Is music truly the superior art form, as Nietzsche and Schopenhaur believe? Or literature? Or architecture...

h-holy....

nah just kiddin lmao shut the fuck up!

What about videogames?

Sculpture is beautiful, but is too focused on the figure (the human body, at least in its highest results). Paintings can investigate reality in a deeper way, because they add everything (abstract and/or concrete) that surrounds the figure.

Even the greatest sculptor of all time reached higher results in painting...

Attached: image.jpg (1400x693, 243K)

damn....

>But it's the only kind of art that NEVER ceases to move, amaze you and talk to you.
Yeah like an annoying two year old who you need (must) drown out with music.

heh heh guess art's a little too deep for you. better get back to goodreads, kid. this is the big boy's table

Why's Kierkegaard not on that list? Read Either/Or, his Giovanni rant is ideological

Sometimes it can be annoying, I agree, but music becomes cancer when you have listened to a piece too many times.

Demiurge

The question (thus phrased) is no longer interesting.

Only if there Sony.

The purpose of art as expression of emotion and humanness is nowhere found in the other arts, except for maybe poetry.

So between almost God and God?

Cooking. Sight and sound plebs are awkwardly stuck between the truly material (as cooking) and the really spiritual (contemplation of God, and to a lower degree mathematics).
Music and visual arts are middle of the road solutions that ends up satisfying neither.

Kierkegaard's pseudonymous works, like Either/Or, are not necessarily reflective of his views, as you probably already know

That rock 'n' roll, eh? That rock 'n' roll, it just won't go away. It might hibernate from time to time, and sink back into the swamp. I think the cyclical nature of the universe in which it exists demands it adheres to some of its rules.

But it's always waiting there, just around the corner. Ready to make its way back through the sludge and smash through the glass ceiling, looking better than ever. Yeah, that rock'n'roll, it seems like it's faded away sometimes, but it will never die. And there's nothing you can do about it.

Thank you very much for this. I do truly appreciate it. Don't take that the wrong way. And er... Yeah. Invoice me for the microphone if you need to.

*drops mic*

Attached: images (61).jpg (681x450, 21K)

>what is emotion?

my condolences. autism must be tough.

The music of today is low culture. Its the only art form that actually has an age limit on who can participate

Kino surpassed them both.

Name a film better than The Divine Comedy

Lol, nope. If you actually believe that, get the fuck out of here, thanks.

I said both thinking about op's music and architecture (ans other 'sensory' arts). Literature is still superior.

Film is the final form of the total art. It actually does what opera was desperately trying to do for centuries before it.

All forms of art maybe be seen as two different entities:

>Art as artifact:

As much as man is self-absorbed, most art that is made to be preserved is a means of imbuing one's (conscious) existence in reality for others to take note. It may be an advanced mating ritual, unconsciously believing that this art should attract another through time, but this irrational hope. So, we may look back at art, literature, and philosophy as artifacts that show the evolution of human cognition, how maybe we have changed from the schizophrenic nomad that disregarded time as an obstacle to sex to more complex beings who have similar goals.

>Media having a separate evolution:

Marshall McLuhan wrote, "Man becomes, as it were, the sex organs of the machine world, as the bee of the plant world, enabling it to fecundate and to evolve ever new forms. The machine world reciprocates man's love by expediting his wishes and desires, namely, in providing him with wealth." We may observe that art, the cave paintings and primitive songs of the nomad are the same as unicellular organisms, which converge to eventually create complex intelligence, such as humans. The internet is the first animal which combines every type of cell except the media of physical art, i.e. sculpture or architecture. Soon enough, a self aware A.I. will emerge and humans will have been just footnotes, bees that carried the pollen.

So music is not superior, just another way to construct the temporal lobes of the singularity. Pursuing it's mastery is equally as futile an endeavor as writing this post.

architecture is superior but it takes more than one dedicated man to complete, so it's not really a fair comparison. You can't make good architecture without the backing of the client and skilled artisans, which is why it doesn't happen nowadays.

Go to bed nick

Attached: C67BC71C-7961-4087-895F-AC367DDDF064.jpg (263x192, 11K)

I don't get the appeal of music. I mean, I do, but I don't love music. It just stimulates my emotions on the most basic of levels, I find it amusing or catchy and move on. I've never had the same reaction to an album as I had for the best of novels and poems. Music appears to me to be very rudimentary and clinically functional. Birds sing, dolphins produce tonally consistent noise, who cares. Like a peacock's tail, music is superficially beautiful and designed to tingle parts of our brain that stir the emotions, and that's about it. Literature, on the other hand, is a human invention through and through, our challenge to the nature, the bold denial of things that simply stir and move. When we write and read novels we create transcendental bonds between men that no musical tune can possibly match.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 219K)

Music is inferior to architecture, which is inferior to literature.
Giovanni is as overrated as any opera since none of them hold any artistic merit comparable to the great works of literature

as someone before me mentioned, music is organisation of events in time, while architecture is organisation of events in space. we certainly can go on to describing every single art form (which in my opinion would be really dificult and time-consuming simply because of the fact that the word 'art' is so vague, or at least it is now and it can refer to many different actions a man performs), however i've always thought of film as the ultimate art form. think about it. if we only focus on what's contained in the work, all the technicalities aside, it surely can contain every single art form there may be. starting from the more obvious ones such as visual art (paintings, photography etc.) and music, ending on abstract performances, installations, sculptures. and while a movie obviously wouldnt be able to deliver the whole experience of interacting with a certain work (such as viewing lights and shadows on the sculpture in the way you'd like to as opposed to what was captured by the camera), a moving picture is still at least capable of delivering even the slightest amounts of experiencing a work contained in it e.g. viewing the color palette of a still frame or experiencing the chord progression in a music piece, whereas (at least i think so) no other forms of art can carry other forms that well

pleb

can't get more subjective than that

I think film is often severely limited by runtime

Since witnessing a ballet performance in St. Petersburg last november I have been convinced of it being the highest form of art. It combines music, sculpture, the athletic potential of a human and often has an important story of literature acting as a backdrop eliciting even greater emotions from those who are familiar with it. It's only flaw is that it leaves you exhausted, out of breath and completely empty for a good while after but as a singular emotional spectacle ballet is unrivaled.

Music is like literal magic compared to other artforms

1. Music
powergap
2. Architecture
3. Poetry
4. Sculpture
5. Painting

cinema

My late Mexican uncle looks like Goethe wtf

looked*

I just don't understand what you guys see in architecture. It's the most hollow art form. Literature, music, and cinema can take you anywhere and you can experience a work differently every time but with buildings, what you see is what you get.

I don't understand why architecture is so high-rated, how can it be compared to the depth and range of lit or music?

Based similar post user

Have you ever been inside a gothic cathedral?

>but with buildings, what you see is what you get.
Now why would you say something so outwardly stupid. The world has enough stupid in it, please don't add more stupid to it.

you plebs probably think instrumental music is superior to vocal music
lmao

tidying up>>>>>music>literature>>>>>everyithing else

Attached: 1366_2000.jpg (957x707, 61K)

>Film is the final form of the total art
It's a subset of vidya.

It's true, though. You can hide symbolism or whatever here and there but architecture doesn't lend itself to content, it's mostly form and function. It's hundreds of times more hollow than literature or music.

I feel like music is superior in moving the consumer while literature is superior for self-expression

user, youre absolutely correct, and youre on the right board. Well put.

Honestly, music is trash. Music maybe is art, but it's unsophisticated bullshit appealing to naive drives.

>All these pseuds pushing architecture

Attached: D12A828F-B05C-4BDF-B076-875BEC4104D7.jpg (400x386, 16K)

>what you see is what you get.
And what you can see in architecture is some of the most breathtaking displays of power on the planet. It's something you can't understand if you've never actually been near or inside a marvelous piece of architecture before; photos on the internet don't do it justice.

Film will never be as good as other art forms due to the fact that it requires the unreliable organization of a large group of people and is limited by resources, and also because it’s so goddamn expensive to make

Music sucks. As art lit is pbest

>music is restrained to basic emotions
>movies can’t do internal dialogue well
>audiobooks are slow and often make physical description tedious and long winded
>Architecture is certainly higher than these, but still; it’s cost prohibitive and most of the time a well-written and related description can give approximately the same result
>sculpture is autistic
>paintings are good but again, are limited to a few basic reactions in stronger or weaker variations

Did I miss any?

Every artform is equal! Let's all hold hands and get along, man!

A life well lived is the greatest art.

That means you're fucked you goddamn tranny

If you actually know how to read (which most of Yea Forums cannot do) then it is of course literature. When I say "read", I mean that you are reading the book and are actually completely lost in it, i.e., it actually becomes more real and enjoyable than real life. This is very rare and difficult and most people will never be able to do it because their brains aren't wired that way and/or they haven't put in the effort. But if you can do this (and it's like dropping acid, you can't explain it to someone who hasn't done it, even if they think they understand it) then you'll never know literature is the best art form.

Cuisine

Your ability to daydream while reading doesn't seem to have helped your writing

You just proved you don't know how to actually read. Nor do you want to learn. Why are you on Yea Forums?

How does architecture not fall under these same criteria?

I dont think there is a superior art form. Architecture is just as important as music or literature.

It's sad how jealous and pathetic you are. I sincerely hope your life gets better soon, friend.

Too bad you'll never know what thats like, tripfag

I can only feel sorry for you. Sad.

Deep

Not too many are living truly well, but I do fine despite the crumbling capitalism

Shut up tripfag

samefag

>>music is restrained to basic emotions
Oh man, you don't know shit.
youtube.com/watch?v=WlFYC1U5viw

Attached: serveimage 10-09-52-750.jpg (850x400, 60K)

>Posts Beeth*ven
So like he said music is restricted to basic emotions

>>every artform is equal! let’s all hold hands and get along, man!
Yeah, art forms are not equal. In fact, they're so profoundly different, that any comparison is meaningless.

Ballet certainly is greatly underrated by Yea Forums.

>Yeah, art forms are not equal. In fact, they're so profoundly different, that any comparison is meaningless.
>dont say things are equal, they're not! I wont provide evidence because they're too different!
Your post is meaningless, faggot

neither are true

shitposting is the path to heaven

Attached: shitpost.png (361x333, 63K)

W.A. Mathieu said in "The Musical Life" that, ". . .words approach experience round about. Music is specific; what you hear is what you get. Language is rich, various, and inexact. You have to keep saying, 'What is...' a thousand ways, until somebody jumps. . ."
Written language is more complex, but therefore necessarily more inexact. Music communicates much simpler ideas, but does so precisely and effortlessly, across cultural, historical, ethnic, class, and personal boundaries, with immediacy.
If what you want to elicit emotion, nothing tops music unless your audience is autistic. This user is mostly right when he hinted that each does something different better than the others, but he's completely wrong about growing out of music. He's just got the 'tism.

If you want to get scientific, neurologists at John Hopkins studied jazz musicians jamming together. The process utilized the same parts of the brain that are used during conversations. It's a common opinion among neurologists who study linguistics and language that music might be the most fundamental language and likely the first human language invented.

Music is likely the most primal vector in the arts. It's going to communicate more effectively, more quickly than any other form, so long as you're only interested in talking about simple ideas.
inb4 DA INFINID COMPLEXIT T OF EMOSHUN
Emotions are all simple, only simple people don't understand them well.

In my opinion, the most audacious, provocative art is mathematics, but that's because I'm mentally ill.

The superiority of music is a metaphysical argument primarily based on its purity, universality, etc., but these metaphysical qualities can only ever be argued from outside of musical forms thereby complicating its supposed purity. The argument of purity, universality, etc. is made by the form of word/speech which is itself metaphysically 'pure' but not qualified by any exterior form in the same way music is -- metaphysics is qualified by speech, and the superiority of which is argued by metaphysics. Art is metaphysical, through and through, and only within the system of its meaning-economy where presence/being, and the human role within reconciliation/reappropriation -- according to our telos -- of nature, towards self-sovereignty, pure being/presence. The artistic image is metaphysical in its ideality, beauty, originality, expressivity, divinity, purity, universality, etc. but these qualities are all of being; presence the meaning of being. The art act or the art object is situated within this endless linguistic adventure that qualifies itself, i.e. in a simplistic sense as the 'caption', and this is what makes art meaningful.

All of these require time and space numbnuts. Are printed words somehow transcendent?

>they satisfy the eye for a short while, then the enchantment's gone.
You're doing it wrong.

t. didn't read Vasari

Evidence of what? I never said that I wouldn't provide evidence of anything.

>muh emotions

Next

Visual Art is the highest form of art because it can instantaneously convey it's message to the viewer. No other form of art is capable of moving someone emotionally at a glance, there is always some sort of investment required by the viewer. If they don't engage with the art then they will get zilch, visual art instead pulls the viewer in and starts engaging with them. A living medium as it were. This ability that is unique to visual art is present not only in "high art" such as paintings or sculptures but even in the "lower" forms such as comic books and illustration. Indeed, I will admit, hesitantly, that I have even been moved to tears at times by simply glancing at an expressive wojak or serene gondola meme. No other art form can imbue such emotion in even the most trivial of displays. Other art forms are simply incapable of connecting with the human subconscious in the way that visual art does. It truly is the patrician choice of medium.

*blocks your path*

Attached: 6a00e54f13dba988340147e186c8a8970b.jpg (273x320, 25K)

>Like a peacock's tail, music is superficially beautiful and designed to tingle parts of our brain that stir the emotions, and that's about it.

Attached: 1545027283034.jpg (508x524, 39K)

Yes

I know this thread is truly the bottom of the barrel and shouldn't be paid much attention to, but it really is unnerving how banal some people's view of music is. As if they don't have any awareness of styles beyond romanticism.

writers are just failed musicians. who would write a novel if it were in their power to write a symphony instead? no one cares about your erudition lmao

Attached: 1545107650273.jpg (247x223, 14K)

>cant even fully appreciate music
Shut the fuck up

Vidya is unironically patrician as a medium. But midwits can't into it because it requires player interaction, and they want a more passive experience.

music
you can influence the world far greater with it
it's been around far longer before we could even read
it's almost biblical in importance
architecture and literature and pretty great though

>it's been around far longer before we could even read
Literary art includes the spoken word, not just the written, you know.

Might as well do a sudoku or play some chess instead of your gay vidya if I wanted "player interaction"
>ohh I can choose whether I want to shoot this guy or that guy, this is so complex and meaningful

Chess is great and so are many other games, video or not. But they typically don't elecit the same subset of emotions that contrariant consider higher.

It is theorized that human females probably started humming to their babies when we started to lose our fur and the children couldn't hold onto that anymore. They could calm them down while laying their children aside and do other stuff.
The most basic form of music is probably around longer than what could be called a spoken story. But if "Grug smash good" is considered literary art then maybe they are equal though.

>The most basic form of music is probably around longer than what could be called a spoken story. But if "Grug smash good" is considered literary art then maybe they are equal though.
Yeah, humming to calm a screeching baby sure is on a whole other aesthetic level.

Isn't expression the bottom line for it all? I actually disagree with OP's haughty statement that not all artistic mediums are the same, at least in essence. We have preferences but at the core is a desire to let out what we have inside, no?

Expression of what?

Don't be daft.

Why are Yea Forums and Yea Forums so obsessed with ranking art forms? This is a recurring cancer that needs to end, if you don't like literature then why the fuck are you even on Yea Forums.

Painting > literature > music

Expression of learned systems? Expression of digested materials?

What really separates writing as the highest form of art for me is the fact that it cannot be solved with talent alone. Surely a lot of writers were born with proclivity to dispense words in a beautiful, intriguing manner, but it's never enough. Here's a good quote from Dan Simmons:

>There are near-infant prodigies in music. (At the age of two, so the story goes, little Mozart would toddle downstairs in the middle of the night and play an unresolved chord on the harpsichord, knowing that his father would have to get out of bed and come downstairs to resolve it.)
>There are artistic prodigies such as Picasso. It’s reported that Andrew Wyeth was so proficient in drawing with charcoal when he was about seven that his instructor, his father N.C., banned him from drawing with it for at least a year so he wouldn’t fall behind in learning his skills with other media.
>There are no novelist prodigies. None. Nada. Zero. Zip. Zilch.
>It’s true that some young people have a better ear for language and innate sense of storytelling than perhaps 99% of the rest of the population, but becoming a writer demands years and decades of experience as a human being – who wants to read anything by even the most gifted callow 18-yr.-old? – and then more years and decades of apprenticeship to the Word.
>Recall Chaucer’s opening line to The Parliament of Fowls – “The lif so short, the craft so long to lerne.”
>Discipline. Reading to absorb the skills of writing. Study. Effort. Sweat. Learning. Maturing. More discipline. More study. More reading. More apprenticing. More maturing. More discipline. And then you can start.
>As part of that discipline, all writers must read widely and deeply to learn how writers write. It’s that simple. Good instruction can take years off your apprenticeship by helping you ferret out the subtleties of style in other, better writers’ work, help you see the sometimes invisible but always present forms of structure, teach you to perceive the difficulties and triumphs of careful word choice, train you to thread the labyrinths of plotting – and so on and so forth ad infinitum (and ad nauseum).

Mozart's child pieces suck.

I always considered sculpture the greatest, and besides Michelangelo’s Pietá, Bernini is best in my opinion. Perhaps I’m a pleb for thinking that, I’d be curious to hear a more well versed anons opinions on Bernini’s talent. Architecture is also great (and a few sculptors were also architects) but I’m not sure I see much in modern architecture, I love cathedrals, architectural classicism, I am a man of simple aesthetic taste it seems.

Literature has the unique quality of being a mind-jacking, making the reader think your thoughts, nothing else can do that, even film.

>little Mozart would toddle downstairs in the middle of the night and play an unresolved chord on the harpsichord, knowing that his father would have to get out of bed and come downstairs to resolve it
that's a fucking lie, I didn't do that!

food
its the only one that uses all 5 senses

What a dumb post

haha BTFO

The greatest art form is philosophy

Cinema is the only venue in which a gesamtkunstwerk can be produced, thereby making it the ultimate artform.

...

>ah, yes, this cake is making me ponder the vacuity of modern human existence

>architecture
lol

Anyway, it's obviously music.

How can one grow out of expression of high intelligence? You can get used to it, but i dont believe you can grow out of Anouar Brahem or Djivan Gasparyan. It is a pure form of expressing ones soul in highly intelligent and often complex introspection through sound.

You've never had a bite of banality?

film

Favourite things to listen to while reading?

Pic related

Attached: NWS.jpg (600x600, 136K)

I'd like you guys to try this

Music is supreme if it is performed. At that point, it is the melding of linguistic skill (even when not singing, the best phrases imitate the human voice), connection to audience, improvisation, and of course all the musical skills of rhythm harmony, technique etc.
Performance of music has a similar quality to told stories and theatre, except for evolved for the most part- a skilled folksinger can "do" a work of literature, poetry or any kind of story at least as well as members of those disciplines, if he is skilled enough. This is because he is effectively one person talking in two voices, that of the mouth and hands/instrument.
Remembering that art should be differentiated between narrative/poetic/performative, and non-narrative/immediate/visual forms.

actually based, just mad musiclets itt

>music is restrained to basic emotions
youtube.com/watch?v=QR_9WcDnRVM
try again pseud

They didn't have 2.5-3 hour movies.
Some movies transcend all other formats by the essence of them containing all and itself.
To be honest.

As a painter i agree with Schopenhauer. In the sense that music when done in the correct manner has the ability to evoke emotion and make you forget yourself. And it does this better than most other art. Or rather, in the old aesthetic sense, it makes you feel a sense of beauty or the sublime that is harder to pull off in other arts.

Music effects a large mass of people in a simpler manner than person who would be effected by a book or painting or poem.

>t. letzter Mensch

Attached: serveimage-12.jpg (960x720, 78K)

Sounds like you've been playing some pleb-tier games. I can see how you've come to dislike the medium, but you should at least try some of the games people consider artistic, before dismissing it.

By this logic, listening to music while looking at architecture should be a peak experience, but it's obscure at best.

Yet, Television, and previously plays, is the most popular form of entertainment...so is entertainment art?

>listening to music while looking at architecture should be a peak experience, but it's obscure at best
>he hasn't stood in front of the Kölner Dom while listening to Schumann's 3rd Symphony
youtube.com/watch?v=IOGW7bgfuro

Music has large impact but in my opinion architecture stands out the grandest of them all. One issue with music is that it get’s lost in time, this problem is true of all artforms but in particular for music as it’s hard to ”store”

>implying the passing nature of the material is a "problem"
lol

Goethe called architecture frozen music you halfwit.

Urban planning > architecture

Attached: 64548846363.jpg (747x642, 68K)

nobody in the universe can prove this wrong

Attached: vue-haussmann-paris.jpg (912x608, 200K)

Music is for brainlets who don't read but want to feel cultured, proven by the people on this thread who can only name-drop Beethoven and Mozart.

You only grow out of music when you use it as a substitute for intellectualism and/or fashion. Start being a sincere listener of music.

Painting. Abstract expressionism in specific.

None yet, but some get close. Satantango being one.

You don't seem to be a genuine art connoisseur, otherwise you wouldn't push such a vapid generalization of an entire art form like that. I understand that 99.9% of people on the internet who vouch for video games as art are either children or man-children, and this can curb your enthusiasm for investigating further altogether, but this is ultimately at your expense, because you are passing up studying the art of the culture of today's intelligentsia (i.e. techno-capitalists).

Alex Kierkegaard, aka icycalm, who is the only serious art connoisseur with a proper education involved in video games I have come across so far, has been building a list of "art games" for years now, and is still working on this list. So far, the games featured include:

Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun (1986, Technōs Japan)
OutRun (1986, SEGA)
Kick Off (1989, Dino Dini)
SimCity (1989, Maxis)
Wing Commander (1990, Origin Systems)
Sonic the Hedgehog (1991, SEGA)
Merchant Prince (1993, HDI)
Phantasmagoria (1995, Sierra)
Baldur's Gate (1998, BioWare)
Power Stone (1999, Capcom)
Gunvalkyrie (2002, Smilebit)
Mushihime-sama (2004, CAVE)
Rust (2013, Facepunch Studios)
Planetary Annihilation (2014, Uber Entertainment)
Life is Feudal: MMO (2017, Bitbox Ltd.)

He has written articles on all of them, expressing in full detail his reasons for labeling these games as art. These are also not the only artistic video games out there; these are just the pinnacle examples. He has written a wealth of essays covering video game design, the culture surrounding video games, virtual reality, art in general, and much more. I'm not here to tell you that you HAVE to get into video games, or that you HAVE to stop enjoying what you enjoy; I'm just sharing information that seems to go relatively unmentioned on the internet.

Video games are quick to be discarded as nothing more than an electronic toy for children, and in many cases that's all they are, but it should be obvious to anyone who is an art connoisseur at any level that there is more to them than that, and that there is craftsmanship, design, and consequently an aesthetic experience to be traced and measured in them.

Attached: 1537603103325.jpg (540x806, 172K)

You get tired of it even if you are a sincere listener. Music starts as a huge beauty, then becomes ephemeral.

>art connoisseur
Cringest thing I have read this month

Why does that make you cringe? Are you not aware that that is a used term?

>superior art form
There's no such thing

>Are you not aware that that is a used term?
Only in the pretentious cultural/academic cirlces of anglophone countries.

It's possible to become a connoisseur in anything as long as there's a will for it. I don't see why this should bother you, but whatever.

I was responding to a vapid generalization of people who don't care about games, supposedly because "player interaction" is some incredibly complex thing that makes games greater than anything else and supposedly more difficult to get into. ("they want a more passive experience")
>you are passing up studying the art of the culture of today's intelligentsia (i.e. techno-capitalists).
These people are cancer of humanity and I don't care about their "culture". The games that are actually worthy of playing are probably far from this mainstream.
I have read some stuff by icyclam, I remember. To call this man "educated" is an insult to every person that finished high school. The games that you listed, judging by Youtube videos, mostly look like complete visual cancer and indeed function like toys (flashy things! boom! quick movement!).
I actually used to play a lot of vidya and still do from time to time. Your and icyclam's arguments are shit either way.

>post h*usmann trash

High standards of proof you got there. You must be well read.
And this guy not only knows about language usage in every country but is a master of brinksmanship, narrowly averting devils trips.

I'm impressed by this image board.

>I was responding to a vapid generalization of people who don't care about games
Can't argue with that. I wasn't defending the guy you replied to.

>These people are cancer of humanity and I don't care about their "culture".
Why are they "cancer of humanity"? Sounds like cultural Marxist nonsense, unless you want to clarify otherwise.

>The games that you listed, judging by Youtube videos, mostly look like complete visual cancer and indeed function like toys (flashy things! boom! quick movement!).
If you're just going to watch a few seconds of these games on YouTube and call it a day, you shouldn't be responding to me. You obviously don't have the will to explore video games beyond your narrow understanding of them; in fact, I'm not sure you even have the will to be posting in a thread about art at all, because you compulsively dumped hundreds, no, thousands of hours of playing, studying, and thinking which eventually culminated in icycalm's tastes and the breakdown of video game art he's developed, without even reading a shred of the reasoning behind any of his selections. Take it from me, someone who knew 13 of those 15 games before even encountering icycalm, and who actually spent a significant amount of time with them. He is not accessible like that — you can't just watch a few seconds on YouTube and think you're going to suddenly come to the same realizations as him. It makes no sense.

Unjustifiable nonsense.

>Music? Probably, but it gets old, and you kinda grow out of it. Yes, even classical.
Literally the most retarded thing I've ever read
Kill yourself.

S E E T H I N G

Paris is one of the most intelligently designed cities.

>Ballet certainly is greatly underrated by Yea Forums.
what are the most Yea Forums ballets?

Attached: the-dance-foyer-at-the-opera.jpg (1000x689, 177K)

Pretty sure Borges liked tangos and milongas, Cortázar liked jazz. But they weren't aiming to write symphonies. I'm sure what you're saying applies to someone but it's not a rule.

Yeah you are correct, I didn't read the post you were replying too. Perfectly designed for sightseeing (when politicians do not decide to build shit pyramids in front of monuments) and shooting revolts but I don't like the architecture style

>Why are they "cancer of humanity"? Sounds like cultural Marxist nonsense, unless you want to clarify otherwise.
>not approving of the shitty contemporary treatment of culture and intellectualism is "cultural marxist nonsense"
You sure do seem like a smart guy.
>You obviously don't have the will to explore video games beyond your narrow understanding of them
I have played all sorts of games in my life. I just don't feel like installing that garbage with flashy anime art and racing cars onto my computer and playing it, hopefully getting caught in its hamster wheel along the way, to "realize" that garbage with flashy anime art and racing cars is actually for some mysterious reason a peak of the contemporary artistic production.
>you compulsively dumped hundreds, no, thousands of hours of playing, studying, and thinking which eventually culminated in icycalm's tastes and the breakdown of video game art he's developed, without even reading a shred of the reasoning behind any of his selections
Yes, I'll compulsively ignore the arguments of someone who addresses their readers as "fagots" and spends an entire essay spouting complete nonsense about art history and arguing with strawmen from his head.

Just kill yourself.

Nice, but that’s tautological. Human discourse adapts to the environment. It takes planning and good marketing to gave it the other way around. Nice try though.

Actually theater is the highest art, but the actors are the audience.

videogames aren´t art, they´re toys

I listen to stuff from gregorian chant to serialism and I still agree with him

brainlet thread

this guy right here
which art needs every art to be a masterwork...
film is a close second but not as transcendental in the moment. when people say you should watch XYZ-movie high or tripping that is aspiring to teeter

Hey how is your staring role in the live broadway adaptation of confederacy of dunces going?

fagot

Anime is the superior art form, followed by video games.

Kek, what a retarded and pretentious post.

What a childish post. Not worth diving into at all. Actually read, or shut up.

>>every artform is equal! let’s all hold hands and get along, man!
>Wrong.
This isn't wrong at all. The determining of one art being superior to another is invariably a subjective process.

Excellent thread

Yeah music is superior
>tfw listening to music while high on opiates
You may not like it, but that's peak human experience.

The result of that experience is that you became a druggie.

Video games are the pinnacle of art. Video games combine all other art forms into one with the addition of interactivity and immersion. Short-sighted Yea Forums plebs will disagree

fagot (and probably samefagot )

That must be why we see such sophisticated discussions and people on Yea Forums.

Different artforms serve different purposes. The pleasure a beautiful image gives is very different from hearing a great song or reading a great book. Artforms which combine these elements like film are tricky though.

ngl playing and suffering through Rain World was one the greatest artistic experiences I've had recently and visually it's genuinely original and really good while also using its medium to a great effect

aren't these arts personified by muses and calliope is the greatest of them?

peasant

Its Film
Needs to be well written,to look good and to sound good,there are too many ways you can go wrong,but also many more that can create beauty.

That's a different user, dude. There's more than one person on this board who disagrees with you; big whoop.

>not approving of the shitty contemporary treatment of culture and intellectualism is "cultural marxist nonsense"
It is if you're referring to the contemporary treatment of culture and intellectualism that I'm referring to when I say techno-capitalists. I'm not talking about covert Marxists and liberals who ride on the coattails of capitalists and access society by disparaging it. I'm talking about enterprising capitalists who properly network, work hard, and get shit done, because they're useful and creative; there are still plenty of people like that in the world and they are the people I am talking about, and it is these people who endeavored to create the video game industry and the high culture surrounding it.

>Yes, I'll compulsively ignore the arguments of someone who addresses their readers as "fagots" and spends an entire essay spouting complete nonsense about art history and arguing with strawmen from his head.
Well, you sound like you've made up your mind already, so I guess there's no point in trying to convince you further.

Attached: Nietzsche-refuse-tone.jpg (850x440, 88K)

Opera is the highesf form of art. It is the Gesamtkunstwerk.

Attached: AFD5DA14-2ABE-4835-8088-8F4B717C076B.jpg (640x360, 90K)

Opera is italian degeneracy.
The true total art is cinema

>Nietzschefags
Should be bannable

The highest peak in opera was with Wagner and even then his texts needed work

...

Film and vidya operate on completely different mechanisms. Is painting a subset of cinema ?

Painting isn't photography. Retard.

Thanks for concurring with my point. I didn't expect it to be this easy.

>all these fags praising film
I can't think of a single art form i despise more.

Then you tell the correct way.

It does

Retard.

Bad films are shit, the industry churns out so much dull derivative junk, and those that pay too much attention to them are not helpful. But some films are great art. The potential isn’t even being explored fully

>I'm talking about enterprising capitalists who properly network, work hard, and get shit done, because they're useful and creative
Such as icycalm?

>the video game industry and the high culture surrounding it
Are you trying to defeat me by making me choke myself with laughter? HIGH FUCKING CULTURE BWAAAAAAAHAHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

>Well, you sound like you've made up your mind already, so I guess there's no point in trying to convince you further.
Just find some sightly better arguments than pointing me to that schizo scammer.

No, i hate "good" films just as much.

>People STILL mad about music being the greatest art form

It isn't.

OFFICIAL art form power rankings:
1. Manga
2. Visual novels
3. Light novels
4. Anime
5. JRPGS
6. J-Pop
------POWER GAP--------
8. Video games
8. Comics
9. Cartoons
------POWER GAP--------
10. Film
11. Literature
12. Painting
13. Sculpture
14. Architecture
15. Music

Alright, call me a retard if you will, but I had a thought. But what if you were to include breeding and/or conditioning as art? Be that people or animals.

Not an argument

The quality of the piece is more important than the artform

Forgot to include Kabuki, Rakugo, Noh, Origami, etc.

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS TIME AND SPACE ITS FUCKING SPACE-TIME

Seriously, how can people be that stupid?

leave this website pseud

>THERES NO SUCH THING AS A SCHOOL AND A BUS ITS FUCKING SCHOOLBUS

SCHOOL AND BUS ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, OF COURSE IT'S NOT SCHOOLBUS

Seriously, how stupid can people be? Where does it stops?

SPACE AND TIME ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, OF COURSE IT'S NOT SPACE-TIME

Seriously, how stupid can people be? Where does it stops?

Attached: aid103231-v4-728px-Lift-One-Eyebrow-Step-7-Version-6.jpg (728x410, 34K)

>When we write and read novels we create transcendental bonds between men that no musical tune can possibly match.
Really? Music is universal and different forms appreciated by all.

I think the same can be said about any art form. You can develop technique, musical knowledge and a good ear but that's completely different than writing new music that has staying power i.e. good.

War is best art form.

Oh really?

Attached: DVydve3W0AE8LzE.jpg (900x900, 82K)

>Such as icycalm?
Sure. He always had a paywall on his site, and has a Patreon now, and several editors. But, good job completely dislocating my point from the discussion with this quality remark.

Also, you misread me. When I said "the high culture surrounding it," I was making a distinction between the higher culture and the lower ones surrounding video games. Obviously the majority of people who play games are among the lower cultures, but this goes for everything, not just video games. The notion that there is no higher culture surrounding video games is the laughable one; you are really uninformed then, and you don't realize how many people are gamers and what kinds of people are, or what icycalm is currently contributing to the scene for future generations to use as a launching pad for something greater. Remember that we aren't even a quarter into the 21st century yet, and video games are barely 60 years old — more like barely 50 even, since they really only started to shape up starting in the 70's. But my guess is you are obsessed with some idea that video games are a laughable toy, and that's it, and can't mentally progress past this idea, for whatever reason. Rejecting people you haven't even read beyond a couple hours' worth doesn't help either.

Attached: InsomniaGOTY.jpg (1300x5231, 1.79M)

I’m curious now. What about the medium do you dislike so much? The pairing of visuals and narrative, or the addition of music or what?

There is no such thing as length and depth, its length-depth.

>architecture

Servile art, can't compete in the category of fine arts so I'm going to exclude it.

>music

The only art that reach the schopenharian will, or, kantian thing-in-itself.

>literature

The only art that can explore the depths of human soul and it's outspread

>painting and sculpture

Most quick effect in art being the ones who can be admired in a few seconds. There's indeed a discussion about who's the best among these, specially in italian renaissance. The discussion is called Paragone and it's headed by Leonardo and Michelangelo. I personally think sculpture is more complete because the sense of touch presented in it.

>cinema/theater

Cinema is consider the most complete of the arts because includes theater, painting, literature and music in it. But it can not explore the depths of human soul because we only have the external emotions of the actors. Theater, on the other hand, can only be throughout a stage full of spectators and with an interactive dynamic, being more heated and powerful than cinema

>dance

irrelevant.

My order is:

Literature
Music
Sculpture
Painting
Theater
Cinema
Dance

basing it in what is most heartwarming. But doing an order of what is most close to the truth of the spirit:

Music
Literature
Painting
Sculpture
Cinema
Theater
Dance

I've a podcast about it, but it's in portuguese. Feel free to listen to.

youtube.com/watch?v=fgRAtsy7zq0&t=219s

And i'm sorry about my rusty english.

Attached: 34345353.jpg (538x960, 72K)

read critique of judgement
best art is nature

Demagogy.

The lack of a direct window into the characters' thoughts mean cheap tricks must be used for exposition, having the characters behave unnaturally for exposition. No human interaction ever looks natural in a movie.

They're too short.
Too short to develop characters properly, and there's no time for subtlety so attempts to make you feel invested are invariably too heavy handed.

Movies feels utterly predictable. It usually feels like the director is trying too hard to make you feel a specific way about things.

What garbage did you eat growing up for your brain to turn out like this?

Attached: plebeianreaction.jpg (1280x720, 151K)

The image IS the window into the character's thoughts. There are seven and 12 hour long films, the conventional limitation is artificial. "Predictability" is meaningless as a criticism, it's a completely subjective thing over which the director has no control, like boredom.

Really displaying your lack of interaction with the medium here, bud.

If movies just accepted that the viewer will have no insight into the characters' thoughts, they would be better for it.
But no, they always feel the need to show how the character thinks and how everything affects them, and it looks unnatural and exaggerated.

But sure, i won't pretend i have a lot of experience with the medium, i have no reason to waste my time with it except for social reasons.

good taste
prefer sibelius (2, 3, 7)

rite of spring :^)

The character's thoughts can be the image on screen. Films are essentially dreams, and vice-a-versa. They are the most basic kind of thought. The internal monologue is clumsy, showing a character looking pensive then having a "Eureka!" moment is clumsy, but simply showing the mental image of the character, with no filters, special effects, "shimmer," or other artificial indication that the image is a dream image, is not. You have what is called a "prejudice."

>it actually becomes more real and enjoyable than real life
Why? the best forms of fiction are elevated above reality, and 'enjoyment' is secondary to an aesthetic experience. You're talking about your own approach (IE the first-person invested, "see oneself in the text" attitude) and then proclaiming yourself some kind of authority on how to read because you've done the literary equivalent of 'acid'. All you've really done is brag about the vividness of your imagination and then used that to titter away from actually justifying your claims

Yes

I don't know any movie that does that.
Also i don't think any artistic medium can mimic the bizarre shift in perspective you experience in dreams.

Mirror (Tarkovsky), Mulholland Drive (Lynch), An Andalusian Dog (Buñuel) all do this. These are just examples. Dream-film has been around almost as long as conventional literature-and-theater derived film. And you wouldn't think the perspective shift can be replicated, because you haven't seen a film (the only medium capable of doing it) do it. It's not exactly the same because the it's the
character's perspective, and it isn't happening in your own head. This is as close to objective replication of the dream state as we can get, unless video games mature as an art form in our lifetimes, which I doubt

Attached: ordet.jpg (3000x2474, 2.83M)

Sounds boring.
Sorry senpai, i'm just not very engaged by movies.

Then why are you offering your stupid and ignorant opinion?

Nice job ignoring the fact that he stole money and bans nearly everyone who pays to join his site.
Such capitalism, very free market

>The notion that there is no higher culture surrounding video games is the laughable one; you are really uninformed then, and you don't realize how many people are gamers and what kinds of people are
The number of these people, who systematically analyze video games as art (and aren't schizos like icycalm), in the way literary theorists and musicologists and aesthetic philosophers analyze their own subjects, seems to be so miniscule as to be negligible. Point me to two such people other than icycalm, and I'll read them gladly.

>Remember that we aren't even a quarter into the 21st century yet
And that is supposed to mean what exactly? The other three quarters of a century are more interesting and innovative than the first quarter?
>video games are barely 60 years old — more like barely 50 even, since they really only started to shape up starting in the 70's
Again - and? You mean it's a young art form and it's yet to develop? Of course it'll develop, it's got the whole eternity before it, not just three quarters of a century.
But, on the other hand, in its first 50 years film already produced Citizen Kane, Fritz Lang, Eisenstein, Buñuel, Dziga Vertov, Dovzhenko, Jean Renoir, Italian neorealism... Don't tell me racing games and anime are their equivalent in video games, I respect this medium enough to find that an insult.

>But my guess is you are obsessed with some idea that video games are a laughable toy, and that's it, and can't mentally progress past this idea, for whatever reason. Rejecting people you haven't even read beyond a couple hours' worth doesn't help either.
I'm not wasting hours of my time on schizophrenic megalomaniac's rambling that insults every one of its readers, casually ignores hundreds of years of aesthetic theory and shits out unfounded garbage before me. Should I spend hours reading the manifestos of Islamic terrorists because I can't reject their ideas just so as well?
I wrote "find some better arguments" (I have played and still play games, I don't despise them as you'd like to think). Go do it already. Or are you a cultist who knows nothing beyond icycalm's crap?

Not an argument

Based. All films are social normie engineering. Even art films.

Music excels all. You can't make music from books. You can make books from music. Films don't exist without books watered down into screenplays.

>Nice job ignoring the fact that he stole money and bans nearly everyone who pays to join his site.
The theft was over two decades ago and has nothing to do with him being capitalistic or not. Same for the banning procedure — are you saying good capitalists don't fire people who are discerned as unproductive, uncooperative, and damaging to the efficiency and reputation of their enterprises? Not to mention, his site was never really a business in the conventional sense, but a personal endeavor; more like his online home. His idea of hospitality is in line with the hospitality commonly employed by dignified men who own homes.

>Point me to two such people other than icycalm, and I'll read them gladly.
You already have more to read by icycalm than you would ever want to on this subject, but fine.

Recap is one guy.
postback.geedorah.com/archivo.html

Tim Rogers, whose writings you have to dig up at this point, is another guy.
web.archive.org/web/20180814111049/http://insertcredit.com/
web.archive.org/web/20150401032227/http://www.actionbutton.net/
kotaku.com/tag/tim-rogers

There is no one who approaches the subject in such a comprehensive and calculated method as icycalm though, to my knowledge. You won't find that anywhere. If there was, icycalm would point them out.

>Of course it'll develop
Right, and we are seeing how it is developing. And it's developing in a good way. You just aren't paying attention.

>Don't tell me racing games and anime are their equivalent in video games, I respect this medium enough to find that an insult.
You're a liar. You don't respect them at all. Dismissing Nekketsu Kouha Kunio-kun as just an anime game, or OutRun as just a racing game, means you don't respect them, and don't even understand how genres work for video games either. There is no such thing as an "anime" game. Not caring what it is about these games that qualifies them as Art to icycalm and not bothering to look into it further means you disrespect them, not respect them.

>that insults every one of its readers
He doesn't. And as a gamer, I don't consider harsh words towards readers an insult. I'd have to consider a game automatically reducing the difficulty level for me when I lost not an insult then, but I do. The real insult is pity.

>casually ignores hundreds of years of aesthetic theory and shits out unfounded garbage before me.
He doesn't, but you sure do. All this crap you're posting is completely unfounded, all because you don't have a thick enough skin to read him. He's written books' worth on this stuff, devised an entire aesthetic theory and genre model for the artform, and here you are basically just ignoring all of it because he "insulted" you. Not good, not good at all.

And besides, who else would you even want writing about them? Some academic chump who hasn't played anything since the 80's? A liberal arts / film student who can't comprehend mechanical distinctions between genres? No thanks.

music inspires one to dance, it not only touches the spirit, it animates it, possesses it, paintings, books, even films are cerebral stimulation, intellectual, the may move us emotionally and reinforce our prejudices, one is rarely given to fits of jubilation upon closing the cover of a novel, it is a light soul that can dance, a compassionate and accommodating spirit that can dance to another's rhythms

you forget about laughter

*hits blunt*

>total art

Attached: IMG000062.jpg (640x480, 30K)

You're right but for the wrong reasons. Interactivity and immersion are completely irrelevant to why video games are any good.

not him but i've found icycalm to be dishonest in what limited examples of his writing i have read. he is not rigorous enough to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of art history or aesthetics (as philosophy of art, rather than of beauty). he's presenting a certain interpretation, often ahistorical, of art in order to advance his limited understanding of it as the basis for whatever metric he is using to discuss art, its highs and lows, etc. he is not interested in video games as objects or software with a history, but what they mean as symbols in the vaults of his own autistic, self-immersive philosophy.

>may move us emotionally and reinforce our prejudices

I don't think I did

laughter is your body going into spasms. it's closer to dance than just thinking "wow this makes me sad". there is more going on in the human body when it comes to feeling emotions v wanting to dance than simply moving to a rhythm in the latter case

>he is not rigorous enough to demonstrate a comprehensive understanding of art history or aesthetics (as philosophy of art, rather than of beauty).
He is rigorous, but not in the way needed to communicate his comprehensive understanding of these things to people who require mathematical expressions to parse the world around them. It's kind of like the difference between people who prefer reading the Analytics versus the Continentals; the former's criticism of the latter goes along the lines of what you're saying here. Over time, someone will probably convert him into this "rigorous" format (and as a result, sterilize him and spoil what he wrote). What's being overlooked is that he is not just talking about his own interpretation — he is talking about his interpretation as it relates to everything else within itself, successfully communicating the most valuable parts of his interpretation, which can construct higher ones down the road. This is essentially what the Pre-Socratics and the Continentals were doing too; they all understood philosophy as a matter of taste.

dancing can occur just as spasmodically as a laughing fit, you can be standing in line at the bank and a good song comes on the house music and you start tapping your foot and bobbing your head, laughter may seem to be an involuntary impulse, yet one must learn a sense of irony or absurdity, or in more refined cases cruelty, in order to appreciate what makes material humorous. Also, in the written and spoken word, comedy is not universal, it may require translation. Rhythm and melody are universal, you only need to hear the music to understand it bids you to dance

Music is low brow.

Music appeals to emotion and the soul.
Literature appeals to the intellect and the mind.
Poetry appeals to both, and is therefore the superior artforn.
Cinema is a rape of the senses.

>dancing can occur just as spasmodically as a laughing fit

this is what i'm getting at

>Rhythm and melody are universal

not necessarily. there are other factors that would make, for example, someone who likes waltz not dance to house music

music is universal, literature is personal, architecture is cultural

>He is rigorous
in terms of historical consistency in the subject of art history no he is not. i majored in art history and i am by no means an expert, but having done art historical readings for several years i know what makes for convincing evidence, and i know what academic art history looks like in contemporary art lit. icycalm -- and i say again this is a limited interpretation on my behalf -- appears as though he thinks pseudo-romantic, aphoristic nietzschean larping makes for rigorous philosophy. it may be a convincing narrative to those willing to believe, or trust easily in authoritative voices, but when it comes to actual connoisseurship requiring reason and evidence, he is lacking.

> they all understood philosophy as a matter of taste.
nonsense. read derrida

>but when it comes to actual connoisseurship requiring reason and evidence, he is lacking.
He really isn't though. Take for example these excerpts from his earlier writings, on adventure games and narratives in video games:

>The importance of plot in [Adventure] games then is that it sets up those puzzles, and therefore becomes structurally implicated in the design of the game itself. The plot here is then no mere adornment; modifying it in any significant way impacts the whole game. […] Even though the plot suddenly acquires importance in adventure games, it does not acquire importance as plot as such, but only as a mechanism through which the riddles are set up. The riddles are the game, and therefore only they are the ones which will determine its quality.

>What a literary critic and a game critic look for in a plot are worlds apart. The literary critic is looking solely for depth of insight into the life of human beings – nothing less, and nothing more. The game critic, on the other hand, is looking for the bare minimum of a kind of atmospheric effect that sets up a scene. Into that scene slides the player, and all the rest is gaming.

>It should be clear to anyone with half a brain that these people (meaning Tim Rogers, Eric-Jon Waugh, Kierron Gillen, Stephen Poole, the entire Edge magazine staff, and their by now innumerable imitators in journlolistic and (pseudo-)academic circles, as well as in the blogo- and forum-spheres) are not reviewing games per se, but textures. Colors, shapes, forms. Perhaps even sounds and music: atmosphere at the very most — and nothing more.

>Imagine Wanda to Kyozou (Shadow of the Colossus), only with the colossi replaced by giant zombie Nazis with swastikas tattooed onto their foreheads, and the protagonist with an Israeli special forces agent. [...] Would all those reams of text written by the pseuds (journlolists, academics, blogoroids, and forumroids) still remain valid? Would they still have anything to do with the new versions of these games, or would they all be immediately rendered invalid by these simple substitutions? Note that the only thing we’ve done to the games is replace a bunch of textures — in other words a bunch of colors. We’ve only touched the colors — not the system, nor the controls, nor the physical properties of the player’s avatar or those of his adversaries, nor the level design, nor the difficulty curve.

1/2

you're not getting at anything, a person going into uncontrollable spasms about something only they can understand as opposed to a person instinctively moving their body to a specified beat and tempo, two wildly different things and not exemplary of the dichotomy of the Apollonian versus the Dionysian, i think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who can only dance to a waltz or tango and is either incapable or uninterested in dancing to club music. That is the difference between Apollonian and Dionysian, a rehearsed, concert of movement with specific steps versus an unpredictable, spontaneous outburst of rhythmic movement, not uncoordinated, just improvised

2/2

>As far as videogames go, if you change even a single bit, a single byte, a single pixel, you’ve made a new game — because it is impossible for us to set some standard, some minimum number or type of changes which would warrant our calling the new version a new game, we must accept that the tiniest change would result in a brand-new game. But — and here’s the important point in all this — you have indeed made a new game, but not one that warrants a brand-new review! So a review of Chess would apply equally to all physical Chess sets, and it would also apply to all Chess videogames ever, with at most an added paragraph here or there to distinguish the quality of the different sets, or of the added features, such as A.I., online play, etc., of the different computer versions. But the bulk of the text would remain the same for all of them, because the bulk of the text must deal with this set of basic, fundamental rules which we have baptized with the name “Chess”.

>What makes Ico Ico, above all, is the concept of a 3D action-platformer, in which the player has to fend for an A.I.-controlled partner. This is what must be analyzed first and above all — what deserves analysis more than anything else in this game! Similarly, what makes Wanda Wanda is not the “moral” dilemma of whether the colossi have “harmed” anyone and whether they therefore “deserve” to “die”, and the “pangs of conscience” that the gays feel when they “kill” them — but the concept of a 3D action game in which popcorn enemies are eliminated in favor of boss battles, and the boss battles are structured like elaborate platforming challenges. It is these concepts and mechanics which form the essence of these games (and around which the textures have been draped, and without which these textures would have been practically meaningless; no more effective than a light-display show — i.e. a movie, a mere cutscene), and it is precisely these concepts and mechanics which the pseudo-reviews either do not address at all, or skim over with an unpardonable frivolity compared to their gushing and sickening sentimental effusion over trifles.

>What all these deliberations can help us appreciate more, is the primacy of mechanical over aesthetic considerations in videogames. For if a mechanical change essentially necessitates the complete scrapping and rewriting of our review (i.e. of the work’s complete evaluation), whereas an aesthetic change can be accounted for by simply changing a couple of lines, this is clear and irrefutable evidence that the vast majority of the work’s value resides in its mechanical part, and not the aesthetic.

Now, there is clearly a sharp reasoning behind all that, and there's a ton of passages like these all throughout his essays. So, I don't consider him lacking on that.

>nonsense. read derrida
Perhaps "understood" wasn't the right word. They had the instinct for the notion.

Porn is the highest form of art.
You can't prove me wrong. No other form of art ever stirred and captured the imagination of mankind as much as porn, since the dawn of time, not even close.

Attached: 789bb.jpg (1280x853, 326K)

they're both bodily reactions. the point i'm getting at is they're not so easily removed from each other as active vs passive as you seem to push.

>dichotomy of the Apollonian versus the Dionysian

jesus christ please no. these are not acceptable ways of talking or thinking about art.

being incapable is something else unrelated to the argument. 'uninterested' is not a dominant factor, as yes i could convince someone who likes waltz to dance to house for the purpose of proving a point. this is not what i'm getting at. the point is that instinctively i will skip over songs i am not interested in based on elements other than their rhythm if i were to instead be able to find a song i am interested in. it doesn't mean that, if pressed, i couldn't ever dance to the songs i skip. effectively the melody would act as 'translator' for rhythm, to have it appeal to certain people instead of others. in this case universality is not a simple case of not needing translation

Music is No1
Cinema is No2
Somewhere behind that is painting architecture dance etc
Anything that needs translation will be towards the bottom

>entire threads of faggots bumping artforms against one another without even definining what quality constitutes a 'superior' form of art

Attached: ndfff.png (800x729, 48K)

he is too careless with his use of words to be a 'sharp' reasoner. it is not clear what he means by 'design', what its extent is, what does not factor into design, etc. he has implicated plot in design, by extension level design, but still says "we've only touched the colours". he says plot 'is then no mere adornment', even calling it a 'mechanism' but then goes on to say 'it is these concepts and mechanics [(?)] which form the essence of these games'. what is plot then? what does he mean by mechanics? mechanisms? if he is not interested in accounting for any sort of ambiguity, not interested in clearly defining his terms, he is not 'sharp'.

this aside, i was specifically talking about his art-historical writing, where he details a history of art. there was one where he was talking about a certain decline but skipped over major social and historical factors that would have complicated the idea. it seems to me, then and now, he is not interested in dealing with any complications. and if i am to play psychoanalyst his idea of philosophy corresponds to his idea of immersion in that outside factors are irrelevant, however necessary they are to a functioning understanding that will hold up to scrutiny.

before you try it, i am not interested in reading your justification/personal interpretation of his theories.

>there are bands I don't like, therefore music is an inferior form of expression
you haven't even offered an opinion to make this an argument, "laughter," that's your statement on art, you want to define the parameters of the argument without even making one, I already offered a counterpoint stating that, "one must learn a sense of irony or absurdity, or in more refined cases cruelty, in order to appreciate what makes material humorous." Defecating is a bodily reaction too, is Fiber One the pinnacle of artistic achievement?

i'm not talking about inferior/superior, and it is stupid of you to believe conversations are a pissing contest between two opposing views. my point is to get you to see the limits of your reasoning, the consequences of your logic. the answer is not just simple metaphysics, where something functions like something else, or in a certain way, just because you say it does. i already replied to your counterpoint.

we're talking immediate bodily reaction not 24 hours later. and this misses the point, the closeness between a joyous spasm on one hand and a joyous spasm on the other. you already agreed with me here: "dancing can occur just as spasmodically as a laughing fit"

you're not talking about anything, you're just talking, you are taking what i said out of context, ignoring the rest, and it's been painfully obvious you've been exercising all restraint, and have failed, to avoid succumbing to insults, I'll say it again, music is artistic expression which can engage people body and soul, bringing them out in dancing, Victor Borge made people laugh with his music so it is capable of that as well, your rigid stance of "What about that which moves us to laughter? That's just your body reacting uncontrollably to a stimulus." Is that what you're getting at? What about it? Books that make you laugh? Harry getting diarrhea in Dumb and Dumber brought you out in tears? Here, , I'll take a stand, great art is that which elevates our consciousness and promotes universal harmony, the harmony brought out in 200,000 people dancing to the same music, not that which points out our most obvious desires and bids us roll around in our own filth. Then, are you ready for this? Music fulfills both of those criteria better than any other form of artistic expression out there, those same 200,000 people dancing can be induced to wanton fornication by those very same rhythms, music is the ultimate

>music is artistic expression which can engage people body and soul
so is every artistic expression. you're talking about active v passive, but the active bodily reaction to music is not necessarily more active than the bodily reaction in laughter, crying, anger, disgust, etc. what makes them more legitimate? 'body and soul' is something you've assigned to music without thinking how it could possibly be assigned to any other art form. you have not thought through the consequences of your logic, as i said.

also why is music superior for bringing out another art form in people, dance? is dance separate to music? the same?

> great art is that which elevates our consciousness and promotes universal harmony

why? again, simply because you say so? and again, 200,000 people laughing, crying, etc.
>better than
based on a hidden reasoning, a metaphysics
>wanton fornication
unnecessary complication in the metaphysics

please don't talk about body and soul. these aren't helpful philosophical terms. i assume you're here to actually discuss things rigorously and categorically rather than just express an idiosyncratic thought yes?

show me 200,000 people laughing at the same building, show me 200,000 people crying at the same painting, show me 200,000 people getting enraged by the same book, other than Mein Kampf

you've been upset ever since I ended the argument with this, poor boy had to start in with the pathos here

you talk about philosophy, then refuse to discuss Nietzsche, body and soul, metaphysics, what would you like to discuss, poor boy?

you're completely right. you can leave the thread now. thank you

how about Confucius, poor boy? He said music was the ultimate as well, is he off limits too?

poor boy hasn't read confucius, has he? poor boy, doesn't know ass from elbow, poor boy

yes let's talk about nietzsche's anti-philosophy as though it is the only legitimate philosophy, while offering our own poor, non-nietzschean categorisation as an insightful interpretation of all art. you've already done that so i guess it's my turn?

show me 200,000 people all dancing to beethoven's 9th

GREAT ARTIST COMING THROUGH

Attached: miley-cyrus-attends-the-61st-annual-grammy-awards-at-news-photo-1128843805-1550509520.jpg (1024x681, 77K)

couldn't find the 9th, thought some contemporary examples about universality would suffice
youtube.com/watch?v=mG24E0EbQ7E
youtube.com/watch?v=ZmO6lfHuYhM
youtube.com/watch?v=f7z8ZiRcQ9Q
youtube.com/watch?v=wZYYwCYi6_I
youtube.com/watch?v=1T6utlXm6dM
youtube.com/watch?v=G4Hpj9mHbCI

>creating unconscious patterns as opposed to breathing, moving, self-conscious art
lel virgins in the house

Attached: f45ed79db8b936f039b8cffb2a601697.jpg (480x360, 23K)

because everyone is doing it -at once-? since when does simultaneity feature in any idea of universality? you think playing these in a russian orthodox church will make people dance and fornicate? please revisit your idea of translation and universality

and here's one that i think illustrates the versatility of music in a single piece's ability to convey emotion, from reflective melancholy to grinning amusement, stimulate the exuberant, carefree inclination to sway one's body like two sheets to the wind, and astound the listener with the virtuoso competence and skill of the performer, at ten minutes it might tax those with limited attention spans, i understand there's a lot of you out there these days, hopefully Bernie Sanders will be able to provide you all with your medications for free come election year, wouldn't want you to have to work too hard for anything

youtube.com/watch?v=wW_dYLcate4

ahahhahahaha

Pure music can’t lie. It’s either good or it isn’t. Literature is a lot of artifice and personality cult.

jazz is the ultimate pseud music

give an example of pure music

being able to integrate multiple senses is not a pre at all, also film has so little freedom

>mostly form and function
yikes yikes yikes what an absolute pleb

guess that makes me an artist
that cuts to the bone, except it's a metaphalisicalistically abstractification compromorphisizing balicanistratificationalistiche anthroparticulaxenophoring dicultivatory ontopiscopalianian irrefutabatoryoacular shite sheet

no in 24 hours i will eject the memory

well thats pseud jazz. Jazz and classical have the most value in contrast, almost complementary in their approach to composition, rationality and immediacy

The subject regarding the existence of a form of art that is superior to all the others is irrelevant, and even some of the most notable thinkers fail to see this. All forms complement each other, and their role is to bring the world closer to a sort of Platonic ideal.
A life that has access to only one form would be sterile at best, because freedom of feeling would be reduced.
Today you can listen to Bach, tomorrow you can pick up a simple folk tune, the next day you can admire an oak tree, black locust, etc. while reading whatever novel you like.

hopefully with a bullet

ooh, somebody's been reading Adorno

plato hates art bruh

how about this? that press roll at 1:33 though
youtube.com/watch?v=teF-8IqFIh4

>because we only have the external emotions of the actors.
?

>falling for the le music is universal meme
Indian and Chinese classical musicians, who use different scales, would definitely not feel the same way about a piece written by Bach or Beethoven. Not to mention not all people share the same taste in genres, a significant amount of people today listen to rap, which I have a hunch a lot of you classic posters don't like.

From Doctor Faustus:
"To hear with eyes belongs to love's fine wit," he said, quoting
a Shakespeare sonnet, and claimed composers in every age had tucked
away some things in their notation that were meant more for the reading eye than for the ear. When the Flemish masters of polyphony, for
instance, had shaped their endless devices for interweaving voices in
contrapuntal relationship so that when read backwards one voice was
exactly like the other, it had very little to do with how it sounded, and
he would bet that only a very few would have noticed the joke with
their ears and that it had been intended instead for the eye of the professional. For instance, in his Marriage at Cana Orlando di Lasso had
used six voices for the six jugs of water, which one could count more
easily by sight than by ear; and in Joachim a Burck's St. john Passion,
the phrase about "one of the officers" who strikes Jesus is set to just
one note, but the "two" in the later phrase "and two others with him"
is given two notes.
He introduced several more such Pythagorean jokes, intended more
for the eye than the ear, hoodwinking the ear so to speak, in which music had indulged ever and again, and disclosed that, in the final analysis, he attributed them to the art's inherent lack of sensuality, indeed to
its anti-sensualism, to a secret bias toward asceticism. Indeed it was the
most intellectual of all the arts, which was evident from the fact that in
music, as in no other art, form and content were intertwined, were absolutely one and the same. One might very well say, music "appeal� to
the ear"; but it did so only in a qualified sense-that is, only in those
instances where hearing, like any other sense, acted as the conduit, the
receptive organ for the intellectual content. But in fact there existed
music that did not reckon at all with ever being heard. That was the
case with a six-voiced canon by J. B. Bach, in which he had reworked a
thematic idea by Frederick the Great. In it one had a piece that was intended for neither the human voice nor any known instrument, indeed
for no sense-based realization whatever, but that was music per se, music as pure abstraction. Perhaps, Kretzschmar said, it was music's deepest desire not to be heard at all, not even seen, not even felt, but, if that
were possible, to be perceived and viewed in some intellectually pure
fashion, in some realm beyond the senses, beyond the heart even.

Video games are a wasted opportunity. Games such as Undertale or Stanley Parable , for example, aren't works of art but are a dimonstration that the medium of video games COULD birth art. Such a shame.

based

He can’t read emotions and body language. He wants to read their minds. A really unnatural aspect of some literature

/thread

>all these brainlets itt thinking music appreciation has to do with muh emotions
yikes
start listening to something other than chopin and tchaikovsky you fucking plebs

whew used to listen to this a shitload a long time ago, p nice since ive just picked up trumpet, thanks user.
never heard of him tbqh but looks like he has some interesting stuff, have you?

Unironically film.

>it is not clear what he means by 'design', what its extent is, what does not factor into design, etc.
>what is plot then? what does he mean by mechanics? mechanisms?
You're asking these questions because you haven't read enough of his writings. Did you expect the passages I pasted to cover every little detail? Because you shouldn't have. They were just a snippet from a particular chapter in the midst of many others. I won't be going out of my way to paste anything further either, because the material is there for you to read, if you are really interested in learning it. Everything important gets extrapolated on for the reader who isn't already in the know, somewhere, eventually.

As far as his Genealogy of Art Games goes, the book was never intended to be a full history of art. The book is subtitled as a polemic. What is covered there is what he deemed essential in explaining what is happening today. Not everything in history remains relevant to the present, even if it was, within some mold of past culture, true.

And to go back on the point with philosophy and taste; Nietzsche understood the matter better than Derrida, and most other philosophers. In Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks, he wrote:

>The Greek word which designates the Sage belongs etymologically to sapio, I taste, sapiens, the tasting one, sisypkos, the man of the most delicate taste; the peculiar art of the philosopher therefore consists, according to the opinion of the people, in a delicate selective judgment by taste, by discernment, by significant differentiation. He is not prudent, if one calls him prudent, who in his own affairs finds out the good; Aristotle rightly says: "That which Thales and Anaxagoras know, people will call unusual, astounding, difficult, divine but — useless, since human possessions were of no concern to those two." Through thus selecting and precipitating the unusual, astounding, difficult, and divine. Philosophy marks the boundary-lines dividing her from Science in the same way as she does it from Prudence by the emphasising of the useless. Science without thus selecting, without such delicate taste, pounces upon everything knowable, in the blind covetousness to know all at any price; philosophical thinking however is always on the track of the things worth knowing, on the track of the great and most important discernments. Now the idea of greatness is changeable, as well in the moral as in the esthetic realm, thus Philosophy begins with a legislation with respect to greatness, she becomes a Nomenclator. "That is great," she says, and therewith she raises man above the blind, untamed covetousness of his thirst for knowledge. By the idea of greatness she assuages this thirst: and it is chiefly by this, that she contemplates the greatest discernment, that of the essence and kernel of things, as attainable and attained.

Attached: Nietzsche-Tragic.jpg (520x667, 307K)

It's dressmaking.

Anime is the superior art form, behold
youtube.com/watch?v=Zbyx3-ow_p8

conceptual art; design

>you kinda grow out of classical

Maybe if you're an incorrigible idjit

Attached: 1550638009167.jpg (640x640, 160K)

BASED