Today’s plan:
- Some Quick Reaction to the Papers
- Working in Groups on Project 2
This means I will once again stall our discussion of race until Thursday (although, our discussion on Thursday and talking to groups about project possibilities indicates that the reading on race resonated with some people).
A Few Responses to the Papers
Here’s some ideas I have developed while responding to papers.
Responding to Ebert
Personally, I would start here [his definition of art] were I responding to Ebert. I would respond in two ways: first, can we find games that alter our nature? I *think* we can.
Second, how can we expand this definition, give it more substance? I think Aristotle and Dali are especially useful. The former teaches us that art helps us become functioning, feeling humans, the second that art pushes against our boundaries, asking us to see things otherwise, changing us.
I also think a major problem with Ebert’s position is that he reduces all video games to Pac Man, or even to something like Monopoly. He doesn’t consider (or isn’t aware of) games driven by compelling narratives.
In his defense, that definition of games [rules, goals, feedback/points, voluntary participation] is pretty universal. The problem here, as you suggest in your previous paragraph, is that Ebert doesn’t distinguish video games from board games. Sure, early video games were often just digitalized board games, or were a kind of repetitive test of hand/eye coordination (say, Space Invaders or Pac Man).
But games evolved pretty significantly over the 1990’s. Story went from something you read in the manual, to something that happens in between levels, to something far more deep and integrated into the gaming experience (thank you Playstation, with your Resident Evil, Silent Hill, Final Fantasy VII, etc).
Building from the above (games are interactive)
You are on to something here. There was a lot of debate in the 1990’s about whether games were more or less interactive and immersive than books.
Proponents of books argued that readers had to interact with the words in order to construct a world. Proponents of games argued that there was an affective, emotional intensity to making an avatar move, to (at least seemingly) making things happen.
Defining Art
One person brought in a quote from Thomas Merton: “Art enables us to find ourselves and lose ourselves at the same time.”
To which I replied:
This actually reminds me of a compromise between Aristotle (memesis) and Dali (surrealism).
In some art, we find confirmation of our/selves, or we are provided material through which to (re)fashion ourselves. Art as building blocks. Art as a way to find ourselves (in a life that is often chaotic and disorienting).
In some other art, we lose our/selves. Our sense of self, propriety, morality is challenged and we are left reeling. Art as a chaotic force (in a life that often feels too determined, too rigid, too static, too fixed).
I hadn’t read that Merton quote before, but I like it.
On the connection between Aristotelian tragedy and games
I do think video games often resemble Aristotelian tragedy, in both we see the consequences of an action. Andboth attempt to help us overcome the desire that leads to the tragic mistake. They teach us who not to be, what not to do.
Qualifying an Argument
A paragraph ends:
Overall, art is a complex concept in humanity that is open for interpretation, where each person has their own opinion and perspective as to what is artistic to them.
[Rhetoric as invention, arrangement, style, memory, delivery]. I wouldn’t end the paragraph with this, since it undermines the work you’ve just done. Sure, we all recognize that art isn’t something we can definitively define–but I think you want to open this section with the qualification (especially because Ebert relies too heavily on this qualification), and then step forward to offer a definition (aware of its inherent limitations).
You Are a Short Leap from Radiohead to U2
This is an interesting argumentative move you make here [that art, like games, are subject to rules, points, objectives, and outcomes]. For the most part, it works.
Though I would point out (and I think Ebert would retort), that you are confusing something *intrinsic* to the work (in the case of games) with things that are *extrinsic* to the work (in terms of art). In Aristotle’s language, you are mixing essence with accident.
In other words, a game itself requires rules, points, etc. A work of art doesn’t–though you have shown that works of art are themselves like objects in a larger “game” of life.
The flaw to this logic would be that most “great” works of art, the one’s that we truly revere, were not financially successful during their own era. It is only years later, when we look back, that we recognize the extent to which these works contained something new, original, unprecedented. A prime example of this would be Moby Dick or Walden Pond, two “classic” American novels that went virtually unread in their own era (and most of the financially successful books from their era would today be dismissed as rubbish).
In short, rarely does aesthetic and economic capital overlap. Things that are aesthetically superior are rarely easy to consume and hence do not sell well. Things that sell well are often easy to consume and hence lack aesthetic depth.
Project 2 Proposals
I will ask each group to share a Google Doc with me by 11:59pm on Thursday. Groups should have 3-4 members. The proposal should be in block paragraph, memo format (here I am hoping each group has one PWRT student).
- Group Names
- Project Description: a 2-3 sentence summation of your aims. What is your research question (and, if you can’t frame your goals in terms of an open-ended question, then we might have a problem).
- Methodology for selecting games to be included in your study. You should point to the methodologies of another study if possible–think of the academic articles we read for today. Also, you should look for other academic studies as you prepare the proposal (I can help with this on Tuesday, that’s today!)
- A tentative list of games that this methodology has produced. You can certainly change this list as the project develops.
- Methodology for analyzing games. Give me a description of what you will look at/for, whether you will play the games, how you will collate your data. Your methodological discussion should point to other articles/studies. At this time, you should include a list of things you have read or will read to help validate your findings. In the final project, I will ask for you to justify why you looked for what you looked for–are your results valid?
- A hypothesis: what are you expecting to find?
- A project time chart, outlining goals, due dates, etc. I will ask each group member to keep a log that charts the hours they have invested on the project in this document starting today until you turn it in. The log should be the last section of the document. I have attached a sample proposal and log that you can copy/paste.
