5 ms·

There is also an interesting argument between Roger Ebert and Kellee Santiago (the co-founder and former president of Thatgamecompany) on this topic http://blog

• enneff 14y ago
  It's not really that interesting to me. Ebert's argument is based on the idea that art needs to be good to be art. There's plenty of bad art, but it's still art. Indeed, the bar as to what can be art is startlingly (and often maddeningly) low. Video games are part entertainment, part engineering challenge, part craft. Just like all art forms. I enjoy reading Ebert's film reviews, but I think with this debate he's just stirring up controversy for notoriety's sake.
  • vacri 14y ago
    I visited MoMA in NY and in different parts of the museum, and by different artists, I saw a plain sheet of white paper, a plain sheet of red, and a plain sheet of black. Someone had considered these to be 'art' enough to hang on a wall. I found the rest of the exhibits to be interesting in some way, but these three pieces represent the lowest I've seen the bar set.
• vacri 14y ago
  Ebert pretty much lost this debate from the outset with "I contend that X is not Y, and I will not discuss this any further". Even though he relented and did followups, it's pretty clear that you're arguing from prejudice rather than merit when you refuse to enter into debate.
• saraid216 14y ago
  As I recall, Ebert actually conceded that his respondents might have a point and that he wasn't really qualified to make the call after all.