metafilter: video games as art
If you spend years and years watching movies (this could also apply to reading books, looking at sculptures, etc.), you learn patterns in terms of what moves you and what doesn't.
Eventually, a very clear system of aesthetics naturally develops for you. And you're able to accurately predict whether you'll be moved by a film just by knowing that it contains -- or doesn't contain -- specific elements. You'll also be able to spot "errors" -- things that, if fixed, would make you enjoy a work you currently don't enjoy (or don't enjoy as much as you could). Being able to predict things so accurately is VERY seductive. It feels deeply meaningful. So it's tempting to feel that you've stumbled upon some universal principles.
And it's sometimes possible to move beyond yourself. You can notice larger trends. Ah, I see that when filmmakers do X, Y and Z, their movies affect people more than when they don't. But what do you mean by "people." Presumably, you mean "many people." You don't mean "all people." There has never been a movie that has been universally liked (or hated).
But when you've worked out a very clear aesthetic that never fails for you personally, and when you notice that this same aesthetic seems to work for many other people, it REALLY feels profound. And it may BE profound. But it's not universal. And that's odd, because we think of profound things as being universal. So, at this point, when we meet that guy who doesn't like "Citizen Kane" or Shakespeare or "The Wire" or whatever, he tend to decide "he's wrong."
Wrong about what? Wrong that he doesn't like "The Wire"? No, he really doesn't like it. It doesn't move him. It does nothing for him. So how is he wrong? At worst, he's eccentric. When we find a drug that cures cancer in 90% of patients, will the 10% it doesn't cure be "wrong"? No, it means that our drug -- which we think of as universally effective -- isn't. Which isn't to say it's not useful. It just means we're on shaky grounds if we make universal statements about it.
I think 99% of discussion about art are not literally about art -- at least not to everyone in the conversation (the talker may intend it to be about art; the receiver may not be interpreting it that way.)
///
This story with Ebert going off on games, getting offered an introduction to the best and reject it, is dismaying to me. There were two young neighborhood children playing in my yard this weekend. The girl picked some raspberries, the other, a boy, was sitting on a motorcycle. The girl went over to the boy and said "I've picked the most perfect berries, here try them." The boy was distracted by the motorcycle and I thought, "this is an opportunity like a moment in a poem about childhood and it is about to be missed."
posted by bdc34 at 9:51 AM on July 1
http://www.metafilter.com/93344/I-was-a-fool-for-mentioning-video-games-in-the-first-place#3163481
However, he hasn't really pinned down the nature of the aesthetic. I know what it is, and I know it when it's present (and when it's not), but I'm not sure how to describe it. And Ebert definitely hasn't described it.
If you take that aesthetic to extremes, you should be able to enjoy novels, but you shouldn't be able to enjoy any movies or staged plays (or paintings, sculptures.) Unless you skip around in a novel, it truly is linear and one-dimensional. One sentence after another, after another. There are no alternate paths (outside of choose-you-own-adventure books and the like).
A movie seems like that, but it's not. Not completely. True, it unfolds in time, but at any given moment, you have a choice of many things to look at. No shot is ever of just one thing. If you see Kong on the Empire State Building, you can focus exclusively on him, on the planes, on Fay Wray, etc. You can focus on all of these things, but starting with Kong. Or you can start with the planes and then move to Kong. These "choices" are probably not conscious in most cases, but there's no guarantee that I make the same choices as the guy sitting next to me in the theatre. The filmmaker is NOT in total control. I am not being completely guided.
Of course filmmakers can and do use all kinds of tricks to influence my focus, but the best they can do is influence. They can't absolutely control it. The cleanest example of this is watching a stage conjurer. Many of his tricks work by misdirection, e.g. waving a wand to distract you while he surreptitiously pulls a handkerchief out of his pocket. Sometimes he gets away with it; sometimes he doesn't. Contrast this with a novel in which misdirection is easy and foolproof. If you don't want the reader to know something until Chapter Five, just don't tell him about it until then.
So it must be a matter of degree. Like Ebert, I like being controlled rather than being in control. But clearly I don't mind having SOME control, or I wouldn't like watching movies. And I LOVE watching movies.
What I want is the FEELING of being guided. Clearly, I can have that feeling without being completely guided. But in order to turn this into a rigorous aesthetic theory, I would need to be able to say more exactly how much self-control is too much, what forms of self-control are okay, and what mediums will allow me to have some control but not too much.
posted by grumblebee at 11:09 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
http://www.metafilter.com/93344/I-was-a-fool-for-mentioning-video-games-in-the-first-place#3163761
Eventually, a very clear system of aesthetics naturally develops for you. And you're able to accurately predict whether you'll be moved by a film just by knowing that it contains -- or doesn't contain -- specific elements. You'll also be able to spot "errors" -- things that, if fixed, would make you enjoy a work you currently don't enjoy (or don't enjoy as much as you could). Being able to predict things so accurately is VERY seductive. It feels deeply meaningful. So it's tempting to feel that you've stumbled upon some universal principles.
And it's sometimes possible to move beyond yourself. You can notice larger trends. Ah, I see that when filmmakers do X, Y and Z, their movies affect people more than when they don't. But what do you mean by "people." Presumably, you mean "many people." You don't mean "all people." There has never been a movie that has been universally liked (or hated).
But when you've worked out a very clear aesthetic that never fails for you personally, and when you notice that this same aesthetic seems to work for many other people, it REALLY feels profound. And it may BE profound. But it's not universal. And that's odd, because we think of profound things as being universal. So, at this point, when we meet that guy who doesn't like "Citizen Kane" or Shakespeare or "The Wire" or whatever, he tend to decide "he's wrong."
Wrong about what? Wrong that he doesn't like "The Wire"? No, he really doesn't like it. It doesn't move him. It does nothing for him. So how is he wrong? At worst, he's eccentric. When we find a drug that cures cancer in 90% of patients, will the 10% it doesn't cure be "wrong"? No, it means that our drug -- which we think of as universally effective -- isn't. Which isn't to say it's not useful. It just means we're on shaky grounds if we make universal statements about it.
I think 99% of discussion about art are not literally about art -- at least not to everyone in the conversation (the talker may intend it to be about art; the receiver may not be interpreting it that way.)
///
This story with Ebert going off on games, getting offered an introduction to the best and reject it, is dismaying to me. There were two young neighborhood children playing in my yard this weekend. The girl picked some raspberries, the other, a boy, was sitting on a motorcycle. The girl went over to the boy and said "I've picked the most perfect berries, here try them." The boy was distracted by the motorcycle and I thought, "this is an opportunity like a moment in a poem about childhood and it is about to be missed."
posted by bdc34 at 9:51 AM on July 1
http://www.metafilter.com/93344/I-was-a-fool-for-mentioning-video-games-in-the-first-place#3163481
However, he hasn't really pinned down the nature of the aesthetic. I know what it is, and I know it when it's present (and when it's not), but I'm not sure how to describe it. And Ebert definitely hasn't described it.
If you take that aesthetic to extremes, you should be able to enjoy novels, but you shouldn't be able to enjoy any movies or staged plays (or paintings, sculptures.) Unless you skip around in a novel, it truly is linear and one-dimensional. One sentence after another, after another. There are no alternate paths (outside of choose-you-own-adventure books and the like).
A movie seems like that, but it's not. Not completely. True, it unfolds in time, but at any given moment, you have a choice of many things to look at. No shot is ever of just one thing. If you see Kong on the Empire State Building, you can focus exclusively on him, on the planes, on Fay Wray, etc. You can focus on all of these things, but starting with Kong. Or you can start with the planes and then move to Kong. These "choices" are probably not conscious in most cases, but there's no guarantee that I make the same choices as the guy sitting next to me in the theatre. The filmmaker is NOT in total control. I am not being completely guided.
Of course filmmakers can and do use all kinds of tricks to influence my focus, but the best they can do is influence. They can't absolutely control it. The cleanest example of this is watching a stage conjurer. Many of his tricks work by misdirection, e.g. waving a wand to distract you while he surreptitiously pulls a handkerchief out of his pocket. Sometimes he gets away with it; sometimes he doesn't. Contrast this with a novel in which misdirection is easy and foolproof. If you don't want the reader to know something until Chapter Five, just don't tell him about it until then.
So it must be a matter of degree. Like Ebert, I like being controlled rather than being in control. But clearly I don't mind having SOME control, or I wouldn't like watching movies. And I LOVE watching movies.
What I want is the FEELING of being guided. Clearly, I can have that feeling without being completely guided. But in order to turn this into a rigorous aesthetic theory, I would need to be able to say more exactly how much self-control is too much, what forms of self-control are okay, and what mediums will allow me to have some control but not too much.
posted by grumblebee at 11:09 AM on July 1 [1 favorite]
http://www.metafilter.com/93344/I-was-a-fool-for-mentioning-video-games-in-the-first-place#3163761
posted by steph at
6:38:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home