No Bangs for Video Games

No, not the hairstyle accoutrement that was meant to have died in the 80's; Lester Bangs, the influential American musical journalist. And as Chuck Klosterman points out in his ESQUIRE article, there isn't one for video games. He and at least one other person, blogger and Hugo-award nominated sci-fi novelist John Scalzi, have made impressive attempts at explaining why. They both make excellent progress at chipping away the marble to reveal the statue of why no great video game critics exist, but I think there is still more to it, and I'll take a few swings at it with my duller and less experienced chisel.

In a nutshell, what I think Klosterman and Scalzi are saying is that video games aren't yet, in a word, ripe for this level of commentary. (I'm not yet convinced they ever will be, but we can address that later.)

Being a huge video game addict and someone who also has more than an average philosophical bent, this issue interests me and I've pondered it and tried to arrive at its crux. This is how the situation presents itself to me:

There are two basic factors: art and the barrier to participation. The first I'll address in this post, the second in another.

Video Games need to be art
Very simply, movies, music, painting, sculpture -- these things are art: video games are not. Video games certainly incorporate artistic exercise and talent in their making and execution, but as the final product, they are not art any more than a NASCAR race is art. There may be an art to the way a driver handles the vehicle. It's difficult to deny there is an art to the way Tiger Woods carves up a golf course, but the final product is not art. That is not a complaint or denigration, it's a distinction. Life is full of necessary distinctions. I think it's necessary, particularly in this context, to recognize that video games are not art. Again, not a slight, a definition.

This is decisive, as to have the kind of criticism for which Bangs and renowned movie critic Pauline Kael became so famous, I think there needs to be art as its subject. Video games are not and may never be art any more than other games will ever be art. We wonder why there is no criticsm for video games, but we've never wondered such a thing when Monopoly or Clue or Chutes & Ladders failed to generate any profound literature on their significance.

The difference here, however, is also singular. Unlike board games or outdoor games like croquet or indoor games like Twister, video games have a unique ability to incorporate story into their activity. This is where the line between game and art starts looking blurry and smart people like Klosterman and Scalzi wonder, can and shouldn't someone be writing thoughtfully and critically about this medium?

There's little question that such writing can and should exist about the medium, the industry, the phenomenon, but I have serious doubts as to whether such writing will ever be warranted for individual games -- which is where the crucial difference lies between them and actual art.

I've played only a couple of games, like ICO, that make me agree with Klosterman and Scalzi, and think that the line between art and video games, someday, will get so blurred as to be effectively erased, and thoughtful game criticism will be commonplace.

Next post: the barrier to participation.