🚀 go-pugleaf

Oops! Having some trouble posting, obviously.  Sorry I didn't manage to 
get this reply into the right place on the thread.

Raj wrote:

> 
> 
> -------- 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!)
>