The very existence of Robert Ebert's article, "Video Games Can Never Be
Art" verifies the art within video games. In his article, Ebert critiques
games and tells why they are not art and won't be in our lifetimes, yet the
very examination of these games is not unlike the lens used to critique 'art'.
The reactions he has to the 3 games Kelee Santiago defends as being
characteristic of art; are what makes mere creation into art. Humans have the
power to create; it is our closest link to the divine, whether using a brush to
paint a picture, pen to write novel, camera to capture film or computers to
develop a video game; these things are created but do not become art until
reaching an AUDIENCE. Creation becomes art during the event in which an
audience (viewer, reader, critic, gamer) interacts with the work of the
creator. Through this transactional experience the audience member can learn
about themselves, characters, settings and humanity as a whole or become
inspired to create something of a different medium, or articulate thought based
on experience within a medium of art.
So let's be clear here, video games are created through sketches, animation,
coding, developing, sound tracking, and writing lore; many of these components
considered to be 'high art' on their own merit.
Therefore, video games (upon being played and interacting with an audience)
are, at the very least a form of art and may very well be considered the most viable,
engaging form of art in modern times.
Good concise rebuttal of Ebert.
ReplyDelete-Ms Bommarito