In a previous Honors course, we were told not to ask what art ‘is’, but rather what art ‘does’.  Applied to videogames (a new material for artists to work with), they are not the graphics or the aesthetics themselves that make up the artwork, but rather the actions and gameplay that must be performed by the players.  Ian Bogost refers to this as procedural rhetoric, a term that we are familiar with, to emphasize that in videogames, ‘how’ the player does an action in the game is what causes this new artwork to speak to us, to tell us something new, or to force us to think differently.  Let’s talk about Braid.  Braid is a game about time and regret and forces its players to explore these motifs through innovative and challenging puzzles.   These puzzles build on these themes to force its players to think about a bigger picture outside the game and to make each player paint their own interpretations in their minds.  That is, the videogame causes the player to think less of what the game is actually about and more of the player’s own life based on his/her own personal experiences.  It sounds confusing, but if you’ve played Braid then you might understand.  At first, the game feels like it has a solid, yet mysterious plot that only needs to be solved.  [Spoiler alert]At the end, however, you realize that there is no plot; you realize that your interpretations of the storyline and gameplay all came from your own personal experiences [/Spoiler alert].  As my previous Honors professor would then say is: We do not ask what Braid is; we ask what Braid does.

I wanted to talk about the music chapter but I’ve run out of words.  I would like to just point out the line on page 34: “Playing a song… at higher and higher levels and toward greater and greater mastery does not lead the player to a greater state of mastery as a musician, but to a greater depth of understanding as a listener.”  Just had to quote this for its truth about listening to music.