Ebert’s latest article on why video games cannot be art has been making the rounds recently.

I don’t have too much to say on the subject that others haven’t already said, but I do want to touch one complaint about Ebert’s article, and also one point about what, exactly, he is evaluating when he speaks of “video games”.

Telling me I’m wrong doesn’t mean you’re right.

Ebert’s article is almost a point-by-point rebuttal of Santiago’s bit at TED. While this makes for fun reading, it is almost entirely meaningless in terms of laying down evidence in support of Ebert’s position. Disproving position A does not prove position B unless the rejected proofs cover the entire domain of position A.

Suffice to say that Santiago’s points and Ebert’s rebuttal do not cover the entire domain of video gaming.

The injection of interactivity and gameplay.

The modern video game contains every component that goes into a modern film plus one very crucial element: gameplay.

Gameplay, or more precisely, interactivity is the sole difference between the modern video game and the modern movie.

People may quibble about artistic intent — that movies are made with purpose. But if gameplay is the major difference between game and movie, the more important question becomes:

Does the injection of interactivity into a medium otherwise identical to film prevent that medium from ever becoming art?

This is the question that Ebert should be asking himself.

It could be argued that the addition of interactivity robs control from the creator that is essential to the explicitly crafted nature of art.

But then, aren’t the seasonal renewals of scripted television a macro-level expression of that sort of loss of control? In both cases, the player/viewer has some level of control over the continued existence and direction of the work in question.

I have no good answer.

But I am bothered that people like Ebert also don’t have a good answer, and yet still continue to decree that video gaming cannot be art.

I accept your position. Now back it up.