Just to let you know, I submitted news about your essay to RPGWatch. There’s more reader feedback here: http://www.rpgwatch.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2811

Cheers,
LikeDreams

Ooooohhhhhhhh someone knows someone with their own wikipedia entry!

(Now we can begin)

I wasn’t sure whether to comment here or with the actual post, but then I decided it is better to be alone with my thoughts than one voice among dozens.

It’s a very interesting essay, and my only major criticism of it is that in directly focusing on Roger Ebert’s arguments against the potential artistry of video games, you give them slightly more credence than they probably deserve. My main problems with his argument come from the fact that a) he clearly has no serious experience with the medium, which makes his opinion on it as relevant as…say…mine on the state of professional football, b) his argument is based on a definition of art that is hopelessly out of date (show me someone who sincerely believes that it can’t be art if it isn’t serious or political and I’ll show you a flaming asshole) and c) he is clearly basing his criteria on a cinematic model that ignores the fact that for decades now traditional artists have been creating expressionistic and abstract works that compel the viewer to craft their own interpretations and narratives around them, regardless of their own intent, which is little different than allowing Romeo and Juliet to run around they city naked shooting every Capulet they come across. While a game like Katamari Damachy lacks the narrative poignancy of Citizen Kane (to put it mildly) I would argue that as a work of pure imagination it transcends beyond merely being an interactive entertainment to the level of a genuine work of art. Pop art to be sure, but again anyone who still believes that so-called “high art” is vastly superior to its popular cousin is someone who must find it difficult to walk with their head so firmly stuffed up their ass.

At least that’s my take on the subject.