I Know What I Like

So I thought I was gonna write a long rant on Ebert's "games as art, not high art" comments, but the fervor I felt over the article has cooled over the past couple of weeks.

When the article was first posted, I could find so many things to rail against; his definition of art, his opposition to narrative manipulation in art, his totally disregard of the well-written, linear narratives found in some games. In that first irksome reading, all I could think was, "How could his opinion be so wrong?"

And that's just it. I had forgotten that "art" is like "love" or "morality". I can compare my views on the matter with his, but try as I might, I won't be able to see who wins in this game. He's got his own view on what can and can't be art, and I have mine. Granted without hearing which games he's played recently, I can't really take his opinions on the medium seriously, but I can at least learn something useful from another person's perspective (in theory: It's really hard to find merit in his prose while he tries to belittle Clive Barker's views}.

If Ebert had just prepended "my idea of" to each occurrence of the word "art" in his essay, perhaps fewer people would be up in arms. Then again, this is the internet.