The Beautiful Dissonance of Interactive Art

Presbytier

A common trend in the MMORPG genre of games(and to some extant video games in general) is the notion that we have hit a creative brick wall and are simply doomed to repeat what has gone before in the hopes that past successes will produce future greatness. Unfortunately what this has done is create a cummunity of consumers who feel jaded and left out of the equation to what constitutes a succesful MMORPG.

 

I believe that by looking at the past we can see our future. Traditional art is usually the vision of a singular artis trying to impart their vision to  an audiance through their chosen medium(ie.. books, music, paintings, drawings...etc). Overtime this expanded into a collabritive efforts of many artist conveying an idea(ie...television, movies, video games). Where MMORPGs are a unique form of Interactive Art in that they invite mass groups of individuals to partake in their formation. What MMORPGs do is they allow us to contribute to the original creators vision by injecting ourselves into their worlds. Some games give the player(or participant as I prefer) more controll on how they contribute to the overall system while others are more directing. Either way what we do have is a system that is constantly in flux.

 

It is best to abandon this doom and gloom viewpoint in favor of an ever expanding realization that like all other forms of mediums and art MMORPGs go through the same cycles of birth, growth, death, and then finnally re-birth. MMOs are still fairly young when compared to other forms of Interactive Art, so much of what is happening is the naturally recuring growing pains. Here is the real key you can either contribute to their further maturation, or you can slide in to thea pessamistic valley of despair and truly miss out on the great things to come.

Indol

Here, here!

 

This open-minded way of approaching things is the key to life, much less mmo's.

 

 

Amaranthar

We have NOT had a system that's in flux. We have had a system that's standardized. At least for the most part and by the major players.

If that's starting to change, great. But I'd like to actually see the change and not just promises and marketing hype.

Presbytier

Originally posted by Amaranthar

We have NOT had a system that's in flux. We have had a system that's standardized. At least for the most part and by the major players.

If that's starting to change, great. But I'd like to actually see the change and not just promises and marketing hype.

You have to look at the broader picture instead of focusing at only one small detail. What we have now is mass marketed art, and that does change how we consume it it to some degree. The fact is though all the power does reside in the consumer. If you don"t want it don"t buy it. It really is that simple, but what happens is people tend to allow themselves to be told what they want instead of really formulating their own oppinions. It is best to see the Mona Lisa for oneself before one spends too much time battleing with the art critics. What we need to to is break away from the consumeristic mindset and learn to apreciate video games for what they really are...Interactive Art.

solarine

If the "consumer" decided what the artist could and couldn't do, if they could "vote with their wallets", we would not have a good deal of the beautiful art we have. That's probably why I really dislike being called a "consumer" when it comes to art, even if from an economical point of view that's what I am.

Do I see myself as a "patron of arts" then? Haha, no, not really, that would be way too self-important and asinine... But when I buy a book, go to a movie or a concert, and yes, when I buy a game, I try not to think about it in terms of price/performance... And I never get mad just because something turns out to be not to my liking (i.e. I think "it sucks").

I think about "games as art" really often. And I think whether individual games are approached as something akin to art has deep implications on games in general.

Take your point about a piece of art having one unique vision behind it or a collaboration. I know you're talking about something else totally, but it's still related. Anyone who's been into both individual and cooperative art will instantly know how easy it is to drift away from a "genuine vision" to something like an estimation of expectations (assuming things about both each other, i.e. other artists, and your assumed audience)... And really, that turns out to work a bit more like marketing than art in the end: Once you get away from a unique, personal vision, art is diluted more and more. This is why the French Auteur theory had the concept of "the camera-pen", which gave almost all the credit in the artistic vision of the film to a single person, the director, who would supposedly wield the camera like a pen, and thus make his film "personal".

In fact, I'd say that's the core conflict in "art vs entertainment". Whether your end "product" is one of personal vision, and thus comes from an expression of something genuine in its creator, or a product of your expectations about what other people will like, which is totally something external and supposed - and frankly the specialty of marketing.

So I'd pose another scale, where "personal" is good and "estimation" is bad.

I think all the rage about "how EA does things" has its roots in this very conflict.

And I'd even say "the old MMOs vs the new MMOs" discussion is rooted in this, too. 

 

Presbytier

Originally posted by solarine

 

In fact, I'd say that's the core conflict in "art vs entertainment". Whether your end "product" is one of personal vision, and thus comes from an expression of something genuine in its creator, or a product of your expectations about what other people will like, which is totally something external and supposed - and frankly the specialty of marketing.

So I'd pose another scale, where "personal" is good and "estimation" is bad.

I think all the rage about "how EA does things" has its roots in this very conflict.

And I'd even say "the old MMOs vs the new MMOs" discussion is rooted in this, too. 

 

I do believe this is EA's problem and also the same problem with Activision and some other large studios. Art can not be market tested in so far as what it should be(wherass some gameplay elements can and probably should be tested to ensure they are fun, but even that can be overly subjective in the since that the game designer may not be trying to make every aspect of its game "fun"). Also art can not be rushed. This where EA, Activision, and even Square-Enix(the CEO of SE was recently quoted as saying FF games take to long to be made and that he wants to start putting them out in two year product cycles) have real issues where on one hand they would like to look at some of their larger games as works of art they still make bad artisitic decisions for the sake of a bottom line(for example Mass Effect 3 was pushed out the gate with an obviously flawed and incoherent ending; no matter how much sugar coating Bioware/EA gives it that could not have been the originally intended ending do to its massive incoherence to the overal story). In the end developers have to decide what they are shooting for; do they want a true timeless work or a simple mass produced piece designed for a quick buck. it is the difference between a Van Gogh and a Thomas Kinkade.