Search Results
7/12/2025, 8:43:19 AM
https://wimg.rule34.xxx//samples/7971/sample_f446157c634a6356785d33e404b69efeeec7aa4d.jpg
7/9/2025, 9:54:55 PM
>>714992402
Video games are not art, they are products, this is something inarguable and is continually proven by the people surrounding them.
Things become art when artistic merit is ascribed to them, and they are then examined critically, whether it be good or bad. That is why, for example, you can call a urinal in an art museum "art", because it is directly calling attention to itself as something to be examined within the realm of art.
Video games are not part of that though. Video games are innately disposable things like fast food or a doll, something you can easily throw out or update with little care whatsoever. It makes perfect sense for Miyamoto to say that, since he understands that idea perfectly. Some of the earliest Mario titles were just remakes- like Super Mario Bros. All Stars. A remake in the fashion of that is the ultimate sign of 'product' moreso than 'art' simply because that implies several factors about the preceding work- that you were not meant to take it in as it was. That it was, itself, something to be disposed of when the new thing came to replace it. Even the main titles are viewed under this lens, with Mario 2 being a rebranded game simply because that would please the American market more than the actual Mario 2 they developed.
Outside of NIntendo, this mindset also flourishes. Just look at the remakes of Resident Evil and Silent Hill, all showing that yes, these prior games were mistakes that should be replaced, because they are not 'art'. They are 'product'.
This whole outcry for games being art is an innately childish attempt to give off the illusion of the consumers having a greater degree of intellectual maturity in the wake of Roger Ebert, when really you shouldn't give a shit. Most people consuming films and books don't go "Ah yes, I'm consuming ART", they think of them as products too. Games are just more open about the whole affair.
Video games are not art, they are products, this is something inarguable and is continually proven by the people surrounding them.
Things become art when artistic merit is ascribed to them, and they are then examined critically, whether it be good or bad. That is why, for example, you can call a urinal in an art museum "art", because it is directly calling attention to itself as something to be examined within the realm of art.
Video games are not part of that though. Video games are innately disposable things like fast food or a doll, something you can easily throw out or update with little care whatsoever. It makes perfect sense for Miyamoto to say that, since he understands that idea perfectly. Some of the earliest Mario titles were just remakes- like Super Mario Bros. All Stars. A remake in the fashion of that is the ultimate sign of 'product' moreso than 'art' simply because that implies several factors about the preceding work- that you were not meant to take it in as it was. That it was, itself, something to be disposed of when the new thing came to replace it. Even the main titles are viewed under this lens, with Mario 2 being a rebranded game simply because that would please the American market more than the actual Mario 2 they developed.
Outside of NIntendo, this mindset also flourishes. Just look at the remakes of Resident Evil and Silent Hill, all showing that yes, these prior games were mistakes that should be replaced, because they are not 'art'. They are 'product'.
This whole outcry for games being art is an innately childish attempt to give off the illusion of the consumers having a greater degree of intellectual maturity in the wake of Roger Ebert, when really you shouldn't give a shit. Most people consuming films and books don't go "Ah yes, I'm consuming ART", they think of them as products too. Games are just more open about the whole affair.
Page 1