I think the whole article is based on the assumption that art is something that can have an objective definition (which I personally believe isn't possible), and the definition he's basing the article on is what he says it is. As such, he can change the definition to include or exclude whatever he wants. All I got out of that article was pure bias, so I'm pretty sure his sole purpose was only to devalue video games. I think he's probably been influenced by the traditional media mindset that video games are pointless wastes of time that make kids violent and thus he doesn't want to make an attempt at understanding them or how they've evolved.
To me, video games can be as much of an artistic medium as music or a painting, and they have the capability of telling stories just as well as a movie or a book. I thought his comments on the inability of video games to tell a story in the same kind of emotionally-moving way as a movie was pure bull and I thought it showed just how much he's concerned only with putting down video games as a medium. I figured someone as esteemed as Roger Ebert wouldn't be so narrow-minded, but then again, maybe he's just an ignorant old man who doesn't want to understand.
It is originally attributed to Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr.
