Ebert states that he does not know much about video games, nor does he care to learn. I believe this belief is a rather ignorant one if said critic is going to publish an article dogging on an entire media industry with thousands of artists who dedicate every day to make the virtual worlds we “live in”. He, inherently, tries to give a subjective answer to an objective question. We’ve seen this high art / low art argument time and time again (especially if you’re a film major), and it leaves me speechless to see Ebert prove our own point in an article that is attempting to achieve the opposite effect.
He brings up Kelee Santiago’s belief that the cave-man paintings from thousands of years ago were the earliest versions of art in our culture. When compared to painting from today, they might seem primitive but that doesn’t mean they aren’t art. That’s like saying the special effects for 1977’s Star Wars were a work of art back then, but aren’t now. Art evolves, but can only do so with prior knowledge. These cave-man paintings got us to where we are today with art, so to say that games aren’t art because other forms of art are “better in one’s eye” is regressive.
To further my point, we have to look at the history of video games and see if it correlates with the cave-man paintings. Arcade games and the early home video game systems are very different to the games being released today. If you were to show a kid the original Adventure game today, they would scoff at it much like some kids would scoff at the cave-man paintings. Though, these same kids would be amazed by anything DaVinci painted or the almost lifelike details of games like Battlefield V. Art always progresses, but we have to understand that newer art forms need to find their identity. This takes time, but we’ve already seen enormous progress in the gaming market. While we look back as these silly arguments about whether games are art or not, make sure we don’t fall under the same debate when another form of media (maybe VR) starts to emerge.
Game Studies 
The cave painting analogy bugged me as well. For me, the most damning part of Ebert’s article is when he praises Cormac McCarthy for his artistry and derides Nicholas Sparks. Sparks may be (subjectively) a bad writer, but the idea that Sparks’ novels don’t count as art just because they lack good artistry is obviously absurd. Just because something is bad art, doesn’t mean it’s not art.
LikeLike