-art= A PRODUCT OF ANY CREATIVE MEDIUM, THROUGH WHICH ONE CAN EXPRESS THEMSELVES OR CONVEY AN IDEA.

-ART= A refined cultural product of subtle and elegant qualities, geared toward eliciting a response in the consumer, and broadly achieving that end to a large degree. Typically ART will arouse and resonate with an individual’s sensibilities to a high degree by invoking their curiosity, empathy or anger, deliver a culturally salient message or dazzle them with a sensory depiction of grandeur, spectacle and mastery of their chosen medium. ALSO, CRICKET.

So yeah, like SiliconNooB mentioned, technically everyone, Ebert et al., is arguing whether games can be HIGH ART, and using “art” in a more selective way than is correct. Semantics really.

It’s really an annoying sticking point with me and has been since I was in high school (ie: a long time ago). People would say things like “Man that movie. That was just ART.” To which I say “No shit! So was the Super Mario Bros movie.” It’s sort of like how everyone misuses the word “ironic.”

I consider art to be something that is aesthetically appealing and takes skill to make. evoking an emotional response, historical and cultural relevance, and moral acceptability I consider relevant. I also don’t consider art to be a complement in any but purely a qualitative trait. like blue or heavy.

I ask cause there isn’t much meaning in talking about art if no one agrees on what art is. everyone ends up talking about different things.