More Hall of Shame

[ghostwheel]

Driving a wedge through the indie scene, thanks destructiod: http://www.destructoid.com/indie-games-don-t-have-to-act-like-indie-games-162789.phtml

[Thomas]

It seems like the author is frustrated with games that does not explain enough of how they work, a fair thing. But then he uses that annoyance in order to say that the game themselves are pretentious etc, which I think is wrong. I have not played Path yet (sorry Michael ) but I played The Void recently and cannot agree when he writes that the entire game is crappy and void (ha ha...) of fun. The problem with The Void is that it is super hard and very unforgiving and this could have done better. But saying that the entire game is pretentious, artsy crap is just wrong to me as I think it is a really interesting game that would have been more compelling to play if not for the difficulty and technical problems. It is also disturbing when journalist on more non-mainstream sites, wants games to stay simple and all about instant thrill entertainment (which is kinda implicitly implied in the text). Even if one does not like games like the marriage, how can one be mad for people trying out new stuff? If it sucks, well at least we learn something new...

To sum up: What he is saying just don't make any sense. Even worse is that he implies that games should be about "fun fun fun", which is a kind of sad mindset.

I shouldn't be upset with game journalists because then I would go around unhappy all the time, but some times it feels good to rant and vent

[God at play]

The guy is a jerk, which I did call him on in the comments.  But to be fair, he doesn't say that games have to be only fun.  He uses a couple other words, including engaging.  And if you define games based on Rules of Play's definition, games must engage players.  I agree with that.

With that said, I came to the conclusion that some media requires a certain emotional/empathetic language in order to understand.  And speaking in that language is a skill to be developed, just like a dexterous or competitive language which most games use.  So maybe he just doesn't have that emotional skill yet.  With regards to games, I can't really blame him since most of them develop skills in other languages.

I can blame him for his tone and absurdity in presenting his argument, though. And I did.

[Michaël Samyn]

I hope we're not to blame for this. Destructoid has a long history of hating Tale of Tales. And we have never given in -or up. And neither have they.

I think Emily Short made a good point the other day when completely disqualifying the so-called criticism of a work of art being pretentious.

I hate the word "pretentious" in art criticism.

I understand why people use it. Often we call something pretentious when we think the artist might be concealing a lack of meaning or vision behind obscurity, jargon, or a set of conventions currently hallowed by the art establishment. It's a way of saying "I don't get this, and I don't know that there's anything to get" that shifts the blame (if blame even applies in so subjective an area as one's response to artwork) onto the artist rather than ourselves.

Two things I don't like about this approach. First, it operates from an instinct of contempt. Labeling an artist pretentious assumes the worst about someone whose motives aren't knowable.

Second, it says nothing, nothing at all, about the work itself. It's all about the artist.

So thanks to her observation, we can safely ignore most of Mr Sterling's rant. 

The most eye-opening statement to me, I found in a comment by "Arianol". It goes like this:

A piece of art is supposed to convey a message or feeling to the viewer. Creators of art put a message into their work intentionally, and they either fail or succeed at getting that message across to their audience.

This is obviously a ludicrous assumption but sadly it seems to be very prevalent, especially among the computer geek crowd (that seems to consist mostly of people who believe that the world can be completely represented as problems and solutions). If, of course, you think that an art piece contains a message and then you can't find that message, you're going to get frustrated and perhaps accuse the artists of hiding that message too well, or not having put a message in the piece at all. I wonder what they think the purpose is of sending a message in an obscure form (which is basically their definition of art). If we do have a message that we can express in text, why would we make an art work? It doesn't seem to occur to them that the creation of art is a necessity. That people create art because they know of no other way to reflect on and communicate certain ideas, notions, emotions, etc.

[God at play]

Oo, thanks for that Emily Short quote!  That is a great way to argue against that mindset.

It doesn't seem to occur to them that the creation of art is a necessity. That people create art because they know of no other way to reflect on and communicate certain ideas, notions, emotions, etc.

That is exactly what we've posted about on the Intuition blog lately.

Also, "necessity" says to me that it is a solution to a problem - a life-threatening problem. I guess that means the solution is the act of creation and not the creation itself?

And "because" would suggest that there is some basic intentionality - namely to represent that which was in the mind and could be expressed no other way.  But Arianol seems to be suggesting that somehow there's some nicely packaged thesis in the artist's mind before creation starts.  And that is a bit silly now that I think about it some more.

[Michaël Samyn]

In my experience, art is much more about asking questions than giving answers. For me, experiencing art is research. And the main reason why I make my art is because then I can use it as a tool for this research. Any answers that an artwork provides only come into existence during the experience of the art, not during its creation, let alone before the creation even starts.

[God at play]

Woah, that's a fascinating way to look at art, and a very clear explanation to boot.  Thanks, I will certainly chew on that one