Heh, I like how he dropped Athenian culture (by my definiton, culture definitelly includes politics and law, as they are part of human society - and who reads Plato without knowing of his political motives?) in there... It serves no real purpose in the article, but it makes people think he is sophisticated - just like the ones he complain about. How ironic.
Anyway, Malstrom apparently argues that modern entertainment has lost it's purpose, being more concerned with reaching and maintaining a status of "art" than offering actual entertainment. It seems he considers this to be a unnatural thing. I think the opposite is true - creativity is part of human nature, and has always existed for it's own sake. Pointless from a practical point of view, it is of great importance on a social plane. Commercialism, however, is not natural at all.
That said, it doesn't make either of them more or less "correct." I think he has a point, to be honest - artistry for artistry's sake is always a waste of time, as far as I care - but he seems to forget that it is the work of "art" that drives inovation, creativity and, ultimately, market growth. In my opinion, Nintendo doesn't make games that are less "art" than any other developer, and he says nothing that makes me think differently. His opinion that games are (or should be) nothing more than "whimsical fun" is equally unfounded.
Also, it is puzzling that he seems to reduce those who appreciate art to mindless puppets in the hands of corporate and social structures - just as they do with the average "uncultured" population. Is he as bad as he says they are? I do not believe he is right about this, either. For myself, I appreciate art, but only when I enjoy it and find it worthwhile. Using his examples, I think Star Wars is pretty crap, but I like 300 and don't care what others think. There are no objective values in art.
