Since video games remain in my conscious, let more vidya content continue like the Rolling Stone’s corpse of a music career. Two youtubers, Jennie Bharaj and Westerly, both provided informed arguments an age old debate in video games. Should video games be considered art? Personally, I’ve always considered the subject to be an exercise in futility, aligning myself with Mr. Ebert. I acknowledge the benefit of video games being considered art: immunity from censorship. Developers can rest easy knowing this legal battle is over and I’m overjoyed that some government institutions aren’t useless. However, my apathy for this debate derives from my frustration with art’s terminology and cultural connotation.
Merriam-Weber’s definition of art shares affinity with urban dictionary, some consensus without real verification. No method exists determine when something is or isn’t art because even art experts’ opinions can be radically different. Specificity only excludes objects that others might consider art, compounding this problem and spawning more inadequate definitions. Even with consensus, as a term “art” has come to define nothing. Here are some examples I’ve heard: Art induces an emotional experience/catharsis. Art has no other utility than to exist. Art is expression or application of human creativity in a visual medium. Yet, I can counter each definition. Part of the Bible cause me emotional turmoil, but Scripture isn’t art. The second is too debatable and restricting, utility can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Under the third, a box of cheerios can be considered art.
For at least six hundred years people in the west have conflated art with quality. Despite the term’s completely arbitrary nature, an object becomes more valuable when qualified as art versus something that isn’t. That’s a pretentious double standard. Qualifying the value of anything should be divorced from determining whether something is or isn’t art. They are not related. Criteria is a tool to evaluate quality. Sometimes art is a criteria, but it shouldn’t be. If two paintings—both considered art—are being compared, one cannot say, “this one is better because it is art and the other is not.” In this fictional comparison, art cannot be a qualifier for value. This illustrates the uselessness of art as a term. Go to the Tate in London or any modern art gallery and drink in the pile of garbage that passes as “art”.
My solution to this problem is eliminate the word, but that’s an unrealistic expectation, akin to believing that Valve will make Half-Life Three. An alternative method lies in simplicity and relaying on authorial intent. If a person intends their creative work to be art then it is. Boom and done. Will people like this solution? No. One problem with my solution is the complexity of video games as a medium. While books, movies and video games are all shared mediums, authorial intent is more evident in books and movies than when compared to video games. Interaction creates a distinct separation of experience between creator and audience. A gamer developer’s intent has almost no influence on how game players experience the finished product. Once again I side with Ebert, why does it matter if video games are considered art? Legally speaking, I think all creative endeavors should be protected, not just artistic ones. Therefore, we should be judging a game based on its merit, not whether it fits into a meaningless definition. Then we all can argue about something else instead. Thanks for reading.
 |
| I don't own this comic, but y'all should check it out :D |
Find me on Facebook or on Twitter
No comments:
Post a Comment