Wednesday, July 4, 2012
A couple vids relating to Tuesday
Adam Sessler is a video game journalist for G4TV whose video segments, called Sessler's Soapbox, share his very interesting insights into the video game industry. Below are a couple videos that I thought very relevant to our discussion Tuesday.
The first one: http://www.g4tv.com/videos/45457/sesslers-soapbox-adam-vs-ebert-games-as-art/?quality=hd
Now, as was probably apparent yesterday, I am very much of the "Video Games are Art" opinion. As such, I disagree with some of the points Sessler makes; however, he makes some great points about video games not needing validation from some third party, and that they've already proved themselves culturally relevant.
The second one: http://www.g4tv.com/videos/53929/sesslers-soapbox-games-are-protected-speech/?quality=hd
The court case mentioned in this video is the case we were talking about in class Tuesday. Like Sessler, I highly recommend perusing the majority opinion written by Justice Scalia, which can be found here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf. Don't let the small text intimidate you, it's actually quite the easy read.
I also recommend browsing some of Sessler's other videos in his Soapbox series, as he talks about a great many subjects that even those who don't actively game might find interesting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
It seems to me his distinction between "art" and "artistry" is akin to the distinction between what we usually think of as "art" and what we think of as "craft." That is, there is obviously a skillfullness that goes into making the object/game (I hesitate to call it an "object," just as I'd hesitate to reduce artwork to 'objects') but that the object itself is not "art" because it is not "art" in that other sense -- it is not "on display" (which Sessler seems to equate with a "static" art -- an art that someone stays the same or consistent. We might only briefly note that performance art often takes place in museums or other "legitimate" art spaces).
ReplyDeleteThat said, I'm actually impressed by the ambivalence Sessler expresses in his talk. I wholeheartedly agree that video games challenge a distinction that Sessler seems to be making here (the "ivory tower" types that deem it "art") between "high" art (deemed "art") and "low" art. Video games have, I think, inspired a lot of "contemporary" art that has already broken down those boundaries by making art interactive and, most importantly, non-static. I think that Sessler is right to say that videogames do not have to be deemed "art" by an ivory tower institution and that they instead serve as a challenge to traditional distinctions between popular culture and what I'll call 'high art' or 'museum art' -- the art that we think of as an object to be observed rather than an experience or interface that allows for interaction. Video games as a whole are not a "lower" art than painting -- just as performance art is not a "lower" art than painting (or for that matter, Warhol's work).
Indeed, going back to my point about the distinction between "art" and what Sessler calls "artfulness," we should think about how most people thought of "art" until, say, Modern art or contemporary art (Pollock, Warhol, Rothko, -- or even back before that -- Ernst, Duchamp, etc.) AS art that takes extreme skill. Most criticisms we hear of something like Pollock is that "anyone can do that" or "that looks like a child's painting" or whatever -- as if somehow the craft/difficult of the production of the work of art is what made it a "higher" art. It is true that videogames take an immense amount of skill, but it is not the "difficulty" or "complexity" of the production of the artwork (the 'artfulness' or 'craftfullness') that makes something "art" (in my humble opinion) -- rather, the interaction, the interface, the experience of the work (where that be video game, painting, or performance) and not only its complexity but what it allows us to do/feel/think that makes something "art." Perhaps this is basically what Sessler means when he says that video games are already "culturally relevant" by simply being what they are.
Just a bit to add -- Perhaps it is not the very simply fact that they are video games (we can think of video games, in some sense, as a medium or rather a "multimedia" work, in the same sense as something like art made of 'found objects') but rather that video games are able to become art -- what if it is video games (and would they even be able to be classified as video games?) that challenge previous genre conventions -- or even the conventions of what we might think a video game CAN BE make it art? Kyle -- if you can remember his name/the name of the video games -- do you remember the guy that came in and talked about a game where all you do is walk to a bench, sit down and talk to an old woman. Then, if you PAY for the game, you die? What if a more subversive or surprising art arises not out of video games' illusion of false choices/freedoms, but rather tight constrictions that leads a character to an inevitable fate?
ReplyDelete