Late last week, the film critic Roger Ebert claimed that 'Games will never be Art'. Of course, this fired up a lot of discussion on the internet (not least in our own comments!) as to the validity of his arguments. It appears that Ebert has been listening to some of the criticisms (most of which consisted of the oft-used teenager phrase "You're an old man! You just don't GET it!"), and has duly responded:

"I'm not too old to "get" video games, but I may be too well-read."

Now, that's fighting talk if I've ever I read it.

To an extent, I can see why Ebert said what he did. He's an old man - He doesn't get it. No, seriously, I think that Ebert's claims that Videogames never will be art would only ever be regarded credible if the man had played any. I don't want to make any assumptions of the man himself (I don't know of his work, nor do I know anything about his personal life), but if he wants to make a claim as audacious as that he's got to have some sort of experience within the medium, surely? It's like me saying that drawing isn't art, purely because I can't draw.

Then again, he's entitled to his opinion. I do think, however, that the idea he is "too well read" for videogames is absolutely ridiculous, and severely patronizing. Our own Ben Kendrick is a college English professor! I may be wrong in suggesting this, but I think it would be fairly obvious that you don't become an English professor without a fair bit of reading. Is Ebert suggesting that there is a direct negative correllation between intelligence (or well-readness, if you like) and playing videogames?

I honestly don't know what to think of it all. I have a sneaky suspicion that Ebert is having a huge laugh at us all, occasionally throwing us little tidbits to feast on. There is no way that someone could believe that having an understanding of the world at large automatically disqualifies you from playing games... right?