Slashdot Mirror
Game/Movie Comparisons Raise Art Question Again
Via Game|Life, an article on the Variety site that sees something rather novel: a film writer defending games. Unhappy reviews of the film 300 sometimes cite the film's 'game-like' nature as a measure of it's poor quality, and Variety writer Ben Fritz calls those authors out on their poor grasp of modern media. Ron Gilbert, at the Grumpy Gamer site, has a few words of commentary on this issue. Coincidentally Gamasutra chose today to post a discussion of games as art which begins with the phrase "here we go again".
I seriously doubt that. You've shown a link that proves that he thinks about those kinds of things, but 300 was published in 1998 -- well before people were talking about these things, and at a time when such a metaphor would have been so difficult to notice as to be pointless.
People who would argue that movies aren't art and because theyrequire vast amounts of money or corporate backing have not studied their art history. Most artists could not afford to be an artist in Medieval times without a Patron or financial backer. The cost of some pigments alone were more than most people would ever see in their lifetime. Look at the Catholic church. How many wondrous pieces of art were made in it's name. They were the biggest financial backer at that time. As an artist, I would consider gaming art, and movies as well. They all involve a creative purpose. As do all artistic endeavours. Whether it be artists who use menstrual blood and feces to rail at the establishment, your local glass blower or potter to people like Brian Choo who is the creator of Episodes 1,2,3 robots. Just because a process embraces the technology of the time doesn't mean it's therefore invalid. Artist have used technology for ages. Look up Vermeer and see the work he did with optics if you need an example. But this is just my humble opinion.