the user be maker of the outcome. They give the user an array of options and let the user logically and strategically select from these options what they think is the best outcome to "win" the game. You cannot "win" art.

In a sense, games are really the anti art. Games give an array of options and lets the user provide their own course and experience, art provides it for them.

Like I said, there could be art IN games, but the games themselves are not art. It is never the primary focus of games. Games are related more closely to math and physics than art, in that they are based around rules and specific mechanics. The "art" in games is just the exterior. Monopoly may have an artistic message as you say, but it is not the central focus of the game. People play monopoly to have fun and use their mind to make decisions themselves, not to be moved emotionally or get political messages.

Art and games serve different purposes. Art is meant to "do all the work" for the person experiencing it so to speak. It is meant to move people emotionally, to send a message, comment on society, or wow people visually. Games are meant to entertain people through interaction, and to make the user be maker of the outcome. They give the user an array of options and let the user logically and strategically select from these options what they think is the best outcome to "win" the game. You cannot "win" art.

In a sense, games are really the anti art. Games give an array of options and lets the user provide their own course and experience, art provides it for them.