Critical Response to Extra Lives
In Chapter 3 of Tom Bissell’s Extra Lives there is one argument Bissell made in particular that I find myself disagreeing pretty heavily. That argument comes on page 35 when Bissell writes that, “art is ‘obligated to address questions allergic to mere entertainment… In my humble estimation, no video game has yet crossed the Rubicon from entertainment to true art.’” I find this particular passage pretty troubling as I have played several games in my life that I would with 100 percent certainty regard as works of art.
Even the most commercial of video games generally embody most, if not all, of the different types of intelligence he suggests must be portrayed by a masterpiece. These characteristics are form, style, emotion, theme, morals, and so on. The thing is though that Bissell is claiming that no video game has crossed the line over into art, not that every video game isn’t a masterpiece. Thus, a video game must only embody a few of these characteristics to be considered art, and must answer all to be considered masterpieces. So from that I state my claim: Every single video game is a work of art, and there are a select few that are masterpieces.
In my honest opinion, one cannot consider movies or television types of art but then discount video games because the audience is more specific. What all three of these types of art do is the exact same with the primary focus being to entertain, but with significant messages that can truly impact the audience coming from the works that should be considered masterpieces.
There are two video games that stuck out to me as I read this section of Bissell’s argument: Journey and Limbo. These two video games are no doubt in my mind not only works of art but absolute masterpieces.
The reason they stuck out to me is that they are more abstract video games, which is what Bissell seems to be dancing around in this section. He seems to think that video games just aren’t abstract enough to be considered works of art. Well, these are. Both games go about storytelling differently than books, movies, TV shows, and so on. They are more like paintings in that they convey their messages to the reader without the use of dialogue yet have significant impact through the players own interpretation.
In Limbo specifically a story is told that is really up for interpretation. What the player knows for sure is that they are playing as a character who is in limbo or purgatory. It’s not until the end that the player realizes that the boy they play as has a sister who was a significant part in his life. What happens in between the beginning and this discovery can be different in the player’s mind in so many ways. Did the boy kill his sister? Were they killed by the enemies in the game, essentially just other kids of the same age? There are so many different interpretations that can be made, and there are probably hundreds one can find on the Internet.
How is this any different than the masterpiece, Starry Night, or any other painting considered a masterpiece? They both make impacts on the audience. They both have unique forms. They both invoke emotion. So on and so forth. The only difference is that one has been around longer than the other, thus people are resistant to the idea that the newest form of art is indeed art.
So, these characteristics that Bissell listed as traits of masterpieces are not met by every video game. But, not every work of art meets these criterions either. So, was Bissell really trying to say that video games are not art, or that no video game has achieved a level of masterpiece? Either way I find myself disagreeing; but find the first argument slightly preposterous.
