One of my favorite parts of Flanagan’s essay was how she related the history of art games to more commonly known parts of art history, such as Fluxus, Surrealism or Dadaism, which were “20th century art practices that involved a critical use of play in the investigation of artistic concerns.” Having studied the critical discourse involving these movements last semester, I really enjoyed being able to connect elements of those discussions to game art, which a subject that I’ve studied less in a critical context. Through her essay, I found it a little easier to place game art within my own personal timeline of art history. Although some games are massive commercial endeavors, many others make up a new medium “for social change and revolutionary play.”
My favorite game discussed in the paper was Uncle Roy All Around You (2003). I’m fascinated by both the ideas of online surveillance and technology-facilitated interactions. The grandeur, complexity and rule-based interaction of the art piece gives it its status as a “game;” however, I’m more interested in how the Online Players and the Street Players interacted and how their relationships lasted after the piece ended. Were there any communicatory conflicts? How did the relationships last?