[throwaway17_17]

I know it wasn’t the whole point of your comment, but I fervently hope the legitimacy of art (of any kind and in any medium) is not conferred by the ‘market’. Plays or shows that end having been seen by under 100 people should still be art (and any recording of them should as well), music made for a very niche audience, games that are played by 10s of people, all of those can be art. A painting made by one person to give to another can be art.

I would prefer to look to the democratization of art as the means and ability for individuals to produce substantial, if small, works at a pace, for an audience, for some reward determined solely by the creator.

At the end of the day, ‘what is art’ and ‘are video games art is a dated sentiment, so I agree, I was just repulsed by the suggestion that the definition/legitimacy of something as art can/should be dictated by ‘The Market’ .

[keiferski]

Market was maybe a bad term. I mean more “society at large” and not specifically stuff that makes money.

I am more saying that the idea of caring about “being labeled as art” is not that important anymore. Largely because anyone can make and publish anything nowadays. So a play with 100 viewers is still art, yes, but no one really cares about getting that label.

[rustystump]

What is art? An experience expressed through a medium. The number of viewers isnt a qualification.

[throwaway17_17]

Thanks for the response. I do like the, largely uncontested, move toward disregarding of the label. It certainly seems to dovetail with a more individualized conception of artistic pursuit that appeals to me.