Clive Barkerwas one of my literary heroes long before he entered the gaming universe. Rarely is such a perverse and twisted individual simultaneously intelligent and beautifully spoken, but Clive’s no stranger to this mixture. Not one to take rubbish lying down, Barker addressedRoger Eberton theDigital Trendspodcast, saying:
“[Ebert’s] a pompous, arrogant old man, and he’s not going to stop us from making games or enjoying them or… making them art.”
Praise the Gods for this man. This remark is not the first of its kind, following a letter Barker penned to Ebert after his claim that games are not art and Ebert’spublicly posted reply. Barker passionately supports the positive end of the games as art argument, especially in this tidbit from the podcast:
“If you walk into the National Gallery in London, you are presented with masterpieces of impressionism and glorious Dutch miniatures and so on… countless styles and forms of genius represented. One day it’ll be like that for games… and we will be looking at these things the way we look at the great animated cartoons of Disney.”
That’s a point of view sure to be argued to death, but I love the beauty of the idea. As it is, games are already interpreted in many different types of art forms frompainttocraft. It’s not just the work of enthusiasts that populate this genre, but also artists that see the history of games for what it is: A rich resource for all types in inspiration, from 8-Bit to Modernism. Cheers to Barker for his passion and courage on the topic. Maybe we’ll get lucky enough to see Ebert have his innards chewed out by Cenobites in a Barker painting in the future.
