Avatar

On the Value of Art (Gaming)

by breitzen @, Kansas, Thursday, May 28, 2020, 08:07 (44 days ago) @ Cody Miller

Hard disagree. Limiting the value of art to an audience’s pleasure is terribly naive for someone as intelligent as you.


Why? I'd love to hear your side.

When you break it down it seems to be the essence of all art. We choose to view art because it ultimately is pleasurable in some form. Any negative emotion a piece elicits is in service of a greater pleasure.

Pleasure doesn't just mean "makes me feel good right now".

Pleasure:


Do you mean catharsis?

Here's an example: The movie Eden Lake (not a great movie) still to this day makes me angry when I think about it. I don't get any pleasure in thinking back on that movie, but it was incredibly effective at making me feel angry. I think that's valuable.

But above all, I believe in the inherent value of creation. Not how it is perceived (because we experience art subjectively). So if we circle back to the "job" of the artist: I think an artist's "job" is simply to create something. For the most part, artists do create something they want to share and have others experience, but that's not The creator, the audience, and the consensus all add or subtract value in their own vacumes, but how we FEEL about the creation doesn't affect IT.

The enjoyment of art is subjective. We may have collective consensus, but even that changes with time. Measuring the value of art by how it services the audience seems silly to me. I'm not saying that pleasure is an incorrect way to find value (subjectively of course), but it's not the ONLY way.

I hope that's clear... I rewrote a bunch of it. lol


Complete thread:

 RSS Feed of thread