🚀 go-pugleaf

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: The *Overrating of Games* Epidemic
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2002 13:30:37 -0500
From: Raj <nob...@ureach.com>
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games,comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.adventure
References: <a774ll$64q$1...@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au> 
<a77ajh$l5r$1...@knossos.btinternet.com> 
<BsJl8.282$Jc5....@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net> 
<3C9972A1...@ureach.com> 
<uJlm8.3704$Jc5.3...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>

Seneca wrote:

 > "Raj" <nob...@ureach.com> wrote


I think
 >>>>
 > it's
 >
 >>>>only a matter of time before a computer game comes out that impresses
 >>>>
 > the
 >
 >>>>public enough score as genuine art. Then you can bet the more serious
 >>>>reviewers will start getting involved.
 >>>>
 >>>>
 >>>That's an interesting thought, but there's a huge difference between a
 >>>
 > work
 >
 >>>of art and a game. Computer games have been around for 25 years (or
 >>>
 > longer
 >
 >>>if you count games played on mainframes), which is long enough for them
 >>>
 > to
 >
 >>>be recognized as an art form if there were any likelihood of that
 >>>
 > happening.
 >
 >>>I think it is fair to say that computer games are already much more
 >>>
 > advanced
 >
 >>>relative to their beginnings than Griffith's Birth of a Nation was
 >>>
 > relative
 >
 >>>to the earliest movies.
 >>>
 >>
 >>   How long was writing around before the *Tale of Genji*.  That is, I
 >>believe, considered to be the first novel.  Perhaps I'm mistaken.
 >>
 >
 > My (now somewhat dim and perhaps unreliable) recollection from 
English Lit.
 > is that the novel has been around for about 250 years. I don't recall 
what
 > the first one is considered to have been, and I suppose opinions on 
that may
 > vary anyway.


    So I suppose you are considering the English novel only, and if that
is your opinion, then you must certainly be correct that such opinions
vary.  Indeed, they vary more than I ever imagined!


 >
 >>>The most important difference is that any real work of art is a thing
 >>>complete in itself, and requires an artist. A game may be genuinely
 >>>
 > artistic
 >
 >>>in some respects (graphics, music etc.), those things that are actually
 >>>delivered in the box, but it is *gameplay* that's central after all--and
 >>>that can hardly be regarded as a work of art since its completion
 >>>
 > depends on
 >
 >>>the end user.
 >>>
 >>
 >>   Huh?  Can artists collaborate?  Is a piece of music no longer art if
 >>it is written by more than one person?  Is improvisational jazz art?
 >>Opera involving many different artists (for sets, librettos, musical
 >>composition, conducting, musicians, choreographers, ushers, ticket
 >>takers, seat upholsters, wing nut tighteners ;-) ).  Movies surely
 >>involve many "artists" with different areas of expertise. I must be
 >>misunderstanding you.  I don't understand the "requires an artist" part.
 >>
 >
 > My use of the singular article was not intended to convey that only one
 > individual artist is permitted. Of course artists can collaborate and
 > frequently do. If ten thousand artists collaborate on a single work, 
it is
 > still *they* who are the artists--not the viewer, reader, audience or 
other
 > end user.


    Ah, entirely my confusion, I apologize for my stupidity.

 >
 >
 >
 >>   Don't books require the participation of the reader to "complete" the
 >>artwork?
 >>
 >
 > No. The writer is the producer, the reader is the consumer. (Again, 
my use
 > of the singular form is not meant to imply that there can be only one 
writer
 > and only one reader. I presume that your similar use was not meant to 
imply
 > that either.) The reader no more "completes" the book than the buyer 
of any
 > product completes its manufacture by buying it. The process of 
production is
 > completed when the product is packaged.
 >


    Hmm... "Commodity aesthetics," seems an apt term in this context,
although the originator of that term (W. F. Haug, *Critique of Commodity
Aesthetics*) used it in a very different context.  I think the analogy
intended would concern the use of the product rather than its purchase.
   You have a familiar view of the matter, one which apparently is still
held.  I really wonder, however, how many serious art critics share it
and for how long they will continue to do so.
    There are some funny pejorative names and analogies for this view,
but I'm sure mentioning them isn't relevant.
    But what I really would like to know about is whether there is some
new defense or justification of this, um, classic view.  Has it
resurfaced in some revitalized way?

 >
 >
 >>Isn't this what "reader-response" theory is all about?  Is an
 >>interactive movie not a movie?  Is interactive fiction not fiction?
 >>
 >

 > Let me know when either of those becomes a form of any importance, and I
 > will then carefully consider the question.
 >


     Should we assume, by your silence on the matter, that
reader-response theory and any similar developments throughout the 20th
century which concern the activity (rather than complete passivity) of
the audience member/s to be dismissed?  Why?
    If theories which concern the activity of the audience member/s are
valid, might there be reviewers, who hold such views, writing reviews of
importance?

    What would be a sign that a form had achieved any importance?  The
most pertinent one in this discussion, it seems to me, has to do with
reviews.  But that would beg the question.

 >
 >
 >>   I play only adventure games, and if I knew where this crossposted
 >>post originated, I would respond there.  So perhaps my thoughts are out
 >>of line.  If so, I apologize.
 >>
 >
 > I have no idea where it originated either. I'm posting to the
 > comp.sys.ibm.pc.games newsgroup.


    I don't see such a group in the header, only some similar groups
which specify the game genre.  I didn't know of the group from which you
posted, nor that such a crosspost would reach such a group. So once
again I apologize if this post is OT for your group.  I am posting from
the com.sys.ibm.pc.adventure group, since this thread has appeared in
our group and some of its readership may find the issue interesting.
Since I think it is relevant to adventure games, I'll crosspost it there.

 >
 >
 >
 >>   I am a professor of philosophy and teach aesthetics, so perhaps my
 >>views on art are broader than most.  But colleagues from literature
 >>departments have commented also on the interesting new possibilities for
 >>"open narrative structure" presented by computer games.  Branching plot
 >>seems to me to still be plot.  (That Blade Runner has seven possible
 >>endings does not seem to me to disqualify it as a narrative; rather, it
 >>enhances the potential of narrative.)
 >>
 >
 > Blade Runner has seven possible endings?


    Yes. Does that make a significant difference to you on the issue?

 >
 >
 >
 >>(After all, Kierkegaard  has a
 >>book of prefaces! ;-) )
 >>   Even RPGs can be said perhaps, granted in a stretch, to have
 >>character development.  The biggest drawback there seems to be in the
 >>area of personality development.  ("Orientation" perhaps?)
 >>   As I said, I am thinking of adventure games and the hardest elements
 >>to integrate in to a "such games are art" view are self-contained,
 >>non-inventory, puzzles (for example, the endgame in Tex Murphy: Overseer
 >>is a chess match).  I must admit I have not yet thought this element
 >>through satisfactorily.
 >>
 >
 > I'm not much of an adventure game player, I'm afraid, so really can't 
relate
 > to much of what you have to say here. Based on the few that I have 
played,
 > such games seem to require the player to figure out what the author wants
 > him to figure out in order to advance the story. That sort of 
linearity just
 > doesn't have much appeal for me.
 >


    It does seem that the genre of games to be considered is of
importance.  Perhaps we do not share enough experience of games, and
that is crucial to our disagreement.
    Still, I really am having trouble seeing how the linearity you
mention is so remote from standard fiction.
    And, just btw, there are many non-linear adventure games.

 >
 >
 >>   However, Jane Jenson has turned her game Gabriel Knight: The Sins of
 >>the Father into a novel.  (Um... given the quality of that novel,
 >>perhaps it isn't such a good example.  But I would actually be quite
 >>comfortable endorsing a novelization of The Longest Journey.  It might
 >>even work as a film. (I have not had the pleasure of seeing those films
 >>made of games like Tomb Raider and Final Fantasy, so I cannot comment on
 >>them.  Actually, I have difficulty imagining them!)
 >>
 >
 > I have seen part of the Tomb Raider movie, on rented videotape. The 
reason I
 > only saw part of it is that I fell asleep fairly early on. Occasionally I
 > would be half-wakened by an unusually loud series of explosions or 
barrage
 > of gunfire, but would promptly fall asleep again. I think it is a 
good movie
 > to sleep through and I would probably buy the tape if I ever had problems
 > with insomnia.
 >


    Thanks for the tip.  Would it be a comment suitable for a movie
review?  If so, what would be different about a similar comment (in the
sense relevant to this context) about a game?

 >
 > [ . . . ]
 >
 >
 >>In my humble opinion, computer games will get the attention of art
 >>critics when an art critic chooses to pay attention to them.
 >>
 >
 > I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that to happen, but who knows? 
There
 > are some very goofy art critics.


    I should have specified that I meant those art critics who are most
often taken seriously.

  >
 > Not long ago I saw on TV a program about an art-collecting couple who 
had,
 > among their many cherished objets d'art, what appeared to be a length of
 > clothesline about a foot long fastened to their apartment wall by a nail
 > through its center. That, they said, was a piece of art worth $7,000. 
Why?
 > Because it had been nailed there by a famous artist, or at least an 
artist
 > popular with the art crowd at that time (whose name I have forgotten and
 > expect never to have any reason to remember).
 >
 > So I suppose you could make the case that if a piece of clothesline 
nailed
 > to a wall can be "art," then anything can be "art." An old sofa, 
dishes in
 > the sink, the contents of your refrigerator, or even a computer game.
 >
 > At some point, words like "art" just begin to lose all meaning.
 >


    This seems to be the crux of the debate.  What is/are the legitimate
and or useful meaning/s of the word "art"?  If the meaning of a word
lies in its use, then it is usually held that common usage, sometimes
even just among a relevant community (as in jargon), is sufficient for
defining a word (as in the process used to determine which meanings are
added to a dictionary, although, of course, dictionaries are by no means
comprehensive catalogs of meanings).
    I think I understand your point about popularity with an "art crowd",
and I take it that, for you, the opinions of such a crowd are
insufficient determinants of what counts as art.  Okay.  What criteria
or criterion would you use, or do you find most important, in
determining the meaning of the word "art"?
    Are there any primarily conceptual pieces you would consider art?

 >
 >
 >>>There have been some attempts to make audiences an active part of "art"
 >>>(e.g., the movements of viewers in a gallery causing changes in sound
 >>>
 > and
 >
 >>>light displays), but these have been uniformly silly. And it would be
 >>>virtually impossible for a reviewer to write a sensible review of such a
 >>>thing anyway (what exactly would he be reviewing?) other than to comment
 >>>
 > on
 >
 >>>its novelty. I think there is somewhat the same difficulty with trying
 >>>
 > to
 >
 >>>see games as an art form.
 >>>
 >>
 >>   Are there better and worse "happenings" or performance art pieces?
 >>
 >
 > Probably, in the sense that some loads of garbage may be even less 
appealing
 > than others.


      So, even things widely recognized and even reviewed by serious art
critics (I know, I know, we would have to agree on who legitimately fell
into that category, and even which of that person's or those people's
views are legitimate.  Apparently some art critics may be "goofy".
Would recognition, by a majority of those interested in views, that a
particular art critic's work was not "goofy" be sufficient for
membership in the category in question (i.e., the category of non-goofy
art critics?)), are the same as loads of garbage.  I wonder why then,
the perception they are of more significance than loads of garbage is
wide spread.  Perhaps the majority of the art world is mistaken about
art?  So, in that case, who is right about art?

(Nuts! Sorry for the awkward sentence construction!  Too much German
philosophy perhaps. ;-) )

 >
 >
 >
 >>If there are I should think such things could be reviewed.
 >>
 >
 > Simply because some examples might be better or worse than others? If 
that
 > were a reason to review things, what in the world would you *not* want to
 > review?
 >


    I should have specified that I meant reviewed in the context relevant
to this discussion.  I meant to imply that whether some were better or
worse than others was a topic of importance worthy of serious discussion
and debate by those interested in such things.  What reasons to review
art do you have in mind?


 >
 >
 >>Is it
 >>possible to comment on how well or poorly participation in or
 >>interaction with a piece or work of art is achieved or experienced?
 >>
 >
 > It is possible to comment on anything,


    I was unclear (a philosophy professor, unclear, how could that be
possible? :-D ).  I meant comment on such things in a meaningful,
interesting, insightful manner, saying something of importance.  I
assume your answer would be "no", and if so I suppose the matter rests.


 > but I am beginning to think
 > professors of philosophy and aesthetics just have too much time on their
 > hands.   ;-)



 >

    Oh in all probability you are correct on that!  But, we get paid for
spending time thinking, reading, writing, speaking and teaching about
such matters and even for discussing them. ;-)  (Now THAT's funny!!)

~Raj

P.S. -- If my tone is condescending, arrogant, or in some other way
offensive, I sincerely apologize.  I hate when people sound that way,
but it is an occupational hazard.  I really appreciate your willingness
to give the matter of "games as art" your attention, since I have been
thinking about it for some time, and I think it might be a good topic
for a professional paper.  Such a paper might even get the ball rolling
toward settling the issue (to the extent that such things can be
settled, of course).  The again, given what goes on in academia in
general.... who cares?!!?  (HAHAHAHA!!!)
(Believe it or not there is currently a thread on the adventure group
from someone completing a degree involving a project concerning an
adventure game!)