this shit is bananas
as i’m sitting here watching silent hill speed runs, i have to wonder what roger ebert could have possibly been thinking when he began his one man crusade against the notion of video games as art. the post was made almost 4 months ago and after 4000+ comments, who knows how many blog responses, and a concession, this is both late and redundant. but it’s an idea that popped in my head and this is a blog so you are powerless to stop me.
we are, as always, unable to agree on a consistent definition of art. it seems that art is some vague notion, and nobody really knows what it is, except that we know it when we see it. so i must fall back on the only definition of art that has ever made sense to me: art is the document of human experience. life interpreted and represented through our eyes. ebert argues that the nature of games (in the most general sense) precludes them from being art: you cannot “win” at the mona lisa. this is a distortion of the argument, and a misunderstanding of video games as a medium. video games are an interpretation and representation of games. a field or a dead shark aren’t art either, taken by themselves.
but back to silent hill. this is a game that i would never in my life try to play. i remember being too scared to enter the shadow temple in zelda when i was younger (who am i kidding i am still scared). but for some reason i’m drawn to silent hill. i have the soundtrack and i’ve read the plot summaries and i watch other people play it. yeah, i just got done arguing how video games are art in the most fundamental way, and aren’t required to be measured in terms of emotional response, or social relevance, or anything. but there’s something about this game, even just watching it, you experience something. that should be worth something, right?
Cadence Weapon – Grim Fandango
Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.
Leave a Reply