roger ebert says that videogames are not, and cannot be, art.
this bothers me a little, partly because i am becoming a huge fan of his writing, and partly because i am a huge fucking nerd and spent most of my childhood in front of the atari / nes / super nintendo. i submit that a) videogames can indeed be art, and b) they are the superior form of expression in that they are also interactive. a truly great painting, symphony, movie, or book, whatever response it elicits, is still a passive experience. you go to the show or museum, you observe and examine these things, and take away whatever response or emotion you will. and that's fine. art is all about drawing some kind of response from the, for lack of a better word, viewer.
video games combine several kinds of art and deliver a product that you are also in control of. look at the screenshots from anything square enix has done in the last few years, the music from castlevania going back to the 19 fucking 80s, or the writing and storyline of something like myst, and tell me that's not art. i will respond that you may go fuck yourself. games wrap visuals around a story, set it to music, and then let you experience it how you will. if world of goo doesn't count as art, then we're all screwed because language has ceased to have any kind of meaning.
tl;dr: serrano had piss christ, nintendo gave us navi. games is art.
No comments:
Post a Comment