Ebert Revisits Gaming

And concludes:

I was a fool for mentioning video games in the first place. I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself.

I guess it's good he revisited, but I'm not clear on why it hasn't caused him to rethink his conclusions. In general, I try to avoid engaging absolutist arguments that can't actually be proven. The claim that "video games aren't Art" would be hard to prove. The claim that "video games can never be Art," requires precognition or time travel.

A better question is the following: What are we really doing when we claim that whole genres "can never be art?" Are we actually debating about art? Or are we debating about who and what we're willing to allow into the club?