Alright, first off - Toblix!?!? From the Arcanum Inn?
Alright, and secondly:
Cap't Fish wrote:
. I'm not totally against some classification either. I think there are benefits to establishing literary canon, because it seeks to identify powerful and culturally significant works, allowing readers to experience the techniques, styles and motifs that make them unique. This doesn't mean that all works outside of those reading lists are kitsch, and definitely doesn't mean that they lose the status of being art.
I'd have to agree with the argument for balance here. Classification has its use, but in a large way, I would argue "always" the art passes through the lens of yourSelf, and art is merely a mirror you can look into for a reflection, different art will bring out different bits of you. Now this definition risks inflating into one of these grand "art is all" arguments, which is fine and dandy, but it can be helpful to navigate through the vast archive of "art" produced as a byproduct of living, of expressing yourself as alive (i'd argue art is as natural as breathing and just as inescapable/essential).
So are video games art?
Certainly, they are artful. The visual style of a game has a lot to do with it, but what about RPGs that painted deep stories? MMOs are one thing, but an RPG that tells an elegant story can be so exciting.
Ask our critical friend, then, if choose-your-own-adventure novels have any merit whatsoever.... and then ask how are they different from video games.
And let me also say that art is of course chaos, for only art can settle the tension between the unity of all and the obvious individuality of experience.