Jabberwock xeno said:
If every movie is art, and every narrative is art, then every video game, stupid or not, IS ART.
Yes, but is every movie
really art? Because I don't really want to apply that label to
Year Zero. *grins*
I have a lot of problems with this post, so this is going to be a long response. My first problem is that he provides absolutely no evidence to back up his argument. I see no examples of games that he thinks were acclaimed as art undeservedly, nor do I see acknowledgment of the games that I would legitimately call art. This immediately makes it more difficult for me to accept his arguments.
I also don't see him acknowledge a fact that this type of art/not art argument can be found in any artistic medium - just think of controversies over whether an entirely white canvas is "art," or a tower of sponges is "art," or a dog presented chained up and slowly starved to death is "art" (my personal opinion is an emphatic
no to all three). There's a lovely and provocative Neil LaBute play called
The Shape of Things that takes on this very question of where, if anywhere, we should draw the line between what is and isn't art. What Jaffe is seemingly unable to accept is that there is no easy answer for any medium. By railing against "artistic" games without giving us examples of strides that have been made or games that are holding us back, he really just paints himself as a guy who is against the evolution of games.
Now, let's take this quote from his post, which is around where I started to get very annoyed:
"If artistic/meaningful games were even semi-close to being what so many 'games as art' supporters claim, many true believers would be saying, 'you either get it or you don't and it doesn't really matter to me because you not getting it doesn't take away my enjoyment of and my response to meaningful, artistic games'. "
First of all, is he honestly trying to tell me that there is
no one holding the belief that games can be art who would, when prompted, express this opinion? Because that is patently false, and somewhat ridiculous. If he really thinks that the true believers are the ones keeping quiet about their opinions, then that means that for ever one shouting moron, there are potentially 10 intelligent people who believe that games can be art, who are just keeping themselves out of the public debate.
Secondly, has he stopped to consider that
every single art form has idiots in it who will try to push anything and everything on the public as "artistic"? And yet, just because I don't believe that a blank white canvas is "art" does not suddenly invalidate every other painting in existence. Why should the presence of people who, as he says, "seem hell bent on convincing the world that GAMES. DO. MATTER." invalidate the existence of games that I really would consider art?
Thirdly, why the hell should a person being passionate and vocal about a subject that they love automatically lessen the value of that subject, or indicate someone who doesn't really believe in his/her opinions? If I decide to write a blog about folk music (a passion of mine), and talk about all of the amazing music in the genre, and the rich historical background, and all of the other aspects that make it art in my eyes, should somebody reading the posts
really come to the conclusion that I don't really believe any of this, and that I'm just pushing my opinion so hard because I'm trying to convince myself of the validity of folk music as an art form? I don't think that this would be a logical reaction at all. So how come, if I want to talk about the potential of video games as a form of art, am I suddenly just "protesting too much"?
Then we come to this lovely section:
"You don't see folks who love traditional paintings going on and on about how their favorite medium needs to step up and get better at doing car chases and action scenes. You don't see folks who love reading books going on and on about how books need a symphonic score that plays while you read (and changes based on the page you are on) in order for literature to reach its full emotional and artistic potential... And in all that time, if STORIES could have used more interactivity to make them more meaningful to readers, don't you think at least a handful of stories (beyond CHOOSE YOUR OWN ADVENTURE books) would have hinted at this? Don't you think readers from thousands of years ago would have naturally come to this conclusion/desire?"
I find this section inane beyond words. First of all, "stories," as he calls them began as a
verbal art form (you know, because of the whole "the written word hadn't been invented yet" thing). They
started as an interactive idiom; entire villages would gather for the telling of stories; there were frequently call-and-response section; it was an opportunity for a community of people to come together and engage in the act of telling a story. Every art form, regardless of the mystical "core purpose" that Jaffe talks about, has evolved over time as new tools and new innovations have come into play. Verbal stories beget written stories, which beget performing stories as theatre (another medium that was actually far more interactive in older eras; the idea of the "fourth wall" is, given how long theatre's been around, very recent). Musical styles evolved as different instruments were invented, or as new ways of using the voice were conceived. Art moved from cave drawings to Egyptian hieroglyphs to; shading was introduced; the concept of perspective came in and dramatically changed the way people created paintings; Picasso came in and brought us an innovative return to something approaching 2D. To make the claim that other art forms have in no way grown or evolved since their creation is ludicrous.
Jaffe then makes a football field-sized leap, and seemingly implies that since video games are in some ways the descendants of board games, they aren't supposed to be "about" anything, since analog games don't have a narrative. I absolutely disagree with this.
Every game has a narrative, even if it's one that the player is creating for him or herself; otherwise, why the hell would we play them? Any board/card/etc game, from Go Fish to chess to, yes, Mancala, contains a battle; two or more players are trying to beat all of the other players. Is this not a narrative, albeit a simplistic one? Bring in games like Bridge, and your battle tale suddenly has a buddy story to it, as two sets of friends vie to help their partners and defeat their opponents. And as board games have developed, they
absolutely have gained larger narratives. Look at Life, or Monopoly, or Clue, or Kill Doctor Lucky (a wonderful game that I was introduced to at this year's PAX East). All of them have narratives. Is Jaffe going to really deny the same ability to evolve and change to video games?
Now, I will say that I do agree with his point that undeserved praise is definitely dangerous to true development of a craft and/or art form (thank you, well-intentioned but ill-advised Self Esteem movement). This is, again, a problem that is not endemic to video games; a lot of things that I might consider to be crap are touted as "art" by people trying to be on the cutting edge, or people trying to jump on the bandwagon. And I think that just because a game is different doesn't automatically make it "art." But just because people can inaccurately label one game as art doesn't mean that another game isn't art; and it doesn't mean that the entire genre is suddenly doomed to stagnation because people aren't appreciating and investing in "traditional games."
The bottom line for me is that we
need people to try new things in games, to make those huge leaps in all directions. Some of the stuff will be crap; actually, a lot of the stuff will be crap. But some of it will be mindblowing, breathtaking; some of it will take us to places that Jaffe and I have never even imagined. True innovation and evolution doesn't come from putting the blinders on and refusing to focus on anything but story, or gameplay, or weaponry. It comes from giving designers the freedom to suck sometimes. Will there be plenty of pretentious idiots claiming that every new game is "art"? Absolutely. But to me, it's worth it for the moments when we get to see something truly, honestly, inventive.
(if you actually read to the bottom of this, I salute you)
