The concept of High and low forms of arts is a trap rooted in elitism.
Recently, as many of you who are chronically online probably saw, a discussion topic has risen up regarding whether or not videogames and their writing are uniquely bad compared to other forms of art like books or films.
Beyond the obvious fact that some of this is clear ragebait, it does bring up a uniquely significant question, that being who decides what qualifies as good art or high art?
For those who don´t know me, I have very strong feelings about art as a whole. So it should come as no surprise that in my own opinion, I don´t actually believe in the idea of objectively good art or even the concept of high and low forms of art.
Instead I believe that art has an accessibility scale more than an objective list of criteria for determining what is good and bad.
That´s not to say you CAN´T like or dislike something, but that's the beauty of art. Taste is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what not, but to tell whether or not you actually liked something or you thought it was good/bad, it still does require you to engage with it first.
There´s a cycle for all forms of art when they come into our society, very often and early on they might be a novelty, something to look at and marvel over the leaps of technology. Think of films when the movement began, for lack of a better term they were seen as just that, novelties that couldn't truly be as deep or as high as other forms of more classical arts, like books or paintings and sculptures.
In every single one of these at some point or another, someone has said that x could never be considered a high form of art, i believe in part because humans often hold that longevity and age equals complexity.
Therefore the longer a form of art has been around the more it has a right to be seen as better or deeper and more refined. And it's not an entirely incorrect assumption per se, years allow for art to be formed by eventual visionaries. But that road has to first be paved and created for them.
A form of art has never been created and immediately produced what people might call "High art", top of the class deep intellectual food. It requires thousands of works that might be seen as less impressive, to build the walls of what is possible first as to then give others the metaphorical hammers to open the walls of possibilities.
For every classic book there are thousands of simplistic texts and stories, for every monet paiting, there are thousands of middling art pieces that barely see the light or are even recognized.
This was the same for cinematography, for every amazing movie there were hundreds of silent comedies, simplistic animations, basic stories told effectively with the use of these brand new tools that had to first get made to inspire those creatives before we ever got to where we are today.
Games are, to me, no different, they're just the youngest version of this. They have their own quirks and specialties that make them what they are, showcasing their distinction from other forms of story telling by having you be an active and willing participant of the moment.
There´s been a great many advances in what can even be described as a game from the origins of this and the truth is without things like pong, tetris, super mario bros and every other batch of the original games, we wouldn´t have the projects that we know and love.
To me, there´s no way to truly quantify what can be considered high art, there´s just a barrier of entry that gives certain people a sense of self importance and entitlement. To believe that books are better than films or films are better than games and vice versa is an anti thesis of what art should be.
Art can have a difficult point of entry to it´s engagement, it can be a lengthy book, it can be a painting you can´t very well interpret immediately, it can be a film thats 5 hours long or a game that trys to delve deep into the human condition.
But just because something is harder to engage with or more expensive or more extensive, doesn´t constitute grounds for dismissal of what another medium is doing. Books can´t do what films do in the sense that they can´t truly give your imagination a physical look, but that doesn´t mean films are superior, it just speaks to the uniqueness of what cinematic experiences can do.
A painting can´t speak to you, while a book can tell you all about itself. A movie can only hold you as a viewer while a game requires that you actively participate in this endeavour.
Theres advantages and disadvantages to all forms of art and what you want to convey, but this is not a unique experience to any art form, it´s the line that joins them all together into the word Art.
I don´t believe any form of art should hold superiority over others, i believe that they should require and demand more from their audience in the ways that benefit them. Demand that your readers think more, demand that you viewers see more and demand that your players engage with things in a deeper way.
Art is a deeply personal human experience, so never allow yourself to be swayed by what others might say. Instead form your own ideas about what you saw, struggle to understand a text on your own and what you think the author meant but above all else, enjoy it. Relish in the unique human experience that only we can have and stop believing that intellectual enlightenment is uniquely tied to only one form of art.
I guess what I'd like for everyone to take away from this, is that you shouldn't get bogged down into the ragebait and the irony poisoned discussions online a lot of the time, there's a very good chance most of this was made with the intention to farm interactions as well, there's money in making people unreasonably angry on the internet nowadays.
Even I'm guilty of falling for it and i probably will continue to. I try my best for sure but we're only human and there's only so much ragebait you can avoid yourself.
The true beauty of the arts is that in the end, we all have terrible and amazing experiences, no one thing will ever be more uniquely terrible than any other and neither will one ever be uniquely better than the other. Simply put, they are different strands of the same tree, filled with endless potential for what they can do and how they can do it.
Beyond the obvious fact that some of this is clear ragebait, it does bring up a uniquely significant question, that being who decides what qualifies as good art or high art?
For those who don´t know me, I have very strong feelings about art as a whole. So it should come as no surprise that in my own opinion, I don´t actually believe in the idea of objectively good art or even the concept of high and low forms of art.
Instead I believe that art has an accessibility scale more than an objective list of criteria for determining what is good and bad.
That´s not to say you CAN´T like or dislike something, but that's the beauty of art. Taste is subjective, beauty is in the eye of the beholder and what not, but to tell whether or not you actually liked something or you thought it was good/bad, it still does require you to engage with it first.
There´s a cycle for all forms of art when they come into our society, very often and early on they might be a novelty, something to look at and marvel over the leaps of technology. Think of films when the movement began, for lack of a better term they were seen as just that, novelties that couldn't truly be as deep or as high as other forms of more classical arts, like books or paintings and sculptures.
In every single one of these at some point or another, someone has said that x could never be considered a high form of art, i believe in part because humans often hold that longevity and age equals complexity.
Therefore the longer a form of art has been around the more it has a right to be seen as better or deeper and more refined. And it's not an entirely incorrect assumption per se, years allow for art to be formed by eventual visionaries. But that road has to first be paved and created for them.
A form of art has never been created and immediately produced what people might call "High art", top of the class deep intellectual food. It requires thousands of works that might be seen as less impressive, to build the walls of what is possible first as to then give others the metaphorical hammers to open the walls of possibilities.
For every classic book there are thousands of simplistic texts and stories, for every monet paiting, there are thousands of middling art pieces that barely see the light or are even recognized.
This was the same for cinematography, for every amazing movie there were hundreds of silent comedies, simplistic animations, basic stories told effectively with the use of these brand new tools that had to first get made to inspire those creatives before we ever got to where we are today.
Games are, to me, no different, they're just the youngest version of this. They have their own quirks and specialties that make them what they are, showcasing their distinction from other forms of story telling by having you be an active and willing participant of the moment.
There´s been a great many advances in what can even be described as a game from the origins of this and the truth is without things like pong, tetris, super mario bros and every other batch of the original games, we wouldn´t have the projects that we know and love.
To me, there´s no way to truly quantify what can be considered high art, there´s just a barrier of entry that gives certain people a sense of self importance and entitlement. To believe that books are better than films or films are better than games and vice versa is an anti thesis of what art should be.
Art can have a difficult point of entry to it´s engagement, it can be a lengthy book, it can be a painting you can´t very well interpret immediately, it can be a film thats 5 hours long or a game that trys to delve deep into the human condition.
But just because something is harder to engage with or more expensive or more extensive, doesn´t constitute grounds for dismissal of what another medium is doing. Books can´t do what films do in the sense that they can´t truly give your imagination a physical look, but that doesn´t mean films are superior, it just speaks to the uniqueness of what cinematic experiences can do.
A painting can´t speak to you, while a book can tell you all about itself. A movie can only hold you as a viewer while a game requires that you actively participate in this endeavour.
Theres advantages and disadvantages to all forms of art and what you want to convey, but this is not a unique experience to any art form, it´s the line that joins them all together into the word Art.
I don´t believe any form of art should hold superiority over others, i believe that they should require and demand more from their audience in the ways that benefit them. Demand that your readers think more, demand that you viewers see more and demand that your players engage with things in a deeper way.
Art is a deeply personal human experience, so never allow yourself to be swayed by what others might say. Instead form your own ideas about what you saw, struggle to understand a text on your own and what you think the author meant but above all else, enjoy it. Relish in the unique human experience that only we can have and stop believing that intellectual enlightenment is uniquely tied to only one form of art.
I guess what I'd like for everyone to take away from this, is that you shouldn't get bogged down into the ragebait and the irony poisoned discussions online a lot of the time, there's a very good chance most of this was made with the intention to farm interactions as well, there's money in making people unreasonably angry on the internet nowadays.
Even I'm guilty of falling for it and i probably will continue to. I try my best for sure but we're only human and there's only so much ragebait you can avoid yourself.
The true beauty of the arts is that in the end, we all have terrible and amazing experiences, no one thing will ever be more uniquely terrible than any other and neither will one ever be uniquely better than the other. Simply put, they are different strands of the same tree, filled with endless potential for what they can do and how they can do it.
Comments
Post a Comment