This post has not been edited by the GamesBeat staff. Opinions by GamesBeat community writers do not necessarily reflect those of the staff.
A few things that popped into mind since last night and all I've seen and read:
– Fo one, I generally don't agree with Ebert very much when he offers opinions on what he's actually has an extensive background and has made a career critiquing. I'm not going to hold that against him, but it stands fair to point out I typically stand in oppositions to a lot of his thoughts on artistic merit.
– I'm not going to be one of those people that jumps up and screams Roger Ebert doesn't have a right to opinion on games as art. He absolutely does. I don't necessarily in principle disagree with him. I do, however, demand better arguments. I find, as much as most of these debates around games and any other thing that elitists slap around as not worthy of an "art" tag somewhat ill-informed. Ebert in himself expresses himself in such a way that gives the appearance he's above ever playing a game. I've no idea if he ever has or not, but if he hasn't played many of the games he critiquing it's a little hard to takes him as seriously as he normally likes to take himself. It's like me with no interest in soccer whatsoever making judgments of the quality of play and skill in a World Cup solely based on second-hand information.
– Just because Jordan has never made an argument for anything he's done being artistic doesn't make it any less commonplace for their to be a discussion within the sports realm of the artistry of a great player. Jordan has been called an artist on the hardwood most of his career. A loose definition of art, yes. Sports writers notoriously prop up sports with flowery words and cliches that don't really mean anything. I really don't particularly care of my sports to be defined as art any more than my video games. But there is something to the creativity that can come along with mastery of a skill. Most great artists at the end of the day are just very talented and creative with a skill. Give me a paint brush and I have no skill whatsoever to present what would be defined as art (something I'll dig into next thought). It would make the 1UP Whiteboard look like the "The Last Supper" painting.
– Tina Sanchez retweeted a comment of Jason de Heras of SCEA Santa Monica stating "If you have to defend that your game is art then I think the game has failed." I don't know de Heras nor anything of his background and education to say anything about him. That comment in itself is typical of the most lazy and ignorant of public discourse comments I've come across. (I'm sure there are worse but I make a habit not to spend my life on messageboards. ) Many things now long-considered art weren't initially. Particularly with newer forms (i.e. film) and genres (jazz) of media were not looked upon fondly by those that do set standards. And there is, rightfully or not, an "elite" class that does get to define those thing that have to be fought. And class, if not basic-level hegemony, plays into that discussion and discourse. Much like film, photography and jazz were before it, video games are often dismissed as a low-class hobby by that class of people that's often granted the definitive word on that subject.
– On the question of why should anyone care what Ebert thinks, in my eyes a somewhat disingenuous question to buffer the impending backlash from gamers, that depends on your interests. If you could care less about the entire games as art debate specifically nor the place of video games in the overall cultural discourse, you shouldn't care at all. For that matter, why are you even reading this? If you hold a stake in the debate, agree or disagreeing with Ebert, his opinion no matter what you think of it's reasoning or soundness does matter because he's a person of influence in a privileged spot to set the conversation. He's obviously done it within the video game community and – not that I personally care for his endorsement – had he taken the opposite stance it would reframe the discussion for those within the sphere of influence of which he's has. His dismissiveness is just as powerful in maintaining the status quo. When he speaks, or writes as is more appropriate these days, large numbers of people pay attention.
– My personal take: I'm not tremendously invested in the entire games as art debate in itself. As a features writer, that there is one and it's reaching an Ebert in the first place interests me. The industry and culture has many a internal struggle in terms the many things people within it would like to see it do and become. Externally, it's biggest two cultural problems tends to be the perception of video games still being children's toys or a novelty technology box with no potential for societal value outside of fun. There will inevitably be the commenter making the statement that video games don't need to be more than fun – which they, truth be told, don't. They also don't "need" to exist. The debate has never been about need as much as what power there is to "do." The person with that reaction to this will likely still be part of the offended mass of gamers when the president or some politician scapegoats games for some societal ill or some developer doesn't add some allegedly "mature" element to the game or game story to make it more marketable to the public at large whom may think of video games as simplistically as these people would like other gamers to whenever someone does touch the art debate any other cultural concern or discussion to gaming. So even at the most base and selfish level, I appreciate there being the discussion and it not being rooted around another sensationalist overreaction (here's looking at you CNN).
Gerren LaQuint Fisher is not art. He is, however, a contributor to The Game Reviews, a tweeter @gerrenlaquint, and the creator of a blog called The Underscore