argument

this site's purpose is two-fold. the first is my own selfish desire to blog about video games, specifically the issue of video games as art. the second is to fulfill the requirements for a seminar class concerning said interest. as such, some of what i will write will only be relevant towards that class, however i will blog more extensively when i have more to say. as for now, this first posting is about how i developed my interest in video games as art and my main hypothesis about the artistic merit of video games now and their future potential. 

like many, i started playing video games at a young age to compensate for being a social introvert and over the years, although i've become more socially adroit, video games have become ingrained as the best way to pass my free time. i also drew a lot as a kid and when it came time to go to college i decided to try and develop this talent in the hopes of becoming an artist. i don't think that panned out once i finally did get my bachelor's in art, but if anything, formal schooling got me thinking about art much more critically. with video games i have become what is called a "hardcore gamer," while with art i'm at best a dilettante. so enters the controversy of video games as art and the confluence of these two interests...

a lot has been said about this subject by many more notable and qualified person than i, but perhaps the most ignorant and insightful criticism about video games as an art form comes from Roger Ebert. the ignorance of his criticism lies in his overestimation of the power the player has to interact with the medium; a player can only do what the programmer allows. subsequently, a programmer is entirely in control when it comes to what he or she wants the player to experience and as such can fulfill Ebert's definition of an artist. the insight of his comment, however, is bit more subtle because it is couched in his appraisal of what video games are today, quote, "[video games] tend to involve (1) point and shoot in many variations and plotlines, (2) treasure or scavenger hunts, as in "Myst," and (3) player control of the outcome. I don't think these attributes have much to do with art; they have more in common with sports."

video games are a nascent medium and the relevance of Ebert's comment is the limitations imposed by the assumption that this medium is games. gaming is poor medium to conduct art because what makes a good game is not necessarily congruent with the vagaries of art. the enjoyment of games is predicated upon success, the satisfaction of accomplishment even if it is only an accomplishment by the artificial rules of the game. the appreciation of Art, art with a capital "A," high art, on the other hand, is not necessarily about making the audience feel like they have accomplished anything. indeed, a great piece of art can be antithetical to a gaming schema; imagine Hamlet: the Game where the player dithers about, soliloquizing about their intentions and only accomplishing them in the last five minutes of the game while dying due to their inability to act sooner. Hamlet the play is work of art, musing about mortality and the struggle of the human condition. Hamlet: the Game, on the other hand is barely a game at all, and considering how irate most gamers are at overly long cut-scenes getting in the way of the game, a complete and utter failure. 

this is not to say that games cannot convey powerful and relevant themes, because indeed i have played some games that have done so. my point is that a game is a limited venue for what artistically relevant themes can be conveyed since theses themes have to be congruent with the sense of accomplishment that drives a game. moreover, i believe the moniker "video game" is dangerous reification. the direct interaction of the audience in an artificial world can be a powerful medium for art, but the assumption that this interaction must be in the form of a game is the myopic conceit of what the medium is today. Hamlet probably wouldn't make a great game, but the themes it deals with could be artistically conveyed in a virtual world where the player's interaction produces similar results. granted, the incentive for interacting with an artificial world where one is confronted with sound and fury signifying nothing is not nearly as great as getting to save the world. one pursues the former for edification and epiphany; the conveyance of which is (usually, but not always) the testament of a work of art.

the ensuing posts on this blog will go into more detail about which video games i have played which i believe have achieved the lofty goals of being considered art. i will also go into greater detail how their presentation as a game may limit their artistic relevance. hopefully, the seminar i am taking will illuminate to me projects that elaborate on the theory i have just expounded.