Not everything can be a Good Metaphor. (like art?)
Roger Ebert, renowned Pulitzer laureate and film critic, blogged in early 2010 that "games can never be art." His reasons centered on games lacking the immortality of what high art critics would revere as 'great works of art.' The conjecture was a response to a TEDX talk of game innovator, Kelle Santiago, about her views that games are more than entertainment. Although it was a bit squirm-tastic to see that her best definition of art came from Wikipedia, Kellee maintains that all sublime art has evolved from a primitive form (e.g. the art of storytelling can be traced from cave drawings) and that games have been observing the same evolution. Adult games nowadays are not simply "games" anymore but a source of pure joy...and even catharsis. She spoke with intensity and affection, which Mr. Ebert acknowledged. However, Ebert basically says that Art is not won but experienced. Any game that cancels the competitive nature of gaming becomes an expression of a narrative--like a film--which violates the very essence of a game. This discourse of the tenets of high art was met with a firestorm of blogs, from the media, game enthusiasts (mostly) a few Ludology experts invited to render their two cents. In a suprising twist, Mr. Ebert concedes by saying: "I would never express an opinion on a movie I hadn't seen. Yet I declared as an axiom that video games can never be Art. I still believe this, but I should never have said so. Some opinions are best kept to yourself."
Roger Ebert--with a readership of adult contemporaries and film aficionados who either enjoys his film criticisms or general musings--is an ambassador for a community of both low and high culture fanatics. An expert in his own right, Mr. Ebert's film criticism has been known for being a treasure trove of insights rather than a meer cool-o-meter. In reviewing "Lost in Translation", he writes "strangers operate in a cosmic scale." In "Atonement", he praised Keira Knightley's accent by saying "Knightley with stunning style, speaks rapidly in that upper-class accent that sounds like performance art. When I hear it, I despair that we Americans will ever approach such style with our words, which march out like baked potatoes." In an artistic veneer of disagreement, he was critical of "Ms. Minous" (a cat-turned-into-a-woman movie) by saying that the film skipped her affairs with the litter box. Such insights, infused in his commentary, have earned him a Pulitzer--but we like to believe he conceded his opinions on high art due to relative cyber activities that materialized on the real world. In a considerably perfect timing, The Smithsonian Institute launched an exhibition of games considered as art. Perhaps there's truth in the saying that all is relative and "Nothing is ever just anything."
For months, the online game fans insisted game is the generation 9 art though no one seems to define it. But a clear example of Generation 9 gaming are RPG (Role-playing Game). A main characteristic of RPG allow players to empathize on a character's experience within a fictional narrative. And this fictional setting is perhaps what Kelle Santiago reverts to as a source of "pure joy and catharsis". Her three examples of games (including the popular BRAIDS--tagged as"a new art game") are clearly not your average Pacman. Sharing her sentiments, gaming experts insist that a catharsis can be found on BRAIDS. Gamasutra.com claims that " Braids mused on the nature of relationships, regret, and temporal paradoxes (...) --introduces a limitless rewind mechanic -- you can reverse any mistake, erasing the concept of "failure" -- framed by a wistful reflection on perfect forgiveness between lovers. Braids is also an online game, both downloadable and a popular staple of the XBOX Live Community.
FIRST THINGS FIRST: ARE GAMES REALLY ART?
It is difficult to separate art from the handcuffs of the latin adage: De gustibus non est disputandum (In taste there can be no disputes).Certainly, there are many definitions of art--depends on who you revere (which falls back on one's taste of authority). As an academic discussion, art may in fact be objective in some respects. Hence, we can only consider games as art using the requirements of the Art Criticism Theory. In classic art criticism (or high art if you will), a Magnum opus should either possess a historical or philosophical significance. Great literature, for instance, creates a parallel between the fictional story and the circumstances that allowed the writer to create his masterpiece. Great American Novels represent an epoch. A case in point is E.L. Doctorow's "Ragtime". This acclaimed work of histprical fiction uses the 1900s to allude to the progessive ideas of the 1960s & 70s. Historical research into Doctorow will tell you that his choice of 1900s was no accident. People seem tired of the authority imposed by the pre-1900s Gilded Age (a time of Economic Boom) and a civil unrest (such as Feminism and ideas against Racial Segregation) were present. These themes were seen repeating in the 1960s--right after the 1950's economic boom (or yet another period of American Affluence). Its writing style also represents an art movement of the 60s & 70s deemed as postmodernism or (in layman's terms) the rejection of authority as an absolute truth. Let's revert back to Kelly's arguments again:
The Games that Kelle Santiago described spoke of the evolution of games from "chicken scratches on the walls" in to something more complex or engaging. However, we agree with Mr. Ebert that there's something missing. On the historical aspect of games, what epoch of history does game capture? Can we play games and say that perhaps the Zombie Apocalypse we are exposed to is reminscent of a time in history when all humans were Zombies --neither living nor dead?
History aside, games do lack as well in Philosophical significance--often the hushed (and abstract)realities of life philosophers have the license and experience to fully articulate. In art criticism, the philosophical significance can be defined as such: "when art liberates humans from the circumstances that usually enslave them". It is given that the game BRAIDS (for instance) offers players to correct their past mistakes (or find solace) however, we cannot correct our past mistakes in real life. Also, it is hard to argue that all humanity shares this catharsis simply because games is known for its potboiler reputation (which is to sell games). Most great works of art are not made to cater to popular taste, or a form of livelihood. In fact, some artists are long dead and gone even before their works gain due recognition.
We agree on his view that games are not art in its most sublime form (with respect to art criticism theory). But what happened here? As much as this is a clash of definitions, what we are seeing is a clash of cyber culture, and we deem a trend. Perhaps a new kind of postmodernist attitudes (or suspicion) towards celebrated art connoisseurs.
TOWARDS A GLOBAL, PERSONALIZED, CULTURE: BEHOLD THE THROES OF SUBCULTURE.
Bjorn Staerck, programmer, blogger, and cultural-backpacker, wrote an interesting article on how globalization had made subcultures more uniting than ever: "it doesn't take much contact with people from "other" cultures to realize that our subculture often says more about who we are than our culture. A geek is a geek anywhere. I'm more similar to my readers and other political bloggers all over the world than to my next door neighbours.
Technology is helping these subcultures to rise above borders, and form international communities." What he says is especially true when we view the debate on piracy. Authority tells us that downloading pirated material equates to stealing. But a survey of cases point that downloading prevails. Cyber societies do have justifications for downloading copyrighted material...they do it not to steal, but to experience first a product before buying. The "Fremium" model is born--which gives many media companies to focus on experience before purchase (e.g. Spotify).
This discourse on games as art, we argue, is from the sting of new cybercultures. For game enthusiasts, their justifications of games as art cannot be invalid--if they believe it offers catharsis. We cannot also dismiss that games are not art simply because the method of creating games requires a technique (applied arts) and are considerably under the disciplines of design.
We are not suprised by this since we saw the same pattern in Proffessional Communication. In the past, Martha Stewart dictates what her public should think about. If we, for instance, hates matching socks and writes Martha Stewart to feature on her show how to do it faster and easier--Martha will be the ultimate gatekeeper. Either we die not seeing a response from her, or perhaps hope that there are enough people who wrote her the same concern for a show about socks to be produced and broadcast. Martha don;t control us anymore since anyone can now produce and distribute content. Instead of seeing her as the home-maker queen, we have the prerogative to Google our answers easily. This allows the birth of communities with a stronger voice than the "connoisseur". It is more likely that we will easily and more quickly find like minded people with the same concern. And goodbye to gatekeepers of information since any one with an Internet connection and the right tools can be Martha Stewart without having to buy TV guide. In short, we "tune in" to our immediate communities rather than highly regimented messages.
To judge for ourselves, and empathize according to the view of subcultures, we decided to perform an informal ethnography and play some online games ourselves. FHM.com (For Him Magazine) has been known to rate online games according to user response. They are also known for the FHM Online Game Awards. Due to the economic crises, the magazine acknowledged that the game rating will experience a hiatus. But the footprint of their 2009 top games are still published and available for enjoyment. We have played three of their highest-rated online games. These are: "the Last Stand 2" (a zombie-apocalypse game), "GemCraft Chapter"and "Canyon Defense"(both a sort of warfare strategy).
All these games are highly enjoyable because aside from playing the core element of winning, one has to think the same way we go through life. In the Last Stand, one needs to recharge his weapons (acknowleding the reality of scarce resources). The same is true with the warfare tactics game. In Canyon-Defense, there is an element of money which it's not as easy as 1-2-3 to put canons everywhere on the inter phase. One also can't expect if the enemy will be hovering or on the ground. These games are addictive nonetheless, and very engaging. Too engaging, perhaps, that it felt that the choices we made represents who we are in real life.
Hence, from this mini ethnography, we can also empathize on gamers and some Ludology experts that games can indeed be art. In the end, what we are seeing is not a contest of definitions, but a contest of popular discourse. Perhaps Roger Ebert, the film connoisseur, could represent the academic standards that sit on wisdom (the combination of knowledge and experience). What he undeniably represents as well is his readership. Though not all agrees, we can reckon from the art of speech that audience plays a role in his art of discussion. However, the same can be said on the camp of game enthusiasts and experts alike. Though some Ludologists do say that games are art, they also understood what Ebert was saying.
In conclusion, this story is really about the rise of the subculture and that authority, may in fact be spread out thanks to cybersocieties.
WILL AUTHORITY ON ART MATTER?
The “online games are art or not” debate is really not necessary. And online games don’t need to be art or could be art. Let us imagine, the online games need to ask the artists advices and permissions to determine if an online game is art qualified to be launched, what the online games would look like? We don’t want their permission to say “ok, the game reaches to the art level so you can launch this online game for normal people”. And most of the artists are non-gamers. What is the reason to tie an online game to a non-gamer industry?
Games are ours not theirs. As Hilary Goldstein said “Games are ours, not theirs. We need to keep it that way. Being labeled as “art” takes away some of the subculture of gaming that is still vital to its long-term survival.”
Personally, online games are subjective. You will still love the games that you play if others hate it. And it does not make any difference if the game wins an Oscar award. What matters if the online games are an art or not? The purpose of online game is to entertain, stress release and time consuming. The attractiveness of online game is the functional and the rules. It changes your emotions.
To playing online game and viewing art require two different languages. For the online games, you need schooling and training to decoding and coding to cope with. For viewing an art you need to have different perspectives in order to decode the message that the artist deliver.
Online games and art are two different subjects and two different worlds. Why everybody wants to mix them together? If the online game is art or not it doesn’t affect the gamers. It makes no difference. And the gamers don’t even care if the online games they are playing is art or not. It doesn’t affect them at all.
What really matters for gamers is the game itself. The online game is a community and it is beyond a game. For the gamers they care about the entertain level, the difficulty level, the successful level and any other functional and mental effect that the online game can bring to them. Maybe the last thing they can think about is if the game is watchable.
We are too empowered we better form our own community about this. Maybe technology will allow us to represent a new ...epoch ? :-)
No comments:
Post a Comment