Last Thursday, I sent in the link to the Dogma 2001 manifesto, along with the quoted statement I made on the GIA's message board:

"This is actually three months old, but it's something I'd been looking at for a while, and I thought maybe I could post it for discussion. A lot of you have probably already seen it, but I thought it was a worthwhile subject;

Dogma review here.

What especially struck me upon observing the Dogma 2001 manifesto was the dichotomy of its influence and its purpose - Lars von Trier and his cronies first devised the Dogme '95 manifesto in more of an effort to call attention to themselves as filmmakers, much like the directors of the French new wave, who produced CAHIERS DU CINEMA to change the direction of French cinema into one where, among other things, people like themselves could start directing. They recognized that the only way to create that space for themselves was by changing the culture through their journalism. The "auteur" theory was the most blatant example of this. No coincidence that the first wave of "auteurs" the French produced were the CDC crowd, and von Trier successfully used the same idea to make himself not only a filmmaker of note, but a public figure unto himself. However, the idea of the Dogma manifesto has increasingly been adapted by amateur filmmakers in conjunction with the advent of digital filmmaking to help galvanize a more open atmosphere for a wider range of people to work in the medium. The Dogma 2001 manifesto, on the other hand, is more obviously concerned with the state of the industry, and probably most urgently, the state of the medium. And while it may be that it seems to mostly address computer gaming, and while it can be said that only TETRIS and its ilk can completely fit the parameters of the manifesto, I still think it's an important idea to note. Because in what is easily the least respected media of artistic expression in the world, he's talking about innovation; radical innovation in an industry where, at best, it is usually defined in terms of a new battle or graphics engine.

Of course, it also helps that I think he makes a lot of pretty good points. Thoughts?"

My point being - all the excessive snarkiness and (perhaps deserved) venom aside, it's the point that the man's making that we should pay attention to; I held up the Dogma 2001 manifesto as admirable not so much for the literal ideas he presented, a lot of which were pretty wank, but because if this is a medium of artistic expression (and that's really a stretch for me to type considering all the shining examples of the "medium" there are), then wouldn't it be beneficial for the growth of the art form if there were constant experimenting? The very PURPOSE of the manifesto is to confront us with almost all of the common trappings and cliches of the medium - to dare people to use said medium to make a decent game, WITHOUT falling back onto those old cliches. This sort of thing is done in every other media, to some extent. That was half the message of the Dogme 95 manifesto, if not entirely the point.

And while I can understand the impulse to print only letters that corroborate your own theories, it's not a very good way to get all the sides of a story.

Also - "Okay, here's an interesting little subject for tomorrow: how come things that are highly artistic are so rarely entertaining? Are we just a bunch of Phillistines? Or is it artsy-fartsy crap that only appeals to crowny fags?" I'm supposing you meant that in the post-modern, ironic sense? It's still pretty offensive. Kindly get over yourself.

--Adrian Langston

I dunno. As stiff and formal as it seems today, I bet it was a hell of a lot of fun to be there when a famous artist unveiled his latest masterpeice and it turned out to be a freaking urinal.

Things that are "highly artistic" are entertaining just as often as the other end of the spectrum, things that are "crud made to appeal to the lowest common denominator." It's all about finding the "art," the "crap," and the "whatever comes between" that happens to appeal to you. I like Shakespeare, I don't like Jazz. That's my taste. I like consider Vagrant Story both art and highly entertaining. Some RPG fans would even consider it neither. Or just one or the other. Or whatever.

In short, your taste must suck, since it's blatently out of line with mine. Phillistine.

-Davon

Ugh, "artistic". I generally hate deliberately "artistic" stuff. I don't mean something that tries to capture a moment of beauty or something; I mean when people deliberately create something for the express purpose of it being "artistic."

I don't like it in furniture, I don't like it in movies, and I sure as hell don't want it in my video games.

Here's a real life experience. I like drawing stuff, always have. Did drawings of Nintendo characters in elementary school, moved on to comic books in high school, but kinda gave up after my freshman year in college. I had an experience that just totally ruined drawing for me.

I took a college art class.

I like art that looks like what it's supposed to represent. I can enjoy both realistic-type art (renaissance-period paintings for example) and cartoony, comicy art. As long as I can tell what it was supposed to be, I'm happy. As a result, I approach my drawings the same way. My art professor had other ideas. I was "limiting my creativity by constraining myself to reality." Didn't have the foggiest idea what she meant, so I asked her to show me how that should reflect in the pencil drawing I was working on in class. She promptly whipped out her own drawing pencil, and I swear she just scribbled nonsensically across my drawing.

So, I tested the theory. I drew some nice, clean, pencil drawings the way I like them, then scribbled randomly across them. She praised my work and gave me an A, saying she was glad that I was "freeing my artistic spirit" or some crap like that.

Scribbling. Random scribbling, and somehow it was "artistic". What a load of crap.

So basically, "highly artistic" stuff is pretty much always a bunch of pretentious crap. That's why it's not entertaining. The goal of "artistic" stuff isn't to have fun, it's to achieve some existential vision or something.

If you ask me, I find Miyamoto's video game creations to be highly artistic, because they are creative for a reason: providing unique entertainment, not an attempt at being in the Louvre come 2125 or something.

Anyway, enough rambling. Sorry.

-Chris

Drew,

Seriously, and thanks for the appreciation of my additions to Dogme 2001, I gotta say this. A game should be fun. I mean, seriously. Screw artsy. Whatever makes a game fun, well, more the power to it. Final Fantasy's often fun because of the stories and cutscenes. Metal Gear Solid is fun because you play a "super-secret-agent" sneaking past guards. Dance Dance Revolution is fun because you have to jump around a pad to catchy music.

Each game has a reason it is fun. Or not fun. Dogme 2001 didn't add to the ability creators had in making games, it limited it. I don't want to hear what I can't do in a game, damnit. I want to hear what I can do.

I can play a music game with Maraccas? Cool.
I can play a cartoony looking game and spray-paint walls? Cool.
I can fit together blocks and make lines disappear? Cool.
I can make a 2D dog in a 3D world rap? Cool.
I can look for my daughter and get the crapped scared out of me? Cool.

What I'm trying to say is, putting limits on how games are made puts limits on how games can be fun.

-Mike Drucker

Drew,

I think the reason highly artistic things (I assume you meant traditional art by this) often fails to be entertaining is because entertainment isn't necessarily part of the goal. The paintings of da Vinci, Michaelangelo, etc., are very aesthetically pleasing to me, but not "entertaining." There are some who say that video game players simply have too short of an attention span to enjoy art; I think this is a case of confusing cause and effect. There are people who, by their very nature, want to have their mind engaged intensely all of the time. Video games are a natural entertainment for such people, as one must constantly be thinking, in one form or another. Most paintings however, evoke a "feel", but do not provide more than a minute's worth of contemplation material. (M.C. Escher being one notable exception, in my opinion.)

I do think that there are some forms of art that can be entertaining however. Music is a good example; Bach can be just as entertaining as Jimi Hendrix if you're in the right mood. (And Hendrix is just as valid as art as Bach, though few critics seem willing to admit that.) But the reason is that music is dynamic; it changes as it goes, and thus the mind can be continually occupied with it. A painting, while it may be pretty, is a static thing and the mind can only devote a certain amount of time before exhausting all reasonable inquiries.

We're not Philistines, we're just after a different goal.

--Chaomancer Omega

Why isn't art entertaining? That's like asking, "Why isn't Newton's Principia Matematica a fun read?" You stupid tool. Most art is trying to accomplish a similar goal, and whether or not it succeeds (probably not, given that of late it's only experienced by 5% of the population at best) is TOTALLY irrelevant. And what the hell kind of topic is that for the video games column? You are crap - don't think everybody's forgotten that you already brought this up over at RPGamer. It was more entertaining, though, because you weren't such a pompous fuck. Hey, maybe that's the key! dumbshit.

Well, maybe I misstated the subject, but I couldn't come up with anything better quickly.

The reason that "highly artistic" and "generally entertaining" aren't often found in the same product is that the former is made for a limited audience, often limited to one person (that is, the artist themself.) The latter is made with some accommodations for different tastes, and thus will likely appeal to a wider range of people.

An "artistic" work is created with the philosophy of "what do _I_ like". An "entertaining" work is created with the philosophy of "what do _people_ like".

The issue most 'artistic' people have with 'entertainment' is that they feel that accommodating the wishes of others will weaken the impact of the work; after all, it's not entirely the _artist's_ vision, it was modified based on the desires of people not involved in the creation (and, as many see it, it was modified for an expressly commercial purpose.)

-Mike Powers

With the advent of a Final Fantasy movie coming out, an idea struck my imaginative head: why is it that we never see game designers on talk television? We always watch as celebrities and directors (not to mention producers) of all sorts come and plug thier latest crap? So why not game designers?

Granted, gaming in America has not caught on nearly as much as it has in Japan (I've been there; it's crazy. Plus, you can watch your local news and watch Japanese people awaiting the arrival of new System (X-1)+2; that is, the previous system advanced by one. Unless my math is wrong. I'm tired). Then why is it that Japanese talk shows don't interview game designers (unless they do; I didn't say I was there for long)? They would'nt need to bother with a translator like they might with here (unless, of course, they interview and American game designer, which, as most console gamers know, is an oxymoron [with all due respect to American game designers (if they exist)]).

I'm too damn idealisitc. But wouldn't it be nice to stay up late, hear some Bush jokes, then listen to a man talk about various problems he encountered while trying to make a game?

...Or maybe it's not the fact that I'm a gamer, but that I'm a nerd.

-Sabacc

P.S. RETSU GEKIGAN!