Seattle-based movie critic and editor of RogerEbert.com Jim Emerson dropped me a line over the weekend in response to my rantish blurb about the video games as art "debate" he took part in with Roget Ebert last week in Boulder.

While I still find it contemptible that Ebert didn't get someone with more gaming knowledge to debate him over the issue (Emerson says the last game he played was Myst), it does sound like the discussion they had raised some interesting issues.

Emerson points out (as we have covered in detail) that the debate has been raging on RogerEbert.com for sometime, but he also goes over his personal feelings on the matter. Hit the jump for his full letter.

Regarding the "debate" over whether video games are considered "art" at the Conference on World Affairs a couple days ago (somebody sent my your misleading blog post): The panelists were Roger Ebert, Leonard Shlain, and me. And, yes, Ebert said they weren't art. I said they question was stupid — like saying "Are movies art?" or "Are books art?" or "Is painting art?" — because, obviously, it depends on the individual game. I brought up Myst as an example of an older game that provided an immersive interactive experience that provided what I consider an artistic experience. Shlain talked about interactive video/web installations his techie/artist son-in-law has done, including one what was included in the Whitney Biennial. It was a game-like environment involving a Ouija board operated by thousands of users simultaneously. And, hey, the Whitney thought this web-based "game" was art.

If you want to know more about why I think video games certainly can be art (although, as a critic, I'd argue that Doom, for example, is nothing more than Astroids with blood), you may want to look at some of the stuff I wrote about the topic on rogerebert.com last year. I was chosen for the "Are Video Games Art?" panel not because I am Ebert's web site editor (or his "biggest fan," as you say, without offering any support for that assessment), but because I actually have written about why I think the subject is more complex than "art vs. not art." I published a lot of mail from readers debating this question on rogerebert.com. Here's one posting from my blog, Scanners:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051206/SCANNERS/51206001/1023

Movies began to develop their own language and aesthetics (apart from still photography or theater) in the early part of the 20th century. And there have always been those who questioned whether movies — especially once they became industrial product pieced together by huge teams in "entertainment factories" called studios — could ever hope to aspire to the level of art.

I confess that the last video game I played was probably the first version of "Myst" — an immersive, otherworldly mystery that, I think, is worthy of comparison on some levels (though character development is not one of them) to mystery-driven narratives like "Twin Peaks," "Mulholland Drive," "Veronica Mars" or "Lost." The point is not so much to find all the clues and solve the mystery as it is to get wrapped up in another world where your curiosity keeps you engaged in exploring.

Web sites — like those for "The Blair Witch Project" or "Donnie Darko" — have already shown how the experience of a movie can be creatively extended into an interactive realm beyond the movie itself. Maybe that's where games are going, too...

Ps. Maybe you're not his biggest fan, but that message from the editor you wrote for RogerEbert.com in 2004 reads like a love soliloquy, it just needed to be written in iambic pentameter.

Ebert Debates Games as Art [Kotaku]

Send an email to the author of this post at editor@kotaku.com.