Every week I listen to the Drunk Tank podcast out of Austin Texas. Sometimes I go back and listen to early shows over again. These are the machinima guys (and one gal, Griffin) who make Red Vs. Blue, Achievement Hunter and a bunch of other online content under the company name of Rooster Teeth. On the podcast they talk about video games, gadgets, movie, current events, their personal lives and basically just sit around and shoot the shit. They're smart, witty people and the shows are insightful. In the latest episode (Drunk Tank #88) they take on the massive scandal that erupted online when Roger Ebert said that video games aren't art. In case you missed all the fuss, one of Ebert's lengthy blog posts on the topic is here (with 4,774 comments), and there's a big long thread on metafilter here. I like the drunk tank conversation because it's thoughtful, concise, funny and sums up the whole thing very nicely.
Monty: Geoff, I have a metaphor for you.
Geoff: A metaphor for me. Okay, what is it?
Monty: Do you remember when we were first playing Halo Reach and you were, like, "how can games not be art?" Right? Cause they had like those cool sculptures and stuff?
Geoff: I do remember that.
Monty: Right, and I remember that you guys were really surprised when you heard that, what's his name, Roger Ebert, would say games are not art. Cause he's a smart guy, right?
Geoff: Sure. I wouldn't say surprised, just disappointed.
Monty: Right, right. I'd say the metaphor for that would be: you can hang the Mona Lisa in a strip club, but that doesn't change the fact that you're standing in a strip club.
Geoff: It doesn't change the fact that it's still the Mona Lisa though.
Monty: Right, but the Mona Lisa is art, but what you do in a strip club isn't art.
Geoff: Uh, maybe not to you, but to some of us it is absolutely art.
Gus: Yeah, that's questionable at best.
Griffin: But I think that you have something there. I think that what you're saying is that context is how we interpret things. And its true. Like, there's a lot of art, like, in that place...Geoff, where did we go?
Geoff: Strip club.
Griffin: No in London.
Monty: I heard in Texas there's a lot of good strip clubs.
Geoff: British strip club, yeah.
Griffin: Okay, no, no, no. Please just answer my question. The museum we went to.
Geoff: Oh. The Tate Modern.
Griffin: Tate Modern. There was a lot of stuff in there that really does not seem that great, or that took a lot of skill to do, or I dunno, just isn't that awesome. But you put it in a giant awesome museum, and you frame it right, and it's great. And it's art and it's considered art because you're there, looking at art.
Geoff: Well art doesn't have to be difficult, right? There's beauty and simplicity and it's all about the expression and the statement.
Griffin: But also presentation.
Geoff: Presentation plays a lot into it.
Monty: Back to gaming, right, a game isn't defined by what's contained, its defined by what you do with it. So I think maybe the argument against gaming and art is that you could put as much art as you want into it but that doesn't make the game itself art.
Geoff: You could make the exact same argument about strippers, it's what you do with them.
(all laugh)
Gus: It's how you work what you got, is how we're getting down.
Monty: All right, that's enough from me.
Gus: I've never understood why people get so impassioned about what Roger Ebert said about gaming not being art. You know, what does it matter? It's not his medium.
Geoff: I think the problem is that he's such a liked and respected and insightful and smart dude that pretty much everybody, if you know who Roger Ebert is, you like him. And not just in the realm of movies, but he's poltically smart, and socially smart and if you follow him on Twitter and read his blogs the guy's a really interesting dude. So it's just disappointing to see somebody who you respect on that level be so dismissive of something that's so important to so many people. But you know, fuck it. Who cares?
Gus: Yeah people get so impassioned about it and always want to talk about it, and it's like yeah, we talked about it...I mean how long ago did he say that, four or five years ago?
Geoff: Uh, it's been awhile. And then he reiterated it...but yeah, who cares. Just play your fucking video games and have fun.
Gus: Play games...if you know it's art, it's art. It's all about what it is to you. That's what art is, right? It's all about how you interpret it. So...not a big deal....If you think it's art you can make it art! You have the magic in your hands...in your eyes!
Geoff: (laughs) The power-up is in you!
(all laugh)
Gus: All right. That's enough of that.
|
here's a story about art out of context
http://i.imgur.com/ZhFvn.jpg
Griffin's secret project was up on Reddit yesterday. This becomes awesome if you've played some Left For Dead.
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/eau7w/we_turned_our_studios_exit_door_into_a_l4d_safe/
What’s missing in the ebert argument is the acknowledgement that art itself is a transitory practice. To say that something is or isn’t art presupposes that we all agree on what art is in the first place. And the one thing we can agree on is that definitions about art can always elicit a “yes, but …” response.
Geoff: Well art doesn't have to be difficult, right? There's beauty and simplicity and it's all about the expression and the statement.
Griffin: But also presentation.
Geoff: Presentation plays a lot into it.
Yes but the context, as they already indicated plays a large role in the reading of the work and the museum is not the only context you can remove an artwork from. Many artists are aware of context (physical, conceptual, historical whatever) and understand that there may never be a single correct way to “read” an artwork. And Geoff’s definition uses “beauty” and “simplicity”, a couple of really vague words that can be used to mean pretty much anything. And yes, presentation CAN play into it, but does it have to?
You could say “what Ebert means is that games will never be “high art”, a super problematic term that’s best left in the 1990’s. Or that industry video games will never be in a museum. Notice that I’ve already had to qualify video games, and even at that the point is moot, I remember a show at PS1 ten years ago that had a DDR machine.
Everyone jumped all over Ebert for talking about a medium he knows nothing about, video games. But he has every right to do so because the connection between games and movies is obvious and well documented. What he had no right in doing was dragging art into the mix, especially in a way that tries to validate film and undermine games, as if art, a term that is so fluid and contentious, could ever be used as a benchmark to measure something else by.
I like your images. I do a "self portrait through games" project in my webdocs class and this would be a great start.
You should also put the HAWP podcast onto your list. They are not as polished as Rooster teeth, and you'll need to watch some of the HAWP videos first to really understand the conversation (caution: time sucking entertainment).
http://www.heyash.com/
They have been having interesting conversations about narrative in gameplay and film. Anthony loves stories that emerge through gameplay (ico, minecraft) but he's working for Gearbox (a game company) writing the script for a game that is the complete opposite - the story emerges through cut-scenes and scripted events.
About the Joshua Bell busking that joester refers to in his first link, Pierre Tristam wrote about this a few years ago. This was my response to his article at the time:
The more I think of this little exercise the more I find questionable about it: "one of the greatest (and most glamorous) violinists in the world"
The operative phrase is "most glamorous". We want our art served up with a bit of spectacle and sparkle. Artists know that, especially a performing artist with the career that's enjoyed by Joshua Bell. (I say that because good careers should be enjoyed, doesn't make the art making easier, but having an audience is a wonderful thing) So I find it disingenuous on his part to express shock over the fact that his transcendent transcendence isn't going to bonk every living being over the head and make them stop in their tracks to pay him court. (though I'm sure the Post was thrilled with their tired po-mo gotcha trick)
What I love is that he gave an unexpected gift to seemingly disinterested strangers in an unexpected place. It should have been left at that, since that was the real value of the event.
Right on LM! I was just busy writing something similar and now I don't have to.
And yes, Joester, I did have you in mind when making this post, since you are one of the few people I know of who makes art games that actually function as fun games.
My current definition of an expert is someone who understands the historical negotiation that has gone into establishing the terms of their own discipline, and thereby understands that the terms are unfixed and context-dependent. This makes it hard to communicate across disciplines! But it's worth the effort.
I think drunk tank do a pretty good job. They explore art from a range of positions, including context and a definition that is lodged with the audience. "You have the power in your hands...your eyes!" If more people in the Washington subway were that art-empowered — as opposed to the prevailing condition that aesthetic value is approved by experts and directed at rich people — then I bet more people would have hung out to enjoy Joshua Bell and his fancy violin. "You have the power in your ears!" (on the other hand, maybe he just sucked that day, who knows)
I totally agree that the problem with Ebert (and, actually, with many of the people who got so mad at him) is that he is co-opting art as a term of approbation. Just cause something is art doesn't mean its awesome, just cause something is awesome doesn't mean it's art. So I agree with drunk tank. Fuck it. Who cares if some guy says it's art or not? You have the art power in you! (whoooo!)
I want, just once, to be describes as "most glamorous" in an parenthetical phrase.
"Joe McKay, the passenger who started the small fire that cased the plane to crash killing all 287 passengers is the most despised (and most glamorous) of all the victims."
This is the problem in the article for me. In New York (and I'm sure this is true elsewhere), getting a busking license so you can do it legally in the subway is really comptetetive and so the people who do get it are all really accomplished at what they do. If there's a guy playing a saw, he's actually really freaking good at it. There are time when I'll stop and give a dollar and appreciate the music - there are times when I won't. I almost never hear a musician in the subway who's actually horrible.
While Joshua Bell may be better than a busker, it's not as if the average busker is by default a shitty violinist. I'm pretty sure I couldn't distinguish the violin playing of say the third chair in the Toronto symphony from Joshua Bell - especially while on my way to work in the subway.
"approbation" ... nice. I just got me my learn on!
I like the RVB conversation too, (and I was thinking of you when I heard it so HA!) but I still think they fall back on art as being something definable and a standard which games and movies can be compared to.
If something is in parenthesis, is that considered a parenthetical phrase, or is the term "parenthetical phrase" reserved for a term that is "as if" it's in parentheses?
Answer me that brain ladies.
It has nothing to do with parenthesis, "Mr. I'm Too Fucking Lazy to Google This Myself", it's an additional phrase inserted in a sentence using commas.
Or — as I often prefer — em dashes.
Yes, I understand that a parenthetical phrase is usually between commas or em dashes, but COULD it be between parenthesis too? Is that not the route of a parenthetical phrase - the mighty parenthesis?
Yes. It's an inserted phrase. We have three ways of indicating that: commas, dashes, and parenthesis.
If you had denied him parenthesis, this thread would have dragged on for another day or so.
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
Jesus M.Jean, where the hell were you all this time? I was shining the grammar bat signal for a full 48 hours.
I know, I was trying with all my might to resist you, but I failed.
"Quotes Nick Lowe paraphrasing Shakespeare".
|
Every week I listen to the Drunk Tank podcast out of Austin Texas. Sometimes I go back and listen to early shows over again. These are the machinima guys (and one gal, Griffin) who make Red Vs. Blue, Achievement Hunter and a bunch of other online content under the company name of Rooster Teeth. On the podcast they talk about video games, gadgets, movie, current events, their personal lives and basically just sit around and shoot the shit. They're smart, witty people and the shows are insightful. In the latest episode (Drunk Tank #88) they take on the massive scandal that erupted online when Roger Ebert said that video games aren't art. In case you missed all the fuss, one of Ebert's lengthy blog posts on the topic is here (with 4,774 comments), and there's a big long thread on metafilter here. I like the drunk tank conversation because it's thoughtful, concise, funny and sums up the whole thing very nicely.
- sally mckay 11-24-2010 1:42 pm
here's a story about art out of context
http://i.imgur.com/ZhFvn.jpg
Griffin's secret project was up on Reddit yesterday. This becomes awesome if you've played some Left For Dead.
http://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/eau7w/we_turned_our_studios_exit_door_into_a_l4d_safe/
What’s missing in the ebert argument is the acknowledgement that art itself is a transitory practice. To say that something is or isn’t art presupposes that we all agree on what art is in the first place. And the one thing we can agree on is that definitions about art can always elicit a “yes, but …” response.
Geoff: Well art doesn't have to be difficult, right? There's beauty and simplicity and it's all about the expression and the statement.
Griffin: But also presentation.
Geoff: Presentation plays a lot into it.
Yes but the context, as they already indicated plays a large role in the reading of the work and the museum is not the only context you can remove an artwork from. Many artists are aware of context (physical, conceptual, historical whatever) and understand that there may never be a single correct way to “read” an artwork. And Geoff’s definition uses “beauty” and “simplicity”, a couple of really vague words that can be used to mean pretty much anything. And yes, presentation CAN play into it, but does it have to?
You could say “what Ebert means is that games will never be “high art”, a super problematic term that’s best left in the 1990’s. Or that industry video games will never be in a museum. Notice that I’ve already had to qualify video games, and even at that the point is moot, I remember a show at PS1 ten years ago that had a DDR machine.
Everyone jumped all over Ebert for talking about a medium he knows nothing about, video games. But he has every right to do so because the connection between games and movies is obvious and well documented. What he had no right in doing was dragging art into the mix, especially in a way that tries to validate film and undermine games, as if art, a term that is so fluid and contentious, could ever be used as a benchmark to measure something else by.
- joestser (guest) 11-24-2010 7:10 pm
I like your images. I do a "self portrait through games" project in my webdocs class and this would be a great start.
You should also put the HAWP podcast onto your list. They are not as polished as Rooster teeth, and you'll need to watch some of the HAWP videos first to really understand the conversation (caution: time sucking entertainment).
http://www.heyash.com/
They have been having interesting conversations about narrative in gameplay and film. Anthony loves stories that emerge through gameplay (ico, minecraft) but he's working for Gearbox (a game company) writing the script for a game that is the complete opposite - the story emerges through cut-scenes and scripted events.
- joester (guest) 11-24-2010 7:21 pm
About the Joshua Bell busking that joester refers to in his first link, Pierre Tristam wrote about this a few years ago. This was my response to his article at the time:
- L.M. 11-24-2010 7:51 pm
Right on LM! I was just busy writing something similar and now I don't have to.
And yes, Joester, I did have you in mind when making this post, since you are one of the few people I know of who makes art games that actually function as fun games.
My current definition of an expert is someone who understands the historical negotiation that has gone into establishing the terms of their own discipline, and thereby understands that the terms are unfixed and context-dependent. This makes it hard to communicate across disciplines! But it's worth the effort.
I think drunk tank do a pretty good job. They explore art from a range of positions, including context and a definition that is lodged with the audience. "You have the power in your hands...your eyes!" If more people in the Washington subway were that art-empowered — as opposed to the prevailing condition that aesthetic value is approved by experts and directed at rich people — then I bet more people would have hung out to enjoy Joshua Bell and his fancy violin. "You have the power in your ears!" (on the other hand, maybe he just sucked that day, who knows)
I totally agree that the problem with Ebert (and, actually, with many of the people who got so mad at him) is that he is co-opting art as a term of approbation. Just cause something is art doesn't mean its awesome, just cause something is awesome doesn't mean it's art. So I agree with drunk tank. Fuck it. Who cares if some guy says it's art or not? You have the art power in you! (whoooo!)
- sally mckay 11-24-2010 9:13 pm
I want, just once, to be describes as "most glamorous" in an parenthetical phrase.
"Joe McKay, the passenger who started the small fire that cased the plane to crash killing all 287 passengers is the most despised (and most glamorous) of all the victims."
- joester (guest) 11-24-2010 11:12 pm
This is the problem in the article for me. In New York (and I'm sure this is true elsewhere), getting a busking license so you can do it legally in the subway is really comptetetive and so the people who do get it are all really accomplished at what they do. If there's a guy playing a saw, he's actually really freaking good at it. There are time when I'll stop and give a dollar and appreciate the music - there are times when I won't. I almost never hear a musician in the subway who's actually horrible.
While Joshua Bell may be better than a busker, it's not as if the average busker is by default a shitty violinist. I'm pretty sure I couldn't distinguish the violin playing of say the third chair in the Toronto symphony from Joshua Bell - especially while on my way to work in the subway.
- joester (guest) 11-24-2010 11:24 pm
"approbation" ... nice. I just got me my learn on!
I like the RVB conversation too, (and I was thinking of you when I heard it so HA!) but I still think they fall back on art as being something definable and a standard which games and movies can be compared to.
- joester (guest) 11-24-2010 11:32 pm
If something is in parenthesis, is that considered a parenthetical phrase, or is the term "parenthetical phrase" reserved for a term that is "as if" it's in parentheses?
Answer me that brain ladies.
- joester (guest) 11-24-2010 11:35 pm
It has nothing to do with parenthesis, "Mr. I'm Too Fucking Lazy to Google This Myself", it's an additional phrase inserted in a sentence using commas.
- L.M. 11-25-2010 3:08 am
Or — as I often prefer — em dashes.
- sally mckay 11-25-2010 3:12 am
Yes, I understand that a parenthetical phrase is usually between commas or em dashes, but COULD it be between parenthesis too? Is that not the route of a parenthetical phrase - the mighty parenthesis?
- joester (guest) 11-25-2010 6:44 am
Yes. It's an inserted phrase. We have three ways of indicating that: commas, dashes, and parenthesis.
- M.Jean 11-25-2010 12:02 pm
If you had denied him parenthesis, this thread would have dragged on for another day or so.
- L.M. 11-25-2010 12:47 pm
Sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
- M.Jean 11-25-2010 1:41 pm
Jesus M.Jean, where the hell were you all this time? I was shining the grammar bat signal for a full 48 hours.
- joester (guest) 11-25-2010 9:10 pm
I know, I was trying with all my might to resist you, but I failed.
- M.Jean 11-25-2010 9:40 pm
"Quotes Nick Lowe paraphrasing Shakespeare".
- VB 11-25-2010 11:38 pm