Video games are interactive forms of entertainment that utilize engineering processes, which means that the software and artwork recorded are what make up the art component. But doesn't that interactive aspect render them anything, but art?
The concept of computer/videogames as art is problematic because art is thought of as being representational. So the question would be, what do videogames represent? Sculpting and painting, for example, represent people, objects, people, except abstract art is more representative of artists' mindsets or an expression of their thought process, perhaps.
Interaction by necessity interrupts the narrative and impedes the flow of information from author to gamer. Videogames can have themes, just like literature, paintings, through simulations. For videogames to be considered art, they should contain aesthetics; we must be able to assess their artistic merit in terms of design, role play, simulation, visuals, etc, and how all these things work together, just like we do movies and literature.
"Ultimately, whether or not interactive entertainment can be a legitimate art form is up to us. We’ll have to put out a lot of PR material, to let the public and the press know that we ourselves believe that what we do is an art form" (263).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Videogames and Art is a critique of the commercial videogame industry. Acknowledging the increasing cultural impact of this rapidly changing industry, videogames and art is one of the first books devoted to the study of videogame. It is not in any way exhaustive but meant as an inspiration.
---------------------
jnnywllms
social bookmark
Post a Comment