> Ebert said that games aren't art because they give you choices
That has to be the dumbest requirement for 'art' I've ever heard. Especially coming from a professional critic, who earns his paycheck by interpreting art for others (ie: making choices about what it means).
Or, on a simpler level, there can be no such thing as interactive art with that definition.
I don't agree with Ebert, but it is subtler than that. You get to choose how to interpret the art, but it is still presented as the 'auteur' intended.
In a movie context, you don't get to pick and choose what scenes you see in what order. The author of the movie has complete artistic control of every moment on the 2D screen. Ideally. A photograph/painting is static.
I think if we had true 3D (holographic?) movies he'd argue those aren't art as well because you could walk to any position in the scene to see the action from a viewpoint you pick, whereas his concept of art is that the director / editor picked very specific angles for you to view the scene to evoke a specific feeling.
He'd probably argue the Lytro photographs aren't art, either, since you the viewer get to pick the focal plane.
That, I think, is where he gets caught up in choice -- and that's where I mean that his concept of choice is very one dimensional. I think he felt you making choices in the game takes away from the author's control, and that lack of control made it not art.
In a sense, he expects the artist to be active and the consumer to be passive, except for experiencing the art.
...I could be wrong, but that's the impression I got from his writing. (...and I think he was wrong.)
That has to be the dumbest requirement for 'art' I've ever heard. Especially coming from a professional critic, who earns his paycheck by interpreting art for others (ie: making choices about what it means).
Or, on a simpler level, there can be no such thing as interactive art with that definition.