I've been reading a article from www.theguardian.com by Keith Stuart about types of art that wasn't socially recognised until later years. Impressionism seemed to have trouble being recognised as a form of art. This happened in 1874 when well known artists such as Monet and Degas showcased their work on the Boulevard des Capucines. They condemned them as unfinished pieces of work and even considered them to be an insult to the old masters level of skill.
The Editors response when they first encountered impressionism:"What new dogma is this," demanded one editorial, "that so long as colour is heaped on in a vigorous manner, a picture must be accepted as complete, however crude and raw it may seem, however absolute is the evidence that the artist stopped before he had done?"
Fast forward to now and Monet is recognised as one of the founders of a well recognised movement. The pattern that I see here is that games are sharing the same fate. We have critics such as Roger Ebert condemning them as pathetic and saying "they can not be art", just like the editors and critics back in 1874.
Impression Sunrise by Claude Oscar Monet, Private collectionhttp://www.claudemonetgallery.org |
Another case in our art history lies with photography. Alfred Stieglitz (1864-1946) was a photographer determined to prove that photography was medium capable of artistic expression. Before this, yet again they weren't considered as recognised art form.
Alfred Stieglitz |
I see this a perfect link to my project brief, computer games seem to be sharing the same fate and as much as I'd love prove that they are art, that's not going to happen, but what I can do is use this idea of a gaming package to express my opinion on the subject.
No comments:
Post a Comment