Roger Ebert's Video Games Can Never Be Art

Throughout history, Art has been a form of expression that has altered situations, revolutionized methods of thought, and shaken worlds, both building them up and crumbling them downward. These days however, Art has become a form which is underrated and under appreciated due to the technological and business worlds taking over. Despite these advancements though, Art has continued to build and expand into different forms, pushing the limits of what was originally defined as “Artistic”. One of these forms which has quickly risen along with the increase in technology includes video games, which are utilized primarily for entertainment to various audiences, both young and old. When created in a unique manner though, these games can prove to be
Roughly, what his paper argues is that based on the definitions of Art which he has read and studied, there is no game that fits completely under the criteria, and he also believes there never will be such a game. Nonetheless, there are various definitions of Art, and so to say Ebert’s definition is the only one would be incorrect. Art is subject to interpretation from various people who experience it, each with their own idea of what the “meaning” behind the piece is. The definition of Art is no different when it comes to a situation like this. There is a specific game that comes to mind that challenges the definition of Art because it explores various subjects and intends on bringing about change by targeting a multitude of political and social issues. Dontnod Entertainment’s contemporary episodic interactive drama graphic adventure game Life is Strange shatters the preconception that video games cannot be Art by delving into deeper, hard-hitting issues surrounding the world today and invoking change in how its players view and act in the world surrounding
The purpose of video games is for them to be played with and enjoyed. One simply cannot play with a book, or with a painting, or leap on stage and become a part of the performance. That is not the fundamental interactions of those forms of Art. To say that a video game with no goal ceases to become a video game and becomes more “a representation” of a form of Art causes the entire argument to be skewed. This is due to the nature of which art involves the audience in comparison to how video games involve their own audience. Because their reactions contrast so greatly, they cannot possibly be categorized in a similar manner. By stating the interactions are the same, would be effectively calling video games a form of Art, which contradicts Ebert's entire argument. Not to mention that Ebert stated that games never can, and never will be a form of Art or close to one, and now he’s stating some games have the capabilities of ”representing” Art. The purpose of a video game is both that of immersion and experience, where the gamer takes on the role of the main character(s). Other forms of art only allow the ability to be an observer rather than a participant. No matter how close to Art a game can become, in Ebert’s argument, it will never be exact despite fitting all of these “definitions” he has looked into. Another point on this matter brings up his ideas of