This is the general history subcom. Anything relating to history is welcome here. Doesn't have to be Marxist, though it certainly can be. So join in on the discussion and let's learn more.
The fear has sometimes been expressed that photography would in time entirely supersede the art of painting. Some people seem to think that when the process of taking photographs in colors has been perfected and made common enough, the painter will have nothing more to do.
Would you look at this! Interesting how we are seeing history rhyme nowadays. If only capitalism didn't exist and if we were in a socialist state, we will openly embrace new tools.
The most frustrating part about all this is how people on the left end up falling into the same cognitive trap as liberals here. It really shows how powerful Gramsci's idea of cultural hegemony is when even people who are opposed to the system, still apply the logic of the system to social problems.
I'm surprised it took nearly an entire century for museums to start collecting photographs. I would've thunk the debate about whether or not photos are art was more obvious. But I guess it makes sense because even today, the more people argue about art, the less the word means anything to me. All I understand about it is that it's important. Super duper important.
we're having that discussion about video games today although arguably they have been incorporated more in museums (although I don't think museums collect them) because we're still waiting for the citizen kane of vidya to validate it as an art form and not just mere explosive tits entertainment
Video games show best that "art" is exclusionary bullshit. A video game, they call it not art. A picture inside a video game, they call it art.
I feel like there's a deeper issue than just "we haven't had a citizen Kane yet." I mean, theres been plenty of games with amazing writing on the level of other pieces of genuine art [disco elysium my beloved {Okay I know DE is basically a book, but still}, or Pathologic]
I think the actual problem is trying to mix that story telling with the inherent interactibility and the necessary accommodations that requires. Pathologic is an extremely well made story, and many compare it to Dostoevsky's works. Unfortunately they also compare it to Dostoevsky in that it's literal torture to play. Books, plays, movies, etc. Are all designed to be story first, because that's what keeps you wanting to read the book or watch the actors perform. But you keep playing the video game because the video game is fun. Not saying fun and good art are mutually exclusive, just that it's a harder balancing act than normal that is partially why it's still not as respected like movies and TV. Although its definitely gotten better over the years.
i dont know if interactivity plays such a role, at least not in reality, but i do think it is used as a scape goat for academics to pretend they aren't art, that's literally the argument roger ebert used. sure, it can make it so that it's harder to make a good video game, because you need to consider something that never before existed into the medium as the basis for how you will make the experience pan out. the number one rule in cinema is show, dont tell, in video games is play, don't show. sure, it can be a bad synthesis, but that doesn't discredit it from being art, there are thousand and thousands of films that do a terrible job at that, yet they are art. what's more, one could argue interactivity is not only present in video games, performance art is very much interactive; the process of play is present in pretty much every creative process in art, with photography even having analogue buttons, screens, and whatnot. playing has a lot in common with acting (i remember tim rogers saying you didn't play well a video game until you played it a second time; the first is a rehearsal, the second a premiere). the point is there are so many parallelisms, its just so obvious, or maybe we're just people trying to pretend our hobby isnt a waste of time and value