Originally Posted by
TonyTheTiger
You make a really convincing argument. There's just one problem: As convincing as it is, and I'm sure many people will be likely to agree with you on paper, people don't generally seem to adopt that philosophy in practice.
If art really is a kind of "in the eye of the beholder" thing, then if Roger Ebert says that video games are not art nobody should really have a problem with that. But when he made his statement (and actually went ahead to try to defend it) a lot of people responded with a lot of venom. Would they have reacted so strongly if Ebert had said that he didn't think yellow was a very nice color or that he didn't think Chinese food was all that appetizing? I really don't think so.
What that means is while most people might be inclined to agree on paper that there's no cut and dry definition of what qualifies as "art," they seem to take other's opinions on the matter to heart. Which goes back to something I said earlier in this thread: For whatever reason, the word "art" is seen as more than a descriptor and rather a badge of honor. And so to say something is not art is to somehow show a lack of respect. And that opens up a big can of worms.