Are Video Games Legit?

Having taken the Comics Studies paper in Semester Two last year, I found the intro into this course very familiar. And since I recognize a lot you of from that paper I’m sure I’m not the only one! Both mediums have had, and continue to have, issues with cultural and academic legitimacy. And so both papers have started not just with standard introductions, but with explanations as to why these subjects are worth studying at all. Kevin succinctly made his point by showing us the massive Starcraft 2 demonstration in South Korea. I personally have found these justifications for studying these subjects a bit tiring – as far as I was concerned, since first playing Super Mario and reading Tintin, comics and games have always been culturally legit.

Neal Curtis in comics and Kevin Veale video games: trailblazers

Of course my personal opinion doesn’t matter, and the fact is that comics and video games aren’t taken as seriously as books or art. And even though I was exasperated at first, the more I read on the topic – of cultural and academic legitimacy – the more fascinating it becomes, almost as a subject in its own right. Why do certain mediums or disciplines have more cultural legitimacy, or cultural capital, than others? Perhaps it is to do with what is defined as art. 

Games can look pretty, but apparently that is not enough to constitute it as art, or at least a "true" art form - i.e. an art form with cultural legitimacy and capital. Philosopher Pierre Bourdieau outlined the two principles of legitimacy. Autonomous production, which obeys internal conditions inherent to the medium, such as pure aesthetics, and heteronomous production, which obeys external conditions such as commercial interests. Perhaps this is the answer, for video games fall into the second category. But wait a minute! Art may mostly be autonomous, but film can much of the time certainly be considered heteronomously produced too.

Art Deco parties: production design from Bioshock and The Great Gatsby

So perhaps it is the mode of artistic production. Maybe in order for something to be culturally legitimate a single author is needed. Games have huge teams creating them. But wait a minute! So do films, and so does the work of superstar artist Jeff Koons. Maybe it is the fact that video games aim to entertain - but films entertain. Maybe it is the association with childhood that makes games low brow - but that association mistakes a medium for a genre. Maybe the main culprit is video games' relative youth, or perceived youth - although comics have been around as long, or longer, than film.

Basically, I have no answers, so hopefully this paper will help provide some.

Super Mario Land and a Jeff Koons sculpture: similar modes of production?

As a last thought, another result of studying these “new” mediums, and trying to justify them, is what I would call an obsession with concretely defining what the medium is. Almost as if having an authoritative entry in the Oxford dictionary would afford it more legitimacy. Although obviously important, I found this frustrating too. In the comics paper too much time, I thought, was spent on finding a one-line definition of comics instead of studying them. I was worried the same would be the case here. But after reading the Perron and Wolf chapter, I’m feeling relieved: “The definition of its object and the vindication of its examination are certainly representative of the first phase in the defining of a new field of research. For the most part, while textbooks with more refined perspectives have appeared … video game studies has passed beyond this phase.” (4) THANK GOODNESS. The gist I get from Perron and Wolf is “yes, we’ve already worked at defining them and have also decided that video games are worth studying – so then let’s start studying them!”. Excellent! I’M PUMPED.

(Eleanor Woodhouse)