Before I started reading Roger Ebert’s Journal (http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html) on “Video games can never be an art” I thought that video games could be considered an art form. I always felt that anyone that creates something with meaning can consider their work art. I mean artists today write lyrics and make music with so much emotion and life experience behind it… that to me is art. I use to credit video games and say they are an art form because they have so many components in the game that were created by people artistically. I would think that if paintings could be viewed and appreciated, what’s the difference between that and a modern interpretation of art?

However after reading, one quote in particular really caught my attention: “One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them” (Ebert). This really made me think twice about video games being an art form. It is true, you cannot win in art you can only experience them. That is where I went wrong with paintings, and artists that write music. They are not winning through their art forms; they either have experienced it, or are experiencing it. If you keep scores, if there is a point system, and you can win that seems like a game and takes away from the art of the creation.

There shouldn’t be any rules in art. It is a way for people to express themselves without having to worry about rules or the outcome of what they are trying to express. It lets them get out inner thoughts and emotions in a way that doesn’t limit then. I enjoyed reading this journal article because it really changed my perspective on it and I enjoy reading things that opens up my eyes and allows me to see it from a different view point.