It has been some time since I have thought about the old "video games as art debate," but this week, a thought provoking post has reinvigorated my interest in the subject. I am of the mind that video games are art, but I am often troubled when I attempt to amass evidence to support this feeling. Breaking a game down into its most granular details can be useful, but when I do it, I end up with a list of why I like the game, rather than why I think it is art.Perhaps the best evidence that video games are art can be found in a phenomenon most of the gaming community scorns: Here, I speak of fanboys.
Fanboys (forgive the exclusively masculine form, as I know from experience "fanboys" are of all gender constructs) are many things, but at their core, I agree with the Wikipedia entry that describes them as "devoted to a single subject in an emotional or fanatical manner." This emotion and fanaticism is often destructive, but what initially creates these feelings?
Justin Keverne recently grappled with the issue of fanboyism, saying:
"I want to scream it from the rooftops because I believe in the power of this medium and honestly think that if I can get somebody else to have the same experience I had with this game, and others then they’ll understand it too. I cannot always accurately describe it is about a particular game that had such an affect on me, and the excitement I feel at having witnessed that moment of potentiality can make such critical thought even harder. I can explain the circumstances of the event and what I felt but even that not always enough. I get frustrated and angry at my inability to make other people understand, I get emotional, irrational. I rant, I snap, I resort to childish insults. You don’t understand and I can’t make you, and that’s painful."
This passage impressed me: I have never read a clearer explanation of how games make me feel. Justin portrays fanboys in a sympathetic light: they are people who have been affected by something wonderful, but this "something" cannot be truly explained or shared.
Art is meant to provoke the part of us that eschews logic, the part of us that cannot be rationally explained. We may speak with stoicism of meter in poetry, of color in paintings, of measures in music, and of level design in games, but these are processed reactions. We analyze these things because we find them interesting, and we find them interesting because they elicit in us uncontrollable responses. It is a cruel joke that two people can play the identical game and have completely opposite reactions. Trying to explain how and why games affect us is often a journey into absurdity.
Despite (or perhaps because) of this absurdity, it is a journey worth taking. In harnessing the emotional reactions games provoke, we may use them as introspective tools. Rational analysis empowers us with knowledge just as irrational emotion empowers us with feeling.
The trick is keeping our perspective on this journey. It is no accident that Jorge and I made the site's mantra "Serious, but not humorless, analysis of video games and culture." Without seeing the humor in the absurd task of trying to describe how art works, we would go mad and spiral into the dark side fanboyism. Fanboyism is not so much a choice as it is a force.
Thinking of it in terms of the Force actually may not be a bad way to think about it. Fanboyism is the essence that draws us to games; it compels our interest in something that is both mysterious and comforting. It can be abused, and indulging in it without restraint may warp our minds, turning us into dark shadows of our former selves. However, using feelings of fanboyism as the starting point for reflection and understanding liberates us by teaching us about ourselves, and then about all of humanity.
And what is the origin of this force? It is art. What other type of human creativity could inspire such irrational reactions? It may sound preposterous, even heretical, but art breeds fanboys.
Certainly a strange concept I will admit, but I think it makes at least as much sense as that midi-chlorian bullshit.
I'm not convinced. A major source of fanboys are console wars where different groups vigorously try to convince each other of the superiority of different gaming platforms. Those are hardy fueled by a form of artistic expression but by aggressive marketing, blind technicism and simply a need to over-rationalize an expensive purchase in front of others (cognitive dissonance).
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, art can hardly be reduced to simply emotional effects. A large portion of modern art is actually conceptual art, which aims to engage intellectually, rather than emotionally. One could argue that this was always one of the function of art and a criteria to distinguish art from kitsch.
This doesn't mean that games aren't art. However, making the connection between fanboys and art seems like a stretch to me.
But I have a different question to consider: why? Why do you want to think about games as art and why do other people want to see games not as art? Would games be better, more valuable if people would consider them as art? Is the label "art" so attractive? What would change if games were considered art? Is there something we could do to achieve similar effects without having to deal with the tiresome discussion?
Ultimately isn't any kind of fandom an attempt to "over-rationalize" a response to something? Everybody likes to have their own personal views validated but those views have to be based on something to begin with.
ReplyDeleteConsole fanboys, or any other kind for that matter, seem desperate to want others to understand and agree with their position. They might not be fuelled by artistic expression but I think the reasons you provide, though all valid, ignore the fact that clearly these people are having fun with their purchase. I find it very unlikely that every PlayStation or Xbox fanboy is only evangelising their chosen platform purely to make themselves feel better.
When it comes to conceptual art are you saying that being engaged intellectually cannot provoke an emotional response? Clearly you've never seen two Scientists or Engineers arguing over a particular problem.
Some people want to see games as art because it validates their chosen form of entertainment in exactly the same way as console fanboys want their system recognised as important like I said everybody wants to have their own personal views validated. Some people don’t want to think of games as art because they fear it might invalidate their chosen art form; they don’t understand games or gamers and think that embracing it as an art form will damage the concept of art.
I think the actual discussion of whether games are is really of little value. Regardless of the answer (I believe won’t be a consensus for years to come if at all) games are worthy of our time, are intellect and our passion.
@Krystian
ReplyDeleteI agree with your point that marketing must play a large part in fanboyism.
I've often considered the "why?" questions you pose, but I've yet to arrive at a satisfying conclusion. Perhaps it is because the label "art" has a cache in society that even people who know little about art respect?
If we can get games to be thought of as art, it would be a shortcut to wide-spread legitimization. Of course, oftentimes shortcuts aren't the most noble of paths...
Thanks for the thoughtful comments!
@CrashTranslation
I went to a school with lots of scientists and engineers, and you are right when you say that emotion leaks into everything.
I try to stay away from this argument, but every so often it draws me back in again, probably because I feel the need to defend my "chosen form of entertainment."
Oh what a paradise we would live in if everyone could feel validated at all times!
They might not be fuelled by artistic expression but I think the reasons you provide, though all valid, ignore the fact that clearly these people are having fun with their purchase. I find it very unlikely that every PlayStation or Xbox fanboy is only evangelising their chosen platform purely to make themselves feel better.
ReplyDeleteI don't deny that they do have fun with their purchase. But that doesn't explain why they try to convince others so aggressively of the superiority of their entertainment system.
When it comes to conceptual art are you saying that being engaged intellectually cannot provoke an emotional response?
We get emotional about anything. But if the trigger is an intellectual idea, it can be explained rationally. Hence: no conceptual art fanboyism.
Some people want to see games as art because it validates their chosen form of entertainment [...]
Perhaps it is because the label "art" has a cache in society that even people who know little about art respect?
I agree. I had the same impression. There are two consequent problems with that:
1. Trying so hard to get the label "art" on games is like curing a disease by curing the symptoms. Wouldn't be it simpler to cut to the chase and see why it is sometimes difficult to call a game art? Instead of theorizing, it would be much easier to simply make more games that are clearly art. It would be impossible to counter-argument in face of such examples. Right now, most of what is out there is rather shallow entertainment. Counter-examples are rare and obscure.
2. Is "art" really such a valuable label? Aren't we fooling ourselves there? When we talk about art, we either conjure works which were made at least 200 years ago or we refer to modern art which is mostly confusing and incomprehensible. Is this really where we want to go? Because Movies didn't REALLY go there. Most people don't think of "art" when they think of movies. They are just a broadly accepted medium with a wide range of cultural potential: from popcorn flicks to fancy video installations in museums. What we might refer to as "art" is just a tiny sliver of that spectrum. So we might limit ourselves going so hard for that label.
Either way, the problem will solve itself as the NES generation gets older and the pre-video-games generations die out or at least retire. Soon, there will be no-one to object. So we are basically wasting our time.