Defining Terms To Define A Study - The Art Of Brooding Over Art

I haven't posted for a little over a week now, and that's partially due to some very intense brooding I have been doing recently.

I am so deep in thought...and so very muscular...

So what have I been brooding about? Well...

A friend of mine over at Neversoft Entertainment checked out my blog and sent me a very interesting email that I will share a piece of here:

"So before I try to argue one way or the other, I would find it interesting to get your definition of art. Or you could put your definition of art as a blog entry. I've found there are two ways to define what one feels is art: trying to explain a definition of the word that encompasses all works that should be defined as having artistic worth or by giving examples of work one considers to be art and explaining why it is art. With the latter, the onus is on others to try to infer what one considers art. For the former, many would claim trying to create a set of rules of what makes something art, goes against the concept of art."

Now this...is a fucking awesome point. Or...set of points.

He is absolutely right. I pretty much made the worst set of assumptions ever, because I never went and actually made an argument for the definition of Art. It's a lot more complicated than it sounds, and I can't particularly expect something to be accepted for a series of values I have yet to define that's...rather pointless.

It's kind of like that...

I had a few lunches with my professor to mull this over and I'm not so sure I agree with the idea that most people have about art which has been expressed above as "many would claim trying to create a set of rules of what makes something art, goes against the concept of art."

This is sort of it's own circular logic. Or just ignorant of logic altogether. Like the people who don't want their kids to know about space or the tides, because they don't want the "mystery and magic" of the world to vanish with the knowledge of understanding.

So I will make a two-fold point on that count to lay it to rest, by saying:
1) For art to be improved upon it must be studied.
2) For art to be studied, it must be defined in academic terms so discussion about it may ensue.

Think of the invention of film. It was a novelty at that time, captivating people with "moving pictures" but, beyond that, it elicited no real emotional response. So it began to be studied and soon (that's a arbitrary and relative term since film has only been around for about a century) it was found that certain camera angles, lenses or filters created dramatic tension or cathartic release.

This is what theaters would look like without film studies...

But all I have really proven is that video games merit academic study. Which they do, as does (arguably) every thing that has or ever will be able to claim existence. But bear with me. This needed to be said. We're meandering through a thought process. So now let us define art:

"Noun- the quality, production, expression, or realm, according to aesthetic principles of what is beautiful, appealing, or of more than ordinary significance."

Now, to quickly put semantics aside, beauty and appeal are "in the eye of the beholder" as they say, and Edmund Burke would certainly argue that something need not be beautiful to hold the audience captive. So let's rest our focus on "of more than ordinary significance".

This is really what I've been trying to prove. The common sentiment is that games are:
1) Passive
2) Only of Entertainment value
3) Lacking in Refinement

But again, we run into the problem of "usefulness does not equal art". Even architecture, which can certainly be considered an art, is often set apart. And things manufactured with a functional purpose are deemed "decorative art" and, therefore is not placed in the same realm as "high culture" - reserved for literature, visual, and traditional performing arts. So the fact that we can prove video games have aesthetic weight and merit doesn't really do enough. The root of the word "aesthetic" means "I perceive". It's still all perception-based.

So now is where everything just falls apart, yet makes some slight greater degree of sense. Perhaps what we are trying to do here isn't prove VIDEO GAMES = ART. I'm sure that will be an argument that will last until the end of time, just as we still have book burnings.

It's okay...we're prepared for that.

Someone's definition of what is beautiful or aesthetically appealing will always differ from another person's. And aesthetics is a whole body of study to itself.

I think what I have been trying to do is prove Video Games have a place in "high culture". But I'm beginning to think they don't. I know, I know...this is sounding shifty. High culture, beyond being a snobby, elitist phrase tossed around, is really just a term used to define the points in society when art was able to be created for "art's sake" with as little interference as possible from technological, social, economic, and politic restraints that were typical to the artists plight.

Are we in that time period? Certainly not. Games require massive financing to be produced and there are not a lot of wealthy bourgeoisie sitting around throwing money at design teams with no time-frame or hope for return. Perhaps gaming will become "high art" then.

I would love to watch Warren Buffet make it rain on Notch however...

The frustrating part that I've been grappling with is that film got away with it. They managed to deem themselves high culture in certain niches and gained a respectability that we, as a culture and a medium, lack. But at what price? There are tons of artsy films that get pelted with awards every year, but how many of the average Americans really want to watch some of those films?

I don't think we should make a move toward "Art Games" because games should always exist to entertain. As soon as it loses that ability, and it gets bogged down with didactic narratives and mechanics, we lose this gem. I think rather than "high culture" we should simply strive to be "high brow". It fulfills our artistic requirement to be "of more than ordinary significance". Don't just run, jump and shoot, do it with purpose.

Video games stand at an interesting new vector in the art world. It's on its own plane and we have yet to fully comprehend how this plane works or how to measure its parameters and restraints. There's a lot of power here. We can engage in ways that have never been done before. Walter Benjamin discusses the "aura" of an art as being the degrees of closeness to it's original. A painting of a mountain is art, but what is a photograph of that painting? Typically, the power of that work loses authenticity and emotion as it gets further detached. The closer we are to the art, to the artist, the more inspired we feel.

Video games...it's kind of like that.

But we live in a mechanical era. There are no artists here, only teams and technicians and collaboration. It's an artistic think-tank. Film cheated by dumping all the glory onto the director, but that cannot be done so easily in gaming. We have destroyed the artist just as we have destroyed the need for the museum or the gallery. We can mass produce our art and provide it to the world. Yet, somehow, we manage to bring our audience to new-found degrees of closeness unthinkable with literature or paintings. No community is so active as ours.

So rather then define art as a thing, all I think I can really do is chant this mantra of the necessity to possess "more than ordinary significance" in everything we do. I think I'm merely seeking to focus the art form and laud its potential, seek its gems. The whole point of this blog is to discover the oft-overlooked significance of this media, and discover new forms of significance...artistic significance we never thought of because it was impossible in every other media.

So if we seek to have "more than ordinary significance" in our games, we can easily prove they have significant "literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". I believe if something has a "Why?" factor, it asks a big question, it makes you inspect and question the fundamental truths of this world, makes you learn something about yourself as a person, teaches you in a way previously inaccessible...then it's done its job.

That is what I am seeking. I am seeking the "Why?".

Significance shouldn't be so difficult to spot...

That being said, a few projects have sprung from this that need work to legitimize and, more importantly, stabilize the field of study. To be an art is one thing, but to study an art is another.

1) We need a lexicon - we can not continue speaking of gaming in terms stolen from other mediums. We have unique characteristics that must be approached and defined and discussed for what they are.

2) We need a canon - Games that hold profound impact on the history, evolution, and study of the field.

3) We need to distinguish and define our eras - gaming is not now what it was 40 years ago, or even ten years ago. This requires careful inspection and dutiful separation.

I'll probably start working on some of these project and hopefully post updates as I go. My knowledge is not infinite, and I am always open to debate, constructive criticism, and research assistance.

Hopefully this clears up any confusion and we can go onto bigger things now!