One of the current problems with discussing games as art is figuring out howgames fit into established theoretical frameworks. Its not that games are arelatively new medium, as is often suggested. Games are in fact an ancientmedium, fully intertwined with human history. It is, rather, that the studyof games *as art* is relatively new and is something that game makers andacademics are struggling to establish.
Even though Elizabeth Grosz does not include games in her list of artisticpursuits, she provides an understanding of art that is easily applied togames. Grosz says that the concept of *framing* is key to the understandingof art. “Framing is how chaos becomes territory. Framing is the means bywhich objects are delimited, qualities unleashed, and art madepossible” (Grosz, 17). She describes framing as the enclosing ordemarcating of a space. Art selects from chaos — all things possible — tocreate a sub-set of things that can be presented. In painting, this can bethought of as literally the frame that surrounds a painting. Inarchitecture, this can be thought of as the walls, floor, roof,that separates the inside space from the world outside. In music it is thenotes, rhythm, instrument choice etc. In games, the “frame” is the set ofrules by which the game is played.
The rules of a game limit the infinite field of possible actions to a fewsmall, specific, chosen actions. In this way, games demarcate a space — aspace of possible action.
“Art enables matter to become expressive, to not just satisfy but alsointensify — to resonate and become more than itself. This is not to saythat art is without concepts; simply that concepts are by-products oreffects rather than the very material of art.” (Grosz, 4) Games areexcellent emotion machines. Playing games can evoke powerful emotions ofexcitement, anger, frustration, joy and elation. It is through the playingof a game, that is the enacting of the rules and participation in the gamespace that evokes these emotions. What makes games work as art isephemeral. It is not the board, the pixels, or even the rules set to paper. Rather it is in the playing of a game that the potential energy of a gameis unleashed. In playing there is the potential for the concepts — the”by-products” to make themselves known. The game*Train<http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2009/06/24/can-you-make-a-board-game-about-the-holocaust-meet-train/>* (which my classmates are probably tired of hearing about) is an excellentexample of this quote by Grosz in action. In *Train*, the physical materialof the game is intimidating to look at, but it is playing the game that thepotential emotional energy of those objects and the rules that describetheir use become unlocked. *Train* has an intense emotional effect on itsplayers. And the by-product of *Train*, what people reflect on afterplaying, is a deeper understanding of the Holocaust and the people who wereinvolved in the system that kept this horror moving along.
I found it exciting to read the first chapter of *chaos, territory, art *andrecognize the ways in which games could easily, and effectively, bedescribed by the framework of art that Grosz is describing so far.