In Brian Moriarty’s article he argued that
whether video game could be art or say sublime art.
Video game is different to any other medias:
video games emphasizes the interactive between the game itself and the player,
while other type of medias that are already regarded as sublime arts are medias
that do not have such properties. And because of these specific properties,
video game has been pushed to the debate of being art. Video game is also
different from other new media arts. Although they both emphasize the
importance of interactive, they interactive in different ways, as Brian has
mentioned, “… Games as a series of interesting choices…”, and the choices made
by player made the video game a whole piece. The thing that Jason VandenBerghe
pointed out is very interesting and convincing, “… Our performance of play is
the sublime art… The game remains a game”. For video games, the players are a
counted and significant part of the video game itself, and I can’t agree more
that it is the player that made the video game a sublime art. But for video
game itself, I think video game could be art, but sublime art? Maybe not yet. Although
video games are made by piles of great art works, 2D and 3D, as well as coding
and design, as a whole piece it could not be called as a sublime art while
missing the player. How could we appreciate a video game without playing or
watching people playing it? A video game could not be literally watched or
read, so it could hardly be showcased in art galleries or any other museums for
people to appreciate the artistic factors that video games have been inspiring
people. For the moment, video game, as pointed out by Brian, is kitsch art, not
sublime, and with the player playing it, it is so called a sublime art, and
form a new kind of sublime art.
Hope that in the near future, we could have
a gallery especially for video game showcasing, since video game, from the day
the name appears, a great many of crews has devoted themselves to make video
game artistic.
No comments:
Post a Comment