I read Roger Ebert's reply to video gamers. I read Richard Stanton's indifferent article on why Ebert's argument along with the video gaming community's argument were both unimportant and unnecessary. I wish I could take Ebert's side, just for the sake of argument, as I do love dramas, films, and literature. I wish I could side with my fellow gamers and go on a zealous rampage, picketing outside Ebert's house, pooping in his yard to teach him a lesson. Yet, after some reflection, I find myself on Stanton's side. I don't think the question of video games as art needs to be answered, because, quite frankly, it's not answered for any other existing medium.
I couldn't stop shaking my head while reading Stanton's piece. I truly believe art is subjective. I hate high art. Loathe it. I just don't get it. So, how can I condemn someone like Ebert for not getting games? It's all personal. One person might love Sylvia Plath, someone might find her mellow dramatic and vow to never read her again (which, if this is the case, we can never be friends, I'm sorry.) To simplify I'll try and use specifically the medium of games.
I know people that love Skyrim and Oblivion. Personally, I'm not a fan. People might see them as fantasy art, Tolkien come to console, if you will. I don't see it that way. I find the openness obnoxious and restricting at the same time. It's overwhelming, and yet, I find myself given so many choices that I follow the base storyline. Therefore, my experience with the game won't be an "artistic" experience, if such a thing exists. Yet, when I play any of the Uncharted games, I find myself swept away, completely enveloped by the character, world, and adventures. I consider that art. I've seen people play games like Heavy Rain. They consider it so beautiful and fulfilling that it is art to them. To me, it's a boring trudge through a story I don't really care about. I have the same amount of fun staring at abstract art. Therefore, it's not art to me. The thing is, I know many people would read this and completely disagree with me on points. Isn't the fact that we can argue about whether games are art self-explanatory? I just feel like it's an indicator to anyone joining in this argument; you think it's art, someone else doesn't think so. Art is a moving target. It's not concrete.
Which leads me to talking about Stanton's most prolific point, in my opinion: Critics don't even know what art is. His simplification on this point, "I don't know much about art, but I know what I like," is probably one of the most accurate statements I've seen on the subject. Critics are held in such high regard because that's the title society bestowed on them. So they must be beacons of high art, right? Nope. There are game critics, music critics, art critics, film critics, food critics....you get the idea. Critics are, and this might be a blanket statement with much of my bitterness shining through, fans just as us of a certain medium, and it just so happens that they can write a few hundred words fluently. Ebert loves film, that's his artistic medium of choice. I love film too, but I would never call Nosferatu art, which I have seen six times, one of which I was awake for. I also hate almost all older films, and yet I've found that those are generally considered the foundation films for what we have today. Well, that's fine and good, but I'd much rather play Call of Duty than watch Singing in the Rain, because guess what? It brings me that feeling of joy, ecstasy, and engagement.
I'll let Ebert sit away in his tower and I'll let the gamers circle the wagons. I'll be off to the side enjoying whatever I enjoy, and seeing art wherever I see it. Is Drake really creating art? Not if you ask a lot esoteric music critics, but hell, I think he is, because I can feel it. I guess my final point and piece of advice is this; if you feel it in your loins, deep down, or if something moves you, then that's your art, forget all the other parameters.
No comments:
Post a Comment