06.01Looking For Sleds In All The Wrong Places
The question of when videogames will have their own Citizen Kane – that is, one that provides the great leap forward from embarrassing hobby to legitimate art form so desperately craved by so many – seems to crop up more and more with each passing month. It’s the bad penny of games journalism, the go-to question whenever a developer talks up their current title as providing a new, deeper experience for players or someone from another medium mentions games in a positive light. Across magazines and websites dedicated to talking about videogames, there’s a sense of anxious anticipation for the One True Game, a title of such messianic portent that it will immediately make the rest of the world stand up and take notice. No longer will videogames and the people who make and play them be ghettoized as boring virgins or the safe nerdy friend with the unrequited crush in sitcoms and movies. In the wake of this unknown game, videogames will be take their rightful place as the tenth art form, placed high on a pedestal along side art, music, theater, film, comics and all the rest to be respected and admired for having something to say worth listening to.

Unfortunately for those waiting and watching for such a game to appear, it’s not going to. There will be no Citizen Kane of videogames, no one game that suddenly vindicates gaming as an art form in the same way as Orson Wells’ masterpiece purportedly did, because that’s not the way the world works any more, assuming it ever did in the first place. Legitimacy doesn’t come from one person in a field doing one thing right; it comes from movements, from consistency, from progress across the board creating a new standard for future work to be held against. We’re spending all our time looking for one very special tree, when we should be paying attention to the overall picture of what’s going on with the forest.

As someone who works in games, I find the idea of waiting around for one wonderful game to solve the industry’s concerns with being taken seriously to be particularly grating for a number of reasons, the biggest being that it smacks of wanting someone to come along and do it for me. I’ve seen the question of when videogames’ Citizen Kane will come along put to the likes of Peter Molyneux, Ken Levine, Warren Spector, and a dozen others, and I can’t help but wonder if any of them ever felt a bit insulted at being relegated to John the Baptist status, forever doomed to be remembered best for paving someone else’s way. To ask the question implies not only that such a game or event hasn’t already happened yet, waiting for some future huddle of thoughtful types to point it out as the turning point, but that when it does appear it’ll do so with bells on and a note around its neck declaring its importance. It is, really, a stupid thing to ask of anyone, so loaded down with assumptions and deep misunderstandings on the nature of games and art as a whole that asking it should make you feel a bit ashamed of yourself. Why should games evolve the same way film did, and why should we expect them to? Why would you assume there aren’t already games deserving to be called art, with all the good and bad that carries with it? Why are we waiting for one great turning point, when games make so many small and important ones each year? And more important than any of those questions, why oh why do we as a medium need any one else to tell us how smart and pretty we are?

For all the tremendous leaps and bounds videogames have made since first appearing, our medium’s story is ultimately one of evolution, not revolution. The incredible strides made towards more and more meaningful and engrossing experiences are the results of countless iterations big and small to discover what works and cast aside what doesn’t. Videogames are a medium unlike anything the world has ever seen, with greater potential and challenges than nearly any other art form can muster. Instead of waiting to be taken seriously by the world at large like a child squirming for permission to sit at the adult’s table, we should claim the art form status that’s rightfully ours, even if we aren’t entirely convinced we deserve it yet. The first step to being a grown up is calling yourself one – sooner or later, the rest of the world will come around.

So I started writing a response, and ended up with 1200 words. If you like, I’ll post them here, but for the moment, they’re over yonder (to avoid cluttering up the comments here):
http://jigsawfanclub.com/2009/06/on-the-macguffin-of-art/
Excerpt:
You know what? Art isn’t a guarantee of entertainment. The fact that I haven’t seen Art on TV doesn’t mean TV isn’t my favorite medium. When I’m deciding what movie I want to watch, Art almost never factors into the decision. I admit to giving a second chance to comics with more Artistic conceits, but I’m far more excited about a new Ex Machina trade, say, than the Wolverton Bible.
The Big Lie is that something being Art automatically means you’ll like it. Unfortunately, when you do all the reading, listen to all the arguments, and really examine what it is that defines Art, it comes down to a weird mixture of posturing and fame.
…
Video Games don’t NEED to be Art, see? They are Games. Games are for Playing. And what they need to worry about is Craft.
June 1st, 2009 at 2:29 pm
[...] http://expertologist.net/?p=319 [...]
June 1st, 2009 at 11:53 pm
I also chimed in on Jones’ “art” discussion, FYI.
Howdy Chris!
July 18th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
[...] a few months ago I wrote a post weighing in on the whole “are games art?” thing. It wasn’t exactly a new topic at [...]
September 11th, 2009 at 7:57 pm