I’m not really interested in this article or anything it has to say except this:
“This game takes the ideas of “adventure,” “exploration,” and “mastery,” and flips them on their heads, turning the experience into a slog, a mean-spirited joke. This is why I love it—or rather, the idea of it. This game is aggressively not fun and almost completely luck-based, which is intentional.“
This is arthouse mentality in a nutshell I think.
Pretentious is defined as trying to affect greater importance, talent, culture, etc., than is actually possessed. I think a lot of art for art’s sake ends up this way. They’re works that aren’t meant to be directly engaged with. They’re works that end up in a history book or bid on by an art collector as a status symbol. Takeshi’s Challenge isn’t enjoyable and this writer doesn’t make the mistake of saying they loved it. Instead, “Takeshi’s Challenge showed the capacity of the medium to make substantive, subversive social and formal critique.” I think this is asinine.
“Takeshi’s Challenge may be viewed as an anti-game in the way that a Dadaist or a Fluxus artist would make anti-art. The joke was on us the whole time.” Dada was invented as a movement to satire the way art had grown to be pretentious (I think the founder was upset at how his wife’s more realistic paintings were rejected from galleries while more abstract conceptual works were admitted and basically made dada paintings to see if they’d accept something stupid and pointless masquerading as having a sublime underlying meaning). Somehow rather than being recognized as being deliberately stupid and therefore the abstract conceptual art it was parodying was stupid, it’s seen as some weird superposition of trying to meme on people, but still being regarded seriously, as much as the conceptual art it parodied. It somehow got subsumed into the movement it attempted to critique. Yeah, the joke’s on you, you’re still taking Takeshi’s Challenge seriously.