Are games economic goods or works of art?

theworldendswithme

Currently Offline

109

6 posts since 12/09/08

Recent Badges:

12 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 12 years.
6 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 6 years.
16 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 16 years.
8 Years Has been a VGChartz member for over 8 years.
'Ello Princess! Awarded for signing up.
So You Came Back For More, Huh? Logged in a second time.

theworldendswithme on 13 September 2008

noname2200 said:

theworldendswithme said:

Now, Sky Render pointed out very astutely that many historic masterpieces were commissioned works. However, we can make this discussion far more meaningful by noting that many works of art that have withstood the test of time were not economically viable in their own times. This is usually the fault of a paucity of publicity and preconceived notions about specific artists. Considering that most people buy games before they play them, sales figures fail as a means for describing or comparing the actual experience of playing any game. I want to devise a framework for discussing the experience of playing, and your points have shown me that such a framework must avoid assinging value judgements to games.

Actually, you're wrong. Until very recently, artists, musicians, and other entertainers simply weren't rewarded very well financially. Mozart, Michaelangelo, Bethoveen, etc. were all VERY well known throughout Europe, but their commissions were never enough to make them incredibly wealthy. A lack of fame had nothing to do with it.

I agree that most of this discussion can wait till morning, but there is one point I need to clarify now.

Mozart, Michaelangelo and Beethoven were well known throughout Europe in certain circles in their time, but it is the "etc." that I take issue with. Moreover, many musicians were making great money; despite myths perpetuated by "Amadeus," Mozart was making the equivalent of 300k a year and living like a king. GP Telemann kicked JS Bach's butt in his day, but history has chosen another narrative given Bach's influence. Bach wasn't even popular until Mendelssohn discovered him, and Brahms wasn't popular until near the end of his life. Mahler recognized that he wouldn't be popular until long after his death, and he wasn't popular until Bernstein championed him.

An accurate assessment of artistic influence takes time because the economic success and dissemination of any commodity is a function of far more than the actual substance of the commodity in a vacuum.