Aug 1, 2007, 11:03 PM
|
#1 of 50
|
I'm reminded of what we were taught in my University's literature program--namely that anything can be considered art, since art is ultimately the products of a society whether intentionally designed as such or not. One of the professors conducted a literary analysis on a bicycle to prove the point.
I wouldn't endorse such an extreme view (one of the reasons I'm no longer in the program), but I've certainly invested as much time in some games as I have a fine novel, and the experience has often been just as rewarding and richly symbolic. That and what others were mentioning above--the fact that art is created in droves for games--makes me inclined to think of them as art, if not high art.
As for Ebert, I always got the impression that he was hopelessly out of touch with modern gaming and thinking of Pong or Pac-Man when he derided the medium. Then again, "Ms. Pac-Man: A Study in Gendered Normalizations and Transgressive Politics" might be the next big thing.
Jam it back in, in the dark.
|