I don't mean to unfairly or unjustly attack video games, as I think that there are a lot of games that have beautiful and imaginative graphics, compelling and deep stories, etc.
However, art to me seems to be something that can be enjoyed passively; something that can be presented to people by someone who poured their heart and soul into one uncompromised product that is a representation of the self. I suppose that as the medium evolves, player interaction will begin change the definition of art, but as of now, I don't see it.
In addition, by my own definition I see maybe 1-2% of movies as being "art", so Ebert doesn't have much to stand on there.
Log in to comment