Why aren't video games considered art?

Everybody with a functioning brain and an education knows videogames are art. Only reason some morons think they're not is because they don't know what art is.

Yeah, like music right?

They're usually boiled down to be a product sold to be consumed by a committee who dampens an original artist's vision into what sells the best. Can games be art? I think they can be but they're mostly meant to be consumed first and foremost.

It doesn't matter if they are or not.
Only the worst kind of people want to have this conversation.
They are protected under the same laws as other creative mediums and that is all that matters.

>video games aren't art
Anyone who says this can never appreciate a beautiful art piece, they wouldn't know what it is if it hit them.

Attached: The Line.png (1920x1080, 3.02M)

They are considered art? They appear in art museums, are frequently discussed and written about as art, are criticized as art, etc.

They are art.
>Pic. related

Attached: sekiro-shadows-die-twice_0.jpg (800x451, 65K)

Well thank you for settling the debate after giving your pointless lecture on consumerism.

Goya was a hack.

>made by retards
>for retards
>retards' complains affect how the product is made
>shallow as shit without exceptions

Of course they are. But, again, art doesn't imply merit. We've had this thread for years, hombre.

Attached: accepting.jpg (1920x1080, 177K)

What you posted is definitely not art, I know that, it's just a filter.

Interactive art is a thing though.

Attached: HELENA_1.jpg (500x406, 137K)

because the medium is young, television wasn't considered art, radio wasn't considered art, let all the boomers die out and it'll be commonly accepted

Attached: 1542831992023.png (1600x900, 118K)

this

You're welcome user my Ted talk is this Monday if you want to come. You can have a front row seat so I can personally stick my sphincter in your face for wasting my time

US Supreme Court ruled video games as an art a long time ago already.

Attached: 852232e834b09cdb15178ee9e25fe1ab.jpg (1280x932, 190K)

Because they're just toys for little kids. Movies/TV can be art tho, K-ON! is a great example for a modern masterpiece.

Attached: 1453537132941.jpg (5000x3374, 2.39M)

Because for it to be art, all player agency must be stripped away, but if you do that, it's not a game anymore, but a movie. If someone would draw very beautiful squares to hopscotch on, would that be art? No, you're focusing on the game, not the art.

Well it's just a filter right?
Just look at the "brush stokes", they're clearly just randomly placed on top of silhouettes and colors with no artistic consideration or intent, you can tell because the horizon and people just change color mid stroke.
If it was worth shit it would use the strokes, the direction and force to create texture, atmosphere and energy, instead it looks like someone just put a screenshot through a image processor that simulates brush strokes but the a.i. can't determine what expression it's supposed to convey, or the intent of the image so it just randomly places strokes based on the algorithm it was programmed with.
I repeat, it's not art, it's just a filter.

>Animation is art
>Music is art
>Writing is art
>Video games are composed of all three of these but are somehow not art

Attached: 1458421727307.jpg (320x240, 12K)

Not that user but hes right, you just mouthed off a bunch of irrelevant shit. Then you got butt hurt when called out on it.

Can a toy be art?

>tfw no chill demon gf to hangout and drink with
why would you post this
why do you hate me enough to remind me of what is impossible

>Because for it to be art, all player agency must be stripped away

Says who? Are you implying art can't be interactive or some shit?

Video Games can't be art because the must have a use. Video games must be fun, they are entertainment after all. An un-fun game is a bad video game, if you can name at least one un-fun good game, i will swallow my own words.

Think of video-games as comedians, they are both being represented in some artform (performance x interactive video) but they are made to entertain, not to be useless.

Art is uselless in their own essence (and that is a good thing).

Attached: 0a746352109a6ff917231209a81836d83499e410.png.jpg (600x300, 30K)

Guess music isn't art because it requires agency to play an instrument.

The only people who say video games aren't art are retarded boomers who think videogames are all still Pac Man, Pong and Space Invaders.

Let's see your relevant opinion then

Attached: 1298141130895.png (291x317, 19K)

you can always off yourself and meet her right now

Attached: 1534026286719.jpg (1280x1707, 259K)

So a game set in Auschwitz has to be fun? This is such a retarded argument.

Are you saying Media culture is art? Because it has all this, and they aren't art.

What is unfun about aushchwitz? I know some polacs would enjoy the hell of it. Don't see "fun" as a buzzword but the ends of the means.

Absolutely.

Attached: Hecho-a-mano-Tradicional-Chino-Dinast-a-Tang-Princesa-Mu-eca-Mu-ecas-14-pulgadas-Movable[1].jpg (750x750, 163K)

If they created the animation, the music, and the writing, then those are certainly artistic aspects of the media

I don't think that's how it works user

Attached: 3a602e98a26742fd9a71e29d4a9df2d4.png (2055x2740, 2.43M)

The reason sports, board games and game shows aren't considered art. They're games.

So publicity, and this isn't art either.

Because you keep fapping to them, user. You keep making rule34 of them and cumming to them. That's why games aren't considered art.

Attached: 1479924414894.jpg (1024x683, 119K)

I'm not sure if you're trying to be sarcastic or not but your post is accurate. Music, at least in the modern sense of what we call music, has never been and never will be art.

>he doesn't know about the auschwitz roller coaster

just stop, if conceptual art shit is considered art, then vidya is also art.

Shut up, I fap to classical statues too but that doesn't stop anyone from calling those art.

Absolute nonsense.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphrodite_of_Knidos#Reception_and_audience

You're stuck on the buzzword "entertainment". Games can be whatever the fuck they want to be, just like movies, books, and music can.

If a straight, white line through a blue canvas is considered art, what's stopping video games as being classified as art? Pic related, costed $44 million.

Attached: $44 million.jpg (600x503, 16K)

Art: the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.

Retard

You know what is wrong with plebians like yourself, you put art in a pedestal, like something worth of praise or luxuries just because some art a sold for tons of money.

ART IS JUST A HUMAN WAY TO VIEW THE WORLD, LIKE SCIENCE OR RELIGION, NOTHING MORE THAN IT.

"Video games must be fun, they are entertainment after all. An un-fun game is a bad video game, if you can name at least one un-fun good game, i will swallow my own words."

Attached: 800px_COLOURBOX2966451.jpg (800x800, 137K)

I'm not going to reverse image search that particular piece but you know there are a million materials and techniques that could be used to give different effects right? you may be correct that it's a filter, but it could just as easily be that it is "analog". there are many artists who do physical painting that looks digital.

wrong. art is to be elevated because it is the only way to convey the unknown.

>quoting current year kike definitions

By that logic, shitposting is art.

Retard.

No, I don't. I hardly give a shit about any art. You're just refusing to accept its objective definition.

Art is just the product of creative effort.

So what use this has? If it unknown and don't influence us in anyway, the unknown can go fuck himself. It's like me to you, i can die in this minute and no relevance for your life would make.

>hurr modern art bad

You know that religion is the way to convey the unknown, right.

You are not me.

So publicity, so science, so soccer. You know that creativity is just a way to brains work, right? Like logic and reasoning.

funny enough all those games are considered art too. Pretty sure you find those 3 in some vidya museum.

i don't mean unknown as in i don't know who you are, i mean The Great Unknown.

Like what? Afterlife?

religion and art are synonymous imo

This
It's art

>modern art bad
This but unironically. Seriously, are you going to fucking defend a blue canvas as art? Not only that, but that it's insane price point as justifiable? lmfao

Attached: 44-Million-dolar-painting-is-just-blue-with-a-white-line-Onement-VI-by-Barnett-Newman-2.jpg (700x524, 137K)

Just like every other form of art then? Fucking retard.

Check a dicionary if do not know the meaning of words.

It's art it's just not particularly good art

If you're thinking up creative plays in soccer, sure. If you're just doing what has been done before, no.

If you're a skilled journalist that writes creative pieces, sure.

"science" is a difficult subject to place here, because while the individual man can have a very creative hypothesis, the "scientific field" is just a bulk of information that has been tested, proven, and then accepted into the field.

>An un-fun game is a bad video game, if you can name at least one un-fun good game, i will swallow my own words.

Most RPG's are not fun by design, but are arguably well made in other things.

video games are art in the same way board games can be considered art.

>the creating or viewing of art is not a religious experience
then its bad art.

Because it's community is incredibly immature.

No, user not every other form of art is like that. Some can be but not all of them. Come back with an rebuttal next time sweetie.

Attached: 1364889309912.jpg (472x359, 60K)

I get what he's saying.
What could drive a man to create something beautiful more than trying to appease the divine?

nothing produced for corporate profit can be art

So art is not the product of a creative effort?
Let gets in a agreement, in my definition
"art is a (great) idea that manifest in somewhat material form [even efemerous performances if you want to be a douche]"

>bu-but you need to be creative to have an idea, its the definition of "create".
Nope, you can be a deadpan and still make art, copying others art is still art or you can just has some vague idea and splat paint in some canvas with no direction what-so-ever. But all start as an idea, doodling is art even is just doodle and the list go on.

Why people would play a game if it's a bore? people play RPGs because they like RPGs, so they must having fun, right? They must be entertained, right? Also, your response is very vague, just tell me a known un-fun game that is good. (spoilers, there aren't)

An atheist can't make art? There isn't LOGIC in your point.

To please himself? To make a portrait of his dog? To not get bored? to make lolicon cunny for perverts? I thing there are many motives to not making art to appease some divine...

Attached: print sobre tela by Hobbes.jpg (1414x826, 132K)

lmfao, explain movies then

Name a movie made by corporate that has no-profit at all intentions.

Videogames are the product of many compromises.
They can appear artful at times, but inherently they can not be pure Art.

Pure art is overrated. Go watch The Room if you want a crazy idiot to inflict his artistic vision on you

so paintings and illustrations can't be art?

It completely depends on the purpose of the video game. Video games can be art in a similar way movies can; it is wholly dependent on the story and/or how it is portrayed aesthetically and symbolically. The difference is that gameplay is a large aspect that video games must focus on most if it actually wants to be a good game, and often times this detracts from it's ability to be art.
Most video games focus on providing an alternate reality to escape in rather than actual artistic expression.

They are according to the Supreme Court. Anyone who believes that they can’t be art is delusional, and all those who believe they all are art are also delusional. If Nier Automata, Shadow of the Colossus, or Dark Souls 1 were put in front of Roger Ebert, he’d also agree without a shred of doubt.

Last time I recalled, The Godfather wasn't made for the sole intention to be just a piece of art, but also as a product. How much money did that masterpiece gross, user?

I did not hit her, it is not true. It is bullshit; I did not hit her! I did NAHT! Oh hai, user.

Attached: 96293F46-1873-4231-95F9-0F7C94EDFA91.jpg (960x406, 51K)

The quality of a video game is determined primarily by how entertaining or interesting it's gameplay is, not what it is trying to express creatively. But i'd say humanity's relationship with games, or virtual reality rather, is art.

Video games are rarely meaningful or significant in any way. The few games that "journalists" like are games like TloU which are overrated trash.

The rare gem is the exception.

>Why people would play a game if it's a bore? people play RPGs because they like RPGs, so they must having fun, right? They must be entertained, right?

Some people grind and waste hours doing repetitive tasks just for the plot. Dragon Quests are not that fun, no matter how much they sell in Japan.

Why is that shit considered art?

What in the ever living fuck is that?

Attached: Blank+_63d12aff30999e44900bf80787afa8d4.jpg (700x400, 38K)

Oh man I sure love how significant throwing beans at your tits while screaming is! Or how fucking meaningful toilet pictures are.

Attached: _1555372200183.jpg (806x952, 525K)

>the entire medium has to be validated as art before anything in it can be considered art
Art can be found anywhere by definition. Anyone who tells you there's no art to be found in something as broad as video games is probably some old fart who spent too much of his life trying to critique black and white films.

Art isn't interactive

I sort of believe they are on the basis that a lot of them are dogshit and nothing but propaganda that are used as money laundering schemes

Art, you tasteless cretin

Video games can be art but your favorite one is not.

Redpilled and based.

Mexican?

Because art isn't supposed to be interacted with.

Dwarf fortress, now eat your own words

>Anything that I don't like or don't suit my narrative is kike material
/pol/ is that way

>Music, at least in the modern sense of what we call music, has never been and never will be art.
KEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK

because WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY...

The only difference in high art and low art is in high art the mc fucks a ballerina, in low art the mc fucks the cheerleader. Its all power fantasy wish fullfillment just that one comes with a preordained sack of social value to it.

Games have been art since the fucking nintendo, only hipsterz living in california working for microsoft will tell you that vidya hasn't become high art. The citizen kane of games was super mario 3.

>WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY...
Is this supposed to be part of a speech? Does it have a followup?

Only (((modern))) art is true art goy er guy.

There's a video game in the MOMA right now
It plays it itself
It's very comfy to watch

youtube.com/watch?v=TO6Luilc4Bo

>consumer products designed for children
>timeless masterpieces that also function as a store of value

Ger, I wonder why. . .

Attached: 4E73D45D-0E70-4393-AA58-62745944E650.jpg (4032x3024, 2.2M)

>name at least one un-fun good game

Pathlogic. That game gives you a sense of dread and exhaustion that perfectly captures the tone of the setting.

Attached: Pathologic+2+image+4.jpg (1500x844, 125K)

t. disgruntled gaming "journalist"

Brainlet here. What's so great about this painting? I see it everywhere?

Attached: 1553226134082.png (579x434, 282K)

>Commercial music
>Commercial film
>Can buy mediocre, mass produced painting/drawings
>Artists literally contracting commercial work for companies
>Pulp books and YA novels
Get fucked

Art can not be a different experience for each person--if I play the same game as someone else, our choices will be different, but music, paintings and movies are consistent, regardless of who is listening or observing it; Two peolple watching a movie, listening to music, or looking at a painting in two different places do not have different experiences. Things like multiple possible choices and losing makes the game a game, but it does feature art, yet needing to progress through the game holds most of it hostage.

I haven't seen somebody argue against games being art in actual years. Even Roger Ebert changed his mind before he died (after being shown a few free indie games).

I think it's Kronos eating his children

I know what it is, I want to know what's so great about it. It just looks like a regular old painting to me and not even a very good one.