12 RULES FOR CRITICISM: AN ANTIDOTE TO ORDER

-About the specificity of the form.
There are several problems with theories about the specificity of a medium, first of is the underlying tendency of formal determinism: admitting that a form of art has a specific and unique "specificity" implies that every work of art should focus on subjugate it's ideas to that specificity. Not only does this mentality lead to a stagnation dead end, where the critic is transformed in a machine that checks if the message is communicated accurately through the "specificity" of the art, but it also leads to a quiet slanted view of art, as artists have never found an unique "specificity" to their craft, painting isn’t just color and forms, there’s also the "textual painting" of the work of art (the title and different words that could surround the work of art), symbology, and even similar techniques can have different interpretations. We cannot even say that a painting or a sculpture is meant to be "looked at", since Duchamp's oeuvre is meant to be "read" (and works by you being aware of its existence, that's all ya need). In videogames we tend to do this constantly, as the predominant ideology claims that interactivity is in fact the basis of games, attaching video games to regular physical games. The fact of the matter is that video games aren't just systems, interactions, and so on, sure those are the bones of a videogame, but that doesn't mean that the flesh isn't important, or rather the flesh makes the game possible. You know, we tend to call this "gamefeel" very poorly, as it makes it sound as if you could add or remove "gamefeel"; this means that visual, sound and touch have equal importance in games to create the sense of presence of the player in the game, or vice versa (a game can "push you out of the game willing fully, as I explain in this critique I wrote about the game RUNONCE). What I want of critics isn't to remain "objective", but to actually put the effort to construct an ideology of their own about what art is and what is it’s purpose, but always willing to confront it every new game they play. If we fall in the pit of "specificity" art is surrogated to a sort of "artisanry" where it only is looked at as an artistic object, and all the nuances, about how we affect that object (and perhaps more importantly) how it affects us, are lost. It is inoffensive, bland and coward criticism.
We need more radical criticism, surreal criticism, openly ideological criticism, criticism that has more to say about life through art, since art doesn't find value in itself, but in life. I want people to look at the veins of the works of art, not their "message", but what its forms, its (our) conventions actually tell us about ourselves.
Now, lets not be reductive, this doesn't mean you cannot think of videogames as a very special form of art, it is the common belief that video games are in fact a rupture that takes different forms of art and manipulates them in ways that were completely of the radar before, and that that manipulation allows the direct insertion of the player in the work of art (the line between spectator and author is blurred and you know this shit). What I mean to say is that this claim tends to exclude games from other forms of art, but in reality, it is its capacity of dialoguing with these different forms of art that grants video games it's power. Also, this claim shows ignorance about other forms of art (it's actually the next rule), since we don't know if other forms of art have similar theories (they have), or even works that prove and make use of this concept, check for instance Mallarmé's dice poem, or Duchamp's oeuvre (Le Grand Verre, the boxes and all), that require the "activation" and direct participation of the player to make sense of the work of art, as Octavio Paz said in an essay about Duchamp's work, these works of art are eternally seeking signification and require the spectator to become and artist and a poet. This DOESN'T mean that games are the same than these works, it just means that interactivity (just as interpretation or touch, as Kanaga said in his GDC talk), is in fact common to ALL forms of art. The capacity of games (and all forms of art) resides in HOW it modulates that interaction. Which leads to an immense quantity of far more interesting discussions than a reductive dogma. Finally, this also means that games are far from being a completely new and separate form of art, but it’s beauty or whatever, is not only shared but comes from its shared tradition with other forms of art, which leads us to the next rule.
When I listen to Like a Rolling Stone, is it just the sound of each instrument that pushes me forward, as if asking me to abandon everything I have and start all over again the one thing that is unique about this work? Aren't also the voice that not only is an organic instrument, but also has the capacity of conveying images inside of my head part of the uniqueness of this very specific form of music? And isn't the tension created with what's being said and what I hear, or for instance, what is being said in a movie and what I see part of the specificity of cinema? With video games (as usual) is even worse, as we have learned to reduce "interactivity" and "gamefeel" to some sort of parameters (similar to the video game (lol) videogame maker tycoon), where a game can be more or less interactive, wheras in a movie the fact that the the screen will hide something from us un purpose can be considered as part of the signification (yes kids, I'm afraid that cinema is much more complex than "show don’t tell"), in a video game it will just be considered "less interactive", as if that constraint wasn't part of the possibility of signication of the oeuvre. All in all, we have to unlearn pre-made criticism formulas to be able to criticize again.

-You need to aproach and try to understand other things, not only art, and specially not only the one you study the most.

-The "consume alot of media" mentality should die. Or not:
It's underlying logic, although true (the more you consume the more you have references and therefore can compare more aesthetics and points of view, discovering nuances in the respective works of art, or in the movements of the art form at large), calls for a much to simple minded commodification of art, which isn't to say that the uncesant quantities of media coming to our eyes, ears, and uh... bodies, are bad; but how we chose to interact with them determines how we live life; in a culture of constant over production, exploitation and aesthetization of art (in the sense that art ceases to shake our very way of existing, of truly feeling something, even if for a brief moment), I choose to abandon a mentality of consuming something, extract its useful value and toss it away; your interpretation of an art work should be rotating, breathing on its own. To be more specific, consuming a lot of stuff, although will give you a big data of analysis, if you re not human with it, if you don't let it shake you, perish.

-the actual objective criticism doesn't exist, stop searching for it.

But your critique shouldn't be complacently subjective either, In my case (because this whole text is but a subjective bunch of sentences put together, surprise!), it being subjective means that it should interrogate your beliefs, make them shake and doubt, doubt alot.

-criticism is not fast paced, innovation seeking curation about games, the new is not (always) better, and good criticism can't grow in such mentality.

-criticism seeks a form of truth, but that doesn't mean it seeks to convince everybody, the critic is not a sofist. On the other hand, it should seek to push the others, to poke them.

-criticism is not journalism. and that doesn't mean that journalism is bad or useless.

-my criticism isn't and shouldn't be the so called "constructive criticism"

-aesthetics and technique are separate things.

-criticism is judgement. That said, you don't have to adhere to the idea that criticism searches for the perfect and finger-points the bad. I know I don't. Mine goes beyond good and evil (tm). Jokes aside, I don't really have a problem with calling out bad works of art, and talking about stuff that I like, like some writers I know seem to have, my problem is more with the search of the "good" or the "great" works of art. As I said before, I do think critcism ought to gain a certain "ideology" but that doesn't mean it should seek an ideal form of art; rather it means that, its criticism should open to new, unexplored ways of understanding art (from creation to interpretation). It is part of why I don't call my criticism constructive, I don't intend for artists or spectators to follow my lead, to follow my isntructions into good art, it would be really arrogant, but also, I don't know if the idea of the artist is the same as mine, what is good for them, or for me, and it doesn't matter. I am no professor. A critic is a force that pushes to a much bigger affirmation of art, of life, not that intends everybody to exist under their conception of what art should be (which they re supposed to be concistently critical of, anyways). That's why I despise the new "good game design" trend, or the "interactivity" maximum. Be more creatif with your criticism, God. -lists, stars and notes are not inherently bad. -death to passive criticism, and a call for creative criticism, both in ideas on criticism as in form. Not all voices can express themselves in your typical essay format, or even in written form or 15 minutes youtube video format.
Oh and, video game critics? PLEASURE/IMMERSION ISNT THE END OF ALL ART, LEARN TO SEE VIDEOGAMES AS SOMETHING ELSE THAN AN ESCAPE OF YOUR SMALL LIFE. THERE S NO ESCAPING FROM THAT ONE.

Mr.Dylan January 2000