The popularity of video games shows no sign of waning, and museums have ramped up their interest in the medium. [...]
“Sorry MoMA, video games are not art” was the headline on Jonathan Jones’s blog [...] after New York’s Museum of Modern Art (MoMA) announced the acquisition of 14 video games, including 1980s classics “Tetris” and “Pac-Man”. “All hell broke loose in an interesting way,” said Paola Antonelli, a senior curator in the museum’s department of architecture and design [...].
— theartnewspaper.com
67 Comments
firearms are specifically mentioned in the ted talk link davvid provided.
#wal-mart
My main point, people, is that the MoMA as well as the top minds of the design industry are morally decadent people who want to blandify the world.
Have a nice day!
I'm very late to this because I have no interest in video games, none, going all the way back to Pong, which I played for ten interminable minutes in my friend's basement the year it was introduced to the world.
Video games are not art. They frequently achieve a level of artistry, but that is more akin to craft than art. The Daily Show achieves artistry, plumbers and furniture designers and architects can achieve artistry, but none of it is art. Art starts with the intention to *make art*, that's its only reason to exist. If any other reason for it exists, it's design, and artistry if it's good.
MOMA collects design, so them collecting video games is definitely in keeping with their Design collection. But MOMA made it *crystal* clear, in their decision to demolish the Folk Art Museum, that they don't collect architecture, even though architecture is generally accepted as design. Frankly, at this point, I don't care what they collect anymore because they waffle all over the place about what's important depending on where the funding is coming from. So screw them.
Life would be so much easier if someone could just send me a list every week or so telling me who to hate.
MoMA, Millennials, Starchitects, Brutalism, Architecture Schools, Photorealistic Renderings, Instagram, Digital Fabrication tools, Hipsters, Guggenheim, Obama, George Lucas...
if you don't know why we hate george lucas, well i don't even know what to tell you....
f*ck jar jar binks.
Most of those things are dubious terms used to describe varied phenomena. I wasn't making fun of millenials, only an attempt to market to them. Except for Obama and George Lucas, particular people that I hope that you have an opinion on.
The reason I'm so interested in this is because of the recent huge shift in the philosphy of this once great instution. If you look closely, you see the connection between video games, Art Bay, FolkMoMA, Barry Bergdoll leaving, and a program that is contemptous of architecture. Instagram is great and all, but it's not a replacement for architecture representation, and its laughable to think that this is the MoMA's digital solution for arch curation. If anything, they should renounce the MoMA brand.
Got it. George Lucas is the devil. Easy.
Now remind me..where did we land on Thom Mayne? In or out?
Lightperson,
Isn't the philosophical shift all about Relational Aesthetics? Isn't that why new museums are building large unprogrammed spaces for events? Its all about social interaction.
http://hyperallergic.com/18426/wtf-is-relational-aesthetics/
thom mayne is in.
moma isn't really the right place for a monet (as an example) due to the 'modern' part.
perhaps the reason they're looking at video games and such is because everything else sucks? or, maybe everything else doesn't suck, but their curators are just unable to find the good stuff?
Relational aesthetics?
Marketing. LOL
Well, yes, davvid, if Relational Aesthetics means programming of experiences, yes that is the directions art museums are going; that's the direction the art museum where I work is going. I have no problem with experiences and public programming that helps build community, in fact I really enjoy them and think it's a valuable good for museums to engage in.
But if a museum does a program to get the community together, that event *in itself* is not art. The intent of that event is to get people together. Roy Ascott's description of art as a "trigger for experiences" is a good one, but it's based around an object that leads to the experience, not an experience that one self-consciously experiences as an experience.
Relational Aesthetics: watching people play video games in a museum (what the video games are is irrelevant). See: curators speaking silicon valley jargon (Antonelli), Maria Abramonavitnovoch imitators.
Tom Mayne is really good--not sure why everyone has such a problem with him, but not great if you can't afford it.
I'm not saying that relationships are irrelevant, but Donna's explanation is good--as long as it's based on the object that leads to the experience... here's an article about the exhibit:
The games are displayed, yes, but they are also meant to be played: they’re examples of interaction design, or what Antonelli calls “the design of a behavior.” In this case, that behavior is in noisy contrast to the hushed reverence typical of an art museum.“I like when the kids come,” she says appreciatively. She especially likes watching them show the games to their parents. “It’s like, You think I’m wasting my time. But look, it’s art.”
Obviously curators are really into Maria Abramonavitnovoch, but there is only so far you can go into performance art masquerading as art/design curation. Even so, when I was there I found more interest in the painting and sculpture than in the video games...I found the same phenomenon at the Cooper-Hewitt, where the touch screens were mostly ignored in favor of models, hand drawings, etc. I think people are getting worn out by touch screens. real objects and painting are still more powerful when placed side by side. Too bad it's gonna take years and lots of damaged reputations and renovations for museums to figure this one out.
Touch screens are dumb and boring with limited preprogrammed options. Pushing buttons isn't interactive, engaging your mind is.
I sort of agree with Donna. The artist's orchestration of an event is art. The experience, as in the individual metal perception of an event, is perhaps not art.
Its almost like saying a guitar is art, the strumming of the guitar is art, the sound moving through the air is art, but my hearing and knowing the sound isn't. Its an extremely fine line.
I'll add touch screens and marketing to my list of things to hate.
I just read that prisons are now classified as warehouses for poor people.
So enjoy your bead and circuses...er...video games, plebes!
Hating doesn't help anything. Understanding does.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.