Every week I listen to the Drunk Tank podcast out of Austin Texas. Sometimes I go back and listen to early shows over again. These are the machinima guys (and one gal, Griffin) who make Red Vs. Blue, Achievement Hunter and a bunch of other online content under the company name of Rooster Teeth. On the podcast they talk about video games, gadgets, movie, current events, their personal lives and basically just sit around and shoot the shit. They're smart, witty people and the shows are insightful. In the latest episode (Drunk Tank #88) they take on the massive scandal that erupted online when Roger Ebert said that video games aren't art. In case you missed all the fuss, one of Ebert's lengthy blog posts on the topic is here (with 4,774 comments), and there's a big long thread on metafilter here. I like the drunk tank conversation because it's thoughtful, concise, funny and sums up the whole thing very nicely.
Monty: Geoff, I have a metaphor for you.
Geoff: A metaphor for me. Okay, what is it?
Monty: Do you remember when we were first playing Halo Reach and you were, like, "how can games not be art?" Right? Cause they had like those cool sculptures and stuff?
Geoff: I do remember that.
Monty: Right, and I remember that you guys were really surprised when you heard that, what's his name, Roger Ebert, would say games are not art. Cause he's a smart guy, right?
Geoff: Sure. I wouldn't say surprised, just disappointed.
Monty: Right, right. I'd say the metaphor for that would be: you can hang the Mona Lisa in a strip club, but that doesn't change the fact that you're standing in a strip club.
Geoff: It doesn't change the fact that it's still the Mona Lisa though.
Monty: Right, but the Mona Lisa is art, but what you do in a strip club isn't art.
Geoff: Uh, maybe not to you, but to some of us it is absolutely art.
Gus: Yeah, that's questionable at best.
Griffin: But I think that you have something there. I think that what you're saying is that context is how we interpret things. And its true. Like, there's a lot of art, like, in that place...Geoff, where did we go?
Geoff: Strip club.
Griffin: No in London.
Monty: I heard in Texas there's a lot of good strip clubs.
Geoff: British strip club, yeah.
Griffin: Okay, no, no, no. Please just answer my question. The museum we went to.
Geoff: Oh. The Tate Modern.
Griffin: Tate Modern. There was a lot of stuff in there that really does not seem that great, or that took a lot of skill to do, or I dunno, just isn't that awesome. But you put it in a giant awesome museum, and you frame it right, and it's great. And it's art and it's considered art because you're there, looking at art.
Geoff: Well art doesn't have to be difficult, right? There's beauty and simplicity and it's all about the expression and the statement.
Griffin: But also presentation.
Geoff: Presentation plays a lot into it.
Monty: Back to gaming, right, a game isn't defined by what's contained, its defined by what you do with it. So I think maybe the argument against gaming and art is that you could put as much art as you want into it but that doesn't make the game itself art.
Geoff: You could make the exact same argument about strippers, it's what you do with them.
(all laugh)
Gus: It's how you work what you got, is how we're getting down.
Monty: All right, that's enough from me.
Gus: I've never understood why people get so impassioned about what Roger Ebert said about gaming not being art. You know, what does it matter? It's not his medium.
Geoff: I think the problem is that he's such a liked and respected and insightful and smart dude that pretty much everybody, if you know who Roger Ebert is, you like him. And not just in the realm of movies, but he's poltically smart, and socially smart and if you follow him on Twitter and read his blogs the guy's a really interesting dude. So it's just disappointing to see somebody who you respect on that level be so dismissive of something that's so important to so many people. But you know, fuck it. Who cares?
Gus: Yeah people get so impassioned about it and always want to talk about it, and it's like yeah, we talked about it...I mean how long ago did he say that, four or five years ago?
Geoff: Uh, it's been awhile. And then he reiterated it...but yeah, who cares. Just play your fucking video games and have fun.
Gus: Play games...if you know it's art, it's art. It's all about what it is to you. That's what art is, right? It's all about how you interpret it. So...not a big deal....If you think it's art you can make it art! You have the magic in your hands...in your eyes!
For everyone who's ever thought of turning their blog into a book, Jennifer McMackon of Simpleposie sets the bar pretty high. Simpleposie: essays and pictures is a well-structured, well-edited little pocket tome, with a mixture of selections from the blog, newly commissioned essays by some of her regular contributors and lots of art images. The contributors are Cedric Caspesyan, Megan Morgan, Jamie Tolagson, Lisa Neighbour, Will Murray, Gabrielle Moser, Carlo Cesta, David Kramer, Lee Goreas, Andrew James Paterson, Christoper Brayshaw, and Jennifer. There is also a recalcitrant, cranky interview with me and Lorna in which we do our utmost not to talk about a crisis in art criticism (and fail, thank's to J.'s characteristic persistence).
Usually when people talk to me about the tactility of print I get a bit eye-rolly. But this book transcends the blog/print dichotomy. Rather than trying to archive or fix the blog activity to the page, Jennifer's book functions like a humble souvenir, an oblique reminder of years worth of fleeting dialogue that has passed by in online-time. But it is also a solid publication, and (me and Lorna's interview notwithstanding) has some very relevant, well researched, well thought-out and well-edited writing that compliments rather than replaces the more slap-dash kind of communication that happens online. Of course, the discourse over at Simpleposie is always pretty top-notch, thanks to Jennifer's rigorous moderation, but this book is evidence that her blog skills are commensurate with her skills as an editor/publisher.
"The name has been said to be Latin for "beyond these things", but the correct Latin translation of "beyond these things" is Procul His. Alternatively, the name has been translated as "of these far off things" (harum is in the feminine, genitive, plural). However, procul would not be followed by a genitive in Latin. The name of the band is frequently misspelt; often with Procul, Harem, both, or other variations."
Shine on Brightly
TV Caesar: "this is bogus...not a real procol 73 video...just someones shitty random vid footage on super8 film..."
