I firmly believe that N’Gai Croal – beyond having the coolest name ever – is by far the smartest writer in the game industry today. No offence Chris Kohler, I just think Croal is more insightful. So I was looking forward to his foray into this “Are Games Art?” debate that has been circulating recently (even here on Scrawled in Wax). Luckily, Croal has put together an impressive piece. Among the important things he notes are Ebert’s flimsy assertion of the difference between high and low art, his prioritisation of narrative over simulation and Ebert’s inability to deal with gaming on its own terms.
But rather than write a long diatribe responding to both Ebert and Croal, I’m gonna’ go all blog-like and make a list of my thoughts:
- While I firmly believe that the ubiquity of narrative and its centrality to human existence means it should be prioritised in some ways, this does not necessitate that new modes of narrative and narrativisation should be dismissed as not artistic simply because they are new. The radical introspection of Hamlet was a marked departure for tragic drama – it doesn’t mean it was a bad idea.
- The author is dead. No, neither I nor Barthes nor Foucault mean that literally. But the interactive nature of gaming means that is the perfect medium for the postmodern transition away from author-centred approaches to art to ones focused on the dynamic textual processes of meaning-making. Ebert’s insistence on the author reveals a desire to fix meaning, one not only at odds with the spirit of our age, but also in line with the tyrannical ideologies of centuries past (and, let’s not forget, present – what is propaganda but the desire to fix meaning?).
- Speaking of fixing meaning, Croal does an excellent job of raising the question of narrative linearity and art when he asks “What is the “inevitable conclusion” of John Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme”? Of Jackson Pollock’s “One: Number 31, 1950“? Of Richard Pryor’s “…Is It Something I Said” tour? Of David Chase’s “The Sopranos”? Not all art works the same way.” While Ebert insists on narrative conclusion, the call to Coltrane suggests that one cannot judge art with a linear yardstick.
- As Frasca has argued, the dominant mode of gaming is simulation, not narrative. This means that gaming is not subject to the same systems of signification and interpretation as traditional literary and filmic narrative. Ebert doesn’t even begin to understand that while Super Mario 64 has a ludicrously silly plot, its design as an interactive piece is simply astounding.
Fundamentally, I believe gaming is yet to reach its artistic potential when, hopefully, its effects upon the cultural sphere will move beyond using iconic images of Mario and GTA as reference points and the economics of sales. But as Croal also suggests, it will require debates like these to take place between more equally versed opponents for the debate to become more fruitful. What is crucial, I believe, is that game criticism act as a node within game development, adding to and enriching what gaming can be.
One final thought: you know how everyone is always saying that money ruins art? What if it is precisely the excess of product – initially made for the lowest common denominator – that produces art? That art is the excess of capitalist production? That in capitalist systems it is only until you get a glut of pop art that any desire for the ‘truly artistic’ arises, due to a desire to create stratifications and the specialisation of labour? What about that eh? Go see Stephen Tolito’s thoughts on early film for something you theory nerds can go chew on.
