It's all about semantics

I’m often told I’m too obsessed with semantics. “Don’t get lost in semantics,” people say. But that’s not the way I see it. In my book (or in this case, in my website) people would be more concerned with semantics. Why? Because when it comes to certain topics, people avoid the real issue, and quite often, the real issue is a question of semantics. What I’m really talking about is an issue near and dear to my heart. Are video games a form of art? No, say the so-called “experts,” they that study film and literature and music. They avoid the real issue. The question, “Are video games a form of art” is not the issue. The real issue is “What is art?”

Going further into semantics, the issue of what is art and subsequently, the issue of whether or not video games fit that definition of art, also presupposes another issue:

What exactly are video games?

I’ve heard it cried far and wide that games are, in fact, a legitimate form of art from one school of thought, while another school of thought is adamant that games are not artistic at all. Neither argument bothers to define what video games actually are. How can either side make their arguments without first defining their terms?

That's why it's so important to define art and video games. We need to compare the literal meanings of the two words to determine if they fit.

So now that we know what the real issue is, it’s time to delve into the dull and generally unexciting world of semantics.

There are various definitions, but I'll start with a man we all know and accept to be an artist. When asked, "What is art?", Pablo Picasso answered, "What isn’t art?"

Indeed, it’s often easier to define something by first separating it from what it isn’t. So let's stray away from art in general, for a moment, and focus on games. How are games unlike television?

Easy: TV is not interactive.

But what about the internet? Isn't that interactive?

Yes, but all games, on one form or another, employ some form of role- playing, whether you play as the persona of Gordon Freeman from Half-Life, or if you're the unnamed "magistrate" from Star Craft. And yes, even a game like Tetris is a role-playing game. You can think of yourself as the falling blocks, or a force or a god controlling the blocks. It all points to the same: you are a character in the game, and yes, in this case, a falling colored block can be a character.

character (noun): a part or role, as in a play or film

-dictionary.com

Let's also add, "as in a play or film or book or video game"

Furthermore, all games create some form of alternate reality, or, if you will, virtual reality. It's easy to say that a game like Half-Life or Oddworld does this because they truly have written and constructed another world apart from our own, and they allow us to not only observe this world, but also to exist in it and participate with it. Even in sports games the player participates in a world that does not occur in reality, no matter how much this alternate reality may be modeled off actual reality.

But what about books? Say, Lone Wolf or the Choose Your Own Adventure series? They employ role-playing and they construct alternate realities. How are they unlike video games?

Simple: video games occur on a video screen. (And let's define video as "that which occurs on a television screen or monitor" and role-playing as "to represent in action.")

So let's get out our dictionary:

A bit wordy, but it get's the message across.

Getting back to art

So to resume our discussion on the definition of art, let's once again stray away from it and go on a patented Mr. Armageddon tangent. (Bear with me, the next section really does have a point. I promise.)

At the very least, I consider myself a fan of the woman on the left, Ayn Rand (born Alyssa Rosenbaum). Trust me when I say that it's easy (a little too easy, in fact) to dislike her and pass her off as a whiney, self-centered narcissist (like me). Much of her philosophy is modeled after Aristotle, but even she admits that he has a few ideas to which she emphatically disagrees. I feel the same way about her. Yet, somehow, just about everything I read about her is unconditional. Meaning, people either love her or hate her. There's no in between. Furthermore, with the exception of the ingenious Simpsons (see, "A Streetcar Named Marge," which features the "Ayn Rand School For Tots," a hilarious satire of her work), few other avenues of artistic expression accurately represent what she stood for. Yes, there is an already controversial film in the works, but whether or not it's any good remains to be seen. However, one method of artistic expression has accurately represented her work, and in the process, both condemns and praises her in categories that I personally agree with. It's not a parrot, like so many of the Ayn Rand Institute, and it's not a pissed-off naysayer, like everyone else. This work of art is not a movie. It's not a book. It's not a play or a TV show. Can you guess what it is?

Yup, it's a video game.

In fact, so much of what the central villain* (Andrew Ryan) says is similar to Rand's ideas that it may as well have written by Rand herself. Adding to Rand's irony is her definition of art:

"[Art is] a recreation of reality based on the artist's metaphysical value judgments."

A recreation of reality. Sound familiar? Could it be, virtual reality? Could it actually be something so sophomoric as a video game?

And what are the "metaphysical value judgments" in Bioshock? That Rand's ideas can work if properly implemented? That safeguards must be made to prevent Rand's ideal society from crumbling into the dystopia of Bioshock? That, for the good in humans so beloved by Rand, we simply cannot ignore the bad?

And why is it that a video game, a form of art so often passed off as not being a form of art, manages to not only fulfill Rand's definition of art, not only demonstrates and illustrates her philosophies in action, but is shrugged of by the "mainstream" as being a childish form of "non-dramatic" entertainment? (Todd McCarthy's word, quoted from his review of the Hitman adaptation in Variety)
	*Anyone who knows why I put that footnote there should also know why I should say no more on Ryan (shown above).

In other words, why is it that so many experts in other fields of study claim to have immense (or even complete) knowledge of a subject they clearly know nothing about?

On to page two...