Video games are culture. What this guy is saying, to me, is all correct. At first, I was one of those people who were up in arms with Ebert’s statement that ‘video games are not art’ because, well, the notion of something being a work of art is a notion presented with merit, respect, and significance.
And a lot of people weren’t taking very kindly to the thought that video games did not contain some, if not all, of those aspects of something being a ‘work of art.’ So, really, I think the argument against stemmed from an entirely different basis than the ‘art’ thing, because we associate specific qualities to what makes a product a work of art, outside of simply using such a statement as a figure of speech. Though still, in that instant, those associations work too.
So the criticism against video games being works of art, rather than, say, having artistic qualities (which unless you are blind, or a complete fucking idiot, are obviously not true), is an incredibly flawed one on both sides.
I haven’t read the article, yes I’m too lazy, no I’m not trying to be smart here, I’m just talking out of my ass and you’re gonna like it. But I’m assuming, after watching Sessler’s commentary on it (he’s a host for a gaming review show on G4, channel 90 on Rogers Cable [fuck those bastards]), that Roger Ebert is not an avid gamer. Don’t think I can picture that either. But my biggest qualm is that I think he’s talking out of his ass when he says what he says. This was a while back, so I don’t know details and I passed on discussing this before, but really, I don’t think Ebert has any basis for what he’s saying.
Nor do I think what Adam Sessler is discussing about what pertains to ‘art’ as a whole in context with video games was the mindset Ebert had when saying those comments. I’m going to be cynical and say he’s with the rest of the bandwagon.
It’s a bandwagon of ignorant fucks.
These three games are by an indie game developer called Thegamecompany, a group of grads from an Interactive Media program in the States that have a very specific development philosophy when creating their projects: the decide what emotions they want to evoke through their games and into their players, and design the game accordingly. The result is art. I dare you to disagree.
What Sessler is saying about participant influence in whatever video games actually are, art or not, is an incredibly valid point. The notion of a work of art having to be presented to its audience in one form by the artist, and that experience needing to not be altered is also a valid point. Once the audience starts being a participant, does the notion of art within a project cease to be?
If you watched that first video, that’s probably one of the ‘philosophical issues’ that video games sparks debate for. And in Sessler’s view, that’s what makes video games so progressive, transgressive, and interesting as an entertainment medium.
The participant is the third piece needed to finish the artwork is what Sessler posits. In that sense, it is true. Does that necessarily mean, given this reality, that a video game, as a whole, in its package, isn’t art?
If everything that surmounts to creating the finished video game product requires incredible levels of skill and talent pertaining to all aspects of art, design and interactivity, does simply making this art more accessible, more personal, deny those elements the ability to assemble together and create a true artwork?
To me, video games, if they are to be considered ‘art’, connect with its audience at another level. Once again, it transgresses a lot of what’s considered art these days. Participants are experiencing the artistic elements in a game first-hand on several different levels. Sessler points this out in his video, visual design, AI design, character creation, environment creation, narrative structure, user interface. The participant interacts with the art, instead of just viewing the art.
The validity of that realization ferments my opinion in that video games are art. Traditional art? No. But I can’t deny the fact that so much of what’s put into a game relies upon every single principle artists of all kinds rely on, themselves, to create a visual, aural, or narrative piece of artwork from their imagination.
Google Team Fortress 2. Example of high stylization and a distinct focus on creating visual atmosphere, and awesomely hilarious narrative mood with their character design. Something like Braid or Limbo. Arthouse games. Yeah, that’s a genre. If you research countless indie games from indie developers, like the three mentioned above, all of them probably have clearer, more traditional artistic elements that may sway your opinion.
Everything in video games has to do with art. Even coding. Programming. All the numbers and code and processing create something visual and interactive and appealing to your eye and ear. Designing not only visuals, but gameplay mechanics, working with gaming engines and designing a product goal rely on artistic vision and execution. ‘Interactive Art’ is sprouting up as the next big thing—new art movement, media topic, whatever, but it’s here, and its getting popular.
Video games as a medium, if not an art, combines everything artists know about creating art, and makes it into something else. Like Sessler says, maybe video games don’t have be categorized inside art, or culture, or society. Maybe it’s something else.
Maybe it’s the next step.
Wouldn’t that be the day, huh?
No comments:
Post a Comment