Is it art or is it commerce?

I’m in the midst of unpacking, so this might not make much sense. Be warned!

I’ve been thinking about the state of videogame theory. I was over at the fairly newly launched and realized that it seems that all those who study games really aren’t studying the same thing. It seems there is a large amount of crossover between people who make games and academics. There are a lot of game makers who theorize and a lot of theorists who make games. I’m not quite sure how I feel about that.

In one sense, the interaction between the two is a good thing. It lets each side see things from the other side. I’m all for tearing down boundaries, and mixing things up.

However, on the other side, I would like to see a bit more separation between the two camps. I’m not sure I really all that interested in how to sell games or making better games or even using games for purposes other than to entertain. I don’t see that those have all that much to do with what I am interested in.

On some level, it is more of a personal problem. I don’t don’t want there to be a solid division between any approaches or goals to gaming. I’m just not sure that I want to read about some of those things. If I step back though, I think that the growing number of gaming blogs that have popped up in the two plus years since I started this site is a sign of the growth of the field. The fact that there are lots of sites that I don’t necessarily feel like they apply to me, and that I don’t feel the need to read regularly is a good thing, I guess.

2 Comments Showing 50 most recent
  1. Walter

    That crossover you mention is, I think, pretty interesting. Has there ever been an example of theorists and practicioners working this closely together for other media (well, in the mainstream industry, I’m not sure there’s tons of overlap)? I suppose there’s always institutionalized art, but…that’s institutionalized art.

  2. bryan-mitchell young

    testing. i’ve shut off comments on old posts. test test