![]() ![]() So here's another question: why do films need to be more than just fun? Why does art?Ĭountering Jones' argument is a basic truth: games are an expressive medium. It is the critic's equivalent of ruffling a child's hair and sending them on their way. "Why do they need to be anything more than fun?" he asks, and though I respect my colleague, I can't help but see in this a certain amount of condescension. ![]() But for Jones, they are mere toys, they are playthings. For me, games transcend the question because they are so wonderfully complex: they are emergent and system-led, but also narrative and directed they amalgamate electronics, audio and visuals, but also often rely on text they need user input, and yet are authorial. Games are beautiful and important, we can leave it there and know that we are right." "Are games art or aren't they? Nobody need answer. But I ended with something along similar lines to Jones' argument: When he last strayed on to this subject matter, I penned a counter-piece, in which I showed how generations of art critics have reacted against emerging artistic forms by immediately dismissing their worth. Jones is an excellent writer, but as he admits, he knows very little about games – and doesn't really want to. "Electronic games offer a rich and spectacular entertainment," he declares, correctly, "but why do they need to be anything more than fun? Why does everything have to be art?" Now his affectionately expressed objection - prompted by the gift of a PlayStation 3 and a couple of mainstream releases – is that games aren't art and that we shouldn't care. Games are not art because there is no individual ownership, he insisted at the time, a contention which appeared to strike out a whole pantheon of collaborative projects from art history. ![]() That critic is the Guardian's own Jonathan Jones, who has been here before, decrying Moma for including a selection of computer games in its design section. ![]() When you think you have grasped it, it slips through your fingers.Īnd yet here we are again (again!), with a respected critic claiming to know what art is or can ever be, and suggesting that video games cannot be included. Art is ethereal, boundless, its meaning as transient as the seasons. The greatest philosophers in history have floundered on the question, many simply avoided it altogether preferring to grapple with more straightforward questions – like the nature of logic, or the existence of God. Here is a good way to tell if a critic is having a moment of madness: they will attempt to define art. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |