Arthouse Games
by MattThursday, February 28, 2008 [6:03 pm]

Every time I read a new entry in this debate my head starts to explode a little bit. I've become convinced that the problem here is definitions and connotations of the word art. For whatever reason few of us seem to have the exact same understanding of this word, which means that in any debate about it both sides are talking about different concepts.

I even find myself disagreeing with the people I AGREE with. For example you discount Pac-Man as art during your response to Ebert--and I personally think Pac-Man IS art. And then later you make the, IMHO, insane statement that Beowulf is a "monster-mash schlock". No. No, it really is not. Maybe it's because I had a college professor who could actually speak Anglo-Saxon, but there is a lot more going on in Beowulf then a 'monster-mash'.

My point is, if two people on the same side of this argument can't even agree on a simple thing like whether or not Pac-Man is art, how do we ever expect to have a discussion with someone who doesn't think any video games are art at all?


[Home] [Account]

RSS 2.0

General Info:
--What is Art?
--Reading List
--The Images
--Game Submissions

Older Stories:
--Review: Paradroid
--Interview: Rod Humble
--Artgame: The Marriage
--Interview: Jonathan Blow
--Exclusive Preview: Braid
[16 in Archive]

Other Sites:
--Necessary Games
--The Artful Gamer
--Action Button
--A Theory of Fun
--Lost Garden
--IndieGames Blog (new)
--Indy Gamer Blog (old)
--TIG Source
--Game Tunnel

Public Domain Dedication All content on this site is placed in the Public Domain.