4 ms·

I disagree. How "good they look" is irrelevant; one can easily make the critique of famous painters, say, who have totally missed the bar on creating "good look

I disagree. How "good they look" is irrelevant; one can easily make the critique of famous painters, say, who have totally missed the bar on creating "good looking" painting, yet create harrowing or revelatory social commentaries nontheless. The same holds true for all these categories. I'm not going to attempt to define what art IS here, or what its purpose is, but I can say it must go beyond high art and aesthetics. There are games that challenge and expand our understanding of society across a number of different axes, the most recent and obvious of which being collaboration and socialization. Or look to classic games for incredible examples of storytelling (Kings Quest), making choices of morality (Ultima), and so on. And certainly there are radio programs that are art; Radiolab and This American Life come to mind, although those are already publicly funded.

schmittz 15y ago
Ah, I didn't mean to imply video games must have an aesthetic to be considered art (I said this because, and you do have to admit, the prevailing attitude for those who believe they are art is that they are of a supreme aesthetic). I'm not quite sure what you mean by high art. The NEA is in a unique position to fund people who will probably fail, that is people who are challenging the current popular forms. Popular art directions can more easily get private funding and don't need as much public support. I agree that video games can do this, but when you're associated with a multi-billion dollar industry and building a product that can be replicated and sold by the millions of copies, it's hard to justify why you need public support to develop it. I LOVE This American Life, but I completely disagree that it is art. It is tremendous journalism, which reaches millions of people. I donate every year to keep This American Life running and every listener should too, because they are receiving a great gift of passion and effort in every episode. However, there are more than enough listeners to support the program if they each paid for the service they receive. I do not believe they need public funding and if they did, the NEA is not the organization that should be providing it.

schmittz 15y ago

Ah, I didn't mean to imply video games must have an aesthetic to be considered art (I said this because, and you do have to admit, the prevailing attitude for those who believe they are art is that they are of a supreme aesthetic). I'm not quite sure what you mean by high art. The NEA is in a unique position to fund people who will probably fail, that is people who are challenging the current popular forms. Popular art directions can more easily get private funding and don't need as much public support. I agree that video games can do this, but when you're associated with a multi-billion dollar industry and building a product that can be replicated and sold by the millions of copies, it's hard to justify why you need public support to develop it. I LOVE This American Life, but I completely disagree that it is art. It is tremendous journalism, which reaches millions of people. I donate every year to keep This American Life running and every listener should too, because they are receiving a great gift of passion and effort in every episode. However, there are more than enough listeners to support the program if they each paid for the service they receive. I do not believe they need public funding and if they did, the NEA is not the organization that should be providing it.