The article is largely a response to Roger Ebert's statement about videogames as art (here is an extended 'conversation' between Ebert and artist Clive Barker):
“…I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.”
Josh Korr goes on to examine some of the inferiorities that Ebert insinuated in his statement:
"First, he is responding to the fact that right now, the player choices and evolving storylines are more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book than anything else. That is, the “story” consists not of illuminating interactions with others or with the character’s own thoughts or imagination; not of original dialogue that brings out the characters’ personalities and journeys or highlights the greater themes in play; not of landscapes and scene shots or descriptions that underpin the greater theme or symbolism of the work; not of asides from the author that do all of the above or take you out of the work for whatever reason."
But he also touches on the nature of criticism itself, and focuses a lot of his four-part discussion on the singularity of gameplay as artistic criteria.
"It’s pretty clear as Ebert says (admittedly with little knowledge of actual games) that the vast majority of video games thus far are inferior to the dominant forms of narrative art according to the accepted measures of assessing that art."
People like Jason Rohrer (previously) accentuate some of the ways in which videogames warrant their own criteria. I believe that player input can be just as evocative as 'authorial control'. The problem is that few videogame auteurs are comparable to the auteurs of other art forms: subsequently player control, the medium's defining aspect, is seen as a detriment to it's artistic potential. On a simplified level Jason Rohrer has proved this: his games show how player input can evoke emotions as complex as those evoked by any other medium.
“…I did indeed consider video games inherently inferior to film and literature. There is a structural reason for that: Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control.
I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art. To my knowledge, no one in or out of the field has ever been able to cite a game worthy of comparison with the great dramatists, poets, filmmakers, novelists and composers.”
Josh Korr goes on to examine some of the inferiorities that Ebert insinuated in his statement:
"First, he is responding to the fact that right now, the player choices and evolving storylines are more like a Choose Your Own Adventure book than anything else. That is, the “story” consists not of illuminating interactions with others or with the character’s own thoughts or imagination; not of original dialogue that brings out the characters’ personalities and journeys or highlights the greater themes in play; not of landscapes and scene shots or descriptions that underpin the greater theme or symbolism of the work; not of asides from the author that do all of the above or take you out of the work for whatever reason."
But he also touches on the nature of criticism itself, and focuses a lot of his four-part discussion on the singularity of gameplay as artistic criteria.
"It’s pretty clear as Ebert says (admittedly with little knowledge of actual games) that the vast majority of video games thus far are inferior to the dominant forms of narrative art according to the accepted measures of assessing that art."
People like Jason Rohrer (previously) accentuate some of the ways in which videogames warrant their own criteria. I believe that player input can be just as evocative as 'authorial control'. The problem is that few videogame auteurs are comparable to the auteurs of other art forms: subsequently player control, the medium's defining aspect, is seen as a detriment to it's artistic potential. On a simplified level Jason Rohrer has proved this: his games show how player input can evoke emotions as complex as those evoked by any other medium.
No comments:
Post a Comment