A couple years ago famous film critic Roger Ebert caused something of stir when he said about video games:
Video games by their nature require player choices, which is the opposite of the strategy of serious film and literature, which requires authorial control. I am prepared to believe that video games can be elegant, subtle, sophisticated, challenging and visually wonderful. But I believe the nature of the medium prevents it from moving beyond craftsmanship to the stature of art.
Now, I think we’re dismissive of any “emerging” medium at our own peril, but it does raise an interesting question: Can art be interactive? I’ve previously discussed Web 2.0, at it’s best, being something akin to anarchy, but is that anarchy the antithesis of art? The novelist, the painter, the composer, are all dictators in a sense, your choices, your say, your input, have absolutely no impact on a work’s outcome. I don’t have a conversation with Tolstoy, I listen to Tolstoy. I can’t
change a single note of Mahler’s ninth (not that I would dare to) because if I did, it would no longer be Mahler’s ninth. When a work ceases to be something expressing the intent and expression of the artist and, instead becomes something based off my decisions, is it still art?
Certainly, the visuals in a video-game are art, as are the creations in Second Life, but what remains to be seen is if these Interactive Entertainments can stand on their own as works. Are they the canvas or the painting, that is, are these just tools or is it art? No one would call Photoshop art, nor Microsoft Word, nor Google Gears, but when an application offers up an abstract experience and not a utility, well then, what is it?
Beyond a basic question of classification, I also wonder about the survival of the aforementioned “traditional” mediums. Can the YOU generation maintain and appreciate a one-way relationship? Will the art of the past survive the ego of the future? Can old and new media– and, more importantly, the sensibilities it takes to understand them– co-exist?
Have you considered Subscribing to all of this madness?
“I don’t have a conversation with Tolstoy, I listen to Tolstoy.” Internal dialogue goes on all the time, whether we are conscious of it or not. Same with music. No matter the intensity of the experience, passivity is an illusion. We interact with a book - we choose to turn the page, to take the book with us (or not) to read during the day, on the subway, in the bathroom for God’s sake; and we might even use it to crush a bug. All of this has become so accepted that we don’t even see it as interaction. Film - same. The preparation to go to the cinema, or, the setting of the scene to watch the DVD - endless rituals surround the “passive” activity which are actually interactions with the medium.
Deek, I specifically didn’t use the word “passive” for this reason. You’re right, nothing worth consuming should ever leave the view passive, but that doesn’t change the fact that the outcome of the work remains the same no matter who views it. The artist intention is the same whether we are receptive to it, ignore it, or turn it off.
Marcel Duchamp’s quote: ” It’s the viewer who creates the painting.” Art is acting like a channel and it’s up to us to use it wisely. I would add that the (art)forms we use to express ourselves can change but will not change our concern for Expression.
Sorry fo my English — I hope it make sense.
Sure you didn’t use the word “passive” which is why thought I should interject it ! As to the outcome of the work - you’re viewing this in a narrow way. The ending of the plot might be the same - but the outcome depends upon the reader. The artistic intention might be (as often in the case of Luis Buñuel) ambiguous - meaning that the interpretation can go any one of several ways.
What he said about Marcel - the viewer creates the painting.
[…] question on the future of Art cannot really be discussed without also pondering the future of the artist. What will he look like? […]