Roger Ebert claims "video games cannot be art"; molests children.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

One prince made it up to explain why some other prince was a douche. I think? It was at the beginning of Chess the Musical.

Nah, one prince sent it to another prince to do that, but the game itself was already around at that point.

I believe it was the Indians sending it to the Persians.

But, like I said, playing the game, and doing things (like that) with the game can be art, but the game itself isn't, because it lacks the context that would allow it to make those things I said before. I think this is actually why we came up with the idea of performance art--that sometimes an action can present social views, or beauty, or all those other neat things we prescribe to art, better than anything else, but there's no way to really save the ephemeral act, ergo performance art.

Originally Posted by Mike McC

But, what about Robert Ebert, someone who has dealt with art for years, in the form of cinema? Surely that experience nets him the right to argue about what is Art.

See reply to Mesden Vis a Vis legitimacy of Ebert.

If he had studied art he'd know better than to make the definition he did.

[Mike McC]

Originally Posted by Krylo

See reply to Mesden Vis a Vis legitimacy of Ebert.

If he had studied art he'd know better than to make the definition he did.

Do you have the right to judge him worthy of having an opinion on art? Do you have the experience to qualify you for that right? I mean, surely, you are not exempt from this criteria.

[Krylo]

Originally Posted by Mike McC

Do you have the right to judge him worthy of having an opinion on art? Do you have the experience to qualify you for that right? I mean, surely, you are not exempt from this criteria.

Welp, as is proven by my ability to actually use an actual accepted definition of art, I can easily argue I know more about artistic integrity than he does.

So yes.