Critical Analysis of Robert Eberts’ Article Video Games Can Never Be Art

Throughout Robert Eberts career as a movie critic he has become very well known and respected in that field. With his influence and knowledge in the industry he is able to sway people into trusting his opinion and take his words as factual. This is clearly represented in the article “Video Games can never be art”. The article by Robert Ebert is not effectively written, due to the lack of substantial evidence. Ebert uses his biased opinion to sway the opinions of the readers. His uses pathos by using aggressive words to support his biased opinion. Finally Ebert uses Ethos, using his credentials and influence in the movie tritic stream as his evidence. By using his credentials and influence he ends up contradicting himself throughout the entire article, hence making it very effective.

Ebert starts off with examples from a convention, where a lady by the name of Kellee Santiago, provides examples of video games that in her opinion are representations of art. Ebert replies to Santiago’s speech by saying “The three games she chooses as examples do not raise my hopes for a video game that will deserve my attention long enough to play it. They are, I regret to say, pathetic. I repeat: "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. " This comment reveals that Ebert only believes art can be art when it is recognized by society. What happens with bad artists? Are they not still artists? Abstract art was once not accepted in the art community, and now it is world renowned. Therefore Ebert is biased because he only believes that “good art, is art”.

Later on in the article Ebert writes “Some of these paintings are masterpieces, most are very bad indeed. How do we tell the difference? We know. It is a matter, yes, of taste. ”, yes a matter of taste. Couldn’t one argue that video games are art, since it’s your taste? This statement reveals that the only reason he doesn't believe video games are art, is because they are not his taste. The only thing Ebert effectively writes about in this article is his opinion which is, in fact, biased. While reading this article, Ebert uses pathos in his vocabulary. Throughout the article he uses words such as “brainless” to describe players of video games. By using this type of language, Ebert is able to (hopefully) influence readers into thinking that video games make you brainless, therefore embarrassing video game players. As much as Ebert displays his distaste for the industry, he still does not provide any sort of evidence explaining why they can never be art. “ These days, she says, "grown-up gamers" hope for games that reach higher levels of "joy, or of ecstasy. . . . catharsis. " These games (which she believes are already being made) "are being rewarded by audiences by high sales figures. " The only way I could experience joy or ecstasy from her games would be through profit participation. Robert Ebert states this about the video games  was describing. This is in fact Ebert stating his opinion, again. As well Ebert is using his credibility as a well known critic. By saying that it discredits video games to whomever is reliant on Ebert’s opinion. Neither one of Ebert’s arguments explain, and give any evidence why videogames are not art.

The only effectively written part of this article is Ebert convincing the audience that he really does not like video games. No substantial evidence was given, which is shown through his lack of evidence. He creates the illusion that he has evidence by What Ebert effectively writes about is his distaste for video games. As a well known movie critic, Ebert comes off as quite arrogant, and he d0esn’t seem to realize or care that he contradicts himself throughout the entire article. He starts off by completely contradicting himself by saying “Video Games can never be art”. Before Ebert became a well known critic, he fought to classify movies as an art form. Therefore instead of disagreeing with Kelly Santiago, it would make much more sense for him to support her, seeing that she is essentially doing the exact same thing as Ebert did. “But when I say McCarthy is "better" than Sparks and that his novels are artworks, that is a subjective judgment, made on the basis of my taste (which I would argue is better than the taste of anyone who prefers Sparks)” , there goes Ebert again talking about taste. The only reason he says video games can’t be art is because they are not his taste. Ebert’s taste, is not proof that video games can not be art. Ebert is relying on his reputation to support his argument, by sounding confident, and providing his biased opinion.

Conclusion

Throughout this examination of Ebert’s article, no actual evidence was given. Yes, Ebert was able to give evidence as to why he has this opinion. The article gives the illusion of actual evidence, but it is Ebert’s biased language, use of pathos and ethos that truely sway the audience. Once the entire article is read and research is done about Ebert and his career, one is able to see how he contradicts himself. He does so by discrediting Kelly Santiago, and shunning video games. He is an excellent critic in this article, but only with criticizing his own opinion. In the past Ebert was passionate about classifying movies as art, wouldn’t Santiago be doing the same revolutionary battle with video games? Perhaps the issue here, is that Ebert is unwilling to accept change. The only effectively written part of this article is Ebert convincing the audience that he really does not like video games. No substantial evidence was given, which is shown through his lack of evidence. He creates the illusion that he has evidence by What Ebert effectively writes about is his distaste for video games.