Video Games can never be art
“No video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an artform...” “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, composers, painters and so on...” “They will not evolve..” These are the arguments emphasized in Rogert Ebert’s article about video games which for me, are striking and disturbing. Appreciation of the video games as art depends on one’s own definition of what is art. Ebert said that the most articulate definition of art he has found is stated in Wikepedia. It goes, “ Art is the process of deliberately arranging elements in a way that appeals to the senses or emotions. Plato, on the other hand, spoke that “art should be defined as the imitation of nature. Roger Ebert, however, defined art as creation of one artist. This only implies that one interprets a certain medium or form depending on his/her own criteria and framework. Ebert is able to consider video games as not art because his own definition of art does not match with how video games are created, executed and manipulated. In Ebert’s article, he cited Wikepedia saying that “games are distinct from work.” Games are more concerned with the expression of ideas and its key components are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. He even mentioned and singled out the difference between art and games. Adding more to the description of games, he further cited that games have to be won. Games have rules, objectives and an outcome. Meanwhile, he uttered that art in the forms of story, novel, play, dance and film cannot involve the aspect of winning. You cannot win. Rather, you can only experience them. That’s the point. Ebert tried to see both aspects in their physicality or form, not in the way they are able to affect their audience, not really in a way how audiences experience them.
Video Games are indeed art