What do you consider ART?

In Roger Ebert's piece "Video Games Can Never Be Art," he provides a very compelling argument as to why HE does not feel video games are art. I understand why there was so much controversy over his article and why gamers would like to show a validate arguement highlighting how video games are art. The real issue is not if video games are art instead it is a question that has no real answer: what is art? This is an almost impossible question to answer as all responses to it are subjective. Ebert introduces in his piece a presentation done at USC by Kelle Santiago, who works/studies within the world of game making. In this piece she tries to provide a convincing argument as to why video games are art but honestly falls short for a variety of reason. First, she starts her argument by declaring that games are art and then proceeds to provide examples of what is considered art in society, from cave drawings to Michelangelo. Next she goes on to defining her definition of art and then moves to showing games in her opinion that she considers art. The defining of art is where she lost her argument because I did not agree with how she defined it and I definetly did not see any art in the video games she showed in her examples. Maybe my response would be different if I played the games but seeing a screenshot or small amount of game play did nothing to bolster her argument that games are art, at least for me.

In Rich Stanton's article "Who Framed Roger Ebert," he perfectly explores the subjective issues of what is art and if video games can be art. The most crucial point that Stanton makes is how hard it is to define art  and how there is a inclusive group of people who determines what art is. Stanton points out defining something as art is a form of exclusivity. By forcing the issue that games are art, the gaming community is in essence asking to be included into this exclusive society of art. Stanton and Ebert both make a point in their piece about why the gaming community needs a label like "art" placed on games. Ebert states that a gamer should just play and enjoy a game and forget what others think of it and Stanton states that it seems that the gaming community is looking for validation in order to not feel like the hours they spent gaming was not wasted time. I agree with both Ebert and Stanton and feel that the bottom line is this - art is a personal definition and that definition is supported with subjective evidence. So what I feel is art is not what someone else deems art and that is ok. Issues arise when someone forces a subjective title like art onto something and fights to defend that title knowing how exclusionary that effort is. If someone thinks a game is art then kudos to them but that does not mean I also have to consider it art. Each individual is entitled to their opinion like Ebert, Stanton, and Santiago but because art is so subjective there will never be one clear winner on this debate as there will always be one side calling games art and the other side yelling that it isn't. In order to end the debate - everyone needs to just stop placing labels on everything and simply enjoy what they like without naming it as art or junk or time-wasting or high class.