Roger Ebert made a statement not too long ago declaring that video games can never be art. LINK
Well, he has eaten his words - sort of. Due to a deluge of comments to his "declaration," Mr. Ebert has "revised" his statement. He admits that saying video games can never be art was a mistake. BUT he still claims that video games are not art, but that forever is a long time and maybe some day a video game can be art.
Guess what - still a douche.
First of all, What is art? Mr. Ebert seems to know. Asshole.
Second, does Mr. Ebert even know how video games are made? I can't think of a more creative, artful endeavor. Maybe Mr. Ebert is purporting that anything made on a computer cannot be art. And to that I say, Get your head out of your ass! That's like saying the Orioles aren't a real baseball team because they don't win any games. Well guess what - sometimes they do. Jerk.
I'm angry. Mostly because I like Roger Ebert. And also because I create art on a computer. Can I define art? No. Can I declare that what I make on my computer is art? Yes. Is a drawing by a four-year-old on a piece of construction paper with a crayon art? What about a photograph of some dude's cock?
Speaking of photographs, a long, long time ago people once used to say that film and photography was not art. Both of which require highly technical processing methods.
I play video games. Guess what - they're art.
Because I said so.