Re: Gareth's competition comments


17 Oct 1995 02:31:06 GMT

In article <45u0gr$oqu@epervier.CC.UMontreal.CA>,
London David <london@ERE.UMontreal.CA> wrote:
>In article <45rouh$kq6@phakt.usc.edu> jweinste@phakt.usc.edu
>(Jacob Solomon Weinstein) writes:
>>london@ERE.UMontreal.CA (London David) writes:
>>
>>>What IF is *not* is highbrow art. I do not expect to gain any insights
>>>into the human condition through IF. It is therefore inappropriate to
>>>analyse IF in the same terms that one would use to analyse serious
>>>fiction, films, etc. This is what annoyed me about Gareth's comments.
>>>I felt that he was criticizing the games (Zebulon in particular) using
>>>criteria (i.e. the quality of the prose) which is of minor importance
>>>to IF.
>>
>>It seems to me that this is like a movie-goer of the late 19th century
>>walking out of one of the first films and deciding, on the basis of what
>>he's seen, that movies aren't higbrow art. He'd probably be right about
>>the movie he actually saw--early motion pictures were often about such
>>exciting things as waves lapping against the shore--but he'd have
>>absolutely no basis on which to draw conclusions about what movies could be.
>>
>>Somebody (Neil Gaiman? Alan Moore?) responded to the claim that comic
>>books can't be art by saying, "Comic books are just combinations of words
>>and pictures. There's no limit to how good those words can be, and no
>>limit to how good the pictures can be. If words and pictures can be art
>>separately, why can't they be art together?" (I'm paraphrasing rather
>>poorly, by the way.) IF is either just words or a combination of words
>>and pictures. Is there any particular reason that you feel IF can't be
>>"highbrow art," or is it just that you've never seen IF that is?
>
>As I said in another post, if the writer has a point he/she wants to make
>(a la "art"), it seems to me that the fact that there is interaction between
>writer and reader inevitably gets in the way of what the writer wants to say.
>It interrupts the flow of thoughts and the development of ideas. It turns it
>into a game. IF is *not* "either just words or a combination of words and
>pictures" -- that's what 'F' is. You've overlooked the 'I'. As to your
>question, I certainly have never seen IF that I would consider "art"
Have you played _Trinity_? Or _Shades of Gray_? Or hell, I'll even go so far
as to say my game, _Lethe Flow Phoenix_ was "art". Not great art, perhaps.
But it's certainly a step in the right direction. IMO, either your definition
of art is too narrow, or you aren't playing the right games.

>(although I now regret having introduced this term). But I simply don't see
>how it could work. So I'll just repeat a question I asked elsewhere - what can
>you do with IF that you can't do with 'F'?
I've talked about this a little elsewhere. The difference between IF and F is
the I, of course. Interactivity. The difference between passively reading a
book and actively exploring a world. The difference between watching Brutus
decide to betray Caesar and you deciding to betray Caesar. IF is a wonderful
thing. It gives us the chance to immerse ourselves in fiction in a way that
isn't possible with books. It lends three-dimensionality and centers the world
around us. It's a new medium, sure. There are bound to be errors, sure. The
technology is being formed as we speak, and there are going to be many missteps
along the way to something brilliant. But we are going in the right direction,
I think.

>BTW, I agree with your comic book analogy. Comic books will probably never
>be considered art. But that's more a function of the "art establishment"
>than of the medium itself. To be honest, there are some comic books that
>are held in high regard - "Maus", "Mafalda", for example. (These are more
>political comic books.) But that gets us way off topic...
I think it's right on topic, isn't it? Just like comic books span the spectrum
from trash to art (how could you not consider Maus art?), IF should be able
to eventually do the same. The medium doesn't matter unless you put your
blinders on.

[..]
>>-Jacob
>David London

--

-------------------------------------------------+ Dan Shiovitz /**/ scythe@u.washington.edu | "Thys ys a happi snakc. The Grim Reaper /**/ shiov@cs.washington.edu | Happi snakc ys fun to eat. -------------------------------------------------+ Uh-oh, yt's a ceiboard!" http://weber.u.washington.edu/~scythe/ | -------------------------------------------------+