That's what I took you to be saying, yes -- and that's the premise I disagreed with you on, and still disagree with you on. That fiction which conforms to the standards we've set for media that is consumed by children is of less intrinsic worth than fiction which does not.elasto wrote:Hence, the question is not as written above; Instead it is this: "Is media rated R/M of more intrinsic worth than media rated G/E?"
And I'd argue strongly yes! Since media rated R/M can cover every topic to every depth that media rated G/E can - and then R/M media can explore some additional topics, and to some additional depths that G/E can't. That gives it more intrinsic worth.
That's not how art works, though.elasto wrote:If thing A can do everything that thing B can, but it can do other things also, then it is of more worth. eg. If your computer can run every game ever made, and mine can only run half of them, then your computer is of more intrinsic worth than mine.
If this were true, we could argue that color photography is of greater intrinsic worth than black and white photography, since color photography includes all the colors. Or we could argue that film trumps them both, because film permits me to record all the colors and motion, too.
But we don't do that: We recognize black and white photography is a form of art distinguished from color photography, which is a form of art distinguished from film. One can incorporate the other, but we understand that each is defined and enhanced by its limitations -- because these limitations force the lens to highlight certain features that would otherwise go unnoticed in another medium.