Arthouse Games
by MikMonday, October 20, 2008 [12:49 pm]

There's a certain Irony to Ebert's assessment, first, there's an ignorance here similar to the progression ignorance(i.e. Why would anyone want a computer in their home?) To say that video games can't be high art is really just a challenge to the video game community. Without question video games can be high art, and unlike movies it's much easier for a single developer to create a video game then a single person to create a movie(certainly, it can be done, but there is more flexibility a single person has in creating a video game, in fact, theoretically there is no video game that couldn't be created by one person(given enough time)(excluding voice acting, or the using live characters which isn't _that_ common)

The second big irony is that much of modern art is looking for ways to engage the audience more. It is often said, that art is in the eye of the beholder, certainly many modern artists feel that way, and are looking for more ways to involve the consumer in the artistic project. At any modern art gallery, there are probably a dozen projects with this goal in mind.

I suppose in all, as several have noted, the argument is superflous. The mona lisa does absolutely nothing for me. I'm convinced the average person(in a fictional world where the mona lisa wasn't already famous) would pass it by if it wasn't displayed in such a way that it appeared important.


[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.