When a critic turns his aim towards a medium he doesn’t understand: see Ebert’s article on why games aren’t art. He’s handicapping his argument through a critique of a TED talk. Nonetheless, his premise is flawed and mired in logical inconsistencies.
A quick example: I would contend Ebert thinks some commercial films (and books) are works of art.
I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she 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.
Why is he selectively ignoring the fact that any film studio or publisher has business structures like the above?
Most unsettling, and perhaps most demonstrative of his antiquated view, is the feeling that I think his main problem is that “players” control the narrative of the game. He makes faulty logical arguments. In the end he stands on taste. And Ebert, stick to the movies, you’ve got a better sense of taste there.
P.S. I usually like (even if I don’t agree with) his points of view. This kind of article just makes him seem irrelevant.