There is some interesting discussion going on at Henry Jenkins’s blog about games as art and their role in the society, including some insightful comments by Hugh. I’ve recently become interested in the so-called serious games movement, and Jenkins points out that these things could be a decisive way of demonstrating that games are a meaningful form of expression.
Games can be valuable on many levels. Their status as art is simply one of them. Right now, we are seeing defenses of games emerging on multiple levels.
Some writers — James Paul Gee or Kurt Squire or Steven Johnson, for example — are making the case for games on educational or cognitive levels rather than aesthetic. Gee demonstrates that games are structured around solid pedagogical principles and that they are teaching young people new ways of processing knowledge. Johnson contends that games, like other modern forms of popular culture, have a degree of complexity (and thus pose cognitive challenges) which may be greater than most critics imagine. Squire has shown that communities emerge around games which enhance or expand the educational value of the play experience itself.
The serious games movement tackles the question of games as a form of political or social expression much more directly. They are demonstrating that games as a medium can serve a wide array of social and pedagogical purposes. Advocates like Gonzalo Frasca or Ian Bogost have made strong cases that games can be used for political speech. There are interesting experiments in the use of games for journalistic purposes. And so forth. If these efforts are successful, they will go to the heart of the legal debate — representing the kinds of materials which are most cherished and protected under American constitutional law.
If you’re not happy with these arguments, try the excellent McVideoGame, for instance. It drives the point about the evil politics of fast food home better than Super Size Me.
0 Responses to “Games as art”
Leave a Reply