Imo its the other way around. If you experience art, you think about it and try to get a meaning out of it (even if there is none, as in some modern art pieces). But if you just play a game you are not getting the art-aspect of it, you just enjoy it for the gameplay or maybe even the story but not for the deeper meaning.

[–] HiT3k@midwest.social 5 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Absolutely. If the value of art were just "experiencing" it without processing it, there's an argument to be made that soulless blockbuster movies are as significant a piece of art as something with actual substance because so many people like the "experience."

People who do more than just "consume" the art in front of them are not just self righteous nerds (though many are, sure)... it's also a prerequisite to, you know, actually creating something of artistic value.

[–] intensely_human@lemm.ee -1 points 5 months ago

No, it’s not. The prerequisite to creating valuable art is ability, not some stance toward intellectualizing visceral media.

[–] Nima@leminal.space 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

how do you know I'm not appreciative of the art as I'm playing?

I've seen quite a lot of symbolism, meaning, and expressions through video games. but not every video game is made for artistic expression. they can be, to great effect IMHO.

either way, how the art is experienced is entirely up to the individual player. and there's no definitive way to experience art. that... kind of defeats the purpose of art, ya know?

[–] zbyte64@awful.systems 1 points 5 months ago (1 children)

Probably just agreeing, but Why does art need a definitive way to experience, or for that matter, a "purpose"?

I do think that how we talk about art is also part of how we experience it.

[–] Nima@leminal.space 1 points 5 months ago

that was my point. there's no definitive "right way" to experience or find purpose in art.

I would agree that sharing our experience with others is important. they might have a different take.