Yesterday, I wrote about Vox Day’s extravagantly evasive — yet highly revealing — interview with David Pakman. But the interview also featured a few striking moments of candor. One of these came when Day — a sometime gave developer as well as the biggest asshole in Sci Fi — offered his answer to the question: “What is Gamergate really about?”
Suggesting that the issue of “corruption in game journalism” was little more than “the spark that set the whole thing off,” Day declared that
what Gamergate is fundamentally about is the right of people to design, develop and play games that they want to design, develop and play without being criticized for it.
Which is an. er, interesting perspective, as there is in fact no “right” to be immune from criticism.
If you write a book, if you make a movie, if you post a comment on the internet — you should be ready for it to be criticized. Because that’s how free speech works. That’s how art works. And that’s how ideas work.
Criticism — whether it is positive or negative — helps to sharpen ideas and make art less self-indulgent; it pushes creators to hone their craft and expand their vision of the world. And it helps the consumers of art not only to look at art with a more critical eye but also to appreciate it more fully, by helping to draw out the more subtle meanings of this art and to put it in a broader cultural (social, political) perspective.
Of course, neither the artists nor the consumers of art are required to listen to this criticism, but they have no right to demand that such criticism be eliminated.
But Vox is right in one sense: the elimination of criticism is in fact is what #Gamergate has been about all along — or at least the elimination of criticism aimed in their direction. Indeed, that’s what most #Gamergaters mean when they talk about fighting “corruption in game journalism” — shutting down those writers and publications that have dared to critique the prejudices of a backward portion of the gaming universe that is hostile to any challenges to the status quo ante — particularly from women with opinions different from theirs. That’s what drove the outrage over the “death of gamer” articles last Fall. And that’s what has driven “critics” of Anita Sarkeesian from the start.
Speaking of which: If you want to see how testy Gamergate types get when the criticism they lob at others gets turned back in their direction, even in jest, take a look at Jordan Owen’s new video responding to a post I wrote a few days ago gently mocking Owen’s recent plea for more money to fund The Sarkeesian Effect, the alleged “film” he and far-right Anton LaVey impersonator Davis Aurini are allegedly putting together.
Owen has devoted much of his life over the past several years to attacking Sarkeesian, a woman whose main “crimes” in the eyes of her detractors have been that 1) she raised more money than she asked for to produce a series of videos looking at sexist tropes in video games, and 2) that she’s taken longer than originally planned to put out these videos (which is largely because the extra money she raised has allowed her to research these videos more thoroughly and increase her production values, but never mind).
Yet Owen is outraged that anyone would even gently tweak him and his partner Aurini for going over budget and missing deadlines on their own film. Of course, Owen and Aurini are planning on charging their Patreon supporters more money at the end of the month unless these supporters specifically opt out; Sarkeesian herself never even requested any of the additional money she received.
In his video, Owen also compared me with Bill Donohue of the Catholic League which is, er, weird. But hey, it’s his right to criticize me, no matter how ineptly.
Here’s the video, if you’re interested. Alas, he did not film it in his famous bathtub.
So, is Billy Bragg an artist because he puts out solo albums? Or not an artist because he got together with Wilco to cover Woody Guthrie songs? I’m confused about the idea that if something is created by a team it isn’t art.
Some games are designed by committee, intending to have mass appeal with as little actual substance as possible. Some games throw in random assortments of gadgets and features with no purpose or style beyond being able to claim another line item. Some games are put out for the sole purpose of profit, and are heavily marketed and tightly restricted before the release so that enough people are duped into paying that bizarrely mandatory $60 price tag.
Some games are shit.
To say all games follow this model is ridiculous. There are games that are nothing but story, like Gone Home or the various Heavy Rain types. There are games that have no story at all, like Minecraft, or a placeholder story like many Roguelikes, or incredible world-building without a particular story like the Souls games. There are games designed to convey a message, like Spec Ops: The Line, and games that are designed to be cathartic fun, like Smash Brothers. Some games are so deep in symbolism that they might as well be novels, like Bioshock Infinite.
Of course games are art, simply as a medium of expression. What possible metrics for being “art” do video games fail that other recognized media like paintings or sculpture or literature succeed?
Divorcing one’s work from any creative intent was a central principle of both dada and surrealism.
I’d be pretty impressed with a piece of work that literally had zero authorial intent. Like… how did it even get made? How is it coherent? It’d be even more impressive than those works that have author intent, but gain a completely different meaning to the audience.
One thing I really get out of Silent Hill 2 in particular is my personal attachment to Angela Orosco. You’re not supposed to like her as a character, or supposed to want to save her. She’s just another victim of Silent Hill.
But after I learned her story, and how close it was to my own…she’s very precious to me.
Pelagic, the thing is, you’ve made a big, sweeping assertion here, but it’s meaningless until you define what “art” is. You’ve suggested a few criteria (art is created by only one person; art has authorial intent), but none of them stand up to even light scrutiny so far.
So tell us: What is art?
Kestral, you will have your chance to live without -isms because it is people like you who are effeminizing the Western Male, cutting him down and emasculating him. Emasculating males is what Anita Sarkeesian is all about; emasculating with Feminist critique. Europe is now Eurabia and Amerika will soon follow. You liberals can’t stand up to the advance of Islam. Islam has one goal–conquer the world for Allah. I can’t wait to see the look on your face when Sharia Law comes to Amerika. All your fancy words will be nothing. That is what the future holds for you and all the gamma guys at this site. Islam is on the march, and it will “walk all over you” and where will the emasculated european boy be? sniveling on the couch where the SJWs put him. I can’t wait for the Islamic takeover of Europe and Amerika. That is the end game for the SJWs and they don’t even know it. Whose going to stop Islam? Some effeminate quivering scared emasculated wee boys? Metrosexuals are going to stop Islam? Because that is what David Futrelle is working hard to create!
God, fuck, David, IP ban. This guy won’t shut up about his sexual fantasy of Anita cutting his balls off.
I haven’t caught up with this thread yet but wlindsaywheeler is getting a nice little forever ban.
Metrosexual? Is it 1999 again?
At this point it’s clear the troll is too ridiculous to argue with. Especially since he’s not actually responding to anyone’s points. I’m just going to make fun of his dumb ass.
And he’s banned anyway. Good!
I can give you a recipe.
-Tristan Tzara (1920)
The surrealists had all kinds of methods for creating, or attempting to create, art without authorial intent. It’s all very fascinating. They did it by letting their hands move randomly to create chance images or words (automatism). They did it by working together without seeing the other artists’ contribution, making exquisite corpses. They did it by looking for images in water stains and making rubbings of textured surfaces. They did it by exploring dreams. They did it by holding seances. Wolfgang Paalen did it by holding a piece of paper over a candle. Max Erst did it by slathering a canvas with paint, sticking a board on top of it, and then pulling it off.
http://www.spamula.net/blog/i15/ernst6a.jpg
@katz:
Sure, but there’s still the original intent of making some form of art, even if you didn’t control the results. 😛
Thank you David.
I’ve seen pixel-art projects where everyone claims a tile, and then you get to see about 5 pixels of the border of tiles surrounding your tile, and you have to make a cohesive picture, sometimes around a theme. I love that kind of stuff, and wish I had the chops to contribute.
Wow. I just literally saw this guy I know on FB (who occasionally posts MRA stuff/complain about why he can’t get laid) say that “I wonder if I can use Stockholm Syndrome as a dating mechanism.”
The only reason I haven’t defriended him is because his dating fails are so funny in their awfulness, I mean, he does things like complain why chick’s don’t dig quoting Ayn Rand quotes to them on tinder. I kid you not. It’s ever bad stereotype.
Precisely so. Here’s one by Man Ray, Yves Tanguy, Joan Miro, and Max Morise.
http://www.artic.edu/aic/collections/citi/images/standard/WebLarge/WebImg_000274/120015_3266180.jpg
BrB, gone to write a Dada style game.
Though I did come back in time to see the ISLAM!!! rant.
Mreh mreh. Fundamentalists of all stripes have the biggest investment in anti-feminism there is around.
I think that rant was rather telling. Not only does our troll believe that “If not male, then female”, but he’s banging on about the traditional gender role of men having to protect everyone, and if we tell men it’s okay to cry and they can be raped, then they’ll somehow magically turn into women, and no one will protect us from the scary other cultures!
Y’know, ignoring the fact that sexuality is fluid, emotional intelligence is a thing and a very important thing, and there are women in the armed forces “protecting” us. : /
I’m very pro-soldier, but very anti-military. At least where the US is concerned. We treat our soldiers like garbage, and then we hoist them up when we want some propaganda.
Trolly McBannedalot:
Whoo! I’m Canadian so I am exempt from the Islamic takeover! o/
Paradoxical, I am also pro-soldier. I know several and they’re very lovely people for the most part. I do not at all agree with how the military treats the soldiers. For all their lip service, you do not seek mental health treatment if you want to advance in your career.
I love how the right is terrified of Sharia law, yet they want a conservative Christian theocracy. They really lack self awareness.
Awwwww man, I missed the Troll Pinata Party! Gators are always so easy to thwack outside of their native habitats.
@kirbywarp “I’d be pretty impressed with a piece of work that literally had zero authorial intent. Like… how did it even get made? How is it coherent? It’d be even more impressive than those works that have author intent, but gain a completely different meaning to the audience.”
I could see someone doing something by accident and trying to pass it off as modern art.
Maybe the artist sat in some wet paint unintentionally, and then decided his paint covered pants are a work of art. It might not have an intentional or coherent message, but I guess that just means the observer makes up their own mind about what it means to them.
@ Pelagic
Ehhhh… I don’t know about that. I suppose it depends how you define racism. I certainly won’t argue with you that racism was/is used for justifying colonialism and slavery. But I’m reasonably sure that most conquered nations throughout history were exposed to discrimination by the conquering nation, because of their heritage. Jewish people have been dealing with discrimination for centuries or even millenia. Most minority groups deal with some kind of ostracization from the majority culture/ethnicity/race in whatever area they are in.
Humanity does seem to have a nasty tendency to be willing to mistreat people classified as ‘other’ unless/until they learn better. Maybe it’s not always manifested itself as racism as it takes form in modern day, but it’s been around for a while, at least in my opinion.
But regardless of its history or the naturalness of the trait, it is still wrong and we still need to combat it, so I suppose this is really just arguing semantics with you right now.