like it seems fucking obvious, right? any medium that can contain degrees of symbolism, has the potential to provoke viewer interpretation, has the potential to contain specific or vague messaging from the creator, and just generally can be used for self-expression has the potential to be an art form.

Why the fuck is/was this a point of discussion? to the point of heated discourse, even! Was it just the most geriatric people they could find on the street? Weird snobs?

like, the second games started having narratives this should have been a moot topic. why the fuck did Kojima parrot it?

reading his statement, i feel there's two different discourses happening, the already solved (:lt-dbyf-dubois:) point of "can video games be art" and the more interesting question of "does the video game industry currently have a culture that promotes artistic endeavor over mass appeal"

to which my personal answer is 'no, but we're slowly getting there with the rise of auteurism (despite some of the problems inherent to it) in acclaimed development teams (:praise-it:) and the indie scene's entirety, and we'll see if it starts to push against the corporate board schlock in the future.'

but still, god damn, half of this debate comes from the same place as the video games cause violence bit and the other half is just people being annoyed with call of duty schlock, which, fair. but why is the former even a debate that happened/is happening. i'm genuinely curious.

  • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Having no standard at all isn’t better than having arbitrary ones if the arbitrary ones can be applied with any consistency

    But they can't, because they're arbitrary. For example:

    when someone says “this band saved my life” they mean the creative product of the band, and again, there usually is no original of a studio recording because of how those are produced unless somebody publishes unmixed stems.

    Which means, by your logic, that the art was lost. It existed only in the moment that the music was produced in the studio, and the moment it was recorded and copied it lost any artistic quality.

    Unless you want to change the rules somehow to make it so that a copy of a studio recording is art but a picture of the Mona Lisa isn't. You're allowed to do, because the rules you made up are completely arbitrary, but if you change the rules whenever they apply to something they shouldn't or don't apply to something they should, you can't turn around and claim that they're being applied consistently.

    Anyway this discussion isn't likely to go anywhere because I don't consider your position remotely reasonable, so I don't see much point in continuing it.

    • Ligma_Male [comrade/them]
      ·
      3 years ago

      you're misrepresenting my point anyway, and I'm not even sure the comparison between a painting, which is a still image, and music, which is sounds over time, is legitimate.