Nope, that's why I'm saying I can see their ability to disconnect it from art status because you're playing it and "making it happen," as opposed to passively appreciating it.

I disagree, natch.

Well hot damn, that article even uses Modern Warfare as a specific example.

For me, I find it helps clarify the topic by separating art out into distinct categories. And these are the definitions and distinctions I've laid out for myself, though far from any degree of certainty about the subject:

Narrative art and experimental art. Fundamentally, the whole point of artistic endeavors and creative expression is to further our understanding of who we are and the nature of the universe and how those pieces fit together. Art that tries to do that, I consider "narrative art," or art that has a point it's trying to convey through some kind of story. And yes, story can exist in mediums other than books, film, and stage.

Then there is experimental art, by which I don't necessarily mean the crazy crap in a modern art museum. Those things are that, but the term is broader than just them. Experimental art I define as any creative expression where the artist is testing a new tool or technique to see what the results will be. Ultimately, the point of experimental art is not to arrive at some insight about the human condition (though it might also do so), it is to provide a lesson in new ways of arriving at those insights on future projects.

"Art" is probably the single most problematically defined word in human language, second perhaps only to "God." I don't want to create too narrow of a definition that excludes art forms unduly, but at the same time, once a definition becomes broad enough and inclusive enough, it becomes meaningless.

So unless we can derive a definition with enough specificity that lays out clear lines of what is included and what is excluded and why, then the discussion strikes me as rather meaningless.

Jeffrey: how many video games have you played?

Do you consider it possible that a movie can be a work of art?

I reject the notion that something that is fun cannot be art. If I'm a musician and I enjoy playing a piece of classical music, has that music suddenly been rendered not-art by my enjoyment of it?

If I am a music lover and I enjoy listening to a piece of classical music, has that destroyed the art by my enjoyment?

Come on. That definition makes no sense.

And goddammit, Ebert is not a genius. He's a windbag with an opinion and a vocabulary. And sometimes I agree with his opinions. But an opinion is not correct just because it's Ebert's. He has to be able to defend it, which he can't.

Anyway. Getting back to video games.

One thing that people are doing in defense of video games (I was guilty of it just above in dismissing Sim City) is implying that yes yes, we can all agree that OLDER video games weren't art. We're talking about the NEWER ones.

I used Pac-Man as an example of a non-art video game and my dad took issue with me over that. And frankly, I think he was right to.

Imagine Pac-Man had never existed. That video games never existed. And in the 1980s, someone built a Pac-Man machine -- built an arcade cabinet and had the screen in it and the maze and the little yellow wedge gobbling up pellets.

But you couldn't control it. There was no joystick and no buttons. You just watched.

Put this in a modern art museum (again, circa 1980) and tell me it doesn't belong there. How is this functionally different than a painting in a frame? It's a digital, animated equivalent. And if made at a time when it was state-of-the-art, it would be pretty impressive.

Then imagine that a year or two on, the artist adds a control interface and allows anyone to come up and take control of the yellow wedge. Suddenly, because there's participation, this is not art?

I would contend that this is another level of art, another way for the viewer to engage, just as if an artist put a brush and paints beside his work at a museum and invited anyone who care to, to add to it.

An art museum stretches a canvas across an entire wall and invites anyone to come up and add something. This can't be art?

Well, without a clear definition, the rest of the conversation is a complete waste of time.

Like I said, art is probably the most problematically defined word of all time and the questions of "what is and isn't art" and "is this or is this not art" are all about the ramifications of the definition you choose.

To beg the question without the definition is just useless.

I've been trying to find a way to word my definition of art, and this is the best I've managed. "Art is a deliberate arrangement of elements to invoke a sense of beauty, emotion, contemplation, or awe." These things are subjective, thus why I believe what is and isn't art can vary between people.