Re: [-empyre-] games and apathy

[<tom@nullpointer.co.uk>]

> The examples that are arising in this discussion, such as commodification,
> cartesian space, computer games and Western teen-culture demographics
should
> not, in my opinion, be treated as central issues in this debate (they seem
> very marginal to me). Certainly, my own practice has nothing to do with
> computer games and never has (I hate the things - a noisy and adolescent
> waste of time)

mmm smells like a generation gap to me.. :)

> Given what I have just written above, it should be clear that I would
regard
> the gaming industry as deeply problematic and ultimately alien to any
> creative and experimental practice. The fact it is an industry is bad
> enough, but worse, in its very central metaphors the "game", whether a
> computer game or not, functions to establish models of human behaviour
that
> one can only regard as negative, promoting attitudes such as competition,
> ownership, control, etc. These are the very values that I, and I have
always
> felt most artists, have chosen to work away from or against...that is why
> many chose to be artists...no?
>

mmm dunno about this at all.... I agree that the games industry is victim to
all the evils of
commercial exploits but...so is film and writing.. its just that the games
industry is less mature than the others..
i guess you gotta be in it to win it..or something like that..

oh and i spose after butting in i should identify myself..
I'm Tom Betts a jack of trades digital i suppose..
http://www.nullpointer.co.uk
I'm not very good at general art themed discussion lists,
I think the years of rhizome/7-11/syndicate/nettime have instilled a sort of
apathy,
but I felt like I should put in a word ot two for the gameplayers.

Gameplayers (an increasing mob of nextgen kids) can fly helicopters around
vice city on their playstations
They are familiar with digital interactive media and usually skilled
interface users.
Games often provide a high level of interactivity but have poor conceptual
content.
Interactive art usually presents more abstract and complex concepts but has
terrible interface/interaction.
Ok so 'that's not the point of the work' you say. But what irks me is that
there is very little work that
adresses this. As a result many people will dismiss much interactive art as
just a screensaver or digital toy.
This includes me and was my reaction to much of the Lab3d exhibition, i wont
go into individual peices
but I found I spent less time with a peice than i would do at the national
gallery.
I am happy that this sort of work is being promoted by contemporary
galleries
but i felt that the exhibition/format had a lot of problems. I guess I am
airing my own apathy here but
Im sure that it is a fairly common feeling for many 'teched up' people. I'm
not asking to see work that requires
a full knowlege of C++ just some things that dont seem to patronise me..

Tom