![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Video Games and Art
So Roger Ebert said once more that video games aren't art. And there has been a big tizzy about this. This is silly. Clearly, for the trivial definition of art, video games are art. But Ebert, sometimes (he shifts his goalposts constantly) means "not art" in a different sense than formal definition: he sometimes means it in the critically dismissive sense, and in that case he's pretty close to right on target.
What do I mean by "critically dismissive?" Well, for instance, imagine a Hallmark card with a nice painting of some lilies on the cover. It's clearly art in the trivial sense: paintings are pretty much the only thing which are defined culturally as honestly %100 bona-fide art without asterisk. But in another sense it's "not art:" in that it has no redeeming social or aesthetic value. Indeed it pretty much exists to be inoffensive and non-noticeable.
In terms of the basic question: are video games art? clearly the answer is yes. But in terms of the question "is there any worthwhile art in video games?" the answer is much hazier. I think that the answer is yes, but there's still a surprising dearth.
When I think about video games that have personally affected me about as much as a pretty good movie or nearly any book, I can count them on one hand. If I remove the games where it was some non-game aspect of the work (I'm looking at you, FFTactics) that affected me, it drops even further.
When I think about video games that have caused me to dramatically re-examine and rethink my life, the number drops to zero. (compared to a handful of movies, a few role-playing games, a great many books.)
In terms of things which have actually honestly changed my life, it's really just books and may...be a tabletop role-playing game (although I bet if I was a movie buff it'd have some movies too: I've seen this amongst my friends.) Video games aren't anywhere close to this.
So, once we've dismissed the obvious, there's a pretty important question there: why the dearth of decent art in video games? I think that, as a generation of video game players and designers, we need to confront that question, not shun and avoid it.
What do I mean by "critically dismissive?" Well, for instance, imagine a Hallmark card with a nice painting of some lilies on the cover. It's clearly art in the trivial sense: paintings are pretty much the only thing which are defined culturally as honestly %100 bona-fide art without asterisk. But in another sense it's "not art:" in that it has no redeeming social or aesthetic value. Indeed it pretty much exists to be inoffensive and non-noticeable.
In terms of the basic question: are video games art? clearly the answer is yes. But in terms of the question "is there any worthwhile art in video games?" the answer is much hazier. I think that the answer is yes, but there's still a surprising dearth.
When I think about video games that have personally affected me about as much as a pretty good movie or nearly any book, I can count them on one hand. If I remove the games where it was some non-game aspect of the work (I'm looking at you, FFTactics) that affected me, it drops even further.
When I think about video games that have caused me to dramatically re-examine and rethink my life, the number drops to zero. (compared to a handful of movies, a few role-playing games, a great many books.)
In terms of things which have actually honestly changed my life, it's really just books and may...be a tabletop role-playing game (although I bet if I was a movie buff it'd have some movies too: I've seen this amongst my friends.) Video games aren't anywhere close to this.
So, once we've dismissed the obvious, there's a pretty important question there: why the dearth of decent art in video games? I think that, as a generation of video game players and designers, we need to confront that question, not shun and avoid it.
no subject
The one thing I'd like to pick apart here is why you would try to make a distinction between game and non-game aspects that might be powerful to you. In the movies that you have mentioned, are the moving aspects something that is inherent to the medium? Aren't most powerful movies something where the powerful aspect could have been done in a play, but was well executed in a movie? Similarly, can't the same be said for books as opposed to spoken story? Ok, there is a real difference when you move something from one medium to another, but I don't think that a good piece of art in one medium is bound to it.
Some of the greatest art (well beyond the bounds necessary to call something art by Ebert's standards) out there fully exploits the medium and would not be as great if put in another, but I attribute the power of art (fine art) not to what is in the art itself, but in the lives (emotions, past experiences, etc.) of the people who experience the art. The art's job is to invoke that.
no subject
Let's see. I dunno. Imagine a movie which is just an open copy of Charles Dicken's "A Tale of Two Cities." Every minute or so, someone turns the page. Now, clearly, there is art here (I can read the book, and be moved by it as I am when I read a physical book in front of me) but it's not really the movie part where the art lies.
I feel the same way about FMV-driven plotlines in games. It's basically taking a break from the game to watch a movie.
I'd love to hear more about your talk.
no subject
Games are about making choices—this is what distinguishes them from other media. I've only ever found truly morally meaningful choices to be made in RPGs, rather than in video games.
Matt
no subject
Thought: the last level of Braid is horrifying, even though there's basically no choices to make. Indeed, it's horrifying because there are no choices to make.
no subject
Matt
no subject
Sorry.
no subject