I Agree to Disagree

In the preface of his book, Art of Computer Game, Crawford suggest that mainstream video games are trival at best. I Agree...to Disagree. He of course makes some important distinctions of art from an artist point of view but he fails to mention art from the eyes of the audience.

I AGREE:

..."that the computer has become a medium for emotional communication."
- The computer has allowed the audience to become part of the art itself instead of just interpreting the art, as it was commonly done prior to the industrialization of computers.

..."more invest of the game equals more emotional value to the audience."
- It makes perfect sense, the more time I spend on the game, the harder it is to detach myself from it. (Ex: SuperMario- As your 5 lives started to windle, eventually it got to a point where you lost all your lives and had to start-over again. What did you do? Continue to play of course. Why? Well since we ( I mean the class as a whole because I know that we can all vouch for what I'm talking about) spent so much time and effort trying to rescue Princess Peach that there was NO WAY we were just going to go on with our day knowing we had not saved her. [yes a little exaggerated but you get the point]

I DISAGREE:

..."that existing gaming is not art because it has been developed by software designers and not artist."
- Who makes the decision that current gaming software is not art? Art in itself is interpretative and left many times to the audience. That is how the artist is able to connect to his or her audience. "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," cliche' yes but it is so true. To say that current gaming is trivial not really, but the previous statement that I just made now that's trivial.

..."that existing gaming invokes trivial emotion"
- How can one' define the emotion of art as trivial or not so trivial? Is Crawford implying that computer gaming does not exemplify art until an emotion is invoked through a meaningful life lesson ? I believe the "skill and action" (S&A) that takes place during a game of Madden Football is an art itself. The art is not in the game (which it can also be) but in the audience (player). The player now has become the artist. The roles have changed, now the gaming itself is the medium and not the software designer themselves.

FINALLY:

I wanted to take the example of a special I saw on ESPN. It was a tour bus going around the country searching for the best "gamers" of MADDEN football on Xbox360. I watched it for a little bit but was fascinated by the amount emotional spiral they put themselves through. Over a football game. Then as I read Crawford's critique of modern gaming it began to make sense to me. It was more than just winning for these people. They wanted to know that there "skill and action' play amounted to something. I believe by letting the players interact in such a way as they do in Madden is an art. For the player and software designer alike. Just take a look at what I'm talking and decide for yourself. If Crawford describes art as "being able to invoke the emotion of communication then this has to be art. If it isn't I don't know what is.Madden Highlight Clip