01-04-2023, 06:21 AM
I haven't been able to let this idea go since I heard it for the first time the other day.
It basically says that video games cannot be considered art because their artistic vision is compromised by the fact that they have to be made into a fun, enjoyable experience for players to see it fully, whereas something like a book, painting, movie or song can do whatever it wants and not care about the type of reaction it gets from its audience, only caring about getting an audience at all.
I think there's merit to this idea, for it is often said that art resists analysis, whilst video games are a constant subject of analysis. It's a fascinating subject to say the least.
What do you think?
It basically says that video games cannot be considered art because their artistic vision is compromised by the fact that they have to be made into a fun, enjoyable experience for players to see it fully, whereas something like a book, painting, movie or song can do whatever it wants and not care about the type of reaction it gets from its audience, only caring about getting an audience at all.
I think there's merit to this idea, for it is often said that art resists analysis, whilst video games are a constant subject of analysis. It's a fascinating subject to say the least.
What do you think?
~~Powered by C8H10N4O2~~