MOMA Knows Where It's At

If many curators aligned with the ideologies of most of the art critics of the major newspapers, websites, and magazines then we would not see video games in art museums. Why? I'm not totally sure. It goes to show that they might not know much of their history as art critics, to put it frankly (albeit quite obnoxiously, I know). Yet, this is a serious thing to consider. Consider art events like the Armory in the 1913 or the wave of rock n' roll during the 1950s. Here is one big main idea that I would like to put out there before I go further and that is that many of these things can be art (through its form) but that doesn't mean you have to like the piece or even talk about it. Based on what I believe makes something art, I would have to include pornography, the Jackass series, and Beevis and Butthead. Well, I do consider them art, but good golly I don't like any of that stuff and don't care to talk about them, at all. The discussion of what is art and if they are art becomes frustratingly cyclic in nature and subjectivity is perceived as objectivity in the eyes of many who vehemently debate the topic.

Now, the installation of a video game exhibit at the Museum of Modern Art (MOMA) is inherently a great thing. In her TED talk (posted below), Paola Antonelli explains the methodology in getting this thing shown and many of the things that she did made me very happy. For one, she actually made it important to establish a relationship with the companies of the games. She could of easily ignored the sentiment of the creators of the games, something many politicians are doing right now and something many people who quickly denounce video games are doing when trying to make policies. Another thing she did well was actually focus on the bare-bones skeleton of video game form: the code. Paola actually regarded it has one of the most important things in video games, which is a refreshing thing to hear because it expresses a dedicated investment in a medium deprived of investment.

Paola is clear to mention that she specifies video games as 'design' rather than 'art,' while at the same time disregarding the actual debate as she sees it as detrimental to exploring ways of creativity and expression. I am still muddled by how design actually connects video games as it does to something like making a chair (what she starts out with as an introductory example) rather than making a film or making a concerto, though nevertheless I applaud her admirable stubbornness and assured openness. I wish more people could see the benefits of video games as an expressive form. So, consider the TED talk carefully as an approach very close to mine, and I hope this exhibition can allow everyone who sees it to think more critically of these games.