I think games can be art. However I've never played a game thats been a good peice of art.

I never thought Ebert would never be able to shut his fat mouth and then he lost his jaw ....

Is that a bit callous?

Wait....he has cancer.....dayum.

I know that feeling all too well, but still.  It seems Ebert's basis is that art is viewed "from afar," but I think video games, even though immersive, can be art.  Though, these days, they are as blockbuster as the infallible "cinema."   

Games are DESIGN!
It is not better nor worse then "art", but rather a different category side by side.
take some art history people!

Design can also be art. Take some critical theory!

Since this thread is still going and Reasonable brought up Ratatouille, i thought i should get back to this. As Khuutra pointed out, kraftmanship and artistic skills aren't exclusive to each other and one could argue whether Remys talent was because of his craftmanship - though, the analogy still works since the talent relied on his nose.

Then again, Reasonable pointed out that he consideres some games being art, or close to it. The problem? He was pointing out that games can't be art, because the art relies on non-game element, or to put it in another way games can't be art before they cease being games. If games can be art, they are art because of their own right, not by imitating something else. And this is why Ebert owned Santiago, who suggested that games are art because of the ability to imitate something else - or to become non-games.

Instead of looking at what is art, we should look at what art isn't, as liar's paradox suggests.

Art is non-business. Everywhere in the business world there's the clash between the creative guys and the business guys. The business guys wants the product to sell, while the creative guys just wants to create something "cool".

Art is non-entainment. In every medium there is, every time someone manages to put out something entertaining - whether it be Harry Potter, Britney Spears, Wii Sports, an action movie - it's always dissed as non-art.

Obviously, Ebert acknowleges this, and Santiago was just a sitting duck for his to shoot, since all Santiago did was to point out games with commercial success.

Where Ebert failed badly was with the rules. If you make movie, music or book, you need to have rules in it. Without the rules, your creation is a complete mess.
Then again, winning the game is only getting to end of the game and the whole "winning" was only saying that playing a game isn't art, while watching a movie or reading a book is.

In the end, i do agree with Ebert that games aren't art, but where i likely disagree him is, that movies, music and books aren't art either.

Your comment is there now.

I'd have to disagree (not with what you've personally seen) but as to likely levels of improvement.  In the end, no matter how much anyone studies, they are not going to be a Kubrik or a Wells or a Picasso or a Shakespeare (I know I'm picking the tip top but it's easiest to make the point there).

I do believe that probably all of us could easily be better at almost anything but putting in effort - in fact as I said that goes towards enjoying art as well (whatever the medium).  The more you understand the more you can appreciate.  For example, sticking with the examples from Ratatouille, Colette clearly understands the medium of food way more than Linguini, but of course if he tried really hard he could improve and perhaps get to Colette's level.  But while Colette (as presented) might become a minor artist herself, I believe the film is accurate and correct in its thesis that in the end we all have an upper limit and they differ.

The Incredibles (also by Bird) also echoed elements of this sentiment.  Some people are just smarter, faster, better whether at art, counting, rowing, running or whatever and while we can all improve ourselves I really, really doubt we can all hit the top tier.  In the end one by one we'd hit a barrier, where native talent (the creative spark if you will or your basic physical makeup for sports) would not be enough and not amount of learning or practice would take us further.

I do take the optimistic view, which I hope comes across in my posts - but I also doubt the ability for everyone to reach the highest pinacles of any endevour.

Interesting take.  One point on the rules, which also interests me.  The tip top best artists (whatever the medium) are those I believe who literally change the rules by being so talented or good or creative or however you want to view it.  An analogy I believe is an anecdote (not sure if it's true or not but it converys they idea) regarding Citizen Kane.

Apparently the initial day of filming did not go well.  Orson Wells simply didn't know the basic rules of cinema.  Luckily, some of the seasoned hands on the shoot offered to give him some pointers, and he reviewed with them the basic rules of cinema at the time, where someone should enter a shot, etc. etc.

Now Wells understood cinema (at that point).  But when he returned to shoot, he went beyond those rules because now he understood them, he also saw how he could create new rules to better deliver the artistic package he wanted.

Kubrick clearly did this, too.  And say a Picasso.

But again we're talking about the best, really.

Liked reading your post, though.

I believe the day is coming when the finest collaborative work of the world's best composers, musicians, writers, actors and artists will be a video game or interactive movie. At that point it will be hard for even the artistic purists to argue against it's inclusion. I hope Mr Ebert is still around to see it. I hope we are.

Showing him HR wouldn't change his opinion but it might give him insight on the medium. I've heard Braid and Flower are well done but far from complex or cutting edge.

VG's have an advantage over most of their entertainment competition in the potential for immersion and interactivity. To me 'Art' seems tied to the quality of presentation rather than the method.

Well for me when I meant Remy I didn't exactly mean Kubrick, Heifetz, etc anyone of the top just anyone in the level of artist. Of course if all of us hit the top-tier than what would the top tier be, therefore not all of us can be "the best" eventually the art would just evolve one step further if a occurrence like that were to occur.

As for limits, I believe the only limit in any artist's life is time, native talent will always improve.The arts are about what is being human, so as long as a person experiences human emotions, feelings, life, he/she will undoubtedly improve in the arts as well. As long as you learn and practice correctly you will always improve, Beethoven's quartet music is actually extremely similar in certain ideas to early 20th century classical music, he was so amazing he brought a new era of music "Romanticism", and predicted where music would go 100 years later.