I found Brett Martin’s Should Video Games Be Viewed as Art? a very vacuous (boring, shallow) read. He did not impart anything that incited me in the least bit (except this required blogged review for class). Okay, maybe that’s a bit harsh. I must admit that I am biased; I have no interest in video games. He had some interesting points but in general, I did not care for this article. First of all, I asked myself, “Who the hell is Brett Martin?” If I could come up with anything about him, it might explain something deeper and more profound behind the article. What was he doing writing about video games and art? What did he care? I tried doing a Google search and came up empty. Well, regardless of who Martin is and what his motivations were when writing this, his ideas are out there in the world, ready to be reacted to.
Martin began with the examples of art mediums previously viewed merely as technological advances such as photography, video art and cinema. At one point, the art world refused to categorize photographic, video art and cinematic productions as art. And rightfully so. Initially, these mediums were crudely used, uninspired, and did not invoke its’ audience with much more than awe at the novelty of technology. These changes in public perception grew gradually over time and because of the “merits, not the methods of production,” as Martin puts it.
Martin’s arrogated argument that great game sales reveal their importance is only a correlation and a poor one at that. What about pet rocks and Tickle-Me-Elmo’s? What have they contributed to culture and society in the long run? Understandably, game sales should and do indicate some culturally significant correlations. I can name a few: Generation X and beyond’s characteristic apathy and increasing illiteracy, instances of violence such as the Columbine High School shooting, skyrocketing obesity rates, ADHD.
Image may be NSFW.
Clik here to view.
Maybe I should answer the article’s question, “Should Video Games Be Viewed as Art?” …My answer is: it depends. Can we agree that the art world is a fickle place? And that what is considered art is subjective? In my opinion, art requires two things: the artist’s intention in creating art and an audience receiving it as such. Anything outside of these two criteria is questionable. Take cultural artifacts–say African masks–and place them in a museum. The intention was not artistic but the fact that an audience views these things as art partially makes these things art. On the reverse, you can look at a four-year-old’s drawing, which he or she calls art but surely the art world would not take this seriously.
On page 209, almost at the end of Martin’s text, he suggests, “The public must open their minds and realize that new mediums, no matter how embedded in commercialism, have the potential to become a well-respected art form.” I think Martin misses the point. So far, the video game world has been motivated by sales alone. Martin fails to see that an audience will be ready to receive video games as art once video game creators stop using their formulaic, predictable strategies. No one denies the potentiality of any medium creating art. Like he said in the article, art should be based on its’ merits. Instead, he should be urging video game creators to step outside of their boxes and intentionally create art. Photography, video art and cinema have proved themselves over their lifespans and have produced some great art. I’m sure once the creators create, the general acceptance of video games as a medium will be enthusiastically welcomed.
