People should stop recommending games to him. Any example you give can be easily shot down as "not art". You can probably do the same thing with any art that is

People should stop recommending games to him. Any example you give can be easily shot down as "not art". You can probably do the same thing with any art that is on the fringe of whatever definition you subscribe to. It seems to me the only difference between a movie and a game is that there is some assumption that the "gamer" controls some aspect of the movie. I would ask Ebert this: * what would you think of a movie where the viewer could control the volume? Can it be art? * what if the viewer could control the color tint? Can it be art? * what if the viewer can switch between two different camera views at will? Can it be art? * what if the viewer can control the camera completely but the action is on rails? Can it be art? etc… you can see where this leads. He obviously has watched an artful movie and been in control of the volume so you can see that he would have to draw a line. You can then create an artful "game" that crosses his line and you're done. Of course, he will refuse to believe that it is art because it will challenge a deeply held prejudice of his. It is at this point (or hopefully before) that you will realize it is useless to try. Get off my lawn you damn kids!