Art is a subjective thing: just ask the person who bought and consumed an art piece entitled “Comedian”, which is in fact, a banana duct taped to a wall that he purchased for several million dollars.


I mean, it’s one banana, Michael. What could it cost, 6.2 million dollars?

Which segways us wonderfully into my topic…quite a *rough* topic of discussion for today, in terms of structure at least, and one involving standards, consumer markets, perceptions, artistry, qualitative values and hot takes abound. Let us start from the beginning though, as I invoke an interview that’s been making the rounds in the past couple of days, and it’s a piece from publication SSENSE interviewing Hideo Kojima about his general body of work, though obviously, quite a lot of spotlight is put on his recently released project, Death Stranding 2.

Some key quotes in the article are worth repeating, but one notion that is certainly worth recanting, as it’s one I’ve had for a long time now, is that today’s video game indie scene is yesterday’s mainstream. Kojima doesn’t use this exact wording in the interview, mind you, but the notion is there:

Kojima sounds disappointed about the state of his industry. Studios are closing left and right producing blockbusters that are too bloated and too expensive. Watching Summer Games Fest, a popular trailer marathon for gamers, Kojima felt like everything previewed involved fighting an alien monster or a medieval monster. “Even the visuals and the systems are pretty much the same,” he laments, “and a lot of people enjoy this, I understand, but it is important to put something really new in there for the industry…..

Perhaps it’s why he plays so few games now. He believes that, like many creative fields, the most interesting work is happening among indies, while the big budget studios are churning out things that are safe and tremendously boring. “If there is no risk, there won’t be any good things that would be born,” he explains. He’s aware that the safest thing you can do as a videogame studio these days is to build a business on phone apps.


Cordially speaking, a surprisingly cogent moment from Kojima


Now I’m going to take this moment to say that I hope anyone reading this really, really, really pays attention to one simple notion, and that notion involves this incoming dissection is more of a germination of an idea, so everything being put forth in response to Kojima’s quote is currently a thought in process. I generally challenge myself to write something, anything in fact, about video games everyday. Thing is, I generally try to avoid just doing some straight up, dry, very basic informational news item, so that I’m actually putting forth something of note or an interesting idea imbued with some merit, with however shaky a premise into the mix, so that there is at least a sense that we, as an author and reader, can start something of a Socratic Dialogue of sorts. This all means the very foundational essence of my propositional framework is within the notion of a creative collaborative effort, thusly not putting forth a strict notion akin to anything that of immutable nature, nor one of a harsh objectivity, and totally forgoing the sense of a posit anchored in the restrictive context of rigid, definitional standard.

With all of that said, one of my ideas in reference to Kojima’s quote, in what might be the key difference to where the indie scene is today vs where the AAA scene was in say, the 90’s-2000’s range, is intentionality, or even possibly, the modality of design. Within this context, a team cut from an older cloth may have gone about trying to develop a “statement” as it were, a creative piece that is mostly concluded in it’s own creative idiom. Not to imply any game being developed within that time period was unequivocally put forth with the modus operandi as nothing but an example of high art, mind you, but within the notion of the premise, we may approach an example of a video game from this period through this lens.

I was going to go with a Kojima led project from the late 90’s or early aught’s to start for the sake of my analysis, but for some reason, Grand Theft Auto III was an example that just strongly sprung to my mind, so I’ll run with it. Using it as a starting point, and then comparing GTA III’s “artistic merits” let’s say, vs something more recent from the same series…GTA 5 for example, representing “today’s standards” (I know the game is more than a decade old, bear with me for the sake of argument). Taking these two games, we can see a difference in design philosophies inherent in each title, and the real distinctions between both experiences in questioning the approach in ideas delivered and intention behind said premises that mattered. Does the vehicle of finance help to dictate, disfigure, or outright negate the ability for a video game to be considered art in regards to delivery mechanism involving effectiveness of messaging? Does something like Card Sharks in GTA 5, which for those not in the know, essentially micro-transactions in the form of bundles of in game money, in exchange for real world currency, automatically prevent GTA 5 from being considered a piece of art and regulate it into a consumer product as a result of the focus on financial gain? Does something like Grand Theft Hamlet, a machinama recreation of the famous play that takes place in game led by real players, and representing performance art, in the multiplayer proponent of GTA 5, in real time mind you, have any grace in helping to reinforce the notion (performance) art is involved, in spite of the finance behind the platform in question?


Quick, point out in the timeline where the artistic endeavor fades from relevancy

As mentioned, when trying to parse through the semantics of possibly redundant or pedantic wordplay, where does preference end and realities coalesce into standard? What if we take something closer to home to Kojima, let’s say Metal Gear Solid 2, and compare it with Splinter Cell: Pandora tomorrow, an interesting comparison within the realm of methodology, as I think a lot of people would absolutely make the debate that due to messaging alone, MGS2 would be considered a piece of art, where as Pandora Tomorrow would be considered “just another stealth video game”, even though both share quite a lot in terms of mechanics, characterization, presentation etc. Is it also about theory vs execution that rears it’s ugly head? I suppose one has to divine whether or not and or how much money does come into the picture, and whether or not the sheer notion of the intentionality of a video game being a consumer product does regulate artistic endeavor. To take a completely out of left field example, the Rock Band series can play a ton of different songs that would be considered some form of art, but maybe not all the songs are considered themselves art, as just Rock Band itself would likely be considered just a video game by most, with few vying to defend it as itself, a form of artistic expression, though Rock Band does make one feel, which is what the definition of art is suppose to be.

Is there no truth in the quote “The purpose of art is washing the dust of daily life off our souls.” from Pablo Picasso not ring true of performing in the Rock Band series?

I’m also interested in the much spicier notion I’d like to put forth in that “Art doesn’t sell”, in all of it’s radical assertion. By looking at the logic of “art doesn’t sell,”, what’s strange is how we can discuss the idea of what constitutes “art”, what constitutes prospective buyer, the idea of art purely being something that can be a purchasable moment of “making one feel”, and then the diverging semantic involving the detailed examples of art selling, I.E. a 6.2 million dollar banana, a $60 video game, or a $200 commission piece of your favorite character through an online artist.

Buying the moment, as it were.

If I mentioned that gamers consider something Iike Shadow of the Colossus to be art, they could explain why, but if I put forth the same notion as to why they wouldn’t consider Darksiders art, they might explain the differences, even though the games share DNA, though maybe citing that a stronger argument could be made that one of the games attempted to be more of a statement, perhaps the fact that it is the sheer notion of shared sentiment of emotionality involved with Colossus, that strange metaphysical feeling noticed, hard to elaborate upon, yet agreed by many, that creates the difference between it and Darksiders, and why one is “art”, the other, a “video game”.


What’s the big deal about Shadow of the Colossus? Says the blind critic

Or maybe, going back to the notion of money, “buying the moment”, and the idea that “art doesn’t sell”, if you asked gamers if they would spend $60 on a game, many would probably ask, what game? but if you asked the same people if they would spend $60 on a piece of art, they probably wouldn’t care about which piece of art you were referring to.

So much left to ponder, and yet no time to do so, which means I’ll have to leave it there for the day.

This has been an extraordinarily rough spit balling of ideas, and a topic that unfortunately has prompted a lot of deconstructive thought within me. Thank you for the patience in parsing through the absolute hurricane of a thought process involved with the notion, as it will be one I continue to build off of for a long time.

~Pashford