This is modified from something I wrote to some good friends of mine. Thoughts on what I want out of the work that I do.
—
Museums are interesting things, though. There are good ones, and bad ones. The National Gallery in London? Excellent. Gives you a sense of history, and most importantly, context. Explanations describe this particularly work’s place in history, you get to appreciate its immediate aesthetic value, and the pieces it’s placed next to are often also works by the artist, or works that had some influence on that particular piece, or the movement it belonged to. The Louvre? Excellent. The Tate Modern? Not so much. Not because it was a “modern art” museum, but rather, because the way the exhibits were set up was extremely poor – each piece had no context, and in modern art, fundamentally, context is such a huge portion of *why* something works, or doesn’t work, that without the context, a Pollock is reduced simply to squiggles of paint on a canvas.
The interesting thing about being immersed in thousands of years of art, and finally *getting it* – seeing the progression over time, seeing the phases of certain styles, schools of thought, or even perceptions of what art *was* opened my eyes. I’ve been so concentrated on modern media, such as film and comics, that it’s like comparing the history of say, Boston, as a city, to Rome. Seeing the development of painting over six hundred years, or seeing how the Egyptians and Romans told stories through sculpture, or saw what’s lasted through the ages, and what still provokes an emotional or aesthetic response, even thousands of years later… it changed how I think about art – about expression, and what I *want* out of my career – hell, out of my *life*.
A friend of mine died last year – had an Esctasy-induced heart attack. Stupid waste of a life. But though Kevin (Frostybyte) had been a “hacker” when I knew him, in the years after college, he’d grown into an artist. He created these astonishing LED sculptures that were just … amazing – an amazing combination of engineering and artistic expression. After he died, some of his more current friends had posted various video clips of him, or photos of the things he had made.
I don’t remember the exact phrase that he used in one of the interviews someone had recorded with him, but when asked why he did what he did, he said something to the effect that people don’t look around enough, and appreciate the world around him. The things he made were bright. Blindingly so. His goal was essentially to create things where the light was so bright as to be disorienting – to force the viewer to reassess where they were – to look around, and notice the world around them.
I thought to myself, “I knew Kevin – I knew he was smart. When did he get wise?”
It’s that sort of wisdom – that sort of drive, or vision, or passion that changes the world. Changes how people perceive things, how they understand the world around them. Will Wright does that through games. Kevin did that through his art. Picasso, Matisse, Van Gogh, David, Da Vinci – they all did this in their time.
I work in games at a fortuitous time. The medium is in great flux, and fundamentally, there have been very few pieces of videogames as “art.” Rez qualifies, I would say. It’s an interactive experience that evokes such a sense of … immersive reaction. It’s not about a story, characters, or anything that one would associate with traditional narrative – instead, it creates a feeling, through the interactivity, that I find almost completely unique to games. Ico, though more character oriented, is like staring at an older painting, and seeing the interplay and symbolism in how the characters are portrayed – the interactivity in Ico is like learning to understand the characters in a great painting through observation.
So, there are a few examples where games manage to evoke something totally unique – but for the most part, people haven’t really figured out that games are really *art*. Like, ART. Not just that they are artistic, or contain artistic qualities. The medium is like a canvas – like a camera, or a paintbrush – the medium is a tool that can convey something to the viewer – but we have a tool that has more potential than any medium has come before, because the potential is there to engage the user in a way that no previous medium ever has.
Do I think I’m the person who’s going to upend the genre? Who will really be a Picasso of our time?
It would be extraordinarily arrogant of me to say so.
But at the same time, I’m not willing to close that door. I’m not willing to settle for less.