Roger Ebert: Games (Still) Aren't Art

About a year ago, movie critic Roger Ebert rather brashly declared that games aren't art, a statement has since clarified on his blog, saying that games can possibly be art, but they can't be "high art":

How do I know this? How many games have I played? I know it by the definition of the vast majority of games. They tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports.

Ebert goes on to make comments about Clive Barker's assertion that games can, in fact, be art, which seems only fair since Barker makes several references to Ebert during the discussion. Ebert doesn't seem to think that Barker has much of point, accusing him of having
"the maturity of an honest and articulate 4-year old."

Games vs. Art: Ebert vs. Barker [RoberEbert.com, via Next-Gen]