> high-warp tapestry was invented, replacing low-warp, and it became possible to interweave threads in a more subtle manner. At the same time enormous progress had been made in dyes
> the king decided to "fund" and "elevate" those making high-warp tapestries
> the art of tapestry advanced, increasingly capable of imitating nature/realism, soon it was not longer necessary to "simplify" patterns for tapestries. They copied paintings, today tapestry is capable of "total realism", every shade is possible. 10 shades of red, all the shades of blue in the sky, etc
>the outcome? Tapestry is finished.
> Now, artists like to artificially revive tapestry by shunning realism.
> Alas, something tragic occurs. It's an artificial attempt. It doesn't give us the Bayeux Tapestry.

You can literally replace Tapestry with with video games and the meaning wouldn't change.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKCrOLcDbjE

I've never liked his anti-realism argument, as it relates to vidya at least
it only makes sense to complain about realistic looking forests in the context of games, if all you did was walk around said forests in-game and absolutely nothing else, since then you'd be better off just walking around one in the real world
you can have any realistic looking location in games, but you can't run people over, shoot people, fight goblins or giant robots or whatever else in real life

>>714301153
Just watch a movie if you love stories.

>>714301292
Even better, read a book

>>714301384
Exactly. A movie is useless, if it relies solely on good writing. It needs to be more. Similarly, a game like RDR2 is pointless because it's just a movie with extra steps.

>>714301656
There's an argument to be made for the interactivity videogames can offer, but audiences don't even want that apparently and they would prefer things to be as automated as possible

>>714299637 (OP)
Evoking a visceral response is what's most important for "pure" art, and still important for "supplementary" art.