I don't think video games are an art form either. It's possible that a few pieces of interactive art follow the rules of video games, but a chair can be an art piece without chairs having to be an art form.
I've been into video games for years and have seen both the mainstream and the small indie stuff and I don't consider either of it art. But even if we see it as an art form I would never say it's the currently most innovative one as I haven't really seen anything innovative in gaming at all for the last couple of years. It's all same-old, same-old, possibly spiced up with a new twist or mechanic but the same ancient concepts are reworked over and over again.
Yet I'm still a follower of many gaming blogs etc. without really having any hope of finding anything worthwhile. Why? Simply because I feel that procedurality (of which interactivity is a part) has an incredible potential but it's never used, most likely since the vast majority of gamers don't really seem to give a **** about art.
Or to quote Roger Ebert:
Quote:
|
I allow Sangtiago the last word. Toward the end of her presentation, she shows a visual with six circles, which represent, I gather, the components now forming for her brave new world of video games as art. The circles are labeled: Development, Finance, Publishing, Marketing, Education, and Executive Management. I rest my case.
|
Linear Mode
