Post-reflections Module 2

At the end of module 2 I would like to return to the beginning on Module 1 and think more about art. I started my introduction with the statement that art does not make a difference and at the end of Module 2 I feel that a correction is needed, the realization of my own generalization and lack of precision being a testimony to the value of the material. It made me re-consider my stances. I am still ready to argue that much of the art produced in the 20^th century, while predominantly critical and oppositionist in its nature, was lacking in capacity to bring about change. I am equally inclined to think that it is precisely its oppositionist character that made it unable to produce a real effect. Much of the avant-garde art which I referenced in the introduction modeled its character upon the character of something/something else, employing the ancient Greek mode of self-definition "We are what we are not". Yet among the numerous works commenting on previous artistic traditions a new type of performance emerged whose aim was to explore and challenge perceptions, to reveal relationships, to rouse the senses, to produce awareness- the performance pieces of Gina Pane, Yoko Ono, Chris Burden. The digital art works that we examined in this module appear to provide the continuation of the same project- they do change something in the way we perceive the world. They make us re-consider the fixed notions we handle in thinking about it; they have a strong revelatory power. More about digital art and interactive installations you can find in my essay on Bubbles (Bubbles.doc). My personal position, however, is that by adopting the mode of interaction they significantly diverge in purpose and effect from much of the art of the 20^th century.

-So far I have been engaged in the examination of video as a time-based media. I have examined its capacity to produce meaning by handling time as an artistic material. Now I would be interested to focus on the various means it employes in commenting on the notion of space (the way the interactive installation "Bubbles" comment on real and virtual spaces).

Some of the things that I would like to go back in future are:

1. A contradiction that I found in the text "Online Games Grab Grim Reality" by Matthew Mirapaul. The 3 co-authors of the "9-11 Survivor" game stated that their goal in creating the game was to "re-interpret a historical moment". They "hoped an immersive, interactive version would restore an immediacy to the day's horrors". Yet, despite the serious intentions of the work ,the tremendous outcry with which it was greeted indicated that the audience could not disregard the very format in which the authors chose to realize their task. One can easily see how the very play element in itself could be considered disturbing. As comments indicate, for the majority of people it is clearly unthinkable to associate tragedy with play. What particularly interested me, however, is the juxtaposition provided in Mirapaul's text of this with another stance. Scott Leonard, the founder of the Dteam 3D Design Team comments on the game "Doom for Columbine": "we`re just trying to make a statement. We're trying to say, it's just a game." A question I would like to consider is "What counts as a pure game and what counts as an art project?" and "How do we distinguish between them?'. Does it matter if we are aware or not of the purposes of the author? The medium of game appears to reach a stage in which it parallels a tendency in conceptual art which invites us to read the label first in order to be instructed on how to approach the artwork. What are the consequences of this?The three students hoped to restore the "immediacy to the day's horrors": Why want to restore immediacy to this tragedy and how does one benefit from this? In what ways does putting ourselves in the shoes of the 9/11 victims run contra to sympathy?

2. I would also be interested to examine the impact of violence in games on users and would like to consider whether the ubiquitous representations of violence in various media do have their reflection on society as it has often been stated. 

3. I would like to examine in more detail Huizinga's theory on play. I have partly commented on it in my art review on "Bubbles".

4. I would like to consider the question: "To what extent can we approach games as an art form?"

MATERIALS: