Last year, Roger Ebert decided to open old wounds and question video games as an “Art form.” This promptly caused nerd rage to spread rampant throughout the game industry from both game developers and gamers themselves. However bullish Ebert is on the point, I have my own belief on the “art” question.
According to dictionary.com, Art is the quality, production, expression, or realm(not really sure what the hell realm means), according to aesthetic principles of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance. I completely agree with this interpretation, this is what individual people define as art. However, critics have their own definition brought by literary, film, and “Art” classes. Here, they’re taught that subtle messages most average people would ignore is “art.” They see a collection of these messages in a way which paints a picture deeper than the core piece. That is why there’s often a disconnect from average people and popular critics.
Art is everything. Anything can be “beautiful” and “appealing.” I knew a person who said the Madea films were art. In a way, she’s right. It’s art to her but to any sane individual, it’s not. Popularity doesn’t validate art. Unfortunately, our society idolizes certain critics to the point that their definition becomes everyone’s definition. Society even tries to dictate art. If you’ve taken any history classes, you’ve been taught certain painters and sculptures created “art.” This is actually falsity. They created something popular culture defined as art.
I believe video games are an art form. An expression where creative minds construct creative situation basis on player decisions. It uses physical beauty and creative story to drive an experience. So nerds, stop being offended by Ebert. He’s an old man after all.