It's art Jim but not as we know it.

I was actually shaking my head at the completely unsophistcated approach on the vidoegame side. Ebert's point of view is readily rebutted through use of the dictionary, which while it may not be definitive is at least an objective point of reference.

Art:

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance.

11. arts,

a. (used with a singular verb) the humanities: a college of arts and sciences.

b. (used with a plural verb) liberal arts.

The collective result of this long list of definitions does not exclude, explicitly or implicitly, the main point of Ebert's argument: that in gaming there are rules and winning involved (assuming for argument's sake that in video games there is always an achievement of some sort that you can call "winning") therefore you can't call it art. The competetive / combative element has long been used as a snobbery barrier between traditional performing arts and sport. But in recent times there is a considerable blurring of that line to the extent that competetive sports can no longer be excluded from the modern definition of art. We have competetive art events / occasions: the Cannes film festival, fine art competitions, theatre sports, [Name of Country] Idol, So You Think You Can Dance. Each of these, and more, have rules and winners but the medium concerned is most assuredly art. But it must also be accepted that those events are not the totality of those artforms and all of those artforms would exists in the absence of each of those competetive activities. (Though fine art competitions are a HUGE part of how fine artists (painters, sculpters etc) make a living and establish themselves as credible artists.) Ebert may have total disdain for some of these things (Idol, so you think you can dance) but they fact remains that they are using art for competetive purposes. Then we have such things as Ballroom dancing, is it sport or is it art? If you ask anyone whether dance in general is an artform then I'd wager that the vast majority of people will say yes. This means that anything that is categorised as dance is also art, hence: Ballroom Dancing, Ice Dancing. Both are artforms as well as being competetive / sports with rules, winners and loser.

Elitist arty snobs want to exclude sport as simple plebian entertainment. I say sports (all sports) are competetive performance art. Boxing is well known as being "the pugalistic art". And how about martial arts?

With respect to the list of definitions I would argue that videogames fall into at least the following:

1. the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles, of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. (basically if you can judge it as being beautiful or appealing (or ugly or unappealing) according the aesthetic principles then it's art)

2. the class of objects subject to aesthetic criteria; works of art collectively, as paintings, sculptures, or drawings: a museum of art; an art collection. (subject to aesthetic criteria, or otherwise known as "how jaggy is that game"?)

5. any field using the skills or techniques of art: advertising art; industrial art. (Acting is an art, many videogames use voice acting and this gen in particular mo-cap acting. I think Nolan North would have a thing or two to say if you tried to tell him what he does in the VG industry isn't art.)

Perfect video for this argument amirite?

Well too bad games have already became art, not every game is art, not every movie is art, not all music is art, not every drawing on a piece of paper is art, but when someone crafts an experience that is meant to be some sort of reflection of oneself, the world, and various other topics and meant to be an experience rather than solely entertainment, it's art.

I leave you with this:

For those that know what this is, if you're like me it might choke you up when you see it in the right mood.

For what it's worth, Ebert has said (including in the comments on this article) that very, very few movies are art.

What is his definition of art? Really what sort of standards could he possibly have?  And honestly if he says few movies are art, then I'm calling out Picasso, he's got some art, but some of his paintings are just 4 lines and wouldn't even be called a doodle by common standards, just saying if we're having this high standard for what IS art, then it needs to be with everything.

Ebert is right and I agree with him.

I think the confusion comes because video games contain art. For instance, they have music, images, sound effects, etc. Those individual elements are art. But the video game in itself is not art.

How many moar beers till I can see it @_@

Play Mother 3 man, you really won't regret it, it's a tear jerker though.

Actually, I don't think that artistic values are blended into game rules. I think they are instrinsic to the rules themselves.

Let's take multiplayer games as an example. There are quite a few ways to get multiple players in a game.

A competitive rule set is a very common way to get multiple player together. Monopoly is a good example. You can cut mutually beneficial deals, but the ultimate goal is the complete domination of the game board and all other players. I know people who hate competitive multiplayer, and it's because of the negative emotions it evokes. They don't like being dominated by the winner, the sense of isolation that comes from being alone against all opponents, or the sense of failure that comes with losing.

So a co-operative rule set suits them better, like in the Lord of the Rings board game. In this game the players start with equal abilities and a common goal. This builds a sense of comeraderie and friendship in the face of adversity. Unlike in a competitive game, players are willing to 'die' for the greater cause and show their loyalty to the group.

Then you've got the traitor rule set, which you might be familiar with if you've attended one of those murder mystery party games. It's co-operative but with a twist: One of the players is not on the team. This instills a tension and a paranoid suspicion, as the other players need to co-operate with each other while being wary of the traitor/spy/murderer in their midst.

Just a few examples of multiplayer rules, each with different emotional implications. On their own, these rules might look like just a method or a device, like a literary device. It's how you put together these rules that creates an experience that the players interpret, just as a reader places his/her own interpretation on a poem.

I hope it doesn't seem like I'm picking on you, this is just a subject of much interest to me, and you're offering the most substantial material on the 'games aren't art' side of things.

i would say that video games are as much art as a book or a movie.