When researching any contentious
topic, you’re bound to run into editorial columns and articles. These opinion pieces can provide valuable
insight into the perspective and reasoning of individuals either in agreement
with an author or opposing them.
Editorials are distinct from regular opinion pieces, as they frequently are
the work of collaboration between multiple authors, and often take a broader
look at a topic than single-author opinion pieces.
The amount of editorial content
present in an argument is often influenced by the “hardness” of the topic at
hand. If an argument is suited to being
fought with hard numbers and statistics, for instance, editorial content will likely
best serve as peripheral to the main thrust of the argument, putting a distinct
face onto the numbers which act as the crux of the argument.
Just about any discussion of
defining “art” is what I’d be inclined to consider a “soft” topic. There are numerous theories and philosophies of
art, but art is not something that can be numerically quantified in the same
way as proposed budgets or scientific definitions. Because of this, any argument revolving around
video games as art (or as being excluded from art) is bound to rely heavily on
editorial content. The persuasiveness of
the overall argument will depend in part on the strength of reasoning presented
by individual editorials.
There
has been quite a lot of editorializing around the topic of games as art (and
associated artistic freedom), tackling the topic from many angles. Of particular interest is this editorial from The Guardian which asserts that
the games as art debate is a debate that shouldn’t even need to happen, and
that games being an artistic medium is a foregone conclusion. Or perhaps an editorial from The New York Times which asserts that
games ought to be protected from censorship, on the basis that games are an
artistic medium.
No comments:
Post a Comment