Links
Archives
A journal of thoughts and comments regarding my English 207 class.
Monday, March 01, 2004
ART FORM FOR THE DIGITAL AGE
According to Henry Jenkins in his article "Art Form for the Digital Age" it's time to take a serious look at video games, their uses, and their potential because they play an important role in the shaping of our culture. A large part of his evidence of the great influence of games on the American culture is the amount of money that the video game indusrty is pulling in. Jenkins states that last year the video game industry almost made more money than Hollywood. We all know that Hollywood has a very strong influence on American culture.
I believe that the Hollywood influence is more easily recognized than the video game influence for three reasons:
1) The tradition of making movies is older than and more established historically than the tradition of making video games (which have been around about 25 years).
2) Big budget movies are higher profile than video games. Even if we do not see the movies in the theatres or at home, we see the movie stars - their representatives - on magazines and in trailers on television. This raises an interesting question. Who are the video game "stars"? Who are the millionaires? No matter how much this industry is making we still don't see big video game representatives in the tabloids or on the covers of GQ or Cosmo. I'm sure that they are on the covers of gaming magazines - or at least inside; but at the check-out line they are nowhere to be found.
3) Going to the movie theatre is a social event. There are many other people around. Vidoe games do not tend to be social events on a large scale. Often they are played solo. Sometimes they are played in groups. Occaisionally, some gamers attend conventions. However, I do not believe that the attendance at these events could possibly rival the the amount of movie-theatre-goers.
Still, even though video game culture may be low key, the influence is widespread. This influence is very much evident in movie culture - as Jenkins mentions - in flicks such as Run Lola Run, Being John Malkovich and The Matrix. It is hard for me to see the direct influence of video games on Run Lola run and Being John Malkovich even though he explains them to be "multi-directional plotting" and "role-playing" respectively. The influence of video games on the Matrix, however, does seem very obvious. I assume that I am missing the link between the other two and video game culture because of my lack of personal experience with video games. Regardless, while movies may be more visible in a social way, it appears that video games may be taking over as a preferred form of entertainment.
Digital Art has had a difficult time gaining legitimacy in the public mind. Perhaps part of the difficulty is the concept of the word 'game' in video game, as a trifle. Jenkins is helpful in reminding his reader that the computer is but a tool and that it is still "human creativity that makes art". Throughout most of the article, Jenkins draws a very convincing parallel between the early stages of the cinematic art and the current early stages of video games. It is through this analysis that he predicts the acceptance of the video game as art. He points out that cinema was not originally a respected art form. It was not even considered art at all.
According to Jenkins, the turning point point for video games will be when they "enhance the emotional experience" and give us "character and consequence". Apparently this will give them depth and therefore they will be a more legitimate art form. Although this may enrich the experience, it could be difficult to manuever with the controller when eyes are full of tears. He also points out that games may take another route than cinema. I like the control that the person playing the game has over the situation. You cannot find that in movies as they are generally spoon fed to the audience. I also like the humorous and/or creative ways that gamers manipulate their environment on the screen.
Finally he puts out a call for video game and digital art critics that know what they are talking about. He points out that opinions of art are often molded by the critics. We are often a rather gullible America after all. Beyond informing the public of what they should think, he also states that critics of digital art could "marshal support for innovation and experimentation in the industry". Digital art is, after all, still in its initial stages. There is a lot of room for growth. Don't discount a prodigy in its infancy.
According to Henry Jenkins in his article "Art Form for the Digital Age" it's time to take a serious look at video games, their uses, and their potential because they play an important role in the shaping of our culture. A large part of his evidence of the great influence of games on the American culture is the amount of money that the video game indusrty is pulling in. Jenkins states that last year the video game industry almost made more money than Hollywood. We all know that Hollywood has a very strong influence on American culture.
I believe that the Hollywood influence is more easily recognized than the video game influence for three reasons:
1) The tradition of making movies is older than and more established historically than the tradition of making video games (which have been around about 25 years).
2) Big budget movies are higher profile than video games. Even if we do not see the movies in the theatres or at home, we see the movie stars - their representatives - on magazines and in trailers on television. This raises an interesting question. Who are the video game "stars"? Who are the millionaires? No matter how much this industry is making we still don't see big video game representatives in the tabloids or on the covers of GQ or Cosmo. I'm sure that they are on the covers of gaming magazines - or at least inside; but at the check-out line they are nowhere to be found.
3) Going to the movie theatre is a social event. There are many other people around. Vidoe games do not tend to be social events on a large scale. Often they are played solo. Sometimes they are played in groups. Occaisionally, some gamers attend conventions. However, I do not believe that the attendance at these events could possibly rival the the amount of movie-theatre-goers.
Still, even though video game culture may be low key, the influence is widespread. This influence is very much evident in movie culture - as Jenkins mentions - in flicks such as Run Lola Run, Being John Malkovich and The Matrix. It is hard for me to see the direct influence of video games on Run Lola run and Being John Malkovich even though he explains them to be "multi-directional plotting" and "role-playing" respectively. The influence of video games on the Matrix, however, does seem very obvious. I assume that I am missing the link between the other two and video game culture because of my lack of personal experience with video games. Regardless, while movies may be more visible in a social way, it appears that video games may be taking over as a preferred form of entertainment.
Digital Art has had a difficult time gaining legitimacy in the public mind. Perhaps part of the difficulty is the concept of the word 'game' in video game, as a trifle. Jenkins is helpful in reminding his reader that the computer is but a tool and that it is still "human creativity that makes art". Throughout most of the article, Jenkins draws a very convincing parallel between the early stages of the cinematic art and the current early stages of video games. It is through this analysis that he predicts the acceptance of the video game as art. He points out that cinema was not originally a respected art form. It was not even considered art at all.
According to Jenkins, the turning point point for video games will be when they "enhance the emotional experience" and give us "character and consequence". Apparently this will give them depth and therefore they will be a more legitimate art form. Although this may enrich the experience, it could be difficult to manuever with the controller when eyes are full of tears. He also points out that games may take another route than cinema. I like the control that the person playing the game has over the situation. You cannot find that in movies as they are generally spoon fed to the audience. I also like the humorous and/or creative ways that gamers manipulate their environment on the screen.
Finally he puts out a call for video game and digital art critics that know what they are talking about. He points out that opinions of art are often molded by the critics. We are often a rather gullible America after all. Beyond informing the public of what they should think, he also states that critics of digital art could "marshal support for innovation and experimentation in the industry". Digital art is, after all, still in its initial stages. There is a lot of room for growth. Don't discount a prodigy in its infancy.
