they are by the audience, atleast in most forms. Not like during Hamlet a random audience member play MacBeth and the other actors have to improv around it.

but that does sound kind of awesome though

Yes, but Films are made to be Made once, then watched again indefinitely.

Dance is a performance art, Dances are Made to be dance, Plays made to be performed, and Video Games made to be played.

You as an audience member observing is nice and all, and it's how they make money, but that's not their purpose, they're made to be DONE, whereas a Movie, Painting, Comic,or Novel are Explicitly made to be observed.

I personally don't consider, say, a video of someone dancing to be an example of dance exactly, but more like a very simple film.

From what I've seen in my limited experience with this whole thing, Ebert thinks art more along the lines of Shakespeare and Picasso than anything else. You know, things we're taught in high school and such about stuff dead guys made(Not that it's not art, natch).

So not only is he trying to talk of a subject he's not entirely researched in, not to mention being unwilling to research it anyways, but his definition of art is rather skewed for a lot of people. I wouldn't worry too much.

I can understand why people wish to defend games as art, though. I mean, it's Roger Ebert. Like it or not, he's still a name in the media biz, and also one of the biggest. Having his approval of gaming's artistic merits would be nice for gaming as a whole, if only because the mainstream would be receptive to him.

I mean, no, it doesn't exactly matter in the end, but it'd be nice if he gave games some credit.

You know, there's a certain amount of involvement in most art forms. I don't know about anyone else, but at the very least, I consider the analysis of a work to be a form of effort. Your media has to be pretty brainless for people to not do at least that, even if it takes only two seconds for them to deem it trash and move on. If I wanted to be petty, I'd say that reading, one of the older art forms, involves an active effort on the part of the audience to actually absorb the words and turn the pages and, hopefully, to visualize the action. I can't personally imagine reading as just the words on the page. That's just information. A story is an experience that words cannot contain on their own.

To say that art is something that you blankly sit in front of and shut up for the duration for is by far the worst argument I've heard come from a critic.


Edit: ninja'd

I LIKE TALKING ABOUT ART CAN YOU TELL
 

To be fair, video art has only been in existence for about 30-40 years, and internet art even less, but I've already studied and used both as an artistic medium as part of my required curriculum in fine art.

I'm just saying this because I'm bitter over having to sit and watch crazy art about creepy people staring at cameras and guys making out and- wait, maybe it's not that bad. (thank god for Andy Warhol)

...Speaking of Andy Warhol, I am immediately reminded of the art piece where Cory Archangel moded an NES cartridge to make a new game as a piece of art called "I shot Andy Warhol", and there have been lots of other art pieces that are similar. Hell, I've seen artists using that online game Second Life as a medium for their artwork.

That being said, I'm not saying I think video games are all high brow and should be featured in art galleries (except maybe the ones that are actually made to be "art" and not just to make money), I just am against the idea of making blanket statements about what could be considered art.

To be fair, if Shadow of the Colossus was widely considered to be "art" then the Louvre would suddenly KICK ASS.

I've been to plays like that. It happens

I believe it. but he wasn't saying the interactivity is why its not art, but the fact you can redo what you've done. He views video games more as a really elaborate choose your own adventure book

and remember I am just elaborating one what he means. I in no way agree with it and am fully aware of the examples that give evidence to the contrary. Just hoping to point out that ultimately, to him, video games aren't art because they are video games. So its impossible to debate the fact to him. As well as stating that this is just one persons opinion, no reason to get upset over it.

I believe Kerensky already said it, but I'll repeat my own simple view on the subject as well: Art is subjective.

I have played Ico before. Gotta admit, I WAS impressed by the visuals and the overall story.

I'm not dead yet.

So, WHOO I win the "He who has played Ico before dying wins" game. What do I get? An achievement? Some Rep points? Unlockable bonus content?

Seriously. As much as Ico is considered a highly artistic... piece, I could say the same about Super Mario Bros. 3 and not be wrong. Because, in my subjective opinion, anything that delves into my psyche and brings out emotion (whether that be rage, joy, satisfaction, whathaveyou) is worthy of being called art. Hell, a good joke is art to me. If I can laugh until I cry, that's bringing forth some powerful emotion.

Ergo, defining art is like defining normal. There is no universally accepted definition for either, and because the human race is a race of individuals, there never will be.

I submit that BOOGERS are art. Because I say so.