Well Yea Forums

>so toys are art?
Unironically yes

Of course toys are art
There's a toys museum in my city, some pretty neat and expensive shit in there too

If music is art games should be art

pottery
vase usually is A product, with clear cut unimpressive goal.
but when made by a mater, A product becomes THE vase, a work of art. object to be admired. Expression of makers will with specifically chosen colours, shapes. With soul so to speak.
but then again, you wouldn't call a fucking flowerholder from ikea "work of art"

you stated question incorectly. games are/aren't art. games can be art tho
one would be hard pressed to find art in this mountain of shovelware industry is shitting out.

why would i need to change some random faggots mind LOL i'd knock him out and stomp his head in like a worldstar n*gger

To do that you'd first have to come up with a rigid definition of art everyone can agree on.
Good luck nigger.

there are computer museums, war museums. doesn't make it art

Anything a human makes to be enjoyed on an emotional level by humans is art.
What the fuck is art if not that?

Attached: ISFYCSMN.png (352x515, 430K)

Of course computer and war is art, what are you talking about you gigantic homo

If the debate were really with Crowder I'd just jump straight to forcing him to define his terms since that's where it always goes anyway

art can only be recognized by art. such as video games wil NEVER be art.

>computers and wars
>not full of fucking art
you're literally stupid.

>Can you?
Do I need to?

The word art is nothing more than an excuse.

Look up the definition of ART fucking retard

>What the fuck is art if not that?
Something for people to interpt

NOT A FUCKING GAME

>war is art
oh fuck off.

Art is subjective, meaning people can say art isn't art. So it's just your opinion, much like I'd say a lot of 'modern art' isn't art.
Good times.

any games with gameplay so good it can be considered art?

Lol you btfo of him, pussy didn't even respond

I did, doesn't apply to games

>SOUP CANS CAN'T BE ART

Here's your expensive high art, bro

Attached: modern_art.jpg (1200x624, 117K)

but games are the culmination of multiple art forms, dickhead

Attached: Josef machinarium.gif (126x156, 560K)

this. movies barely count as art

>definition: noun, the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination
Video games are the application of human creative skill and imagination

Replying to yourself is sad

Rez.

You can interpret the mearning of Astroid to be an endless and hopeless battle of self preservation.

>art can only be recognized by art
What could he have POSSIBLY meant by this.

Attached: skate or die dude you either skate or you die.jpg (378x339, 67K)

Vidja are programs. Nothing more.

Attached: 717VrgS6G7L.jpg (774x1247, 131K)

>DUDE A CAKE IS JUST A EGG CAUSE THAT WAS ONE OF THE INGREDIENTS

retard

That's not how it works. Just because some moron thinks "something I don't like isn't artistic" doesn't mean he just wills away the definition of art.

He mistakes his opinion that [thing] is of poor/taste quality, means it holds no artistic merit. That's dumb as fuck.

I'm not living in a world where dumb people re-define what words mean because they're dumb.

Literally how is war not art?

Games can be art. The two are not mutually exclusive

You can already "interpt" a game any which way you want. That doesn't disqualify video games, you goober.

Attached: came here for a giggle.png (816x587, 116K)

>BEING THIS RETARDED

Attached: 1547593324531.jpg (400x399, 19K)

No one playing astroid is trying to interpret any meaning from it retard, they are going for a high score

PRograms can be art. You apply creativity and imagination and skill when making them

>food analogy
Analogies aren't usable arguments for subjective shit like this, smackhead
A play can be art, it doesn't have to be stripped of its music to qualify as art.

If books are art, then so are scripts. Scripts are used in movies, and movies are considered art. Video games with stories use scripts. Is the script of a game considered art if the rest isn't? At what point does a game devolve into "not art"?
Either way, art hasn't been art in a long time. Arguing whether or not games are art is stupid because art is highly overrated anyway.

Attached: kksxzzxcoi.png (257x440, 69K)

>everyone agrees with me
>people who disagree with me don't count

Attached: hmm.jpg (640x480, 183K)

Art is nothing but interruption, games are GAMES and only some retards are trying to interp anything of it

I'm putting in as much effort as you are

They’re unironically not art in the same way a shitty Superman doll is not art. They’re pathetic children’s toys that sad, lonely societal outcasts use to dull their pain because they’re not cool enough to know where to purchase drugs

>doesn't apply to games
Well some incel on the internet says so, it must be true!

What is art?

>Art is nothing but interruption
How do you even type with that IQ?

>Analogies aren't usable arguments
Yes they are retard, especially when your argument were about the sum of its parts are art. A football can have a logo which would be considered art but a football isn't art

classical art. writing. music.

Oh fuck off you preachy cocksniffer

>game's aren't art

OP if this shit don't touch your soul you can fuck your mother

Attached: go-game.jpg (400x267, 27K)

>what is Z
>classical Z
Kill yourself

Okay, you're typing like a retard on purpose now, aren't you?

Define art.

Most people aren't thinking of astroid symbolism moron

Most people think games arent art

Not an argument

>What is art
>classical art

Attached: 5D973DD7-857D-401E-A429-5B4AEC1C9391.jpg (498x499, 40K)

Attached: moon.gif (500x278, 1.68M)

Why does it even matter if they're art? Whether something is art or not doesn't tell me anything about its quality or if I should care about it.

Based.

Anything can have artistic value. This thread is retarded,

>writing
skinny peeny
peeny weeny
peeny in my spleeny
is that art?

>not an argument
Why do the most blantely retarded people on this site use this phrase? I’ve never seen a coherent thought come from someone who posted this line Unironically

Actually, "most people" have never played Asteroid and will never play Asteroid.

>there are [...] war museums. doesn't make it art
I have a book rec

Attached: suntzu.jpg (1551x1551, 1.32M)

I hate the definition of the word art
its too fucking broad
anything can be seen as "art"
it should be change

You might not like it, it may offend your delicate sensibilities, but games can be art.

They won't all be, but they can be.

>The three classical branches of art are painting, sculpture and architecture.[3] Music, theatre, film, dance, and other performing arts, as well as literature and other media such as interactive media, are included in a broader definition of the arts.

As it turns out, the eggheads agree vidya is in the broader definition of art. /thread

Question for OP

Why is it important that video games not be art?

man I'm sure you're probably just pretending to be dense but god damn if it isn't convincing

Attached: up the fucking wall.jpg (915x960, 97K)

If literature, filmmaking, architecture, photography, music (this includes dance, an interactive form), architecture, painture, sculpture, etc can be considered art in all of their forms, which are many but unified by a common goal or mode of interaction/creation, why would videogames, which require a different one (in some ways filmmaking, in some ways literature, in some ways painture, and most importantly, in its core none of the above), not be considered?

I'm not talking about "beautiful" or "meaningful", which might be the (wrong) assesment when talking about something "arty" or "artistic" (Pac Man or Tetris have contributed more to the art of videogames than any bland robbery of gimmicky filmmaking), but as the baseline of human creation.

To what? You cant leave people hanging with a sentence like that. Its rude.

>are games art?
Don't give a shit. Give me gameplay/story/music over art.
If I want art I might as well play them visual novels.

Direct from google:
>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

Are you meaning to imply that Videogames
>Are NOT an application of creative skill or imagination
>Are NOT a visual medium
>Do NOT display beauty
>Do NOT illicit emotional reaction
Thats a lot of negatives to prove. Good luck. Secondary good luck in holding your own definition of art as more valid than Google in whatever half-assed attempt you make at this one.

Enjoy your shitposting thread.

Attached: 1545361705976.jpg (433x427, 86K)

Let's start with why you feel videogames arent art. Is it the interactive aspect? If an artist creates a piece that has some form of interaction, is it no longer art?

based /threadposter

Put architecture there two times, what a retard I am.

This. Vidya doesn't even need to have a game component to it, for example visual novels. You can also have a videogame without any visuals if you wanted to, the term is a convenience.

That being said, I'd extend this to programs with input and output, and the formation of this interface is an art.

For something to be artistic the author merely has to implement his intentions through a specific technique in a medium. Postmodernism ruined any sort of barrier for entry into Art. This is a good thing

>X can’t be Y, they’re Z!
>Z can be Y
>fuck you
Fantastic discourse

>broad definitions are not allowed
What do people not get about 'art'. Art literally has a meaning.

"Subjective quality", and "art", do not mean the same thing.

How stupid are some of you?

Attached: Trump-Disgusted.jpg (800x449, 204K)

I like how you masked your concession with an ad hominem

>implying anything is art

I don't feel like making a fuck huge post so I'll try and keep this short. Basically art is subjective. When people talk about if something is art in a broad context they're asking if it's considered art by the people who define what is and isn't art. Those people are the people within the artistic community, museums, galleries. In the United States video games have had art exhibits across the nation, including in the nation's largest museum the Smithsonian. And video games have received federal funding through the national endowment for the arts. So video games are considered art. But really. who the fuck cares about what a bunch of wanks think fits their definition of art? If you don't consider it art, then it isn't art.

You're a contrarian retard who will just deny any facts thrown at you, and simply state that anyone who share your opinion is right while those who do not are wrong and retarded, doing this does not make you smart.
You are not worth arguing with and your opinion doesn't matter as much as your "based guy sat at table" picture would try to imply, all it truly establishes is how arrogant you are in your opinion.

Except art is not subjective, it has a very clear albeit broad definition.

What is art?

What is a man?

well no shit it's a product made by corporations

Okay retard, at what point does a drawing become art? Does the millions of eye drawings on edgy teen girls on Instagram count? At that point, what about fucking scribbles done by toddlers? Could you count those as minimalist art? What's the boundary between "art" and "not art"? That's right. It's fucking subjective.
Fucking idiot.

since art got deconstructed by kikes that even a turd on a canvas can be art because suddenly the artists meaning matters for some fucking reason and the objective quality of the art means less.

the more convoluted and pretentious your made up story about the art (or whatever retarded word salad an art critic can spew about your turd) the more people think its really deep and groundbreaking art.

"art" has lost some meaning, but yes video games are art. if a turd on a canvas can be, this medium surely is.

*blocks your path*

Attached: 162_365_bloodborne_4_by_snatti89-d9mv2qy.png (1280x794, 1.32M)

All of those things. Are literally. Art.

Because they are of poor quality in your opinion, DOES NOT MEAN, they are not "art."

The better question is not whether something is or isn't, but what are the specific components that make it separate from the other stablished mediums, and what are the better examples that set it apart. It's definitely filthy in the same way movies are filthy or impure, even more so.

Filmmaking is no art, then?

>At that point, what about fucking scribbles done by toddlers? Could you count those as minimalist art?
No? It's art done by children. Why the fuck would you set it into a movement if a kid clearly has no affiliation to it?

For something to be art it has to be made by an author with the intent to illicit specific emotional results. How much artistic merit the work has is defined by how well the intentions of the author are being conveyed, how masterful the authors grasp of his chosen technique is, or, confusingly, the opposite. Tommy Wiseau's The Room is a great example of a piece where the authors complete misunderstanding of his medium is what elevates the piece.

Okay, what about a single dot? What if I just tapped my pencil on a piece of paper? That's art according to you. Now what about if I don't put anything. What if I just buy a piece of paper and try to sell it off as art, would I be incorrect to say it's art? It's just """"minimalist""". You can't tell me otherwise.

a painting is art. a game isn't.

Rationalize them as "not art." What are the qualifications for the nebulous term "art?" Please tell me, and then tell me video games don't fill those qualifications.

Artists have literally done this to great succes in the art world. I am sorry you dont seem to appreciate art, especially the postmodern kind. But just because you dont like it doesnt change the definition of the term

>every response is a different take on a simple question
Thanks for proving my point.

Attached: 9299zxcs.png (148x170, 78K)

You're conflating what an artistic medium is and what the latest developments (well, they go back to the midXXth century, but let's roll with it) of art installations (mainly experimental painture and sculpture, performance, even). Again.

Russian video games are more art than game.

Attached: coverrus.jpg (600x851, 164K)

holy based

I take it you don't appreciate Phillip Glass sitting at his piano for approximately 3 minutes doing nothing and the whole of the music world agreeing its music.

Most people PLAYING astroid dingus

>video games aren't art
>yes they are
>WELL WHO CARES LOL POOPOO PEEPEE ON CANVAS FUCK ART
Every goddamn thread.

Think about it this way, whenever you're talking about gameplay, or stage design, or the ammount of cutescenes a game has, or the usage of music (not necessarily the music itself). What do you think you're doing?

The United States Supreme Court ruled videogames to be classified as a preservable art form more than a decade ago. When was the last time they were ever wrong about anything?

>wooden carving of man ejaculating into mouth

It is almost as if the word art itself is correlated with quality and a subset of the branches that make up art, while it in reality is a very neutral and very broad term.

>That's art according to you.
No. It's not. You stupid. God damn. Mongoloid. It's "art" according to the god damn definition of the mother fucking word, "art."

What. Do you not. Understand about this?

I have no stake in the conversation about the qualities of artistic creations. That's not what I'm in here spazzing out about. What I'm pissed about, is there is literally a definition of what "art" means, and for what ever god damn reason, there are people who outright reject that definition.

Why are you doing this? Words have meaning. You can literally look them up. Right now. And if you don't know what a word means, then don't fucking use it.

You thinking something is created by a talentless hack, who put no effort in to what he created, does not mean, it isn't art. It means, you think it's a piece of a shit. And you're allowed that opinion. But because you think it's a piece of shit, does not mean it's not art.

They stopped being art when CEOs got involved and demanded profit more than creativity. You look at early Valve and see where they are now and it all makes sense.

You will have to imagine the ejaculation, but this piece of art is an ancient Swedish fertility statue.

forgot the pic

Attached: f92b508d475b2aa4c9e0319e45ee0fe1.jpg (311x589, 40K)

a superman doll is a mass produced product for the unrefined masses, while a sculpture is one off handcrafted art piece enjoyed by a refined minority. Video games can be both soulless products or soulful works of art just like everything else in the world.

/thread

This is the answer.

Interactive art pieces have been around since the 1950s. Artist Allan Kaprow created what he called "Happenings" which were like haunted houses or video game "walking simulators".

So are movies.
The real question isn't whether video games are art, but whether gameplay is art.

Art is not a measuring metric for perceived quality. Commercial products can indeed be art.

>team of artists collaborate their skills to make something
>somehow not art
It makes no literal sense

Dance is arguably interactive.

Gameplay can be an abstract interpretation of an emotional state and can illicit emotional responses. It is a medium through which the author can communicate his vision. Gameplay is art

No, and I wouldn't want to.

Video games are a form of media. Not all media of a certain type is art. Not everything cut from a block of marble is a statue.

>MUH DEFINITION
The definition literally doesn't mean anything. It's broad as shit and includes many extremes.
Creativity can range from anything to extremely minimalist, as in minimalist art, to great renaissance. If you accept the definition of art at face value, you have to accept those extremes. Pic related was considered high art, or at least art enough to sell for nearly 50 million dollars.
So you still have to answer, because your definition doesn't, at what point is art "not art"?

Attached: barnett.jpg (300x300, 9K)

>The definition literally doesn't mean anything
I stopped reading here, and I'm not replying to you further.

Your ignorance, I hope is bliss.

>They stopped being art when CEOs got involved and demanded profit more than creativity.
Damn right, I said the same to my dear friend Amenothep some 3500 years ago, temples, sarcophagi and tombs stopped being art when Pharaohs got involved and demanded earthly and afterlife profit more than creativity, you look at early tombs and see where they got in the later dynasties and it all makes sense.

Attached: 1442879504339.jpg (250x204, 19K)

>I stopped reading here
>your ignorance, I hope is bliss
holy fuck could you be any more self-unaware with literally two sentences

Attached: 1546741418939.jpg (750x738, 48K)

>All creative works are art.
Go check the definition of art, retarded hippie

Attached: 1552093361140.jpg (730x768, 81K)

Shit, Cary Grant sure was an early bloomer!

You seem to confuse the term art with a positive denominator used to infer appreciation for an object. The word is not used like this, it is a neutral category consisting of many different subsets of concepts. No value is assigned to anything by using the word art, you are merely reffering to a conglomerate of disparate ideas and traditions.

>the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
>synonyms: creative activity
Something tells me you didn't check the definition yourself, fag.

Attached: (you).png (477x408, 205K)

I didn't know Pharoah was Egyptian for CEO.

Yeah man, I was talking with my friend Roberto over some wine and the shit they're doing with his artwork on the chapel as a glorified publicity stunt is fucking hideous. Art-cancelling, even.

>whether gameplay is art.
Well first we have to determine what gameplay is. Is clicking through an interface in a visual novel gameplay?

>If it's intended to be art, it is art.
This is incorrect because it relies on intent not of the audience but of the "creator."
In the simplest semantic sense, art is whatever the interpreter identifies as art- from a linguistic sense, this is true so long as people are in agreement (there is mutual intelligibility).
Something is art so long as people can discuss and describe it as such without confusing each other past the point of comprehension.
>but if I call it not art, that means it isn't art!
For you, maybe. But this doesn't refute the concept- these are not objective criteria but are subject to the populations which subscribe to them- e.g. if I call something "not art" and two people disagree, it doesn't make them wrong because their group is still agreeing upon the subjective label.

Nevertheless, arguments about what is and is not art are fucking autistic and people who attempt to start them should be fucking hanged.

Attached: smug_sip.jpg (1008x720, 46K)

Fun fact: Mozart, Bach, and Beethoven all made music for profit. Michelangelo and Raphael made physical art for profit.
Art is a product by definition, and profit motives do not lessen the legitimacy of art. In fact, profit has often been the motive for some of the greatest works of art known to man.

Unrelated, art used to be used to express higher concepts. Now it's used to express how someone feels.

Attached: GRIS.jpg (460x215, 42K)

while it may not be wholly creative, that is a visually appealling piece, like looking deep into the ocean, something soothing and tranquil about it, it evokes emotional response.
though not worth 50 million imo, it'd be nice to have in your hallway though

>Music
Check
>Painting
Check
>Feels
Check
Games are art. Nier and Drakengard is art.

Art is still used to express higher concepts, the problem is that charlatans who talk about art can't into conceptual pieces and think that anything abstract is meaningless.
I bet you don't even understand this piece of art but still feel comfortable commenting on older, simpler artforms.

youtu.be/mtVUKj6K8AY

that's postmodern you triple nigger

I dig the high frequency bits and the oddly minimalist arrangement. My body starts reacting to the highpitched tones after a while, slight headache and nausea. Very nice music.

What is you'r definition of "art".
Then we can talk from there.

Attached: 1543770272032.jpg (827x620, 89K)

yeah, play games that are art, not 20hr movies.

Stop ruining these threads we're trying to draw out autists to laugh at for a few hours.

So obviously art is a subjective thing and everyone's going to have a different perspective, but this is my take.
The final product's worth is entertainment value. Aesthetic and meaning is subjective and you could have an entertaining game that's words on a screen with zero symbolic meaning. The art is not the product itself, but rather the crafting of it.
You would be retarded to say that books are art, but there is an art in the skill of crafting narrative that the author undertakes. What words he considers, what makes sense in a specific moment, how the gradual story ties together. Something similar can be said of making video games. But when you define video games as art, it opens the door for retarded interpretations and perspectives to override sensible points of view. A game may have some of the most cancerous microtransaction schemes possible, but if it's all wrapped up in a perceived "artsy" shroud, then retards will defend it from detractors who see the underlying problems.
So basically, video games should be considered for what they are, which is an entertainment medium, and valued/made with this framework. What matters is whether the people making the games recognize the task of putting them together in an entertaining but flowing way for both themselves and the audience.

Well for starters I can tell you if this is supposed to give off any sort of positive concept its total bullshit.

>charlatans who talk about art can't into conceptual pieces and think that anything abstract is meaningless.
pottery

I just had a pretty positive experience with it. I found it to be quite enjoyable music.

Attached: snail-cat.jpg (400x299, 40K)

Not by default no but it can be art.

>muh concept art
kill yourself, your abstract scribbles are garbage. only a faggot who sniffs their own farts would care about some gay bullshit like this

Attached: file.png (900x955, 2M)

>We live in a world where literal shit on a canvas is considered art, but video games are not

I refuse to believe anyone who holds the opinion that video games are not art is not trolling.

It used to be art.

I didn't say it was meaningless, I said the meaning is lost in it.
The pitches and frequencies are plain painful to listen to and if you had a dog listen to it they would probably go deaf. So unless you're a masochist then it's not positive.

>muh annoying high frenquency beeps and static
>iT's CoNcEpTuAl u wouldn't get it
oh jesus fuck, get a fucking load of this pretentious cunt.

Attached: 8ab.jpg (640x640, 54K)

You have to be a literal fucking brainlet with the most fucking conservative view of art if you think for a fucking second that vidya isn't art.

Art is an insanely floaty term that means nothing and everything at the same time, it's fucking stupid and nobody should care whether or not something is art, just enjoy your game, movie, book, whatever you're enjoying, and stop being retards who think it matters whether or not something is considered "art"

>I refuse to believe anyone who holds the opinion that video games are not art is not trolling.
Nah, this is just history repeating itself, as usual, it's literally the Weimar Republic all over again in more ways than one.

You can find it positive without being a masochist. Regardless, whether or not you had a positive experience the piece is still art by definition

i hate when people throw around the word pretentious in place of "I don't understand"

it's usually normies who don't appreciate/understand the work so they break it down into parts they can understand and then make fun of that

LITERALLY ANYTHING CAN BE ART.

THE ESTABLISHED ART FORMS THOUGH ARE MUSIC, PAINTINGS AND DRAWINGS, AND ACTING.

DO YOU KNOW WHAT TYPICALLY FEATURES MUSIC, DRAWINGS AND VOICE ACTING?

VIDEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEO GAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAMES

Attached: dinky.png (512x512, 594K)

>its too deep u just dont get it
>my superior intelligence allows me to enjoy answering machine beep music
kill yourself. unironically

Attached: 1552141504312.png (662x478, 22K)

I actually am enjoying this thread. From the inane to well reasoned, I'm seeing some great diversity of opinion here.

on your spring break huh?
fucking autistic kids

>THE ESTABLISHED ART FORMS THOUGH ARE MUSIC, PAINTINGS AND DRAWINGS, AND ACTING
>ACTING OVER LITERATURE

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THAT'S LIKE PUTTING DANCE AND NOT MUSIC

>Rothko
>postmodern

proving my point elegantly

Art is a medium for communication.

If a body of work has an intended feeling or more specifically message that it intends to communicate than it's definitely art.

A lot of times the only people I really hear say things like "it's too lazy to be art" are tourists (consumers) of the art world.

Like this, you wouldn't call me pretentious for speaking Spanish just because you don't understand it, would you?

People who talk about art like this are usually armchair windbags.

I don't care if my experience was bad with it, the only thing I said was that the inclination the piece gives of is negative and if it was supposed to be positive it fails at it due to the nature of the acoustics.
Try again next time.

>answering machine beep music
nigga it's improvised electronics using three dimensional space as an aspect of composition and performance
there's a plethora of literature both short and long on onkyo-kei, electro-acoustic improvisation, etc.
the post was almost certainly bait but you look like a fucking moron when you don't even google search the stuff you shitpost about

You're pretentious because you think you're smarter than you are, everyone who doesn't like your annoying fucking beeps is just dumb and can't understand it. You are the definition of a pretentious faggot. Serious question, are you on the spectrum or something?

Videogames (or better yet, gameplay) as an artform kind of steer a bit from the object of communication a bit, at least for me. I have no doubt Tetris is a masterpiece of gameplay, but what does it exactly convey?

Are Escape Rooms art?

This isn't wrong however what the people that push games full of tedium and terrible, cliche stories as art what it to mean is what is known as high art. The kind that recieves universal praise. They want games like TLOU to be on par with pieces like Beethoven's 5th or the Mona Lisa so they aren't embarrassed of writing about games for a living. However as a standard, games are art. They aren't high art and the games pushed as art more often than not just consumer art as they do nothing to push the medium forward nor make full use of games as a medium trying to make a cinematic piece more akin to movies than games. Art doesn't carry the same connotation as high art but that's what those kinds of people are trying to shift the views of.
>tl;dr Games are art. They aren't high art though.
>Bonus
The argument of games not being art are much more valid however as art is built on the controversial yet only in games is there a push for mass censorship of controversial subject matter. This nulls most arguments for games being art as it degrades the concept of free expression as well as the very basis on what art is and has built itself up to since the Renaissance and the push to build the creative mind of humanity up to avoid another Dark Ages.

>nigga it's improvised electronics using three dimensional space as an aspect of composition and performance

Wow man. Are you fucking serious with this sentence? Who gives a fuck if you record some fucking beeps in your sound room? Fuck off, its not good, its not deep. You need to get off that fucking high horse cunt.

Attached: 1543899248788.jpg (550x780, 60K)

If you don't consider music, writing, drawing, 3d modeling art then video games are not art.
They are art for pay for the most part just like logos for buildings

Your definition of art is wrong and also probably arbitrary and poorly thought out. There's no definition of art that excludes anything. The art community both academically and professionally have considered games art for a long time. If you want to say video games are bad art go ahead. Unless you honestly think you know better than hundreds of years of art and have more authority than anyone who makes or curate art there is no real argument here. I've never even studied art or any artistic skills and I know this stuff just by basic osmosis.

Saying games aren't art is just reactionary regressive political garbage. I've never seen an argument for them not being art that doesn't devolve into "I like video games. I don't like art. So, video game not art" by someone who has less than no idea what they're talking about.

I never even typed the word "smart".

Talk about pretense, someone enjoys a form of art and because you don't understand it like some little actual fucking infant you take it personally and put words in my mouth.

Go to school and grow the fuck up manchild.

Look sweaty, I can't feel like a big boy unless I attach some arbitrary word to everything I like

Attached: 1524982167265.png (225x225, 8K)

I understand the meaning of it, but I would certainly call burying airplanes like the MiG-21 just to convey they're from a bygone era pretentious when they could have stayed in a museum or been purchased by someone who would actually care for the thing

Attached: mig 21.jpg (1750x1167, 241K)

>Go to school
why? so I can take the same gay art classes as you did and develop really bad taste in music in some feeble attempt to be unique? Fuckin queer, I bet you have exactly 0 friends.

>video
I feel that something like that is only useful as a background track in a greater work, like a movie scene building up to a big reality changing reveal or a game in a surreal setting, to help bring out an emotion relevant to whats going on alongside it. If you honestly think something like that is worth your time listening to alone you might be an idiot or I guess a charlatan; you probably were very giddy to bring that word into your post.

nobody is on a high horse except the guy who cannot understand a piece of art and instantly gets defensive about his lack of understanding
maybe video games truly is the hobby for you

games have art
games aren't art

>bad taste
>unique
>fuckin queer
>0 friends

There we go, we all knew that you didn't have any real argument in the first place, and this post just admitted it.

>gay art classes

I weep for western civilization.

Should've photoshopped Roger Ebert's goofy face on there.

Attached: ebert3.jpg (534x401, 21K)

Videogames should be respected as an interactive medium, not as an artistic one. That being said, it allows for many artistic aspects to be used wether it be literary, artistic, or musical, and shouldn't be written off as anything but a canvas for these mediums to take advantage of the unique benefits it offers

>I feel
your feelings are wrong :)
next?

He has not been pretentious at one point, in fact he tried to explain his point of view in a most relaxed and inclusive way. If anything your abject insisting that he is pretentious is quite pretentious.

>u just dont understaaaand

you're a broken fucking record. I can understand it just fine, it just sucks. This is why you get called pretentious, its not for lack of understanding, its because your taste in art is based on you wanting to feel superior to everyone who thinks your beep music is stupid.

The perception of what good videogames are is a bit slanted onto a poor perception of what good cinematography is, mixed with a minimal sense of gameplay. Many games are very interesting because they explore their themes through the gameplay itself, but I feel queasy about calling, say, Kula World, high art.

Sick piece. I love this.

I mean if anyone can actually provide an argument for the quality of a work without personally made assumptions I'd liked to hear it.

>no u
shit argument kid, see me after class.
>I TOOK ONE EXPERIMENTAL MUSIC CLASS ME SMART AND NOW ENJOY BEEP BEEP SILENCE BEEP BEEP MUSIC UNLIKE THE PLEBS WHO ENJOY NORMIE MUSIC

Attached: Barkley SUAJG.jpg (960x721, 272K)

Oh wow, thats a lot of assumptions friend. Did your pretentious art teacher fondle you as a kid or something? You really seem triggered.

>arguments getting weaker and weaker
thats what I thought, you can't actually defend your shit taste so you just go to ad homs.
>Muh 3 dimensional space
wow, like any live album LMAO

Destroying past generations working objects for the sake of representing grandiose ideals is in itself art.
Too bad that's not intended and is meant for deceit.

It depends on how you look at art.

While Tetris itself isn't an objet d'art I think that the player's interaction with Tetris could be a piece of performance art, while a game like New Vegas is art in the sense that it's pulpy sci-fi.

I think people who get too caught up on the definition of art really miss the point of demonstration in the first place. We flex our muscles so people can see them, you know?

I'm not saying gameplay is all that matters but in terms of high art games have a long way to go. I think the closest we've gotten is Spyro the Dragon for it's use of color theory, making full use of limitations and pushing the medium forward by creating the LOD system that made fog optional instead of compulsory. Even then I think it's close but not quite at the point of high art. Presentation and other visual and aural elements are still important but gameplay can't be ignored for a game to be considered art as otherwise it's just aping a different medium's low brow consumer pieces.

You fail to see how the pretentious one is in fact you? Must be nice being retarded. Abstract art is apparently beneath your highly developed sensibilities and as such anybody who enjoy it are subhuman scum deserving only of scorn.

>454405772
This is the last post I'll engage you with:

I genuinely think you're playing this one wrong and you're a little too caught up in yourself to see where you're going wrong. Have a good life, stay in school.

When you have light sources and temperature measurements and other data sources fielded in a 3d space manipulate sound, you get a sense of space in the arrangement itself, not in the soundstage of the recording as you would in a traditional live recording (assuming the engineer knows his shit).

>Presentation and other visual and aural elements are still important but gameplay can't be ignored for a game to be considered art as otherwise it's just aping a different medium's low brow consumer pieces.
*snaps fingers multiple times showing approval for the statement*

Not sure why you think Spyro is a particularly good example though, its not like the first use of an LOD system makes it a better work in a practical sense nor why its use of colors is anything special compared to a lot of other games. Plenty of games apply basic color theory in what they show.

>Videogames should be respected as an interactive medium, not as an artistic one
Why is the interactive part of videogames, (meaning gameplay, right?) opposed to the artistic part when it's the one thing that makes it interesting and unique as a -medium- (would we ever call, say, football, a medium? What is the medium -for-?)? It's not like the interaction isn't set and can't be tuned to portray different things. Interactive performative art never stopped being art, no? Does architecture stop being an art when it opens itself up to different models of space that the person living in might change to their liking?

>*snaps fingers multiple times showing approval for the statement*

Attached: 1488600657847.jpg (480x360, 10K)

> the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.

you tell me

>*snaps fingers multiple times showing approval for the statement*

Attached: stop.jpg (600x588, 58K)

I'm sorry pepe I thought it would be funny.
Also I'm not the guy was talking to to btw, just a thread lurker.

>Create a system that pushes the entire medium of gaming forwards
>don't get why it's important
Are you perhaps fucking retarded?
>*snaps fingers multiple times showing approval for the statement*
Ah, of course you are.

>being this unhip

Attached: 1551394626518.jpg (500x489, 49K)

>this one thing is art
>but this other thing, literally made of thousands (if not tens of thousands) of the first thing isn't art

Oh shit, so if I have 3 cars I suddenly have none!? I've been mistaken about math my entire life!

Attached: 1467839835661.png (227x226, 57K)

If it’s made for profit it’s not art.

>wojack posting redditfugee using asterisks
>probably underageB& or a zoomer (IE, honorary underageB&)

Attached: get out jew.jpg (568x521, 74K)

Not that its unimportant, but irrelevant to that actual game's quality.
*hssses in disapproval to your lack of hipness*

define high art

promoted by the jewish designers that have influence over the western design world

Nice Rich Evans you got there pal. I am his peer age wise and as far as i know i had no asterisks in my post?

art is ONLY paintings fuck off!!!!!!

>buy new vidya for 60 dollars
>play it for an hour or two
>get bored and uninstall it
>look at porn for the game until i fall asleep

Attached: Screen_shot_20110420_at_4.58.14_PM.png (548x403, 269K)

I thought Roger Ebert died

He did. Video games still aren’t art

Let me add on to that. Video games aren't sports

Attached: 1552396930874m.jpg (859x1024, 141K)

If you look at the etymology of the word it is always to do with something created (by man). So the root of the word is only interested in whether or not a thing was made with intent, whether or not man did it is ultimately irelevant

I agree.

Attached: 24C70778-7213-4F4F-9DE0-CF94F7B86365.gif (179x587, 96K)

Sport includes all forms of competitive physical activity or games.

Next you are gonna say sports cant be art. Like a retard.

>Video games
>Physical activity
Laffing big at this

Or games. You cant read?

war is an art you fucking hippie faggot, go get a job

No and why would I? Video games are for entertainment.

I can. Video games are not sports no matter how much money you throw into tournaments to justify it

>Art is subjective anyway
fine art is not

>Video games aren't sports
Then why do people watch other people play it?
If it can get gambling into it TRUST ME IT'S A FUCKING SPORT.

Attached: 1551742430030.png (1170x666, 406K)

oh, so you're a retard

>Dude trust me people gamble over video games so it’s a sport

Attached: 995B5551-7FD0-4B54-AF01-1C6ECFEDEF8F.jpg (269x306, 16K)

Its the literal definition of the word. Here i will post it again

>Sport includes all forms of competitive physical activity or games which, through casual or organised participation, aim to use, maintain or improve physical ability and skills while providing enjoyment to participants, and in some cases, entertainment for spectators

inb4 eye to hand coordination is not physical ability

Games have concept art therefore making games art.

Attached: 1538204090782.png (415x289, 167K)

Oh my fucking god not this picture again.

Is chess?

lololololol

Doing something for sport is just doing something for a competition. Obviously its not a physical sport and shouldn't replace sport activities in schools, much like chess or poker. Nor should it be in the Olympics.

This is basically the same issue with games as art.
>Is it craftwork that stimulates emotion?
Yes.
>Should it be treated the same as other art forms and have the concepts and principals of other art forms applied to it?
NO. Please God, no.

Yes, games. Not “video” games. Ergo, VIDEO games are not sports.

>Then why do people watch other people play it?
Cause you zoomers are fucking retarded.

I have a house therefor I must be a house.

What part of "all forms of competitive physical activity or games" did you not get? Oh wait i know, it was the "all" part you failed to understand.

That doesn't make any fucking sense and only serves to mix up the discussion even more. Museums aren't art because of the paintings in them, but because of their architectural qualities. Videogames are not art because they have images in them or because of their images' artistic merits (which can contribute in the sense that vgs are an impure art), it's how they portray them and how do they differenciate from other artforms, namely the Fucking Gameplay. What do you even talk about in this forum if not the Fucking Gameplay? Why do you bitch and moan about movie games if not for the Fucking Gameplay?

>See loophole
>Go through it
>”N-No Stop...”
If you consider video games sports then that’s your own mental issue.

Wait how did you leap there? Is a water game not a game because it's in water?

Understanding a words definition is now a mental issue. Yikes

If it’s physical, it’s a game.
>Yikes
Thanks for conceding.

It's premium (you) bait.

I did not concede, i accentuated in a sarcastic way how much of a brainlet you are. The fact you failed to get that joke just underlines how much of a brainlet you are

Gotta physically click buttons too.
A.p.m.

>Adhom
Again thanks for playing.

i only play games that allow me to create my own character and run around a forest with a bow and sword.

recommend me some games

Attached: 20190310225030_1.jpg (1920x1080, 516K)

>or games

Unironically Mount and Blade

>Intellectual strain onto calculated movements through an interface is not inherently phisical

3 thousand years of shit thinking and counting baby! You didn't respond to the chess question either.

This is a game to you, punk? I will let you know that i am super fucking serious right now!

Attached: addadadaew.png (516x392, 562K)

It's art now. Get over it and have sex.

only nerds think about this shit lmao

Attached: OUCH!.png (931x1000, 69K)

>Now

that's already in my top 3.

modded Skyrim
Dragons Dogma
Warband

Shit dude you’re all set then.

Not a argument

b-but i need more

Attached: image0.jpg (750x889, 200K)

>If it’s made for profit it’s not art
movies and music and are not art then, gotcha

All video games are not necessarily literally games. But, most games which are considered to be sports/esports are games though are they not? I don't see any issue considering some video games "games" which would then fall under "all forms of competitive... games."

I don't think you really need to even stretch or bend any of those words definitions for that to make sense or work.

>draw a shitty stick figure on paper
art
>draw an in-depth texture
Not art

?

Or paintings or literature or... It goes on an on you know?

I agree with you
A game itself is not art but art can exist within them
Concept art for a video game is art
Music in some video games is art
But video games are not art.

Moidern game theory is a lot like modern art theory, almost anything can be considered a game.

Why not?

Games are toys.

Video games are art. They are just bad art.

Art is literally anything as long as it evokes feeling.

You can fart and then friend 1 will describe the smell and maybe guess what you ate, then friend 2 can also describe what he thinks the smell is. congrats, you just made art.

in-depth texture =/= shitty stick figure
Hopefully this clears up the confusion.

wtf kind of emoji is that? why u put emoji in the middle of your sentence?

Okay, how about this
>draw a stick figure on paper
Art
>draw a stick figure on PC and make it a texture in a game
Not art

?

>music is art
>drawings and paintings are art
>animations and sprites are art
>writing is art
>short-films/movies are art
>but the combination of all of these things is not art
hmmmmmmm

Artfags are the single worst type of people on the planet, not niggers, not whiggers, but people who sniff their own farts to pretentious shit. Keep the fuck away from my video games you faggots.

All art needs to be art is to be declared art. A stick on the ground that you don’t know about somewhere in the Yukon is art now because I just said it is. It doesn’t matter that I don’t know what stick I’m talking about. I said it’s art so therefore it is.

digital art is gay and takes no natural skill. It's the the chad musician vs the virgin FL studio copy/paster.

Eh. This can be complicated. A model of a stick figure is art, but a texture of one is a grey area and is open to interpretation. It's kind of how there isn't a right or wrong way to say "tomato". I'd lean and say that the texture isn't art but it can be argued that it is.

I also read Marcel Duchamp

It's the shy non-equivalence emoji. It shows that two things aren't equal and is just too shy to point it out.

But why is it not art?

It's not art if nobody remembers it.

>but the combination of all of these things is not art
Film wouldn't be art if it was just a "combination of other arts", this point is absolutely devoid of substance.

The same reason why we don't know why the sky is blue or why the moon shines on some nights but is completely dark on others. It just is how it is.

A lot of effort goes into making anything, like a fucking chair. Does that make it art?

So, would you say that using modern game theory it's acceptable for video games to be sports, but you reject modern game theory?

It could be argued video games is more than the sum of its parts, same as movies.

artistic elements, but an incel toy will never be art

Who gives a fuck?

Marcel Duchamp is arguably the most important artist to ever live.

Paintings aren't art, change my mind.

So imagine you are playing Blood Born and you see the red moon but you'r buddy can't.

Are video games art?

I can see the red moon.
Video games are complicated art.
Think Algebra to arithmetic.

>Master Willem: “Our eyes are yet to open..."

Video games are entertainment. A distraction. Made for fun.

I embrace the idea that game theory is applicable in basically all fields just as i embrace postmodern art theory. You said not all video games are games, to which i replied you would be surprised what the eggheads think are games.

Sometimes.

If it was art at some point, it doesn’t lose that definition. If a caveman found an N64 cartridge, it would still be a game cartridge even if nobody knew what a game was.

And yet some video games can be argued to distill and effectively convey aspects of the human condition in ways never done before and with great merit.

I don't think anyone here can agree on what the definition of art actually is. It's changed throughout the centuries.

Of course it is, start arguing like so. Talk about the specific artistic properties of gameplay, for fuck's sake! Movies already have their defining form well put out: "movement and montage of different images with a time factor within the same frame" (this must be mentioned to differenciate with comic strips).

No shit?

"What do video games, which tell us more about our unconscious than the works of Lacan, offer us? Neither money nor glory, but a new game. The possibility of playing again. ‘A second chance.’ A free replay."

Quantum theory would disagree. The individual particle needs an observer to know if its waveform is collapsed or not.

My stance on the "video games are art" debate is less of a "yes or no" and more of a "who cares?". I'm more concerned if the game is fun and if it's well designed.

As the man said himself: "If it's not fun, why bother?"

Attached: reggie.gif (446x251, 726K)

But that's not their purpose first and foremost is it? The purpose of video games is to provide fun and entertainment. People don't normally look at video games for some deep meaning and nor should they. If they wanted that then they should pick up a book.

art is a prehistoric concept made for medieval people. games trancended beyond art

Okay, that's fine. Is this still related to any claims on whether or not video games are or can be sports?

Dwarf Fortress is art.

The intent of the author is relevant yes you are correct, but equally relevant is the intent of the audience. If somebody has a apotheosis while playing supermario, then supermario must be a religious sacrament regardless if Miyamoto wanted to start a church or not. Do you see what i am getting at?

It depends on what viewpoint you take with this argumment
>Is it art?
Yes, there's no question here because anything that expresses anything can be considered art if that's what the creator says so, if it came from your imagination to express anything then it is art, you take a shit and you can call that art it's that easy.
>uh that's not what it is duuuur
"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power."
Takes 2 secs to google, I don't care about your butthurt over it.

>Is it high/quality art?
Now that has a leg to stand on, because high art isn't JUST for the purpose of expressing something more than it is for the purpose of questioning it's intended meaning, in this territory people can interpret things and be considered wrong while in low art it's just for the sake of communication, and since video games can do either then it CAN be high art, it's a case by case thing.

Attached: 5e2.jpg (554x439, 106K)

Skyrim exists

Attached: Rod Boward.jpg (1500x1714, 563K)

I think they definitely can be sports. I think this is a tangent to that. All video games are games, please explain why some of them are not.

If somebody thought Super Mario was a religious sacrament I'd question their sanity.

Thats besides the point. If that schizo could get his schizo friends to also worship the great plumber, then you have a sect. Regardless of Miyamotos intent to just create a humble distraction.

You're making a dichotomy that is absurd with a loose look. Is popular music and dance not art because it was made for the sake of the entertainment of townfolk around the time the crops finally gave their fruit?

thats a ukrainian flag

So some fringe people want to declare Super Mario as "art", good for them. It still doesn't make it so. It will still just be entertainment. And there's nothing wrong with that. Chess is a fun and stimulating game, let's not call it anything more than it is, you know?

Ukraine confirmed for haute couture

Please explain why art and entertainment are mutually exclusive.

The word art is really redundant at this point in time.

> I think they definitely can be sports.
Oh, I thought I was responding to someone else then who said the contrary I guess?

> please explain why some of them are not.
I would argue that things like walking simulators are "video games" but depending on your definition of "game" they may not be "games." If that makes sense. The compound term video-game does not literally imply that a video game adhered to the definitions of those words is basically it. Sort of like how genres often don't literally in the words they use describe what people intuit them to describe.

Can you define art for me? If you can, what makes it different from the many different definitions it has been given throughout the centuries? Is a brick house a work of art? It took a lot of good workmanship to make and some of them can look really beautiful. What video games would be considered art and what games would not be considered art?

>A game is a structured form of play, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool

Thats a dictionary definition. I think walking sims fall under that pretty easily.

HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO
HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO
HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO
HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO hey hey everybody
HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO
HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO hey
HEY EVERYBODY IM LOOKING AT GAY PORNO

And why an entirely novel medium of expression is not artistic because it has been dedicated during most of its time existing (a meager ~60 years?) to entertainment. Is studio-era filmmaking not art? Did the cameras of cinema stop having their properties after being used for entertainment? This is not an answer, it's an excuse.

>Is a brick house a work of art? It took a lot of good workmanship to make and some of them can look really beautiful.
Yes. Of course. Yes. How can you even ask that? Architecture is one of the hard pinned arts.

In modern art theory all it takes for something to be art is for someone to think it is art. This is very wishy washy. A more concrete definition would be that art refers to a s subset of ideas and traditions that have to do with things that are created culturally as opposed to naturally. But again it would seem the boundaries of the subset is up to the individual to define. I think the most concrete definition would be that art is anything that is created with intent by the author to illicit specific emotional responses in the audience. But then we run into the problem of unwanted emotional responses, do they create artistic merit? Art is a problematic term if you want to be concrete about it, the trick is to accept its wishy washy nature.

nice bait thread OP!

There are probably more definitions of "game" that don't need the distinction that I made than there are. So, I think we agree?

I think at some point I must have been seeing someone really pushing a definition of "game" that implied competition or win-lose states, but in retrospect it must have been cherry picked. My bad. Nice talking to you user.

>discussing art is now just auto motoric bait reaction

kys

Attached: 1552465067958.jpg (496x494, 47K)

This is my point. It is wishy washy and not concrete. It is an abstract term and perhaps once upon a time it had a true definition but that has since been lost with the sheer amount of things that can now be labelled as art. If everything is art then nothing is. For me, I take it to mean the creation of an image because I use the word "artwork" to refer to drawings or paintings, but nothing else. If I see a sculpture I just call it a sculpture.

>tfw you will never be enough of a smartass to print out a Yea Forums post, frame it, and sell it for 90k.

Attached: Anons+post+is+art+trigger+mentionlist+4chandailytrigger+large+controls+collection_fcc362_6380432.png (1200x1162, 646K)

Wow, why didn't I play on peoples' gullibility like Andy Warhol and make loads o' money? Seems so easy.

Having dealt with various artists in many fields all through my life it is exceedingly easy for me to see art everywhere. I would call a sculpture a piece same as i would call a drawing a piece or even a video game were i to discuss its merits in a context where its treated as a piece of art.

Because thousands of graduates with near worthless degrees are trying to do that right now. It takes a certain something special to pull off selling a Yea Forums screencap.

That certain something is network. An artist is only as expensive as the gallery he is presented in.

The difference here is that it was on an ebay auction.

Ebay is a social network. You can follow sellers, certain Ebay sellers attract a certain crowd, that crowd was probably fostered through some sort of IRL networking adjacent to online. I guarantee you that that sale did not just magically pull itself off.

I've seen it where an "art student" took a shoe box, tore up and burnt some actual worthwhile works (books of classic poetry), and glued the burnt pieces to said shoe box and then had drawn a crude picture of a dragon on it. It was called art and then placed on display with the hope that someone would come and see it and wish to buy it.

I actually intervened and rescued some of these books. It's sad for them to end like that. To be at a point now where people will take what could be argued as actual art and then to just destroy them without a second thought in an attempt to create "art" is just crazy to me.

It's all part of this art mantra that's going on today. Everyone wants to be in on it no matter the cost. I'm quite happy to just let video games be an interactive medium for pleasure and entertainment. They do not have to be called art to have any sort of validity as they are already valid and accepted. A lot of people enjoy them already as they are.

What museum have you been too that just has a "war' hung up in it?
How would you even display a "war"?
Painting, videos, recreational acting?
All of those sounds like art to me.

Man, if only I was in the 1960s!

>beauty is in the eye of the beholder
It's the only thing that explains why there are so many people with dogshit taste

BUBSY 3D is HIGH ART.

The confusion of art with a value denominator is rampant and mistaken. Art is not positive or negative in itself, it is a way of thinking about an object. When you view a mundane object through the lens of art it opens up new avenues of discussion and thinking. People are retarded and think if something is art it is automatically good, nothing could be further from the truth.

This might sound a tad pretentious, but to look at vidya through the lens of art can be a very giving and fulfilling exercise, don't rob yourself from that user.

Any human creation or endeavour whose value lies outside objective, physical measurements is art. If a human can ascribe a subjective value to it, it's art. This is both great and terrible because it means people can see beauty/ value in many things but then I have to put up with the existence of people who think Tracey Emin is great, I mean fucking hell, "My Bed", fuck off.

Attached: 1550909196066.jpg (720x720, 113K)

Yeah, we've pretty much missed the train for cashing in on the post-modern train. There's such a saturation of it, that I honestly don't think it could get lower.
Granted, I'm sure that's what people thought when a urinal was put on display and here we are.

are you a brit by any chance?

So what new avenues of discussion and thinking does this mysterious lens open up? Nobody talks about video games in such a way. What is there to talk about? The most people will talk about a video game is how to get through it, or the story, or speculation in regards to the story, or the technical side of things, like what was done to create the game. What else do you want to get out of it? If anything in the story of a video game seems deep or interesting then that's great, but it'll never get truly deep or thought provoking. It'd certainly be nothing useful to the problems of humanity at hand.

Original NES Tetris Music 3

youtube.com/watch?v=30eWWOvAzwg

This was so beautiful how is this not art? AND this was way back when video games started to hit there stride. Video games have been art for a long time.

Attached: 1531597652474.jpg (957x745, 124K)

Just you wait. We're not done yet. This is only the sewer level of post-modern art. We haven't even gotten to the abyss yet!

Jesus christ that is not the fucking point!

what is then?

It's clear you've not taken any time to think about this.

By considering the artistic intent of the dev's you suddenly discover nooks and crannies in the game you did not before, you might devise delusional patterns to prove a certain thesis, or even experience minor euphoria or mania when a really good game just clicks for you in all the ways it can. By considering games as art and actively seeking the art in games it is possible to heighten your experience with them.

Of course people as people are most does not do this, but i have seen dedicated forums for certain games have extremely interesting discussions or memes pertaining to artistic intent and various interpretations of gameplay/story and the intersection between the two.

If the only place you get your vidya discussion is Yea Forums of course you think games are a platitude.

that's not an answer user

Is art even art now a days? I only see paint splattered everywhere on canvases being called art.

Consider Tetris as an abstract interpretation of Stalin era Soviet Russia. If you dont conform everything goes to shit, and even if you conform you will magically be transported away to "somewhere else". The individual atoms of society are being moved about against their will to conform to some transcendent deities idea of ideal order.

How is that for inserting abstract art into video games.

I read what you say but all I'm getting is a lot of fluff and fancy words devoid of any real meaning. Why can't you be clear? Nooks and crannies? Devise delusional patterns? What exactly does that mean? Minor euphoria...I experience that when I'm very drunk and having a good time. I don't know what you mean by art or how considering something art can enhance it in any way. If something has certain qualities and experiences that I can take from it then surely these can be made apparent to me without having to look through any metaphorical lens.

Dude chill I'm just trying to break you'r hart if i can do that then i'm pretty sure i can get you too see video games "CAN" be art.
IT'S HARD TOO DO RIGHT......but they can be art.
Ya i guess that's one way too look at tetris.

What if I came on a canvas and called it art? Why I'd be a millionaire!

So what, you define art as “something intended to be art”? You aren’t supposed to use cyclical definitions

>Art: the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power
It's an incredibly loose definition. If something elicits some kind of emotional response, or is especially aesthetically pleasing, then it's art.
Video games created purely for fun can't really be called art, in the same way your average capeshit isn't art. Really, it's up to the community to decide what's art and what isn't. I'm sure your typical group of painters wouldn't call some homeless man vomiting on a canvas "art".
But really, who the fuck cares? It's a stupid fucking word that has no meaning past "art = good, not art = bad". Just call it emotionally impactful, or beautiful or something.

Most of that is done on purpose so millionaires can traffic drugs.
Your bank is going to ask you why you bought a 300k painting of "Art", they will ask you however if you just try and withdraw all that shit at once and will keep tabs on you in the future.

I intend my skid marks to be art. There we go. Pure magic. Time for the auction.

But user, if you play Silent Hill like that faggot Joseph Anderson you wont take anything away from it, but if you obsess over the dev's intent you start seeing stuff that was not there before, maybe even stuff that is not there at all. But even if it is not there by artistic intent it still enriches your experience.

How is this hard to understand? Contemplating artistic intent, and thoroughly investigating your own emotional responses is very giving and elevates the material.

There is a permanent video game exhibit in the Museum of Modern Art NYC, which is a premier wolrd-reknowned art gallery.
In this exhibit, there are video games such as Asteroids, Sim City, and Dwarf Fortress.

It shouldn’t have a definition, it shouldn’t exist, anyone who uses the word “art” is a drooling retard who ought to be gases

*Your bank ISN'T going to ask you why you bought a 300k painting of "Art"

This is by the far the best post in this thread. Everyone's so hyped on labelling things as art that they've forgotten why they even need to do such a thing in the first place.

Why?

Why do some people have this pretentious idea of art that if it’s done with a commercial purpose or for fun it’s not art? These people like OP would probably consider paintings from the renaissance that were commission by wealthy patrons as art, and yet they were as commercial as the latest FIFA game.

Thread should have ended here.

Well, the thing is that people already discuss videogames as its specific way of comunicating stuff, no? They talk about gameplay, how this feels stiff, how this level sucks, how this level is great, how this set of movements is used well here, how this or that is gimmicky, how it applies to the narrative (less times). It's done all the time, only that it's done with the endgoal of asking "is it fun" "does it work" and not much else, which are very valid questions, entertainment and engagement with the viewer shouldn't be understimated. Now, we know that (some) creators are working beyond these patterns, say Killer 7 or Lost in Blue for example, why should players stay below parameters of intent and meaning creators are obviously going for? Why not ask "why is this guy doing this and not that?".

For videogames to be considered an artform, to be considered an artistic medium of expression, they need something specific to them. You can't just put the "music" within a videogame, separate it, and bam videogames are art; there's a clear leap of logic there. If you specified how it changes the flow of the game (or doesn't) it would be more akin to the discussion at hand.

Dunno man maybe you should search more, maybe watch a movie? Those have been pretty good for the last couple of decades.

>It's a stupid fucking word that has no meaning past "art = good, not art = bad".
You created that point yourself senpai

I would agree except he mistakes art as a value denominator. It is not, art is not inherently positive, only plebs think this.

Why not? Seriously why not?

this

>this was 7 years ago

But user, movies have suffered to an extreme degree from rampant streamlining and pandering to the lowest common denominator. I think artistic expression is at its most stifled its been in decades in that field. Movies are too expensive to produce to actually say anything worth while with them. Video games have the exact same problem.

This does not make them less "art", it does however make them shit.

That really doesn't make it art though. It's just you reading into something. Sometimes you find things and make connections that the devs never intended in the first place.

This is one of the most stupid posts on the thread. If it's made for fun and profit it can't be called art? This painting here was made for profit and propaganda. it was commissioned by the church. There's no "emotional power". Hell, Rubens hated fat people and only painted these whales because he liked the money. These paintings are like what you're calling capeshit, and yet I'm sure if someone asked you'd say there are art, while at the same time saying video games aren't.
I hate pretentious people like you. Roman and Greek comedies weren't art because they were created purely for fun, then?
Go fuck yourself you fucking retard.

Attached: Peter_Paul_Rubens_-_The_Rape_of_the_Daughters_of_Leucippus.jpg (800x849, 146K)

I believe some games can be considered art, and if not, one day a game will be created that will be art. As long as a medium can be used for expression, art will inevitably be achieved. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but someday.

I never said that is what makes it art, i was referring to the sort of analysis you meet as a standard in the art community, but rarely in gamer culture.

So art is what? The apex of a mediums range of expression? Art is simply the works you encounter in the medium. Why would you think art has to be inherently good? Art can be shit.

art is for fags

You seem really upset.

You're not looking at the right places, it seems, and are falling into a defeatist way of seeing art history because it's the most easy thing to do, really. You have the internet, do something with it, for fuck's sake. I wouldn't call any of the people working in the Taiwanese New Wave "streamlined", for example, and many of the people participant of it are still working. Are youtube poops "streamlined" too?

By the way, when I talk decades, it's an incredibly compressed ammount of time. 100 years in film have shown an inmense ammount of registers within space and time, something unheard of until the 20th century.

Ah well, i thought you were some pleb who considered American movies made on the westcoast as a "happening" thing. Disregard my comment then.

I'd say that anything created through creativity that can't be derived from a scientific theory is art. This makes Warhol's bullshit art, it makes video games (most of them) art, it makes films art, etc. But when you're releasing a game for the nth time, it can be said that you reduced it down to a formula and it stopped being art. In this way, the first FIFA/PES games were art, but the current ones aren't. In the same way, the first battle Royale games were art, the latest copycats aren't.

And I acknowledge the existence of High Art, which is art of particularly high quality. And in this case I'd say very, very few games fall within this group. I'd say these are the some of the high art games I can think of

>Doom/Quake
>Starcraft I
>Deus Ex
>Tetris
>Diablo II
>Metroid Prime
>Zelda
>Warcraft III
>Half Life
>GTA 3

Based Doom-is-high-art-poster

Again, I have an issue with the word art. Why does labelling something art validate its existence? You've made the assumption that the word art has worth and meaning and gives it to the object. If you just stop looking at things as art then you rid yourself of the dilemma of what should or should not be called art. That there you posted is a painting. Is it good or bad? There's both objectivity and subjectivity in that. The word art doesn't even have to come into the picture. You see what we're saying?

most people who see a famous painting just see a pretty picture, does that mean The Starry Night isn't art?

i actually think i could if i was motivated, but currently i couldn't. CBA to convince some random fucker about something that i actually don't want to be true

>Why does labelling something art validate its existence?
That user has not used it that way, they're infact against a positive value of art (in which art is this "free" thing devoid of profit and ties to the society it was created in and blablabla). It's a way of categorization. The "art" status is a baseline, and it should never, ever be used as something in itself. Only pseuds do that. When you even start speaking of "good" and "bad" within the "painting", you're talking in terms of perceived artistry. It doesn't come into the picture, it's the canvas.

i would hardly say that video games are primarily appreciated for their beauty or emotional power though.

I'd like any of you to directly tell Tetsuya Mizuguchi that his games aren't an artistic endeavor. To see what happens.

>i would hardly say that video games are primarily appreciated for their beauty

Graphics whores is a huge demographic in gamer culture

>i would hardly say that video games are primarily appreciated for their emotional power

Waifufags having crushes on vidya women everywhere user. Everywhere.

So what categorization does video games come under then?

didn't realize you'd keep going, I left for a dinner date
entire piece went right over your head and you can't explain anything about it nor what it conveys without using google to look it up and copy someone else's interpretation

that's why you got laughed at ITT

probably nothing because he's a little bitchboy jap

Reading comprehension much? Art is a baseline of culturally (not naturally) created objects.

art ain't art if you create it for money simple as

I can read fine thanks, but you're not being clear. What exactly does "baseline of culturally created objects" mean?

incorrect

Why not?

It's an specific (although mixed with other forms, same with cinema) artistic medium. Its specific mode of comunication is through interaction ie gameplay. Whenever we speak of gameplay, we speak directly about the specific qualities of the video game AS a video game.

That the word art is not a value denominator. Its a neutral term used to categorize.

because you're not making it because you want to make art you're making it to make money

true, graphics fags and those other weirdos exist but i was talking in general (especially in the second case). Either way, if games were primarily enjoyed for their beauty, why bother with them? just go for a movie instead of one of those interactive stories instead

didn't realize that literally every great composition, sculpture, and painting ever made weren't actually art
thanks for clearing that up retard

Art is incredibly niche throughout humanity then, hey? Shakespeare and John Ford can fuck right off.

So only amateur hobbyists are true artists? Interesting angle. I disagree.

if you're thankful for me for clearing it up why would you then go on to insult me? i feel like that thank you wasn't very sincere
Correct my good friend

based retard

Agree to disagree, then. Glad to see folks with high standards, but I like my westerns too much.

Why must art be made for its own sake to be art?

because if it's not then it ain't art silly

Recursive logic is literally not an argument.

recursive logic is 100% an argument mr no art guy

Oh ok i see, you are clinically retarded.

i like westerns too
youtube.com/watch?v=aWYCw3BTziw

Attached: Elvis Stitchly.gif (422x236, 1.79M)

no adults actually hold this opinion
when you argue with someone who espouses this kind of opinion (typically a 2cynical4u philosophy major) you just point out classical music and how much of it was made for profit
they typically get intimidated (because they dont know shit about dick) and don't make that argument again

or its just some pasty white starbucks hipster and the same argument applies. their view of art is extremely limited as they haven't actually explored much in any particular field

you can't diagnose me with clinical retardation because i disagree with you now who's the retard huh?

But like, when my favorite band sold out and started making shitty records, they became shit! and art cant be shit user, art == quality

Who doesn't? But spaghetti is the least I like.

art is subjective you brainlet classical music sucks mega ass

I just did

Attached: _76055361_482566485.jpg (660x444, 22K)

>art is subjective
already covered itt
your mutually unintelligible view of what is and is not "art" is irrelevant
>classical music sucks mega ass
lol please share your very informed and respectable opinions with us

>But spaghetti is the least I like.
it pains me to hear that but i'll let it slide because you seem cool

Attached: 1552488304245.gif (320x240, 1.06M)

if you must know
youtube.com/watch?v=4fk4Wjev5SE
this is real music homo

Attached: 1530360503515.jpg (800x450, 42K)

>tfw the only true art is scribbles and doodles made by 4 year olds.

I liked the onkyo album further up in this thread better

>youtube
youtube.com/watch?v=ne5MoqEu7lU
maybe this one is more to your tastes

youtube.com/watch?v=AKgjOCuW_MU
or this one

holyfucking based and /thread

It's very cool Anonymous, but that's nothing.
youtube.com/watch?v=pf4UNJqv_-A&t=0s&list=PL244CEA0602505065&index=2

J.S. Bach, with Richter conducting. What do you think?

Attached: 1395710046772.jpg (1248x540, 190K)

nice very good but check this
youtube.com/watch?v=g8XcKKe8RZY

on a more serious note I liked everything you posted
youtu.be/NuRxhS1IQx0
~

This thread is one giant art piece, I'll give OP that.

Its the nature of the subject that makes it difficult to be clear.
You can't legalistically put "art" in a {concept-box}
because art transcends its boundaries indefinitely, which eventually leads to everything being art.
{concept-boxes} are useful for structuring your thinking, but not necessarily an accurate reflection of reality.
For example, the distinction between "Physics" and "Chemistry" is arbitrary, except its useful for scientists to be able to study one facet of reality. But the division doesn't actually exist in nature.
take [input], run {the artistic process} and returns Art(input).
So everything can be art, except each individual will have a different understanding of {the artistic process} and input parameters.

>if games were primarily enjoyed for their beauty, why bother with them? just go for a movie instead of one of those interactive stories instead
not sure what your point is with this. you could say the same thing about any artform. why look at paintings when you can listen to music? why listen to music when you can see a film? why see a film when you could enjoy a video game?

same to yours
youtube.com/watch?v=TgntkGc5iBo

Kirby was a pretty nice game I have to admit, but would I call it art? no, because I don't use art as a term.

art is a complex irrational construct

art is something you appreciate

you can appreciate videogames

i don't see any real definition to "art," at least in terms of qualifications
masterpieces, movies and plays could all be seen as art and yet they use entirely different mediums
same goes for video games

but i would prefer it if video games stuck to more simplistic plotlines, since the lesser difficulty the player has in embracing a game's premise and gameplay, the easier it is for them to form an empathy with the character they control
conversely, i feel more elaborate stories with deeper relationships and personal issues tend to weaken the connection between character and player since they may describe things about the character that don't apply to the player
from what i have seen, games like the last of us, until dawn, and other "cinematic experiences" of the sort more or less have this as their job description, and would better off have been designed as movies

Attached: file.png (369x357, 119K)

Do you mean physical sport? Is chess a sport? Is Poker?

Wait how the fuck would you consider poker a sport when the randomness of the card seeps in?

>Something with randomness in it can’t be considered a sport
Thank you for supporting that video games aren’t sports

I haven't said so or not. Thing is, can poker be considered?

i don't really care if video games are art or not, but clearly those 3D models are art. Sprites are art. Backgrounds are art. You play video games in a literal art.

No

This depends completely on the definition of "art" you are willing to accept.

If art is an expression of through and feeling through some medium, then it's art
If art is a "higher state" of thought conveyed through media, then it MAY be art
If art is a non-volatile piece of media (mean that it doesn't change based on your action, but can be assessed subjectively), then no it isn't art, because you change the experience.
If art is something which allows a person to, in considering it, become an artist of their own subjective view, then it is also art because the player becomes the artist of the universe in their mind - focused by the game.

Attached: tgryu567.jpg (1920x960, 447K)

If you create something with the purpose of it having an emotional or intellectual effect on others, then it is art. Anything that serves more than a practical purpose is art. It might not be good art, it might not be intentional art, it might not have the intended effect, but that doesn't matter.

People said movies weren't art when they were new, too. They might have a painting in it, or a song, or a dance, and people would say, "Sure, that one thing in the movie is art, but the movie as a whole isn't." People don't feel that way anymore, though, and the reason is because people made movies that had the kind of impact on others that they expect from art. From then on, movies became art.

Now those same filmmakers are saying video games aren't art. Hilarious.

If you make money off your art it isn’t art

...

Why?

>Bach
But wait, you ain't seen nothing yet.
youtube.com/watch?v=Z6iNaFWV3tc
Sibelius, symphony no. 2

Why are recordings on youtube always so mediocre?

>People said movies weren't art when they were new, too.
To be completely fair, movies had a SERIOUS backing from artists very early on, loved by several painters and many people wanted to tackle it, becoming the central art of the Soviet Union before devolving into soviet realism (puaj!). Canudo's "The Manifest of the Seven Arts" was published as back as 1911, four whole years before Birth of a Nation, even!

Videogames have, what, a couple of interesting artists that have made some things and a hundred being silenced by complete corporate submission for the almost 60 years since their birth?

Attached: Fantomas.jpg (350x257, 21K)

Movies were also invented during a time when capitalism didn't immediately latch onto any new thing that might be profitable and instantly suck it dry.

no, you actually couldn't simply because you don't primarily enjoy the sounds of a painting now do you?

>its too fucking broad
>anything can be seen as "art"
That's the fucking point retard. Its moronic to try and gatekeep art.

Based

>drawn pictures are art
>music is art
>writing is art
>acting is art
>drawn pictures with music and writing and acting aren't art