Art is Not Democratic

            Richard Wagner was driven by the motivation to create the Gesamtkunswerk, the Total Work of Art. To do so, he sought to tie in aesthetic masterpieces of as many mediums as he could to create his music dramas (he loathed the term “opera”). This entailed beautifully painted sets, amazing costumes, wondrous music, powerful dramas, and built on classic, stirring themes. He was an innovator, and was considered by many to be superhumanly ambitious and a bit of a twat. However, his name remains with us today as a testament to his success. He came as close as anyone had ever come to producing this total work of art.

            Today, artists are able to even more fully realize their multidimensional artistic realities and share them with us in greater numbers than ever before. The Gesamtkunswerk of today, though some may not see it, is the video game. Powerful writing, timeless themes, beautiful visual works, moving musical scores, inspired character designs, and, above all, the involvement of the beholder come together to develop aesthetic impressions that are impossible to create otherwise. A video game allows for the character development of a television series or a novel while sharing the intensity of a film or short story. A great advantage they have is that the main character often acts as a surrogate for the player (possibly more deeply than in any other form), facilitating greater personal involvement in the relationships we see manifest. In some games, the illusion of choice and sense of genuine repercussions allows us to feel as if we truly have an impact on the artistic world we are operating in.

            I truly believe video games can be art. I say “can be,” as not all of them are art, just as not all books or albums are art. Some are products, churned out for profit. A painting of a couple of apples next to a bowl is a painting, not art. A clichéd romance novel hastily congealed via mad lib is a book, not art. Madden NFL 2012 is a video game, not art, no matter how good it is.

            Art and Products abide by different rules, and people must treat them differently as such. This blurred line has become quite evident in the controversy over the ending of Mass Effect 3. The Mass Effect series is widely considered to be art, and rightly so. It has some pretty wonderful writing, great character development, beautiful visuals, excellent music, and great game play. The story is not especially inventive, but few are. It is a compelling version of Campbell’s monomyth, but too similar to Battlestar Gallactica to be considered wholly original. However, it is endearing and involves players on a pretty deep emotional level, which has created a tremendous affection for the series. The last installment moved me to tears on a few occasions with its portrayals of heroism, sacrifice, and despair.

            Now. Even some non-gamers have heard of the storm of controversy of the ending of this series. The game has a few different endings, all equally pretty poor. Many people have listed assertions, both justified and unjustified, ad nauseum, to the weakness of the endings. But that is not what I wish to discuss; you didn’t like the ending, I didn’t like the ending, the horse is dead. What I do have issue with is the bafflingly self-entitled mentality that compels gamers to demand a different ending.

What happens if artists have to listen
to consumers.

            Somehow, people not liking part of a piece of art has inspired some butthurt basement dwellers to start a movement to demand a new ending to the game. I simply can’t even begin to understand the audacity involved in this act. Frankly, it is comparable to a group of people deciding they don’t like Mona Lisa’s smile, and gathering to demand da Vinci’s artistic deference. Or, to take it even further, a vocal minority of fetishists screaming about how the Mona Lisa doesn’t look natural without a ball gag in her mouth.

            The Mona Lisa is what it is. The picture you see IS the idea from which she was created, made real by an artist. The Mona Lisa IS what the Mona Lisa is supposed to be. To proclaim that her smile is too vague and to demand it changed would be destroying the very nature of the artistic integrity of its creation. If part of it sucks, part of it sucks. That’s life. In fact, a fair number of people would say that it is the imperfections of art that define it as art.

            There have been many artistic endeavors that I have been critical of. I adore the Dark Tower series by Stephen King, but felt let down by the ending. I did not complain, I just accepted that it was King’s story that I was privileged to follow and moved on with my life. Despite the fact that I spent roughly $200 and 100+ hours reading it to do so, it never even occurred to me to try to demand a different ending, possibly because I’m not a spoiled little shit.

            Many people have brought up “artists” who caved to public pressure in the past in order to justify their selfish outrage. Sir Arthur Conan Doyle revived Sherlock Holmes ten years after he killed the detective off, assumedly in response to a pissed-off readership, and there is only so much hate mail one can read. Today, the instantaneous communication that the Internet provides lends itself to a far greater capability to annoy the shit out of an artist, making for a much faster turn-around. When Doyle broke down and started writing Holmes again, he became a whore. To explain the severity of this, let me draw a hypothetical comparison. As a married man, I sometimes wish to have sex when my wife does not. If I reacted to her disinterest by demanding her compliance, I would be an awful person, correct? If I created an internet buzz and donated to charity, staging a very public shaming of her lack of desire to fuck me, I would be a phenomenally awful person. If, after all of this, she DID decide to have sex with me, I would not be able to look past the fact that I coerced her into giving me what I wanted, despite her wishes. This is what is called coercive rape, and anyone who could take pleasure from this is a disgusting human being. The strong-arming of Bioware into submission and compliance is the artistic parallel. These assholes are demanding that the company create more or better art for them, whether Bioware wants to or not.

...sexy bitches that they are.

            Simply put: when you use market pressure to demand a work altered, you have rendered that work Not Art. “This creation does not suit my needs; change it” only applies to functional tools. It should NEVER apply to the realized ideal or experience art acts as. To believe that you deserve a good ending to a story is so dishearteningly selfish that, well, that I’m disgusted enough to write an over-long blog entry about it. I could not be more embarrassed to be a gamer if everyone I have ever known simultaneously walked in on me masturbating to ToeJam and Earl.

            I wouldn’t be so disappointed if Bioware had not capitulated and announced that they are looking into creating a better ending in response to customer complaints. This is a travesty of artistic value that has set the status of the artistic value of video games back at least a decade. Mass Effect could have acted as the video game figure of Beethoven, shifting global sentiment of video game creators from artisans to artists.

            This amazing display of self-entitled, first world problem, Monday morning quarterbacking is appalling, and Bioware capitulating to the demand of the populous is to admit that they are selling a product instead of telling a story that exists wholly in the authors’ minds. Art is not democratic. A novel creation is a creation that exists as a whole, and to pick it apart and demand reworking is utterly contrary to the entire mien of artistic character.

            An artist of any medium is not your bitch, as Neil Gaiman rather succinctly puts it. They owe us NOTHING. They develop the vision from their mind into some form that the populous can witness. Once the creation has left the artist, they can no longer control it; it is in the world, born and new, and it will do what it will do.  We can then evaluate their creation any way we choose. We have the right to love it, hate it, be disgusted by it, rub one out to it, whatever we feel is fine. We even have the right to bitch about it. We do not have the right to demand anything more from the artist. To do so is an amazing and disheartening display of arrogance.

            For the record, I accept that it is possible that EA put Bioware into this position by demanding product readiness at a time that Bioware would be unable to deliver. However, if this is the case, you are only hurting Bioware, a great group of artists, by proclaiming loudly to the world that they can’t deliver to the consumer what their corporate masters demand. Who do you think you are hurting? (EA is notorious for releasing incomplete games, which I blame on the rise of DLC usage in today’s gaming, but that’s a rant for another time). If this is the case, I feel desperately for the Bioware team, but to lay blame at their feet is just upsetting to see.

            Personally, I would love to see another ending to the game. I would love for Shepard to have been indoctrinated or something, changing the effects of the end. However, I want Bioware to want it. If they had planned a great controversy to emotionally fuel a greater, real ending that would mimic the initial confusion of the players, that would be outstanding. Otherwise, I’ll feel like I’m fucking a limp body that is just allowing me a hole in order to shut me up and retain access to my bank account.