Well, I went back and read the whole article and that's five minutes of my life I'll never get back. Anyway, I came away more confused with what the author considers art than before. His separation of art and high art and art with a capital "A" defined as something different than good or bad art was baffling. But, on to a few points...
"The carved chess pieces are art, the actual playing of the game of chess is not" Okay, I can see the point here. It's like saying the play is art, the performance of the play is art, the watching of the play is not art. Of course, then what of interactive theater and performance art that invites the audience to participate in order for the creation to exist. Well, maybe under those circumstances, the audience becomes the one of the performers just as valid as any actor on stage. Their interaction within the guidelines of the artist creates something immediate. But, then couldn't the player in a video game also be considered a performer just as an audience member could be considered a performer in a performance piece? But, of course, interactivity isn't art. Just as the rules of a baseball game are not intended to communicate ideas or feelings, just to facilitate play, then interactivity must be only a means to an end. I assume, in the case of video games that interactivity must be required to achieve "play". But what happens when "play" produces something else? Such as storytelling? So can storytelling be considered an art form? According to the National Endowment of the Art it is.
"Movies are the same thing, you say. It's photography and music and acting and writing mixed together. Close! Cinema is an art form in and of itself not because it's an aggregation of other art forms but because it brings something special to the table: editing." Hmm, if editing is the only thing that defines film as unique from other art forms then television journalism would also be considered art. Maybe it is, but I wonder if the author would accept that possibility or exclude it because journalism is utilitarian. Although, here again, television journalism does contain storytelling.
"How about Tetris? Or Rock Band? Or Geometry Wars Evolved? All of these games have artful design, but are they art?" Good question and one that reminds me of a similar question that has been knocking around "serious" art circles for decades now. What are the differences between fine art and illustration? One definition is that illustration is beholden to the product or story it is trying to tell over the emotional impact it evokes while fine art assumes freedom of expression as its primary purpose. Of course, if we apply this definition to films, then with the exception of experimental art films, all movies wouldn't be considered high art either. And then, what happens to games like Tetris or Geometry Wars which have no story to limit them? Well, then I guess the "play" argument resurfaces...and was their ever any intent to invoke an emotional impact on the player to begin with? Probably not in any of those games, but I'm not so sure about Flower. But then again, according to the author, it is just artistic in design...like a building by Frank Lloyd Wright.
"It is important for me to finally interject my value judgment here on narrative games as cinema. I think they're all various levels of bad art. I've never played a video game that was as good as even a mediocre movie, or a fairly readable book." I think what he's saying is that all video games have bad stories, bad dialog and bad acting. Well, I can't argue with this point because it's purely subjective. From my own personal basis, I've encountered several games with better stories than some movies I've seen, but that just me.
"Now, I'm a lifelong video game player, but it's possible that I've missed something truly unique about video games in all those hours spent playing them." I find this an interesting admission because it alludes to the intangible. I believe it can be described as a way of seeing. Perceptions of emotionality imparted from the artist to the audience. After reading the article, it seems the author has very defined beliefs of what art is in his view. Those views are categorized, compartmentalized and distinct from each other according to the medium. But, video games have additional elements that the author can not identify or at least not to his satisfaction. So, what if that intangible element that is undefined by the author is what is unique in video games? What if that element is what makes them a potential art form?
But like I said earlier, I'm not personally interested in whether or not video games are considered art, however I am enthralled with the conversation of "what is art?" And that is why I took such a negative early response to the article. Stating an unwillingness to define art as he did at one point completely removed any interest I had in the article because that definition is what I find intriguing. However, over the course of the telling, he did reveal some things; confused and jumbled as they were which over all could be considered a view point.
Log in to comment