When I say I don't know if many people share my way of thinking, one of the things I mean is that I seem to find a particularly strong consolation from art, where normal men find befuddlement (and sometimes insincerity). As much as I would like to call that "being artistic", I'm definitely without the talent the phrase implies; so something better is needed. (Weird is always a good choice, but too flippant.) Whatever the appropriate word, I wonder (as is my wont) why this is so - why do I seem unusually entranced by the artistic realm? Honestly, I don't know if I use art as a tool to self-awareness, or just as a crutch; probably both, as it goes with most things, but in what proportions? One creeping fear is that I compensate for personal deficiencies through excessive adulation of the distillation of (other people's) experiences. It might be true to some extent. But I still like to think that precisely because it tries to capture the essence of things, art is one of the keys to unlocking the mystery of it all. Rest assured though, having given out the advice of not letting art come before life, I am on my guard to make sure I don't fall into the same trap. Appreciating art for speaking truths is one thing, but sometimes it only has meaning if the truth is then enacted in our own lives.

I know I'm quite late to point out that Roger Ebert doesn't think video games are art, but I only just came across it by chance. It is a very interesting subject (and it is equally interesting to read some of gaming community's responses).

A common response to his comment is that 'art' is a hard thing to define. Indeed! I'm not entirely sure how one would go about calling games art - it is easy to try and see direct relationship with existing forms such as literature and films, which leads us to strong stories and cinematic gameplay. While there is no doubt that these can make up a great game with substance, I think the interactivity allows for things that you can't get otherwise. I think art can come in through the experiences we let the player have (and I think there may well be other ways too).

Ebert's complaint is that since games yield control to the player, you yield control of whatever artistic statement you are trying to make. I guess he means a couple of things. First, that there is a lack of flow - instead of walking through the door to have a deep conversation about whether the ends justify the means, the player might choose to spend a couple of hours on something largely inconsequential (upgrading armour? Although you tell me it's inconsequential when your party has fallen and that armor is all that remains between you and a Glabrezu!), disrupting the flow.

Second, that choice has the potential to make the experience rather silly, and consequently not profound - said deep conversation could be side-stepped by a mindless threat as one's first response, which would turn the supposed climax of the game into a free-for-all melee.

His reasoning that since they lack the structural control that you get with movies or books, they lose the ability to become art does not entirely convince me. I guess he is suggesting that with traditional art-forms the artist has direct control over what he is trying to impart, and how this is done, but I think that non-linearity and the control one has over the game world has the potential to create some form of art. It sounds like Ebert doesn't think such potential even exists, which I respectfully disagree with.

Now, having stated my claim - as for whether the potential has actually been realized at this moment in time, I would say thus far, probably not - at the moment there aren't any games that I will try to defend as being art. My current experience is that there aren't many artistic games that have been made (but it has been a while for me, no?), and those that are artistic I would not say contain enough for me to confidently proclaim them as being comparable to the best in other mediums. Still, to me, these games are at the very least more than just 'shallow' entertainment. I'm not sure any of them will be studied in classrooms just yet, but I do think they demonstrate that games can be intelligent, and have an interesting synthesis of story and gameplay. If one takes the average modern game to be like a Hollywood blockbuster (usually ephemeral, as it is designed to be purely escapist entertainment), then these kinds of games are from the alternative cinema - something with more depth and some amount of sophistication and artistic vision, even if not a masterpiece.

I'm afraid I'm not intelligent enough to be able to expound on why exactly I "feel" games can be art - I have to resort to vague terms like "gameplay structure" and "non-linearity", which I guess is just me dodging the question. All I can give is subjective testimony that I have played games that I have felt to be artistic, even if not quite high-art. So, with that confession made, I might as well muse a bit on my personal list of artistic games. They are a touch 'obvious' I suppose, which does make me want to try and find out more games with meaning. I don't know whether a common thread makes itself immediately obvious, but I guess what makes these games in particular come to mind is that they had some feature that somehow resonated, moreso than say just a button-masher.

Ultima VII, of course, for the sense of an active world (I was recently reminded that there are no generic NPCs - everyone, even the lowly peasant, has a name and role to play, and a unique opinion on the state of Britannia), and maybe nostalgia. There is a sense of a lot of effort put into the history of the land (all the books about the history of the place, much like how it was done for Ultima VIII), which for me left a lasting impression. It might have been made in '92, but it has not aged a bit for me (the graphics make it very playable, even today).

The sevens have it with FF7, which is supposed to be overrated but in my naivety I still consider it to be a true experience rather than just a game. The characters are strong, and I am one of those who find the story to be fascinating too - at times funny, serious, sad, and trimphant, it is to me, quite simply, an epic. It features a very famous scene that many gamers have said brings them to tears, and any game that does that has to be doing something right.

Even if I consider Baldur's Gate 2 to be a more satisfying game, Planescape is more in line with my intuitive feeling of what constitutes an artistic game. It might be the most "literary" RPG ever (it is the most literary one I've played), and like the others on the list it has strong characters and a very well-done story. When the plot unravels and you approach the end-game, you are posed with what I still think to be a deep philosophical question, which you perhaps would not expect in a game. Regardless of the constraints the game places on your potential answers to this question, reflecting on the question and the context it is asked makes me wonder whether a game has ever been this incisive.

Half-Life is probably the most cinematic game I've played*, even though I suppose the emotions it gets across are rather "obvious" for a video game (suspense, tension, and what have you). But it is simply done so well, and has many memorably tense moments that you have to get around, not to mention a few of those head-crabs that jump out of nowhere. I guess this is an example of an experience that seems like it is common to a lot of other games, but which happens to be done far better than most.

Grim Fandango is beautifully produced, and is certainly one of the most stylish games I've played. The concept is in itself interesting, and I cannot fault the execution. A very good story, and again, very good characters combine with the excellent music and atmosphere to make this one of the most unique and enjoyable games I've ever played.

Another game that I think was most probably important, but not necessarily enjoyable, is Facade. It is great to see that there are people interested in making games like these, even if they don't necessarily work out. It most certainly has an artistic bent, but, as many pointed out, the execution wasn't quite there. But that's ok, because it shows that such things can be tried, and will hopefully inspire more games in a similar vein.

Of course, I can't say that any of these can be compared to some of the great films or novels of this century, but as many have pointed out, the field is young. True, it is dominated by creating something for mass consumption, but that does not mean that something good cannot come out of it. We just need a Sgt. Pepper! Or, maybe better yet, a VU & Nico...! I guess software itself is fairly young, so perhaps in the future it will be easier than it is today to try and embark on the task of creating artistic games. I guess if you want really artistic games, with no care for commercial success (now we're talking early Lou Reed, pre Loaded anyway), you need more independent publishers, or companies that believe there is some artistic potential for the medium.

But look, there is also the important question - does it matter if they don't strive to be art? Not to me - I am not a purist (not anymore, anyway), and believe there is a place for entertainment that doesn't necessarily look to have long-lasting worth, or reveal to us something crucial about the human condition. You won't see me throw away my copy of Quake anytime soon! But I think there is the potential for games as a different sort of art form, and this should at least be explored and done justice. How far can we go with them? I am not sure!

Then again, maybe I'm wrong (although, like I said, I strongly suspect not), but that just means games are no more (or not all that much more) than entertainment - it doesn't discount the fact** that they are at least intelligent entertainment (like a good episode of The Simpsons, I suppose?), and that is no shame at all. Even if something isn't "art", it doesn't mean there is no value to it!

The nice thing about this topic is that sifting through online discussions on the matter has brought up many examples from other gamers of games they consider to be artistic. It seems as though there is an avenue for me to explore yet!

* Sigh, that was a fair while ago. Yep, it's true, I am not a gamer anymore!

** Fact? Arguable as always, but I think it is hard to argue otherwise...so yes, a "fact in my opinion" :)

Classical music, rock, and art

A little while ago, I read something in the paper that talked about the "inherent superiority" of classical music, as opposed to popular music (meaning primarily, among other things, what is loosely defined to be "rock"). I initially thought it to be terribly elitist, and presuming a slight upon my taste, got upset. But a little digging around and I wonder whether the statement is true in an objective sense. The answer - maybe, but right now it doesn't matter to me. Maybe in ten years, but not right now.

A very nice article (since I'm sympathetic to his views, otherwise it would be total nonsense, of course) on the matter is Alex Ross' "Listen To This". It may be long, but it's worth it. It contains a line that I whole-heartedly agree with ("The best music is music that persuades us that there is no other music in the world"), as is probably evident from some of the things I've written here over the years (or the little item in the sidebar, for that matter). It is no surprise then that it is Mr. Ross (and, it should be said, if only to give you an understanding of the truly crass nature of who you're dealing with, an otherwise forgettable episode of The Simpsons) who has provided me with the sufficient push to go ahead and have Mozart sitting amusedly by Morrissey.

Again in the paper, this time a fair while ago, I read something about pop/rockers not being remembered in the next few decades, let alone centuries (unlike Mozart). Neil Young made put forth his view on the very first line of Rust Never Sleeps, yet is his defiant statement misguided? Well, I'd wager that the giants of the '60s will certainly find a place in the history books of tomorrow, and that if we do see their work being dismissed as the years go by, I think it would be a pretty big loss. So I suppose I think that it would be wrong to dismiss rock uniformly as being low-art (or no-art!) at best.

As for why I think this, I suppose it's based on how some of it has made me feel over the years. Oh it can make one feel all right; judging by the amount I've written about it, I'd be surprise if one who is versed in it could claim otherwise. I do get somewhat upset when people try to dismiss all of rock as being shallow and incapable of communicating any serious message to the listener, or otherwise educating or informing them. I don't believe that all my experiences of having deep emotional reactions to songs or albums have been illusions, or self-induced!

Yet, having said this, what I have come to realize after thinking about the subject is that maybe the feelings it induces aren't always all that deep or complex. Maybe I'm over-zealous in my yearning to find something of worth that I get carried away. A little critical reflection and I think that sure, I've been a bit hasty sometimes with praise of the emotional depth of certain albums/songs*. But I still maintain the best stuff, as in whatever has remained once the dust has settled, is deep and profound and all that for me. Although, I now accept that this may well change in the future, even though my heart tells me it won't.

I guess the problem with such an intuitive, emotional evaluation is that it makes it impossible to give any sound rebuttal to the claim that the music is somehow inherently inferior. I cannot argue on the basis of technical terms; I am willing to concede that rock is usually not as complex as a classical piece. So I suppose my reaction is, in a loose sense, equivalent to the familiar "I just care whether it sounds good!" philosophy.

The unfortunate temptation with matters like this is to dismiss the opposition as ignorant; especially so when it comes to rock music! Because, unfortunately, there probably are those who see rock as little more than the mainstream acts that receive airplay these days (e.g. "My Humps"**), or the strings of hits of most other artists. You can't really blame such views, because unless one is marginally dedicated, it's hard to get past these things. And assuming one starts off knowing nothing about rock, where's the incentive to get dedicated when this seems to be the standard of things?

Now, Alex Ross seems to be someone who has heard his fair share of classical and popular music alike, and when I think about it, I don't know too many people like that. If we take classical to be more general than western-classical, there are some who immediately come to mind. One particularly strange incident happened sometime last year with dear S - at the heart of it, it was the cultured vs. non-cultured argument (guess which was which!?!). While I usually know my place, I immediately rose to defend my beloved music, and asked that I be openly criticized for being uncultured if that was truly her view. There were too many people present, so I don't think it got resolved; in fact, I don't know if I even got a response. C'est la vie!

I once asked A for thoughts on pop/rock, since he is one of the few people I know with a leaning towards orchestral pieces. I remember A writing about how he saw most pop/rock to be ephemeral at best, and that it was doomed to be the stuff of instant gratification. The real art, he said, would be found in classical pieces, symphonies, operas, and what have you. I cooly attributed this to a lack of exposure on his part, but maybe there is more to his view than I give credit. I find it hard to be anywhere near objective with these things, you see. I mean, if I gave A "Misery" to listen to, God only knows what invectives would come forth from his mouth. Lou Reed might've captured this on "The Trouble With Classicists", except I haven't heard the song***.

Look, I'm going nowhere here, so I may as well stop before I start talking about the time I first opened the liner notes to album X. I suppose even if I can't say that rock is art in general, then at least I can say that rock is something that, when done properly, can make me feel a lot of things. Maybe the emotions put in are sometimes naive, and maybe I swoon too easily; but the best stuff is still amazingly rich for me. Who knows, maybe their beauty too will wear off in time - that would not be a trademark of the highest form of art! I am far too inexperienced to predict which way it will turn out, but for now, I believe at least some of it will resonate in my life. So while it may be inferior, it doesn't matter - just yet. Which does not mean that I will shut my ears to classical music - only that when I do try to listen to some classical pieces and when I think about them afterwards, it will (hopefully) be devoid of these notions of inferiority/superiority.

You know, at one point, I was hopelessly elitist in my views about books and music. I am glad for experiences like this that reveal how much I have to learn, but also make me test my own convictions. I used to shudder at the thought of appreciating anything I saw to be for the masses, preferring to be smug at my obviously superior taste; little did I know that I'm being looked down upon too! I have started to appreciate things for what they are, not for perceived opinions, and don't feel as ashamed as I once might have. Unfortunately, the elitist still remains to some extent (see the Peas comment below), but so it goes.

* I cleaned up my naive RYM list yesterday, but it's still quite bloated with the sins of impatience

** Look, I'm sorry, I don't like bashing things, but I found this song genuinely funny. I know I could never make it big like them Peas, but do allow me this indiscretion (so it seems that I am unabashed elitist, and so really have no right to comment on the classical elitists!).

*** But I do know the lyrics are well worth your time:

The trouble with an impressionist, he looks at a log
And he doesn't know who he is, standing, staring, at this log
And surrealist memories are too amorphous and proud
While those downtown macho painters are just alcoholic