Here's another take on a topic I mentioned before, the role of interaction as it applies to art: all art is interactive. That's the perspective Ramin Ostad takes in this Gateway article:
Art, in almost all forms, is inherently interactive. Consider the supposed idea that in order for something to be art, it has to be non-interactive. What then would be the point? If no one was allowed to look upon the Mona Lisa—since viewing is how one would interact with a painting—would it still be considered a work of art? Could it be, if people could not gain any sort of insight or emotional significance from it? What if we were not allowed to listen to a fantastic opera? I think you get the idea. Such is trying to appreciate a game without actually playing it.
-- The museum of Q*bert will be built one game at a timeA decidedly opposite view from Hideo's "functionality isn't art" viewpoint from a few weeks ago, and an excellent read.
tagged: art, gaming
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment