So my original plan was to have this week's blog article be about my ideas for what Mega Evolutions for the Kalos starter trio of Chesnaught, Delphox, and Greninja could look like, but due to artist's block on figuring out two of the three mons (and debating giving one of them the Mega X and Y treatment; it's not who you'd think), I decided to go with another, shorter article today, written on a whim when certain statements I'd heard years ago started living rent-free in my head and I had to address them.

Also, apparently the view count on my blog is broken, making it appear as if I have over a hundred thousand views when that number is patently ridiculous. Honestly, it kinda broke my socially anxious mind a little. Thankfully, my internet bestie Redwings1340 did a bit of research and discovered that I had only a few hundred views on my blog, not nearly as many as that inflated title claims. (Not that I, uh, want you to stop reading my articles. You're all good.)

---

A person who will remain nameless once said that art is political. (Don't worry, this article isn't.) Of course, they also said, among other things, that Rock was one of the best Pokemon types in the game, and if VGC champion Wolfe Glick's listing of Rock as one of the five worst types in the game isn't evidence enough, I think the rapid fall of Iron Boulder in Smogon OU should tip the scales in my favor. (Seriously, the thing had its five minutes of fame and then everyone discovered it was weak to nearly every priority move in the metagame. RIP robot Terrakion. You were awesome.) Suffice to say that I don't trust that person's judgment anymore.

I don't believe that art is inherently political; I believe that art is inherently moral. Spiritual, even. Art at its best depicts the existence of the good, the true, and the beautiful, and by definition also depicts the existence of the evil, the false, and the ugly, and of course each artist has their own opinions on which is which. Art only becomes political so far as human beings do not always agree on which category any given subject falls into.

Another person who will remain nameless (mostly to avoid embarrassing them, as they are a very big name in the gaming industry and I don't intend to throw shade at them) has stated that so long as a thing is interactive, it is not art; that art is defined as the pure expression of the artist alone and that if another person is able to interact with it, it ceases to be art. I personally find that an arrogant and small-minded view on the nature of art, but most importantly it is entirely incorrect, as everyone who truly enjoys a work of art will interact and engage with it on at least a mental level. Reading a good book and imagining the sights and sounds of the story in your head does not negate the book's artistic value; it illuminates it. Likewise, the fact that you can choose your own path to some extent within a video game does not negate the game's artistic merits; in fact, in engaging the game on your own terms, you further open your mind to its themes, its characters, and the beauty and/or ugliness of the world it depicts.

So those are my two postulates on the nature of art. Art contains a moral nature, and art is meant for the viewer to engage with it. I don't think anyone who's contributed to this website's fan works section is going to argue with the second.