Last week, Roger Ebert caused quite a stir among many of my video game nerd friends when he reiterated his opinion that video games can never be art.

Essentially, Ebert contends that video games cannot be art because they are games. I think this opinion is on the surface far too narrow and focused.

This is a subject that is often debated among artists and critics. Every so often, some “work of art” will create buzz because it offends someone, and then journalists will interview art critics and the people who are offended who will say that things that are meant to offend are not art.

I contend that art can’t really be defined by the beholder, but must be defined by the artist. I believe art is a very broad and general term, and that many things in everyday life can be considered art if the creator or presented intends it to be so.

Who am I to judge that an architect or a carpenter is not an artist? If people believe that what they are doing is considered art, then it is by its nature art.

Most of the people I have spoken to about Ebert’s opinion have been saying he’s just too old to get it. That may be, but I think it’s more that he is just being too narrow in his view of art. However, I do know that guidelines must be defined in order for something to be critiqued, which is why I’ve never claimed to be a critic.