I was reading Roger Ebert’s review of “Exit Through the Gift Shop.” Although he won’t acknowledge video games as art, Ebert grants that “some graffiti [ ] is certainly art.” Whew.

And on the director of “Exit,” Thierry Guetta:

“But what does Guetta do? One of his artworks, inspired by Andy Warhol’s Campbell’s soup can, shows a can of tomato spray paint. OK, that’s witty enough for a nice editorial cartoon. How many thousands would you spend to have it in your house? Or a morph of Joan Crawford and Andy’s Marilyn? Then again, at the time people said Andy Warhol wasn’t creating art, either. Surely Warhol’s message was that Thierry Guetta has an absolute right to call his work art, and sell it for as much as he can.”

I think (again) that Ebert is something less than consistent. Why does Guetta have this right, while videogame makers do not? Is it a matter of medium? Celluloid certainly counts, in his book. Digital film undoubtedly counts just the same. Where is the logic?

As always, in my book what matters is intention.