Can video games be art, Yea Forums?

Are you a fucking idiot? You realize that there are like, legitimately good movies and books, right? Not everything is capeshit. If anything, the VAST majority of video games are comparable to capeshit.

No.
If you think that they can be art then take away all of the extraneous things. Like grpahics and story, take the bare mechanical code then try to evaluate it in the same way you would a sculpture or painting.

You will find they are very different things.

MONA LISA'S A NIGGER

Art isn't real

Tbh everything that crossed eyed fuck Damien hirst says should get the same attention like the ravings of your local methhead.
They can be but 95% aren't, just listen to how the suits squirm when a "journalist" actually asks whether or not there is a political statement in random modern military shooter XX

They are art, it's just that lots and lots of people really don't want them to be, which is why this argument happens every day.

Yes they can be art by definition. Everyone who disagrees is just wrong.

Those "extraneous things" are part of video games.

>Just take away things from the game then it can't be art anymore

Attached: 1558344446398.jpg (699x919, 75K)

This is a silly way to look at something. If you take away the canvas and the brushes all you'd have left is paint.

The reason why these suits "squirm" is because they will literally lose their jobs and be backlisted from the industry if their statement is too offensive.

They inherently are. Always have been since pong.

Art is just a vague word that broadly encompasses everything in human creation that was made with – at least very partially – the intent to express.
It is used to point at and categorize that aspect of human creation, and differentiate it from either purely scientific creation, or practical creation. That way we can easily refer to complex and unique works of architecture that definitely had intentions to express such as a cathedral, without necessarily including generic mass-produced houses made with nothing but practicality in mind in the one and same term.
It is however only ever used to categorize and summarize vaguely, and in no way defines a specific creation or draws hard and clear distinctions about what is what.
With that in mind the question of whether or not a specific medium is allowed to be art is not worth trying to answer because there is nothing to answer. A medium is always just a medium, and not everything made through a medium will necessarily be art or not be art. In a way there is no Art with a capital A. There is only Artists. A tool can be art – there are certain ornate weapons, vases or dishes and other basic tools that sit in art museums rather than history museums and no one is making a fuss about that. Does that mean that all tools are art? Not necessarily. Is every logistic or building man has created art? Is architecture art? These are all pointless questions. It is always all about the creator. A movie is art, an ad on tv isn't necessarily considered art despite being virtually the same medium and made the same way – and some sophisticated ads may even still be considered art. Some metal sculptures are in museums and widely considered art, but a mass-produced spoon made through virtually the same process doesn't even raise the question of whether or not that spoon is art. It's all a bout who made it and why they made it. No art, just Artists.

Contiued :

I would argue that if individuals are adamant about making clear distinctions for themselves on what is art and what isn't, then they will have to go about it case by case and look at the Artist, not the medium. Why did the artist make it, and perhaps what do they or others feel from it.
But it is an absolute waste of time to try to define what is or isn't art by drawing a hard line on an entire medium. Tools can be art, buildings can be art, games can be art. Literally any human creation can fall into that vague category, depending on the creator and the eye of the beholder, and I think only idiots waste their time trying to allow or forbid certain methods of creation to be considered art as if it was something prestigious and sacred.

>Writing without story
>Movies without visuals or story

Art is everything.

why not?

It's honestly the same shit. Calling something art just makes it seem more special/respectable.

You did not understand my analogy and then further confused yourself with one you made up that fits your opinion.

If I took the brushes I used to make the painting away then I would still have a painting. If I took away the computer I used to code my game then I would still have my game.

My idea was based around the fact that if you took all of the things which were not the actual game(graphics, story, etc.) then you would be left with something that cannot be measured in the same way as you measure art. You cannot get "more" out of a program than what the program has been designed to give you. It is an objective thing. Which makes sense; it's not art.

The graphics and story etc. are part of video games.

i hate the "video games are art" crowd because they celebrate the worst games possible.
Something like "Dear Esther" never should've been praised. If the baseline for a good artistic game is just a slightly interactive movie, then the medium is fucked
remember to play hylics and purchase hylics 2 when it comes out

By the way your describing it, all art would be objective, you can't get more out of painting than what the painter put into the painting. In a way a painting is the same as a program, it is designed to sit and be looked at, nothing more, nothing less.

No. They are separate pieces which are operated by the game code. A game can function without art assets or a story.

They are part of video games just like sets and costumes and lights are part of movies. Fuck off.

Games that are made with a purpose to fulfill the receivers desires can be considered artistic. Once a game is made for profit only, it loses all its credibility to even be considered art. It's no longer a form of expression or a way to convey emotion.

No. For instance, I can observe different meaning out of a painting. A program does not have different meaning, it has one meaning.

You should try to educate yourself on the dichotomy at play here.

If there is no perceivable output to an input, then it isn't a game

To be fair that's a problem with almost any medium. The hipsters make up the majority of artfags, and they'll praise the most pretentious pieces of garbage out there.

Maybe you should consider that movies are not art, either.

you are fucking dumb.
Art is the final product of a process of creation. Stop trying to be so edgy by shitting up these threads.

My point exactly.

They are. Fuck off.

>A program does not have different meaning, it has one meaning.

This might be the most jaded, cynical, and outright ignorant post I've ever seen on this site. You do realize that's the equivalent of me saying "a blank piece of paper does not have a different meaning, therefore painting isn't an art."

Attached: 1557733394327.gif (375x221, 3.96M)

That is not what art is.

Video games are art by default. 99.9% of video games start as drawings and writing. It's also a visual medium hence the name.

Who are you to say that I can't look at a code and see the beauty of what it's trying to do and what it's trying to convey to me individually? Go suck your moms hairy toes.

Art is a work that stirs emotion.
So anything can be art.

A more strict definition of art rules out things that are mass produced and only done to generate money but that more strict definition is probably wrong.

If your emotions are stirred you experiences art. My dick could be art. This post could be art. Your emotions are the critical component.

Um, you're wrong though.

art is the entirety of creating or destroying, our human ability to construct and deconstruct and through the acts convey a meaning, emotion or perspective.

I guess I'm the only one who told you the truth.

If its function is to evoke emotion then its art.

No.

I'm not. Fuck off.

Try again sweetie :3

You have a lot of learning to do.

Fuck off and kill yourself you fucking degenerate.

>ITT: anons who never leave their homes shout at each other trying to define art

A LOT of learning.

Fuck off and kill yourself you fucking degenerate.

Well, I can name only two games, which in my understanding are close to art.
1. Journey. There is no text here, all the narration is conducted by the visual and music, and more importantly, you understand this story. It is intuitive. And this game causes the closest feelings to what you experience when looking at paintings or listening to music. Not a plot twist, not a loss of a character, not a gameplay, but it is visual and music that evoke these feelings. In all other games, music and visual addition to the narrative, in this game - the opposite.
2. Sounds a bit strange, but ... Hotline Miami. It is very stylish. The style there is one of the most key elements - again, the visual and music do all the work, and the story could be anything.

You are a very simple person.

Dilate.

Attached: 1546630094015.jpg (1400x1355, 622K)

Games as they are cannot be art.
if a game is made specifically for that purpose then yes.

Games are more of a medium than an independent piece, you as the player express your creativity in some way in games, depending on the game, but the expression of creativity is ALWAYS there.

If I can't beat my dick to it, it's not art.

Attached: 126398279386273.jpg (700x565, 50K)

Fuck off and kill yourself you fucking degenerate.

I hope you take some time to reflect on this night, user. You can see readily that you were proven wrong. I am clearly more intelligent than you and have made my thoughts clear. You have not and have only proven to me that you actually know nothing on this subject. This is, hopefully, not how you conduct yourself with your business contacts.

I dare say; your personal life must be in absolute shambles.

Immaturity suits you.

Not even the same guy matey.

Attached: 1491977952573.jpg (716x665, 75K)

>art then

Attached: Italy-naples-archeology-museum-4-1200x795.jpg (1200x795, 178K)

The art on the right is better to me because I can get authentic prints of them in my home and don't have to go to a museum to look at them.

Fuck off and kill yourself you fucking degenerate.

Um, why should I care? No one in this thread seems be of the educated sort so it is a blanket statement.

>arguing about definitions
next you'll tell me there are only two genders

I knew this dog that would always bark up a storm if you walked by but if you got close it would back off. You are like that dog.

you're a gay stinky pee-pee head loser
go kiss your mother

Sorry, I'm a different person, but your logic is kinda funny. All that you say about the paintings can be applied to video games. In the video game you can find a lot of meanings, there are hundreds of threads where the anons discuss the meaning of the game. For example, Yume Nikki. There are so many theories about the meaning of the game, so many interpretations even Mona Lisa does not have. However, this does not make the game a masterpiece.

Fuck off and kill yourself you fucking degenerate.

inb4 retards who think gender and sex are the same thing take the bait.

>I can observe different meaning out of a painting.
>A program does not have different meaning.
>A still image can have different meanings
>A complex program cannot
boy are you stupid or just pretending to be on the internet?

Attached: hmmmmm.gif (382x450, 745K)

I don't think you even know what that means.

If gender is meaningless then its meaningless. Biological sex does have a meaning though.

Imagine defining yourself by something that you make meaningless. No wonder they kill themselves.

Fuck off and kill yourself you fucking degenerate.

Oh, see, you're not smart. So, I am not going to try to explain a very basic concept of analogies to you as well. Seriously, pay attention in school. You like..don't even know enough to know that you totally didn't understand what I wrote.

Bait taken.

Attached: martin-holding-fish-caught.jpg (550x413, 61K)

I know you think you have a 500IQ and you're saying something super meaningful, but you aren't. Good luck with that.

The only argument is wether an interactive experience is still art which is a discussion that nobody really cares about. Videogames are too complex to label which is why it falls into every category and none at the same time.

No. Considering games as "art" is what leads to Marxist cancer in them.

Alright, I'm bored. You guys didn't come up with anything creative or original or anything even approaching coherence. Good luck..uh..hahaha..yeh, good luck.

They simply are art. Marxism could never have been invented and games would still be art.

Oh. Uh...well a smart person would know that I didn't say anything meaningful at all. It was a pretty standard sentence. But if you think it is impressive then you might be an idiot. Think on this, user.

The real question is what characterizes art and what value it holds.

Attached: 12372874263372.jpg (580x365, 33K)

But it's only you who is shitting in you own pants right now, my friend. And everyone in this thread saw this. You now desperately trying to pretend like it's you who won the argument, and the others are just idiots. But your attempt have failed. Now go and wipe your ass.

No it isn't. Art has no goal to overcome, you cannot "beat" art.
Video games are the same as board games. Not art.

Ahaha...uhhh...y-yeah, you too, man. You...uhh...you too.

*sighs*
*removes glasses*
*messages temples*
*Sits down in chair, opens a book, and begins to read.*

Attached: 1553041261163.jpg (888x894, 68K)

Video games are not board games and the fact that you can beat them does not preclude them from being art. You're just pushing an agenda.

seething

Since when board games is art, lol?

40%!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes.
Shadow of the Colossus
End of story

Hubbard actually got it right, the rest range from corny to fucking retarded.

They are fundamentally no different. It's exactly like a board game.
Never. That's my point. Video games are like board games, not art.

Tell me about the board game that has a story and music, board games that talk about serious philosophy etc.

You're either a fucking liar or actually have no idea what a video game is. Either way you can fuck off.

Yes.
Art is an incredible general term that can describe pretty much everything. It's like food, everything that can be eaten is food, doesn't matter if it's a gourmet dish or a big mac.
Saying video games aren't art is like saying rats aren't food.

It's closer to fine art than what art schools shit out nowadays.
And who cares about non-fine art honestly?

Attached: 1558640368692.jpg (243x190, 17K)

high iq post

Attached: 1552992621918.png (239x239, 3K)

Not an argument. There are literally thousands of video games with zero defined goals in them.

And on the broader topic of "goals":
1. You can finish playing a game the same way you can finish reading a book, watching a film, or listening to an album. Is reaching that strictly defined end point not a goal? Games with no goals often do not have this as there is no end state.
2. ALL art DEMANDS something from the person who consumes it. For work which is created with a strictly defined purpose: is successfully understanding the artist's original intention/message not a goal? Is having the ability to successfully complete a strictly defined goal in a video game not analogous to that?

But hey, look, not all art is made with a goal in mind either. Sure reminds me of some video games.

Attached: 1539160273385.jpg (232x145, 6K)

Art doesnt even have to be visual too. Theres still peformance and sound art too.

>hurr if it has a story it's an art
>what is dnd
>if it has music it's an art!
lmao fuck off

can you ever end a post without "fuck off" or were you tragically brain damaged?

Nice strawman

That is the first time I said fuck off itt dumbshit.
You cannot "lose" against art.
You experience a movie or a book, you beat a game. Art has no rules, points, objectives, and an outcome. Even Kojima said games are not an art.

>You cannot "lose" against art.
Says who? Nobody gives a shit about your pretentious definition of art.

this

Worst part is, he's wrong even by his own definitions.

>Art has no rules, points, objectives, and an outcome
Good luck finishing a book without knowing how to read. Good luck listening to a song while being deaf. Good luck looking at a painting while being blind. What part of "ALL art DEMANDS something from the person who consumes it" do you not understand you goddamn fucktard?

High iq post.

On the same topic, I think there may be inherent artistic value in the raw ludic experience of play. Meaning is intentionally conveyed through how a game plays and feels, and I think that applies both to videogames and boardgames.

Is architecture art?

I bet you are a person who doesn't consider architecture art

Top right is actually pretty good

So shouting "Nigger" in public to evoke an emotional reaction from those around me is "art"

>Can video games be art, Yea Forums?
Vidya are products first and foremost. Best drop that artistic vision if you want to produce sales and it conflicts with that.

Of course. Are movies art? Video games works in a similar manner.
You need to write a plot, a script, dialogues and stuff.
You need to create a visual, sometimes "sculpted" digitaly in 3D or otherwise, sometimes handpainted.
You need a music and ambient sounds.
If creating each part of a game is an art then the game itself is an art as well.

It also inspires others to create more art. Fanart, fanfiction, costumes, cosplay pictures, sometimes live action movies or cartoons and more.
Some of it is deep. Some of it is shallow. Some of it you may enjoy. Some of it you might not.

Attached: jianing-hu-1124.jpg (1920x921, 301K)

yes, but nobody acknowledges it