> Couldn't agree more with Chris Fahey concerning the way a game produced by "the good guys" conceals its politics from us, no matter how obvious they may be on reflection. I remember as a teenager playing "Desert Strike" on my Amiga, where the aim was to fly a US chopper in the Gulf and take out Saddam (subtly referred to as "the madman"): although there are probably few within the range of the game's official distribution who would object, it couldn't really be much more political.
Part of the Benjaminian response to the aestheticisation of politics was the politicisation of aesthetics. However, the levels of realism incorporated into the type of war-games already mentioned on this thread leave me in a quandary as to how to draw the line. Any ideas?
James
Re: political gaming
-
Type: discussion
Comments
> the politicisation of aesthetics already assumes an unpolitical aesthetics in it's "natural" state, realist or not, doesn't it?
that to me was always the dialectical problem for Adorno in his "commitment" argument. even though he argued for an autonomous (from politics) culture, it seemed (to me) that he recognized the impossibility of asserting an apolitical autonomy for culture.
i read Fahey's statement as one acknowleding politics as inherent in social structure, something that you cannot get "away from."
It always seemed to me that attempts to depoliticize social life (and culture) was an authoritarian means of killing civic debate. but i realize that's probably due to US history and the trend to drive citizens away from civic life, making us think that our(US citizens) lives are apolitical, and that "politics" is a nasty game of compromise. and compromise is decidedly "unAmerican."
best,
ryan