There's an argument raging across net about whether video games are art, started by Roger Ebert. I've only seen the argument on one small corner of the net, but I imagine it's pandemonium all over.
Here's where Ebert's argument fell apart:
- "One obvious difference between art and games is that you can win a game. It has rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Santiago might cite a immersive game without points or rules, but I would say then it ceases to be a game and becomes a representation of a story, a novel, a play, dance, a film. Those are things you cannot win; you can only experience them." [bold mine]
He defined himself right. That's so disappointing. But the article goes on as if he doesn't even realize his argument fell apart. And it was a much better read after that point. Because I didn't care about the argument anymore. All that was left was the question of whether video games are art. It's such a Big Unanswerable Question, that arguing over it seems almost banal. I have to say "almost" because I can't think of a better way to have all these various perspectives on this interesting question delivered to me.
Maybe it's an unfortunate economic reality of the whole internet argument medium. If someone wants to create an interesting discussion about video games and art, the only way he can market it is by trying to score points and win something.
In case you're missing the point, I am not siding with the other guys. Here's where their argument fell apart:
- "Bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch bitch." [bitch mine]
No comments:
Post a Comment