(Image courtesy Naughty Dog and Game Informer)
As some of you may know, my blog posts are sometimes re-posted over at GameCritics.com. My post regarding Demon's Souls conjured something of, let's say, a fecal storm there... and a debate ensued over the artistic and design worthiness of Demon's Souls versus Uncharted 2 (which I also mention in that post). Some of the comments were enlightening and challenging, some were a tad meanspirited, but on the whole it was an interesting conversation.
GC head honcho Chi Kong Lui followed suit (and also continued a topic started in a GC podcast) with an analysis of Uncharted 2's lack of merit as Game of the Year nominee. But something very interesting came out of this back-and-forth editorializing: a unique little discussion in the comments section comparing Uncharted 2's design to painting styles. I originally posed the comparison in response to commenter Louis F., but Chi went with it, and I felt the results were pertinent enough to pull out of the comments section and post here. I'll try to keep it updated as it expands.
MK:
...There are many different ways to "think outside the box" with regard to game design and creating art, but not every design team takes it upon themselves to create something that is open for drastic artistic interpretation.
I think of it like this: Some painters like, say, Norman Rockwell, draw a man as a man. They refine and polish that drawing so it is unmistakably man. There is real craft and artistry in the capturing of the form, and what's there is undeniably "art" on a certain level, even if the result is meant to evoke only a certain limited range of feelings.
And then there are painters like Pollack or the cubists, where the work is still undeniably art... polished, thoughtful... but also inspired with a certain level of imagination that allows the viewer to do more work.
I don't think there's a reason to dismiss either kind of painting as not contributing to the medium. It all really depends on the aims of the artist... and on the viewer's end, what the individual viewer is searching for... how the viewer wants to be affected. And it's likewise easy to see the range of opinions... how some call Rockwell "feel-good hokum" and others call Pollack "self-indulgent" and "pretentious." But I don't think anyone would argue that one sort of painting should be mistaken for the other... that Rockwell should have scribbled over his emotional, photo-like scenes or that Pollack should have tried to contain his raw expression. Certainly there is a place for the wide range of painting that is found somewhere in the middle between these two extremes. But there is also a place for the extreme itself... in Rockwell's case (and in Uncharted 2's case), something that leaves very little work up to the act of interpretation but can still evoke powerful emotions.
CKL:
Matt, first let me say that I really appreciate this excellent comparison.
Rockwell is wildly popular among Americans because his subject matter appeals to their sense of ethnocentric nostalgia and his detailed draftsman style is accessible and fits the mold of what the average person would be comfortable calling "art". However the majority of art critics do dismiss Rockwell for having contributed very little to art and art history books tend to agree as he is often a little more than a footnote. Looking at Rockwell's 4000+ body of work, it doesn't take a trained eye to tell that he's basically a one-note Charlie.
Toulouse-Lautrec was also considered an illustrator by trade who painted his environment, but Lautrec's technique was far more expressive and experimental and his subject matter was far more daring, revealing and provocative (hence his greater reverence in art circles). Pollock isn't someone I've studied too deeply, but my general impression of his work is that he's largely a one-note Charlie as well, but the big difference between between Pollock and Rockwell is that Pollock's one contribution was monumentally influential and relevant to modern art history where as Rockwell's art was largely irrelvent. That doesn't stop many people from enjoying Rockwell's work and there's nothing wrong with that, but there's not a whole lot to appreciate and analyze intellectually as critics and historians.
MK:
I find myself both agreeing and disagreeing with this (at least in terms of the comparison to Uncharted 2). Where we are in agreement--and really the reason for me making the comparison--is that Pollack (and, say, Shadow of the Colossus, although I'm really just plucking that comparison right out of my butt) is definitely a work that requires more interpretative work on the part of the audience. Obviously, art criticism as a scholarly endeavor has more to gain from, and be enriched by, the work of Pollack.
But again, we come back to the subjective sense of what makes for quality or even a historically notable product of art. I think Rockwell's talent--no matter what you may think of his use of those talents with regard to crafting dense material--is undeniable. He was at the top of his game, at least in terms of skill. Did he push boundaries of thought? No. But did he push boundaries of *craft*? I think so, definitely. And the thing is, he actually is rather significant in terms of the history of popular illustration, if not in art in general. But people know him... they know his work well in this country, precisely for the nostalgia factor you discuss. Part of the question up for debate is that whether that makes his work less culturally meaningful or "poorer" from an impossibly objective standpoint. Intellectually, yes, Rockwell isn't going to challenge many people. And Uncharted 2 certainly won't. Neither product is really innovative in the design/thought sense.
But as you sort of accept at the end of your comment above, that doesn't mean that these things can't be appreciated on a different level. The level of craft.
So let's say--purely hypothetically--that we have a multitude of paintings up for "Artwork of the Year, 2009." Which would win in this hypothetical scenario: The painting that engages AND intellectually challenges the viewer, or the painting that engages and truly satisfies the aesthetic desires of the eye? I would think the former, and I would hope at this point we're both in agreement there.
To extend this analogy back to the subject, however, I would still argue that if we're talking about what makes for the "best of the best," the problem with 2009 is that there simply wasn't any game that fit THAT bill. There was no Shadow of the Colossus in my humble opinion (if Flower were a full-fledged game rather than something of a demoscene, maybe that would have fit the bill, but as is, it was a beautiful and wonderful sliver of game).
Nothing pushed the envelope in that sense. No game was running on all artistic cylinders. And I'm relatively tough on games where this is concerned. Some people regard Bioshock as the next coming of the game design messiah, and I have massive problems with the game's so-called "innovations" (though I still found the game very enjoyable). To me, Metal Gear Solid 4 is a game that pushes boundaries, and for all its kitschy dramatics and overblown style, it does make you think, particularly through its gameplay. Morrowind was a game that pushed boundaries. Half-Life 2. Planescape: Torment. Okami. Panzer Dragoon Orta. Deus Ex. Eternal Darkness. Portal.
But Uncharted 2? No. And I would say the same for other games I consider to be among the best of the past decade, including God of War I and II, Gears of War, and Knights of the Old Republic. Did these games resonate with me as an intellectual who appreciates challenging material? No.
So instead, we're left with a contest of craft. And in that case, I think Uncharted 2 is an immaculately CRAFTED work of art. It is made with all the care and heart that I'm sure Rockwell poured into his artwork, even if it lacks the enigmatic soul of a Mapplethorpe photo, a David Lynch film, or a Matisse.
The question that has irked all of us, however, even yourself, is whether it is fair to ask if someone like Rockwell should have privately aspired to be a Pollack in Rockwell's clothing. I mean, he easily could have painted something like Wyeth's Christina's World. Easily. But *should* he have? Would it have taken away from what makes a Rockwell a Rockwell? That's a different question--albeit slightly--than "Does that make Rockwell less gratifying to look at than something more complex?"
Comments