This is where I stand on it, as well. My view of art is that it is any form of creative expression. What sets video games apart from chess or football as an artistic medium is their ability to engage the player on a meaningful emotional level not from the results of the player's performance as Ebert seems to believe but from their capability to involve narrative, visuals, music, etc. The interactivity of the medium doesn't change the artistic impact of the work itself, because all the pieces of the work were still created and put in place by the artists. The interactive medium only serves to change what the viewer sees at any moment, but the viewer has no real impact over the work itself.

Ebert's assertion that a video game cannot be art because it is made by a team of countless individuals crafting different parts of the project is flawed as well, and beyond his cathedral analogy. A film or television show is also the result of similarly sized teams of creative individuals working toward a common goal. His analogy also discounts music written by a band rather than a single songwriter. Collaborative art is still art.

And, finally, his apparent demand that he be shown a game that he can deem art is both a massive burden of proof fallacy and and an ultimately impossible one to overcome, as he will never deem a game art. That said, my personal choice for a game that uses the medium as an artform for the creative expression of a single person would be Eversion, but it's unlikely that a man like Mr. Ebert would see it as anything more than some pixelated bleeps and bloops for the maybe minute and a half at most he'd care to look at it.

its all subjective, and depends on what you call art. There are people that view only paintings as "art" after all. The very fact games are interactive might dismiss it as an artform. Seems he is one of them, by how he sites that being able to correct errors removes any real impact of what you do. He is entitled to his opinion

My only complaint would be if he is making this as a critique because he clearly judges games with a bias. To him their very nature keeps them from being art and to be what he calls art they'd cease to be games. He isn't insulting gamers, he isn't saying games are childish, evil, simple, or anything negative about those that play them. Just that he would not classify it as an artform.

I think he's wrong, but isn't saying anything that deserves my ire and hatred

Big Eebs is plainly trolling, but on the whole it's for the best because it's led to a lot of actually interesting thoughts and discussion on the nature of art and games' relation to it.

Why were filmmakers so intensely concerned, anyway, that they be considered artists?

Really, this is typical Ebert. Who is not, after all, a film critic, but rather a movie reviewer.

Those people would be obviously wrong. Even accepted art forms include sculpture, pencil/ink sketches, and other things I won't list. That's totally ignoring drama, music, poetry, and prose.

I disagree. Theater is an art form, after all. What's a game if not a play taking place on a screen with input from the observer? A movie where the player becomes an actor in the story? The same kind of time and effort goes into both games and movies. The only difference is who the star is.

Ire and hatred, perhaps not, but a correction, maybe so. The people at the head of the artistic gaggle, as it were, are the very ones who should be fostering the arts, not defining them. Look once at comics and their terrible reputation. Nobody takes them seriously because of bad marketing. Slap the term "graphic novel" on them? Instant respect. It's the same product, but the marketing is different. Rather than setting up an example of the potential comics hold, people instead had to give them a different name in order to bypass the image comics have been ascribed by people who frankly just don't like them. That would be like letting your worst enemy name your children. You can bet it won't turn out well. The same goes here. The heads of the art community shouldn't be excluding what by all means should be their fellows, but rather supporting and nurturing them. Yes, games fall under an almost totally different model of production, with vast amounts of time and money thrown into them, but as I said, movies are in the same boat in that regard, and those clearly have a place.

If it were anyone else saying it, I could forgive them. Maybe games aren't art. Then neither would be movies, or modern music. I could dig that view. "Keep it to the old and true." But to draw a line between movies and video games is hypocritical. They're not that different.

Someone should ask him if the movies he's written screenplays for would be considered art.

Who cares?

A) I mirror the view of "Why are we so concerned that games be considered art?"

B) If games are art, which I might say only a minority are, then they're pretty shitty art. And I say that on top of being heavily biased in thinking art is really, really boring.

C) Robert Ebert liked Knowing. Fuck that guy.

A) You say that, but I again direct you to the comics example. By applying a blanket statement over a media that prevents it from being considered art, you crush it. Then it never will be, and people will never take it seriously. Yes, "artistic" games are few, but the same could be said for movies. Yet movies are considered an art form. The ability to call a work art brings a respect and acceptance to it.

B) Again, the same could be said for movies. Or anything for that matter. 90% of everything is shit. Take Persona 3. A wonderful game, not particularly graphically advanced compared to other titles, but absolutely dripping with symbolism. If it were a movie, Ebert would likely praise it for the set design, music, and message. It's definitely in the 10% of things that are good. It is art. Maybe not "artistic" in some snooty sense, but the sum of the whole is a masterwork about loss and mortality and living on.

C) He gave Glenn Beck both barrels, though, so he's not ALL bad.

So, you've never played ICO, eh?