Essay on the Never-ending Debate

I decided to upload the essay I wrote for our first master course in hypermedia (or interactive media). It’s basically another (more thought-out) attempt in trying to situate myself in the “games as art” -discussion. Loads of the articles and books I’ve read on games and art didn’t make it to this paper, and loads more are still waiting for my eager eyes. Nevertheless, this course and essay were a nice, soft landing to the field.

The essay is a short and easy read. Please leave a comment/send email if the essay provokes any thoughts, you have some good ideas to share, or you think a certain researcher, book or article is a must for me.

(As a sidenote: I’m actually planning on gathering up a list of publications I should read, and publishing it here.)

Games as Art (manSEDANse09 -style)

First of all, let me point out that old jazz is so good I’m at a loss of words. Yes, I do realize this doesn’t seem to have any connection to games as art whatsoever. But it does, oh yes it does.

I’ll get back to that claim later. Now, back to the actual business. I had a fair share of “games meet arts” -debating today, starting with a some theorizing with Annakaisa Kultima at the soon-to-be-renamed Hypermedialab at University of Tampere, and continuing with a panel discussion at an event called manSEDANse09. As if that wouldn’t have been enough, the discussion continued after the actual panel was over, with Jaakko Stenroos (one of the panelists) and a fellow master student. After Jaakko left, we still continued the debating for an hour or two (or three) in a coffee house nearby.

The value of the “Games as Art” -panel discussion wasn’t so much in it offering me new information, nor in the panelists surprising me with their stance in the Holy War of Art and Non-Art. The value was in me obtaining good questions that didn’t get answered satisfyingly enough. For example, the classical question “are games art?” was flipped upside down by Jaakko Stenroos, resulting in “can art take the form of a game?”. Continuing from this question, and assuming the answer is yes, the next question would be “are games good art?” and “is there any artistic value in games?”. The original question Jaakko came up with was shot down by Jussi Holopainen with a counter-question: why couldn’t we just take games as art the way they are, in stead of using them as a material for making art?

Some excellent points were also made, about the true nature of art, and about the topic of the panel:

Art reveals something unexpected of the human nature and the society, something that makes you stop and think about the big questions in life, like “why are we here?”,  ”where will we go?” and “what the fuck?” (Holopainen)

The artistic aspirations don’t match with the current trends in the gaming industry. — An art game has to be unique, but when you make something unique, it’s hard to make people understand what it’s all about. This gets us back to the Dinosaurs versus Small Hairy Animals -notion in my previous post.

The division between art and games isn’t as steep as it seems. (Stenroos)

We don’t have game criticism, it just doesn’t exist. What we do have is game reviews. (Stenroos)

The panel ended with the panelists happily disagreeing on what kind of art games are, and me wondering about the question one listener posed: would someone play a game for the art-experience? I know I would, but what about the rest of the world? The Average Joes for example, would they do it?