The Artistic Value of the Visual Novel

[OriginalRen]

The honest truth? I enjoy visual novels because I cannot for the life of me focus when reading a book. While The Great Gatsby is my favorite book of all time, a lot of other books I read growing up (in American, French, and Italian Literature) were a challenge for me. Sure, I loved Se questo è un uomo and Il fu Mattia Pascal, and I love reading books about WWII history, but I cannot for the life of me focus on the words of a page in a story.

 

Visual novels break that attention for me. Truth be told, if visual novels were created for stories such as Harry Potter or Game of Thrones, I would read it because I no longer would have the issue of focus. That being said though, it's not to say I am not creative as I love imagining things in stories. Visual novels take that away from me, but that doesn't mean I can't use my own imagination when reading the story.

 

And as Clephas said, VNs are entertainment. This is 1 of the reasons I enjoy moege.

[Newton]

 

 

However, most VNs are just entertainment... and they should be thought of that way.  Determining that a VN is art is usually done well after the fact, entirely in hindsight after the initial heat has died down.

I have trouble with this implied definition of art. It is a strictly consequentialist view, i.e. that the results define the experience. Aristotle defined art as "imitation" and I would go further and say "imitation as to produce emotional effects" (although I would actually define art as a "construction for emotional effect" due to the topic of music but that's another discussion). This is much more of an intentionalist view as art is now defined as what it intends to do. 

 

The reason I prefer this ontology is that if we compare two works of art of the same medium, the same subject, the same presentation, but one is successful in producing emotional effects and one is not, from a consequentialist point of view, we would call the former "art" and the latter...what? "Not art"? When it is so similar in every aspect except in inducing of effects?

 

Another reason I prefer this method is because it's in accordance with the common language. If we see an unsatisfactory movie, we still consider it a movie (and movies are implicitly considered by most to be art) but with a modifier: a "bad" movie. We would not say that it's "not a movie".

 

 

 

However, most VNs are just entertainment... and they should be thought of that way.

Examining the things which interest us usually results in us appreciating our subject even more. And it incites us to challenge commonly accepted perceptions and stretch the possibilities. There was a time when motion pictures were considered sideshows, to be presented at fairs and carnivals, an amusement, nothing more. Looking at the human landscape now, it's evident to see just how much impact films have had on us in determining not just our thoughts but defining our personalities. Even the most intellectually and emotionally unchallenging mainstream fare like the Marvel movies create an enormous gravitational field in the modern culture.

 

 

Visual novels break that attention for me. Truth be told, if visual novels were created for stories such as Harry Potter or Game of Thrones, I would read it because I no longer would have the issue of focus.

Would you say this is due to a personal difference (like ADD) or a more attentive participation with the medium (do you approach visual novels in an analytic or empathetic manner)?

 

 

 

While The Great Gatsby is my favorite book of all time...

Nice.