The statements made about the Manchester cathedral in the Resistance game make it seem as through Insomniac and Sony were trying to create a statement about humanity with their use of the cathedral. Once again the thought of segregation of media types as well as public view of video games as types of media make an interesting statement of how they are accepted. When the hundreds of painters sit in the parks in Manchester and paint the cathedral and display it in their gallery they would not be harassed for intellectual property infringement or displaying it poorly. Even photographers taking pictures of the scenery including the cathedral would not raise too many eyebrows but to place it in a video game is wrong? I would think that public landmarks such as this cathedral and other recognizable buildings would not be able to consider themselves as anything but public property or icons. This again proves Bogost’s second chapter and how the idea of art has become so convoluted that it is hard to call anything with the definite title of art.
As Bogost stated that neither the developers or the church seemed to mention the high regard and reverence the game seemed to have for the structure it would strike me that they didn’t not look into its use so much as the fact that it was used in a game where aliens attack within it. I think that the game was trying to achieve a connection with the gamers through use of real landmarks and places of importance which can be seen even in the Call of Duty franchise. It also seemed that the cathedral was held in high regard within the game but within this modern world of defining boundaries there is always someone to claim ownership even over public media or domains.
This begs the question of who really owns what and where are the lines drawn in our modern society?