> And on what possible basis could anyone ever answer that question? If you're looking for something that can be proven or disproven: not at all. But we consta

> And on what possible basis could anyone ever answer that question? If you're looking for something that can be proven or disproven: not at all. But we constantly ask questions for which there isn't an objectively correct answer all the same. Any attempt to answer the question of whether something is art cannot avoid a mass of subjective elements. > BTW, that is emphatically not the question Ebert was addressing. Ebert wrote: That's an argument he put forward. An argument is not the same as the question it attempts to address. Right after that he writes: "But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers." The point he is making is that there are elements in art that rise beyond craftsmanship; he refers to the "soul" or "vision" of an artist elsewhere.