The article “Video games can never be art” by Roger Ebert made me a little angry. I think the author takes an unnecessarily arrogant tone. He seems to criticize video gamers as desperate to have their games be defined as art–as if they have a subconscious, compulsive need to justify the hours they put into gaming. Ebert asks, “Why are gamers so intensely concerned, anyway, that games be defined as art?” As I read the article, I was struck by a similar question: why is Roger Ebert so intensely concerned with excluding video games from the realm of art? This is a discussion that I don’t feel strongly about one way or the other; however, it always annoys me when people defend their opinions with flawed or insubstantial arguments. For instance, Ebert concludes his thoughts with this:

Toward the end of her presentation [at USC], [Santiago] shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case.

Elsewhere in this article, Ebert touts his opinion that “no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists and poets.” (An odd quote to repeat, since he lists poets twice. Are poets super-artists?) Basically, he’s saying that poetry, novels and films constitute art, but video games do not. His last “proof” of this comes from Santiago’s own visual, which depicts the different departments involved in video games. Ebert seems to imply that the true art could not be broken down into such commonplace departments.

But don’t novels and movies work the same way? The “development” branch or phase would encompass the authors, writers, painters, directors, and so on–all of whom we would consider “artists.” So why not video game developers? And of course, publishing or producing their art would be impossible without all these other factors. Someone has to finance the art (like a painter’s patron), publish it, market it, do the research, and make the decisions. Once upon a time, all of those things might not have been necessary, but today films and books are designed for mass consumption.

I think there are probably several good reasons to delineate between video games and other art forms. However, I’m not sure that Ebert brought any up in this article. Again, I don’t care much either way. I think developing a wildly successful video game requires as much artistic and creative ability as writing a bestselling novel or blockbuster film. I even think in some cases, playing the games requires as much artistic appreciation as enjoying a painting or a poem. Maybe the programmers “limit” your ability to interact with their art creativity by narrowing your choices or choosing for you, but not any more than an author does.

At the end of the day, I’m not sure video games are that much different from “real art.”