The typical debate

http://www.wired.com/underwire/2010/04/alt-text-videogames-as-art/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+wired%2Findex+%28Wired%3A+Index+3+%28Top+Stories+2%29%29&utm_content=Google+Reade

And so, our time-honored debate of video games being art continues. I imagine that 40 or 50 years from now, this debate will be studied how we study the Dadaists, who caused an uproar by using everyday objects, or "found objects," and declared them art.

What I found particularly interesting about this article was that Roger Ebert said that video games can't be art because they are interactive. Let's just ignore the fact that Ebert will be eating this extremely declarative sentence in some point in time, but if video games aren't art because they are interactive, then nothing created by a graphic design program counts either. Does a photograph quit being art because its brightness and exposure were corrected by Photoshop? It's an interesting debate to say the least, and one which will be argued more and more once video games become more complex.