| theworldendswithme said: Now, Sky Render pointed out very astutely that many historic masterpieces were commissioned works. However, we can make this discussion far more meaningful by noting that many works of art that have withstood the test of time were not economically viable in their own times. This is usually the fault of a paucity of publicity and preconceived notions about specific artists. Considering that most people buy games before they play them, sales figures fail as a means for describing or comparing the actual experience of playing any game. I want to devise a framework for discussing the experience of playing, and your points have shown me that such a framework must avoid assinging value judgements to games. |
Actually, you're wrong. Until very recently, artists, musicians, and other entertainers simply weren't rewarded very well financially. Mozart, Michaelangelo, Bethoveen, etc. were all VERY well known throughout Europe, but their commissions were never enough to make them incredibly wealthy. A lack of fame had nothing to do with it.
Instead, let us ask the following question:
"When historians write the history of video games, which games will they consider revolutionary, or influential, or ground-breaking, or as models that other games sought to emulate, and why?"
Because when they write that book, Madden '07 is going to get a line or two, and TWEWY will get at least a chapter on how it forces players to simultaneously engage in two separate yet intertwined games at the same time on two different screens, with two different control schemes.
Art need not entertain, so long as it innovates, and in Shakespeare's (or Milan Kundera's) conception, reveals us to ourselves as we actually are.
You're way overthinking this, in my opinion, but I'd add that even prima facie this statement is flawed. Madden '07 won't be mentioned, but the original Madden sure as hell will be, as it set the trend of the annual franchise (which, like it or not, fulfills all four of your criteria very neatly). TWEWY isn't going to get a blip, though, unless it inspires a new genre. After all, novel concepts which fail to sell occur with some regularity, but the "fail to sell" part ensures that they remain unique.
As to your final sentence, I won't pretend to be qualified to discuss what "art" is, since I have little patience for philosophy. I would add, though, that if "art needn't entertain" then a medium devoted exclusively to entertainment probably isn't the best place to search for it. Of course, I fervently disagree with that statement (were not all the greatest works of art meant to entertain in some manner, be it visually, aurally, or some combination thereof? As I and Sky Render alluded to earlier, Shakespeare, Homer, and other great artists did what they did to eat, not to make some grand statement) but if we accept it, then we'll find precious few examples in the video game industry.
In any case, I'll be happy to continue this discussion in the morning, but for now alcoholic beverages are beckoning. I look forward to hearing what you and others have to say.
