Initially I was shocked at Ebert's stance on art saying, "video games can never be art." I was further taken aback upon reading Moriarty's convoluted defence of him and furthermore on reading VandenBerghe's response to Moriarty. Ebert further comments stating, "Hardly any movies are art," but I believe that to ba a feeble attempt at saving himself from the initial retaliation of the gaming community. Admittedly these reflex feelings of disagreement and irritation came up because I consider myself somewhat of a gamer. I was especially critical upon learning that Ebert has not nor wishes to ever play a video game. How can one simply label and analyze one medium or another without even so much as experiencing that medium? Sounds to me like Ebert was judging one of his beloved books its cover or a movie by its title.
In this case I view Ebert as an elitest who, upon sitting in his ivory tower, decides for himself what can be considered art without being questioned. I am more apt to disregard his stance as someone who is in the true sense of the word "ignorant" in that he lacks knowledge in the experience of any video games and so, in my opinion, cannot make a decision on them one way or another. However that being said, although I disagree with Moriarty's position I am much more inclined to agree with him solely based on his background as a game developer.
My first disagreement with Moriarty comes from his definition of what he calls "sublime art", "Great art, fine art, or the term I prefer, sublime art. Art that deeply rewards a lifetime of contemplation. Art as cultural monument. Art that's good for you. The kind of art that, in Ebert's words, makes us 'more cultured, civilized and empathetic'." Using this definition it is easy to dispel video games as art, I would too if I were of this particular opinion. Were we to accept this as defining a form of art, I would be able to firmly state that I have yet to experience any form of art of any kind. This definition reads too much into some transcendance that, for the most part, does not need to be experienced to be regarded as art.
Secondly considering Moriarty, I cannot condone personifying the problem of "video games as art" into Chess Players by James Northcote. I can hardly see how you can take such a contemporary question and try to work it into a separate composition that hardly addresses the issue. This leads me to my next disagreement with Moriarty which comes from his conclusion that video games are like the dog in Chess Players because they both are exampled of "Kitsch Art". Moriarty dismisses kitsch art as merely "commercial"and therefore not a form of true "sublime" art. I strongly disagree with the piece give below:
Finally I must say that I disagree on his assumption that choice liberates a particular work from becoming art. I believe in the contrary, that choice not only creates a work of art but it personalizes it for the user. To me a personalized experience of a work of art is as important as a directive imposed by an artist.
I must close with saying that in part I am inclined to agree with VandenBerghe. I do believe that people attract other users to an art piece. However, I believe that "attraction," as VandenBerghe puts it, is only part of the puzzle. Experience and intention are also apart of it. I must criticize his standpoint though, on sublime art as a "...performance of play." In this he is saying that not the work itself is sublime art but the playing or interacting with the work is. Is that to say that Beethoven's Symphonies (which would vary well fit into Mortiarty's and Ebert's definition of art) would not itself be considered art but rather Beethoven playing his symphonies would?
Food for thought.
Brian Moriarty's Apology for Roger Ebert is available here.
Jason VandenBerghe's Performance of Play is available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment