It seems as though art has grown to be pretentious in its old age.

Art, as I have known it, has been the tangible and realized emotional investment that has made a statement, been a vehicle for change, and had the potential to become culturally relevant. Though there are guidelines in place, art is notorious of not only bending the rules, but breaking them. But never have I known art to become an exclusive club that necessitates validation for inclusion.

“No one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great poets, filmmakers, novelists, and poets.” No, perhaps not. But, gaming is a comprehensive work of all art forms, including music, visual, and written. If you removed the rules and gaming mechanics from (some) modern video games, their cut scenes could stand alone as a full-length film, which is a form of art. In this scenario, gaming could never compare to any past works, as it has become a beast all its own.

While not all of its content is original, gaming has been knowingly inspired by past works, and has orchestrated them into interactive media. Does the act of being digital immediately remove gaming from the realm of art? Or is it the fact that its interactive nature allows a collaborative effort with which no one artist is credited?

Although gaming may not reach his standards, its cultural reach and inclusion has far surpassed many works of art that I have known and encountered, and has helped to change and somewhat define media as time has progressed. Perhaps Mr. Ebert needs to change his standards to fit the times. (I will say that I don’t believe the games Kellee Santiago used in her TED presentation were the best shining examples for this argument.)

Since the blog post, Roger Ebert has appeared to become the final boss that gamers must defeat in their quest towards validating the industry as an art form. His reviews have never swayed my opinions about film, so why should it for gaming?

I have never apologized for my interests, and the industry shouldn’t, either. Thank you, Ken Levine and GI, for publishing Levine’s letter. The fact that Mr. Ebert is not open to the changing realms of art is, “I regret to say, pathetic.”