Jonathan Jones: Exhibiting Pac-Man and Tetris alongside Picasso and Van Gogh will mean game over for any real understanding of art
If you wanna read a dumb story by a guy who apparently has never played a video game made in the last 20 years OR been inside the MOMA (“Picasso and Van Gogh”? those are totally emblematic of the MOMA’s collection) then give this a read
I love how his argument is to create arbitrary boundaries for what constitutes art, because really, if there’s anything art needs, it’s limitations to what it is allowed to be
*puts on artist glasses* Okay peeps it’s time for an art history lesson, got a pen and paper? Good. B)
^^^^^ Yes yes yes yes yes everyone should definitely read that read-more for why this guy has no idea what he’s talking about.
The player cannot claim to impose a personal vision of life on the game, while the creator of the game has ceded that responsibility. No one “owns” the game, so there is no artist, and therefore no work of art.
What? Am I just misinterpreting this sentence, or is this guy honestly trying to claim that the audience can’t derive any personal meaning from a game, and as such game designers just sit back and say “durr hurr let’s just code some shit IDK kids will play anything it doesn’t have to have meaning this is just some lifeless shell of a concept.”
Or is he trying to claim that because the majority of games are audience-intended products created by teams of artists, designers, and technical creators, there’s no one single artist to take credit, and therefore it’s not art? Because if so, way to also discredit movies and films, buddy. Though, judging by his language, he probably somehow doesn’t think those are art, either.
Video games have directors. Video games have producers. Video games have lead technical designers. Video games have animators, concept artists, asset designers, storyboard artists, so many artists from so many different areas of art and design. You can’t honestly say that none of these people have put any of their vision, creativity, or ideals into their game. It’s literally impossible. And just because you choose not to think of your game as anything more than something to pass the time while waiting for something meaningful to come along in your life, doesn’t mean it’s incapable of holding significance and commentary to the way we live our lives and view our world.
So tl;dr this guy is practically suggesting that video games are developed using lifeless formulas and machines and I wouldn’t be surprised if he thinks he’s special because he slept through an art history class once, and has literally written “Art may be made with a paintbrush or selected as a ready-made, but it has to be an act of personal imagination.”
PLEASE POINT OUT TO ME WHERE THIS EXISTS IN REAL LIFE AND THEREFORE NEVER REQUIRED SOMEONE IN A DEVELOPMENT TEAM TO TAKE THEIR PERSONAL VISION AND IMAGINATION TO SAY “HEY I THINK THIS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT CONCEPT AND HERE’S WHY” BECAUSE IF THAT’S THE CASE THEN THIS IS A SERIOUS THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY AND THE ARTICLE REALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TITLED “HOLY SHIT THIS GIANT-ASS BALL IS GOING TO KILL EVERYONE GUYS HELP”