Roger Ebert agrees! :)

[Michaël Samyn]

Film critic superhero Roger Ebert criticizes Kellee Santiago's presentation at TED and confirms his earlier statement that, in his opinion, "in principle, video games cannot be art".

Read his blog post: Video games can never be art
1243 comments and counting 

One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them.

[Michaël Samyn]

He adds some important nuance in the comments, though:

I wouldn't define bad movies as art. Hardly any movies are art. Film is however an art form.

So when he says "art", he implicitly means "good art".

[Michaël Samyn]

And he asks a very good question (also in the comments, which he apparently all reads ):

Is there a reason a lover of Beethoven, Shakespeare, van Gogh or Dickens should play even one video game rather than move on to Mozart, Beckett, Picasso or Tolstoy? What video game should I substitute for Beethoven's Ninth? Remember, life is short.

If the stakes are that high, I wouldn't dare to recommend a videogame either. In fact, thinking about this makes me feel embarassed about having spent so much time with videogames without ever having read Tolstoy. 

[God at play]

Don't feel too bad.  He has watched multiples films a day for most of his career, and many of the films he's seen aren't very good.  You should have an understanding of the medium in which you are working.

For me, Judith had more of an emotional impact on me than most van Gogh or Picasso paintings I've seen so far (but to be fair, I haven't seen that many).  So that's a videogame I'd recommend to a lover of those.

I don't think his comments are a very big deal, though.  I'd pay much more attention to him if he'd actually played the games.  But he hasn't, and because of that, he doesn't really have much say in their artistic value.  He's making a value judgment of them based on videos he's seen.  You simply can't do that, and he should know that.

One encouraging thing I guess is that since the last time he's commented on this, he's accepted the artistic potential of interactivity, and now his only issue is the goals and challenges.

While he does agree, I don't think that agreement holds much weight.  This is simply not a medium that he chooses to experience.

[Michaël Samyn]

Here's Kellee's response.

[Michaël Samyn]

One encouraging thing I guess is that since the last time he's commented on this, he's accepted the artistic potential of interactivity, and now his only issue is the goals and challenges.

I noticed that too.

[Michaël Samyn]

I don't think whether Mr Ebert knows what he's talking about validates or invalidates his point. People who do know videogames, should be able to, however. And they are not. Every game fan in the world is falling over themselves making excuses and defending their hobby. But why not sit back for a moment and think about the criticism honestly and fairly, from our own experience? Why not see his criticism as a challenge to improve our medium? Instead of dragging art itself down to a level where it can meet videogames. Why not aim for something high and beautiful and worthwhile? Instead of making excuses and justifying our laziness or lack of talent or courage.

I'm sure we can all find recognized works of art that we had less moving experiences with than with some videogames. But can we honestly name a videogame that has moved us as much as the best artistic experience we have had in any medium?

[Erik Svedäng]

Gosh i am tired of that word.

But i like that everyone is so upset and can't produce good counter arguments.

[Thomas]

I see the whole discussion as a non-issue. But I like that people get upset and I hope that it will bring some more discussion to the subject of what videogames need and can be. At least it might be inspiration for some more people to make games with greater emotional impact, and not just about killing and jumping chasms.

[Michaël Samyn]

At least it might be inspiration for some more people to make games with greater emotional impact, and not just about killing and jumping chasms.

I sure hope so.

So far, however, all I've seen is people claiming that Super Mario Galaxy is as profound as Sacre du Printemps. Which is the easiest solution of course and protects our dear game developers from actually taking up their responsibility as authors. Who cares if we destroy the very notion of art in the process?  

I'm as tired of the semantic discussion as everybody else. But I am not tired of art! And I don't like it when people drag this wonderful human activity through the mud just because they want to win a point in a discussion and/or justify spending so much time on what seems to be a useless hobby.

As if art wasn't in enough trouble these days as it is!
(trouble, by the way, that, in my opinion, can be greatly alleviated through a imaginative use of the interactive procedural medium -not games)

I wish they could just admit that most videogames are mostly just games. And that that's not much but that it's ok.