Antecedent Action

If I had a creative outlet to plug my thoughts into or a canvas to paint my opinions on two days ago I would have responded to Roger Ebert's blog on his website (by way of Penny Arcade) where he contends that games specifically of the video variety are not and cannot be art. Often times I believe fans of particular media manifestations will absorb something but disagree with its premise - this is my way of relieving the angst caused by my contention. I will "blog" and disseminate my baseless opinions to a nonexistant audience via the mythical void that is the Internet. Granted Ebert's blog was posted over 3 months ago but who's counting. Ebert's particular blog is setup as an adversarial debate between Clive Barker, a British novelist locally known for writing and directing Hellraiser, and the film critic. Ebert, naturally, repudiates the notion that games may be art; Art meaning its classic and ostensibily pretentious form. Allusions to Monet's flawless brush stokes or Shakespeare's byzantine discourse may elicit the most reflexive images when considering what art is; However, at it's lowest common denominator art is wholly abstract and subjective. It's intrinsic value lies in the sentiment of the perceiver. Art can be popcorn. Art can be a shoelace. Even Ebert concedes that in his back-and-forth dialogue. He counters that sweeping notion by drawing a line - "High-end" art and presumably everything else. The Mercedes or platinum bling brand of art is not wholly subjective. Apparently there are absolutes or at the very least parameters. Ebert extends the courtesy of attempting to define these parameters... "the real question is, do we as their consumers become more or less complex, thoughtful, insightful, witty, empathetic, intelligent, philosophical (and so on) by experiencing them? Something may be excellent as itself, and yet be ultimately worthless." How can the adjectives in this quote be absolutely universal? Clearly the question is rhetorical - they cannot. What is "empathetic" or "insightful" to you may not be the same for your teacher, coworker,or best friend. For Ebert to suggest that all video games are incapable of being art is irresponsible and short-sighted. I am not a fan of country music but I acknowledge the genre as an art form. I may not know that much about Impressionism but I recognize its contribution as art. I submit that art is not completely subjective. Art's value can be assessed on a spectrum. That spectrum is far from lucid or quantitatively defined but there is an implicit disparity in the value of art in my opinion. My argument however is that games, the single topic of this blog, is and can be art; It adheres to a spectrum just as other forms of art do. There are poorly made games that hardly can be considered games let alone art (cough Shaq-fu). However there are significantly brilliant games such as Myst or Okami that I would qualify as digital forms of art.
The other major obstacle that Ebert proposes as to why games cannot be art is the ability to choose. The producers of games generally afford the gamer the option to decide what to do throughout his or her experience. The more choices a gamer has the more realistic the game becomes. Recent games such as Elder Scrolls: Oblivion and the yet-to-be-released Mass Effect are extolled for this by critics and gamers. Roger Ebert suggests that the option to change the outcome or story of a game precludes it from being high art not just presently but forever. He asks what if the reader had the option of changing the outcome of classics such as Romeo and Juliet to something that suited their inclinations. An option such as this debases the fundamental value of the piece. I agree with his argument with respect to literal interpretation, however, I believe the comparison is inherently egregious for the simple fact that video game production and literal compositions are very much different practices. In fact, his comparison causes me to believe that Roger Ebert is largely unaware of the appeal of games. And not just personally. He can't even indirectly appreciate how others would value the video game experience. His suggestion that choice prevents games from being art presents a paradox with respect to his argument because, as I said earlier, the more options presented in a game, the more realistic the game becomes. Generally speaking, realism is the pre-eminent goal of a game. Not always but generally. At the very least, more options equates to more entertainment for the gamer.
Contemporary games are equipped with high definition graphics, physics engines, and branching story lines which ameliorate the overall experience. I think that games as superiorly evolved forms of expression and art have not reached that point yet but I certainly believe the potential for it is overtly apparent; maybe to the point of immeasurability.