Art in Mixed Medium

There is something to be said for the urban, the contemporary classic things which we all understand and which soak into our lives. There is a new mythology evolving. Like the oral tradition before it, the currency of this new tradition is more immediately accessible art forms than literature. Readers aren’t what they used to be either; I’ll not attempt to argue against this: the written word has prospered in the first world, but it is not the new mythology.

The new mythologies are things appreciated by everyone, and yet not officially recognized as art forms. I’m speaking of urban poetry, those things outside of the mainstream art-world, but in their own way, considerably more mainstream than written narratives. What I mean by this is that the official art world is slow: by the time something is art to the art world, it has already been considered art by the rest of the world for some time. Video games are an obvious example of this, and as an interactive art-form they are prospering in the eyes of the masses. Still, my university doesn’t offer a single course for understanding or analyzing this new art form. Similarly, graffiti is emerging as a major art-form, and I would argue, has deep roots in urban mythology. There is something to be said for marking your territory with a brilliant display of artistic talent, rather than pissing on a stump. Finally, there is a sort of shared understanding within the general populous, that thought these things are art, they are not something to be encouraged or accepted at face value.

Video games take a lashing for their violent nature: I’d argue that Portal 2 succeeds as an art form, and has gained wide acceptance because it is non-violent. A non-violent medium for art however, is ridiculous: fine art is often based on being abusive to the senses. Creating a feeling or an emotion against the viewers will is one part of art, and getting the viewer on-side and then sharing a feeling with them, is another. Art-work is often highly offensive, and is meant to be outrageous, but games like Bioshock, which I consider extremely artistic, are criticized for their violence. Where ‘art,’ both fine art and literature, are able to offend the senses and are often glorified for their ability to be offensive (chocolate Jesus comes to mind, as does feces on canvas) the scream is probably the most famous example of an artwork which focuses on fear and an understanding of fear. Certainly violence in art is no new idea, and yes video games might be a more graphic illustration, but this is not necessarily a detriment. 

Where the picture above (a work by Rubens, I believe, but correct me if I’m wrong) is beautiful in its depiction of motion, and its play with colour, it is also first and foremost a depiction meant to excite the senses.  Now maybe in a lost era this work could be considered the pinnacle of immersion, but in the new era of interactivity this piece fails to excite. Think about the Mona Lisa for a moment. Why is it art? I’ll give you my understanding: it’s art because it is more immersive than any work before it, the painter having produced an optical trick which lets the eyes follow you around the room, and it is art because there is a legend, an intrigue, with the work. Why was it painted? Why the smile? All these things we understand, add to the value of the work. Some artists add value to their work through the process by which it is created. The thing that remains (or so they’d have us believe)  constant within the world of art, is a non-judgmental look at the medium which is used. No medium is superior or inferior to another. Why then do many consider video games ‘not a true form of art’? Or ‘not real art.’ Well, one response might be that there are games which are clearly not artistic: Duke Nukem jumps to mind. But even that piece has its own value as a reimagining of a retro game, and an ironic depiction of machismo. On top of this I’d love to list the pieces of literature, and the works of fine art which simply can’t be considered such: an empty box with one packing peanut was once said to be art, Twilight is called literature alongside millions of other less famous versions of pulp fiction. Why then can’t a game be described as pulp-software? To those who claim simultaneously that video games are not art, and also that they don’t discriminate against medium, well, I have something to say: your medium is bullshit compared to software. It is less interactive, has less motion, less colour, less dialogue and character than the best video game. What is a video game if it isn’t a piece of literature, a work of art, a sculpture and a symphony all in one?  Why is it that art of art is accepted as art, but the original piece isn’t?

Well, the reason is this: there are two forces in the world, constrictive and liberatory. The liberatory force is that which accepts LOL as a word and moves on. The constrictive is the person who refuses to add the word to the dictionary. The world of fine art is run by the constrictive, and whether able to admit the problem or not, the intelligentsia of the world cannot accept a work of art without considering the medium. I can. Something I thought of earlier, and wanted to mention, is that if art is about either creating a response in the viewer or sharing a response with a willing viewer, than almost any intentional expression could be considered art. This means that comedy could be considered art, graffiti, and video games. This also means that a thumbtack on your teacher’s chair could be considered art. Well, I would like to narrow my definition: art in my mind must be restricted (I’m becoming one of them *gasp*) to something intended to produce a result in multiple viewers, consistently and repeatedly without diminishing the effect of the result. If you could film your teacher sitting on a tack, well that would be art, but not fine art. To be fine art, I would argue that you must use an accepted medium: regardless of the understanding of medium perpetuated by the art world, medium does matter. However, with an understanding that medium does matter, comes a renewed plea by me for the acceptance of the comedic performance, the classy graffiti in our streets, and video game as an accepted medium. What is comedy but a play performed on stage with an audience, artistic timing, and proper immersion: it shares an experience with the audience and creates an emotion in a manner not dissimilar from the great bard himself. Graffiti is paint on canvas, and video games are such a profusion of mediums I can’t list them all, but each if used on its own, by a single ‘artist’ would be considered fine art. I’ll leave you with this, and I’ve veered from my original concept for this article, but I believe I’ve covered a lot of my feelings on this subject: if Beowulf were never to be written down, would it ever have been art? If Homer’s works had never be written down, would they have ever been art? If a work is left in its original medium, if it is allowed to decay, and not forced to conform to the rigours of academia and their approved mediums, is it any less artful? Yes, I am a writer, I work within a form that everyone accepts, but this makes me no more an artist than most and less an artist than most that work with a less accepted (I sound like a medium hipster) medium. Finally, I would like to point out that every medium has a weakness, the written word has many, software has but a few, and reality has none at all.