While I tend to agree with Roger Ebert’s core argument presented in this week’s reading, I was surprised to read how he presented his claims. First, he titled his piece “Video Games Can Never be Art”, yet later he points out his foolishness for doing so because this implies that video games will never evolve past where they are now. Then Ebert begins his article by saying that he has “declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend [himself]“. This statement immediately suggests to the reader that he is close-minded and biased in his claims, weakening his ethos. Later Ebert states that an “obvious difference” between art and games is that a game has “rules, points and objectives”. Here I strongly disagree with this argument; while art may lack set rules, the objective is to evoke an emotional response from its audience, whether that be positive or negative. I actually think that in this way games are extremely similar to art because games have the ability to connect and relate to its users that allow them to resonate in our society.

But after getting past my original analysis of Ebert’s rhetorical strategies, I do agree with the main point of his article. At this point in time in today’s culture, the majority of our video games do not classify as art. While some may “imitate nature”, they fail to convey or express ideas with the deliberate intention of doing so. However, I remain open to those who disagree with my opinion, because I truly do believe that art is subjective, as well as its definition.