·
In “One-Dimensional Man”, Marcuse
states that, recently, art has been absorbed into the prevailing state of
affairs, taking the form of commercials to sell, comfort, and excite (Marcuse
64). Presented as a video game, Dear
Esther takes on the form of commercial art. In both the Marcusian and the
common definition, Dear Esther can
undoubtedly be considered art. Scenery, paintings, and music create a beautiful
canvas, and make the game art in aesthetic sense. The form in which it is
played makes it art in the Marcusian definition.
Dear
Esther is aesthetically pleasing on many levels. First and foremost, it has
extremely well-made visuals. The game starts on the shore with typical beach
scenery and a cloudy sky. When the player reaches Chapter 3, though, the
landscape becomes indescribable. The caves are so beautifully crafted with
light, colors and intricacies that anyone would consider astonishing. There are
also paintings within the game that are complex and interesting. Symbols for
organic compounds appear often, and in the caves there are depictions of
neurons and patterns that look like circuitry. In one alley of the cave, these
paintings cover the entire wall.
They overtake the senses with their intricacy, neon
coloring, and sheer number. This is art in an overpowering way, which is a
different form than most of the other visuals take in the game. All of these
aspects make the game enjoyable to look at.
The soundtrack and the letters add
two other, less visual, layers of art to Dear
Esther. The music is mostly piano and strings, but sometimes voices are
heard when trying to set a “creepy” mood. It adds emotion and anticipation to
the game, fading in and out to emphasize moments of narrative significance (MacDonald). It set a mood that could not be
created by anything other than instrumental music. In this way, it works very
well within the story, but it can also stand alone as art. Lastly, the voiced over narrative is another layer
of artistry, in a literature sense. The voice creates a story through letters
to Esther, speaking in intelligent and carefully-crafted language. It uses
metaphors and complex descriptions, as well as alluding to ideas without
clearly stating them. These letters are the epitome of poetic language. The
mystery and scarcity of the pieces of the letters make them special. These two
aspects of the game create another layer of aesthetic pleasure, and therefore
add to the artistry.
Nevertheless,
there is more to art than the pleasing aesthetics. According to Marcuse, art
has the power of negation (Marcuse 63). It can make the observer realize
something about our world that could not have been realized through any other
medium. Dear Esther takes the player
on a journey that is both similar and dissimilar to the world we live in. The
first two chapters of the game are spent walking on the shore, something most
people have done in their lifetime. The walking pace is extremely life-like, as
well as the scenery that is experienced. This similarity breaks, though, when
they player cannot go certain places, like on a couple shipwrecked boats. If
the realness is not fully broken by these small roadblocks, it is completely
discarded by the beauty of the cave. Nothing in this world can compare to the
caves. These differences remind the player that there is a goal to be reached;
that they are actually playing a game. The similarities create the possibility
of players to find something in the game that relates to their own life.
Becoming completely engrossed in game-play, it is easy to experience the
narrative of the game as real. Once brought back to reality by the differences,
the player can reflect on how the story might have related to them. The player
experiences the story first hand, in a somewhat interactive and very
enthralling way. It can be frustrating that the only interactions are walking
and looking, but this is still submerging the player into the story. The player
is in control of what he or she looks at; it’s easy to miss something if the
player is not paying attention. Since looking and walking is all there is to
do, the game suggests that the experience of the game is in what is seen, not
what is done. In this way, it creates a need in the players to look around and
interpret the scenes. This is an act related to viewing art, and not necessarily
to playing a video game. The similarities to our world and the interactivity of
Dear Esther add another, more
complicated layer of art to the game; a layer that makes it art of negation.
Together,
the aesthetic and negating aspects of Dear
Esther create a piece of art in both the common and Marcusian sense. It’s
pleasing music, literature, and visuals have similarities to our world, but
also differences that make it more attractive and meaningful. In “One-Dimensional
Man”, Marcuse quotes Paul Valéry, “That which is ‘natural’ must assume the
features of the extraordinary. Only in this manner can the laws of cause and
effect reveal themselves” (Marcuse 67). The beauty as well as the medium of Dear Esther makes the player take pause.
Being a game, it forces the player to look around and try to understand his or
her surroundings. The dissociation of the real world and the world of Dear Esther creates an estrangement
effect in the player, bringing him or her out of their element enough to be
able to find bigger meanings in gameplay. The attributes that make Dear Esther aesthetically pleasing also
make it a better form of art in the Marcusian sense.
Works Cited and Consulted
MacDonald, Kenza. "Dear Esther Review." IGN.
N.p., 13 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
Marcuse, Herbert. One-dimensional Man: Studies in
the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society. Boston: Beacon, 1991. Print.
Pinsof, Allistair. "Review: Dear Esther." Destructoid.
N.p., 13 Feb. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2014.
2 comments:
The difficulty for me at the beginning is that for Marcuse, art (like truth), always has an oppositional character - see the passage on the "great refusal" for one example. So for Marcuse, art is not necessarily about being conventionally pretty - it's about having a particular kind of response to the world.
That being said, I like your emphasis on the three layers of aesthetic pleasure here. Regardless of whether that observation connects with Marcuse, it's still important, and you make it in detail, although in an ideal world I'd have liked to see you deal with the layers more in relationship with one another (how does the cave connect with the score and with the narration, rather than touching on each one more or less in isolation?).
While you're not (yet) interacting with Marcuse's complexities, you have a well-written line which begins to take Marcuse and Dear Esther seriously together: "Dear Esther takes the player on a journey that is both similar and dissimilar to the world we live in." I think this would have been a good line for, say, the *first* paragraph, but you are, at least, beginning to ask the right questions.
I'm a little unclear on where you see the negation. I think you're interested in the sudden break the game makes away from "ordinary" realism. You're also interested in the way that the game demands that we pay attention, and yet gives us lots of opportunities to fail to do so. Now let me ask this question: what is the relationship between the two? Does the game demand attention/interpretation *differently* when it breaks away from realism, for instance? Or is the departure from realism itself a kind of distraction? I think you're beginning to move toward asking these kinds of questions, but this paragraph isn't really developed yet - probably because you have several paragraphs of introductory material, not all of which was by any means necessary.
Overall: You're trying to engage with the difficulties of Marcuse in relationship with a rather strange and difficult "text", and you're beginning to do so - but your attempt to do so is hindered by the much more obvious and less interesting material at the beginning, which could have been greatly simplified/boiled down.
Like Dr. Johns said, I think that the discussion at the beginning about aesthetics is less interesting than the discussion of negation. I think that a pretty simple revision strategy would be to essentially flip your paper over, starting with the paragraph on negation and then discussing aesthetics in relation to negation. I also think that you would need to focus your argument a little bit more than you have it now. You are currently saying "Dear Esther is aesthetically pleasing and negating, therefore it is art" but I think that picking one of those topics to focus on and using the other as a support would make your paper feel more cohesive.
Post a Comment