Games aren't art

he's right. Games are primarily mass produced toys for children.

this, in some ways being called art is an insult even

Attached: e375ef29ae76e6842d292a5e4b4141d8.jpg (640x640, 50K)

Kojima:
>Art is the stuff you find in the museum
>Video games are about running the musem
Nikolay Dybowski:
>Art is a process of communication that helps the recipient to live through a directed emotional experience. It's a spiritual activity that culminates in catharsis. For the author it's a way to pass on his complex feelings and thoughts to another people in the same way author himself experiences them.
>Not every game is art, but they become an art if they have a core idea that provokes a thought or other emotional response in the recipient through different artistic means.

Video game graphics are art. Video games are entertainment.

the chad nip who says it like it is vs the virgin slav pseud pleb

didnt read lol

Yeah, pretty much.

>kemono
cringe
>loli
based

eurogamer.net/articles/news240106kojimaart

It's real hes a retard

Reminder that only manchildren get genuinely upset about this.
Art is subjective, opinions are subjective, so it's subjective. Make your own god damn mind.

In that case, aside from that article being 13 years old, yes. He is a 100% retard and his line of reasoning is absolutely batshit fucking stupid. All games are supposed to captivate 100%? What the FUCK? Also, how is captivating more people making it less art than few?

He really has the mind of a 13 years old child. It's hard not to feel some sort of patronising sympathy to him.

what a faggot nerd fucking lmao

>Art is subjective, opinions are subjective, so it's subjective.
Wow. And you have the fucking audacity to call others immature?

SPBP.

I know this is off topic, but I have zero doubt in my mind I could kick the fucking shit out of Kojima. The man looks like a fucking pansy.

Like he wouldn't even put up a fight, he'd just be sat in his office one day ching chonging away contentedly to himself and i'd just boot the fucking door right off the hinges. He'd give out a little startled shriek like a frightened bird and try to run for it but I'm too quick and I grab him by his scrawny little neck and just start punching him as hard as I can in the kidneys while tears stream down his face.

It stands to reason that there would be security, but because it's Japan, it would just be a bunch of child sized gnomes in comically oversized security uniforms, blowing their whistles at me trying to grab hold of my legs while I grab Kojima by the ankles and turn him upside down to shake his Milk money out of his pockets.

Then I'd give his pathetic security a noogie and a wedgie apiece then turn back to that skinny little runt Kojima the final humiliating blow...a double wet Willy.

Kojima if you're reading this I'm fucking coming for you.

ban these posters, then perhaps they'll finally have sex

>it's art if it makes you feel things
wow

Attached: 1perso.gif (498x356, 1.22M)

>caring about what Kojimbo says about anything
This is the guy who didn't even know what dominant and recessive genes are when trying to write a game about genetics

Attached: 1530742913792.png (506x547, 131K)

Shit take, bro

art doesn't make a game fun, so I don't give a shit.

>actually believing games are art
you're the one who needs to have sex tbqhwyf

FPBP
/thread
Of fucking course videogames are art, but that's not important.
What matters is WHICH games are GOOD.

Attached: 1460328676220.jpg (1280x720, 314K)

So he says they’re not art, then says they are art, then says they are not art again. Kojima continues to be a master troll.

It's times like these I'm reminded at how utterly basic most people are. Whether or not something is art doesn't fucking matter, ever. It's what it inspires you to do that counts.

Kojima is just hoping that someone plugs him into some Hollywood project, using Sonybux to get a network of contacts.

The conclusion that games aren't Art is so simple, yet people refuse to accept it out of pride.

There's nothing wrong with games not being art, it doesn't make you any less. It's just that its characteristics don't allow it to transcend like Art. It's great entertainment, perhaps the best of it, but the fact that you have "possibility" in the medium takes away all the components that would make it Art.

Btw, Kojima is only partially right, the reasons he gives aren't that good.You should listen to Miyamoto, he's the most relevant figure in gaming.

pretty cope d e s u

I hate post-modernists so much...

vast majority of games are not art
everything kojima shits out and Yea Forums gladly eats is not

Attached: Glo-Critic-Tag.jpg (1000x1000, 408K)

This dude makes fine games but his intellectual hot takes are borderline illiterate. He contradicts himself in a single thought, saying both that games aren't art because art is whats in a museum, and then that the things in his museum are also his work. He ought to have compared game design to architecture and quoted Adolf Loos on the irrelevance of artistry to the making of the game. Artistry is an encomium laymen and sophists use to laud well made and resonant things after the fact.

Reminder that TempleOS is outsider art.

Speaking as an artist and a game dev, I've made similar arguments myself for why games aren't art. I've always considered them media: a way of conveying art.

>he directly contradicts himself. The claims that his position is that akin to curating a musem. But also he declares that the art on display is his work.

That's not a contradiction. It's not contrary to say, "I have this means of displaying my art, we call that means a video game, the art on display is mine".

This. The argument has never really been about "art", it's been about credibility.

Pretty much. They shouldn't and don't need to be art. The desperation for external validation in games in disgusting.

Is there a medium that's intrinsecally art?

This post is art

Based

yes just like retards who think mona lisa or some shit is "art"

Also, the fact that you stubbornly disagree with great creators when they say your favorite thing isn't what you think it is makes you an immature coward. You haven't created anything and you don't understand the intricacies of the thing you're talking about.

>Art is a meaningless term because anything is art.
Take a course in art history and come back. Typical pseudo-post-modern shit view.

COPE

Ad verecundiam.

Come back when you're actually educated in art.

Art is merely a notion of (exceptional or special) value assigned to human activity, or product of said activity, that allows us to distinguish value hierarchies among actions and artifacts that surrounds us. Whenever that is a definition that you like and explicitly agree with or not is irrelevant: even the most stubborn deniers of this actually still adhere to this, strictly functional definition of art.

Even the greatest artistic relativist merely argues for value relativity, which he deems exceptionaly valuable, and as such imposes it logically on the notion of art (reflection of our high-regarded values) - once again merely conforming to it's function.

Those who argue that XY isn't art actually do not argue that it isn't art: they argue that the object does not represent value they deem to be either collectively accepted as exceptionally high, or they believe the society SHOULD embrace as such.

The particular criteria for what is considered "value" or "valuable" of course may differ widely between societies, or epochs. Even within societies, there may be respective sub-groups recognizing and adhering to different value systems. Which is why no formal definition of art seems to be ever satisfiable - there does not seem to any substantial element universal across all socities and sub-societies.

It is the function: Value-representation, that they all share together.

If you see items recognized widely by authorities and institutions around you to be art, but they you do not consider such, then they are art: it just means your values are probably at odds with whatever norms your society has currently been practicing.

Once you realize this, arguments about what is art, especially relativistic ones, will become laughable and completely self-defeating.

The real question that is being asked whenever someone questions games as art is actually a different question in disguise:

"Are there works that deserve to be considered of EXCEPTIONAL value among them?"

Attached: 953482-sister.jpg (480x640, 40K)

The reason modern games are mistaken for art is that modern "games" aren't really games. They're fucking style-over-substance bullshit that care more about graphics and/or story and simulate art instead of being an actual fucking videogame.
Make videogames actual GAMES again, and this pretentious bullshit "HURR R GAYEMS ART" will vanish.

Fromfags think their dead games are art.

Attached: arttier.jpg (864x534, 196K)

>Art is the stuff you find in the museum
Why is Kojimbo such a brainlet?

You just literally described Kojima.

>What I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum

So the video game isn't art but the things inside the video game are art? What the fuck does it mean? Do we now pick and choose what pieces of the painting are art and what are not?

Most of his games radiate his personality though so I think that argument is moot. Same goes for someone like Miyazaki or Nomura.

Look at Elli Gibson and you know why we are totally fucked. Good damn.

he's saying it facilitates 'art'.

Yes, all of those Arts we know of, Literature, Film and so on. The thing is that what makes it Art is simply its main indispensable component, in the case of Film, the moment of time in which the fictional narrative is being filmed.

Music in the film for instance is secondary. For it to be Art it needs to stand alone on its own//

>The conclusion that games aren't Art is so simple, yet people refuse to accept it out of pride.
Except it is idiotic. That is why people refuse to accept it. It's an arbitrary declaration, there is no actual logical reasoning behind it: "they can't be art because they can't be art" is a circular reasoning - you are mearly arbitrary defining games as NOT ART and then declaring that games are not art because of that.
Basic, basic fucking logic, kid. Jesus.

I loved Dybowski's lecture about games for TEDx, there's translated transcript of the talk somewhere.

First smart thing Kojima has ever said

>Videogames are art
no they aren't.
videogames take inspiration from actual art like literature and film but it doesn't actually provide anything novel in and of itself.

If art was about education, than you could teach it couldn't you? Those who can't into Art, teach, as they say.

Go ask any of the great Artists if Art can be taught!

>Based retard.

how do i know that you only play AAA shit?

Gameplay?

That's like saying painting facilitates art. It's a truism.

Kojima's still butthurt over Silent Hills which I'm sure he wanted to be his magnum opus art piece.
Its not the videogame itself that is art, it is after all, just a medium like anything else. That part I would agree with.
But art is down to the beholder. Its the experience you have with a videogame that defines whether its art or not. Whether or not it has a profound lasting effect on the player.
So a game like Deadly Premonition? Yeah I'd say that game is a work of art. On a technical level its not a great game, but it IS an experience that is memorable. The characters, the plot, the awkward dialogue. That game will always be remembered fondly by someone so I would argue that it has artistic merits.
Okami and Shadow of The Colossus? Yes. I'd argue that those games are art, because they have a unique feel to them from their artistic styles and atmosphere, mechanics and plot.
Tetris I'd argue is art too. Because of how strong effect it has on you as a player. Tetris Effect is very much a thing. Other medias also make you think with a different voice in your head afterwards, or see things differently, but Tetris has a very strong and almost immediate effect that makes it stand out more. Therefore it has some lasting impact as an experience.

>unironically using the word "merely"
Sorry desu didn't read your drivel blogpost

Disagree. I'm merely stating that you wouldn't understand the totality of Art if you don't create it, as you wouldn't understand pregnancy without going through it.

he's just being considerate with his employees

>Sorry desu didn't read your drivel blogpost
Thank you for letting us all know that you are illiterate. Time and effort well spent, as we can all say.

Movies are not art
Music is not art
Books are not art

Of course Videogames are not art

How can you be sure that I don't?

"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"
this definition is straight from google, and if you tell me that you haven't played a game that causes a emotional response or payed a game that has imaginative or skillful work put into it then you are a liar. Also art is a very broad term, it does not necessarily mean just paintings. If it takes skillful imaginative ability to create the piece then it is art, whether it be a movie or a videogame. And to not to be named cash grabs and shitty games, is there not shitty artwork as well?

>videogames take inspiration from actual art like literature and film but it doesn't actually provide anything novel in and of itself.
And your proof or reasoning for that being...?
You people do know you actually have to make and argue a point, right?

Very bad tier list.
Sculpting>Arhitecture>Drawing>Music>Literature

Yes. Straight from google. Which is precisely why it is worthless. Seriously, fucking online dictionary definition? Are you 12?

>but it doesn't actually provide anything novel in and of itself
You mean other than actual interactivity rather than just staring at a screen or canvas.
Can you "games are not art" guys actually describe what "art" is?

More shit Kojima's said.
>To me, games are a collaborative art, or a synthesis of various things—-technology, story, and art. I think games take a lot of these various elements and combine it into a whole. But unlike traditional art or music, it’s not something where the creator’s vision can be conveyed completely 100 percent to the user. It’s something that has to go through the medium and it’s something that has limitations within the scope of the service that’s being provided to the consumer. In that respect, I still don’t think games are maybe not fully art in that sense
>To put it in perspective, the service game creators provide is kind of like Disneyland—-a setting for players to have fun in. If you look at each part of that service, break down the parts, then you’ll see that each part is comprised of artistic elements. But on a whole, it is more of a service than an art.

Isn't making a videogame sort of like architecture?

scbp

>it’s not something where the creator’s vision can be conveyed completely 100 percent to the user.
Wasn't the point of several art pieces to generate different interpretations among the public?
>A narrator should not supply interpretations of his work; otherwise he would not have written a novel, which is a machine for generating interpretations.

You'd know that he's right had you ever taken an art history course yourself. I didn't realize it was possible for a person to be sad enough to LARP being a college grad, but I guess anything is possible.

video games
are
not
art

thats true for any work of art including paintings look up the definition of art on google and come back when you have the basic definition instead of spewing your opinion without leaving your Yea Forums tab

He's wrong, you retard. And you're wrong for agreeing with such a ridiculous opinion
>art is meaningless cause everything is art
This is the most meaningless hibbajibba ever.

No. The postmodernist view is that the context creates art and thus we contrast art against the context it is supposed to be placed in. You're the LARPer here.

this

In the context of art history, film is less than a footnote. Most movies aren't even original, just poor imitations of their source material for a commercial purposes. They're no more "art" than games are.

leave people to their sad circlejerks
there's no point

the dick doesnt make it better no matter what they say

Based Dybowski.

honestly who gives a shit if games are art or not? this debate is pointless

Yes, most great artists were taught, you fucking mongoloid. None of the "great artists" of the modern age who claim to be untaught are great artists. The elements that propel a work of art to celestial heights may not be teachable but every other aspect is. Furthermore we're talking about the philosophy of art, not the practical qualities. Fucking COPE you ignorant brainlet.

kek
you're the circlejerkers who want to believe your video games have any artistic merit and arent soulless constructions designed from the ground up to get money
cope

They're also way more likely to suffer executive meddling and and output from the actors and crew.

>game designer Hideo Kojima agreed with Ebert's assessment that video games are not art. Kojima acknowledged that games may contain artwork, but he stressed the intrinsically popular nature of video games in contrast to the niche interests served by art. Since the highest ideal of all video games is to achieve 100% player satisfaction whereas art is targeted to at least one person, Kojima argued that video game creation is more of a service than an artistic endeavor.

Very based

Attached: 1550066423.png (640x960, 816K)

Yes, by my estimation. Kojima should probably read more and talk less.
t. Sitting in an architecture office right now. I also taught history of architecture at Uni for 2 years.

nah. childrens toys. not art

B A S E D

It's easy bait.

You're a faggot now shut the fuck up.
making video games is like making video games
not like architecture
fucking retard

>Talking about the nuances of the meaning of the term "art" to a man who speaks Japanese, where the word "art" doesn't have the exact same meaning

Attached: 1554495329702.jpg (508x544, 76K)

Why doesn't he just start making movies like he clearly wants to? He's got to have the right connections for it.

Why do people care whether games are or aren't art?

Movies are not art confirmed. This man didn't learn anything from Andy Warhol.

>Since the highest ideal of all video games is to achieve 100% player satisfaction whereas art is targeted to at least one person
This is the shittiest definition ever.

the difference is that art is supposed to engage the observer and not just entertain them.
videogames are chiefly a form of entertainment. the word GAME is key here.

Art doesn't exist and is just a social construct
My dick is art because I and those porn ads said so

>Movies are not art confirmed
Most of them are not art, correct

Attached: 123.png (624x384, 246K)

I actually like his analogy. The building the museum and creating the art in it thing. That's nice and makes sense.

Music isn't art then because it's not engaging enough

So most videogames are not art but some of them are?

>the difference is that art is supposed to engage the observer and not just entertain them.
Video games can be both engaging and entertaining. I mean, if someone isn't engaged with a game, they won't want to play it.

Still the same argument, still idiotic. On what authority do you claim that games do not engage observants?
"The word GAME being key" HOW?!

Well, this is probably the most idiotic post of the entire thread, and that is really a fucking achievement.

Academic definitions of Art are always written by someone who wasn't capable of being an artist, and despite much of it being truthful, this theoretical approach wouldn't result in actual relevant Art being made.

It's mostly a functional definition, completely disregards the fact that each medium has objective and subjective components in itself that make it work, and despite differing in value as consequence of time and geographical variance there are demonstrably transversal characteristics to it.

Stop giving attention and credit to this overrated fucking hack.

Self-hating dumb fucker, i hope he fucks off and goes to work for netflix, they'd hire his ass for movies

>Since the highest ideal of all video games is to achieve 100% player satisfaction
So why did he release MGSV?

>Like bruh, if 100 people aren't walking by it and admiring it at once, it's not art!

I don't think videogames are art either, but his statement is fucking retarded.

Anyone else notice that all these high profile people that claim their work isn't "art" (pic related) are all of the same ilk: people who are only good enough at what they do to fool the most casual of normies.

It's almost as if they are jealous of auteurs.

Attached: johnny_depp_dior[1].jpg (300x450, 23K)

Games are like niggers
I fucking hate niggers

Based, but his definition of art is off.

Kojima's just a nice guy who will agree with anyone. He's said on multiple occasions that games are art to him.

Edgy.

Games are definitely art. It's really not a debate.

>Asset artists
>Scriptwriters
>Actors (mo cap and voice performance)
>Directors (just like a movie)
>Producers (just like a movie)
>And yes, technicians (software engineers) that make it all happen - but movies have always had technicians to enable the art as well, especially in the age of CGI. And even painters needed technicians to manufacture their paintbrushes, easels, paints, canvases, etc.

If games aren't art, then neither are movies. It's as simple as that.

Attached: games art.jpg (480x284, 67K)

With non-interactive art people may have their own interpretations of it but it in a literal sense the creator's vision of it will still be what the viewer physically sees. With games you have no idea what the player will be doing at any point in the game, unless you go full movie game and only let the player do the one thing the creator intended for them to do.

They aren't high art and never will be unless a billionaire funds a not for profit one, but yeah they are definitely art. It's retarded to even question.

That is actually the correct answer. The whole "is medium XY art" question is always fundamentally wrong because it's like asking "is vehicle a car?" You are doing a categorical error:
Art is a qualitative, value-based category, Medium is a formal criteria based category. No medium can be art, they medium does not have the particular criteria that the notion of art explores and vice versa.

You can only ask if an individual WORK is art or not. You may ask if a medium contains works of art. But not if the MEDIUM is art.

It is a strictly theoretical definition, and it is undeniable. Also, it's very useful to avoid making categorical mistakes and clearing up problems produced from poor use of terminology or fundamental misunderstanding of core concepts.
It may not help you produce a great work of art, but it IS necessary to accept if you want to even begin a discussion on the subject of art and videogames. Without understanding this, the entire debate happening here is FUNDAMENTALLY wrong and broken and will NEVER EVER lead to discovery, realization or conclusion worth anything for anyone.

He's literally just being a whiny human. He's not some grand icon, he's a bitter game designer with a huge ego that doesnt give a shit about 90% of the people he works with.

The reason MGS V is so disappointing isn't because it's not the game we wanted, it's because it's not a complete, whole and interesting experience on it's own.

Yea, it's a great game, and it's fun, but the dumb fucker mishandled development and was working with a difficult company, both his and the company's failures have fundamentally fucked up his view of gaming.

The big kicker here is he's talking about it like movies AREN'T test-group focused soulless bullshit. They ARE, studio's can sometimes completely fuck with a director's vision by the time the final product comes out, but the main goal of big budget cinema, like AAA gaming, is to reach the widest audience and make the most profit.

STop listening to this fucking hack, if he can't be intelligent enough to see how much of an idiot he sounds like in the interview than who gives a shit about what he has to say. Stop idolizing Kojima.

Bark bark bark bark bark bark faggot

Well, Super Mario Bros. is quite straightforward.

This, literally anything can be fucking art.

Attached: 1537650163656.jpg (800x1044, 157K)

they have to come out with an objective term for art

>hur dur it has to pass some quality standard to be art
You guys are such morons. Art is about conveying ideas and emotions, it's not some bar you have to pass.
If a piece conveys something then it's art even if you don't like it or care for it. Even if you actively dislike it, it's still art.
Everyone will consider the Mona Lisa art, which it is of course. But not because they see the value in it or have some personal reason for appreciating it. You consider it art because well, it's in a painting in a museum and everyone says it's art.
It's not even a good painting it's just so famous for it's history. Of course the average retard won't think about that, just blindly accept what people say is art.

Attached: Mona_Lisa.jpg (743x1155, 221K)

Except for you know, text. Which not only is not a matter of physicality of sight, but isn't even bounded to a specific letters and words to begin with, as we have such thing as different localizations of the same text.
Then you have theatre where every single interpretation of the same text will result in a different peformance - different direction, different actors, or just same actors and same directors just on different day will never be identical.
Also you are not taking into account COUNTLESS examples of interactive art displays, from performative art to hypertextual novels to the use of the word "art" in the sense activity, such as "martial art".

So again a line of reasoning that goes absolutely nowhere.

>art is whatever someone who likes it says it is
>average retards just blindly accept what people say is art

> The elements that propel a work of art to celestial heights may not be teachable

So, what makes it different from the mundane isn't teachable? It's almost like the functional part of Art isn't Art in itself and therefore Art isn't teachable like every great Artist has said. Also, You should try to explain the inception of Art through that very theory of your, see how it fits..Idiot.
Also, you're a bit agitated, aren't you?

Fuck you

Mario Bros and Tetris are art, no doubt.

Kojimbo games are not

Seeing as how he made MGS4 and Phantom Pain, that sounds about right coming from him

>he cares about what people doing their jobs for money think about that job in regards of art
you need to be at least 18 years old to post here

Film is literally theatre with a camera

How can you not see the difference there, did you even read the whole post?
If you appreciate a piece and see some meaning in it then it is art and it has meaning, to you. And just because someone else thinks different about it doesn't mean you're wrong.
If you accept things as art on the basis that you're taught it's art then you're a sheep who probably has issues truly appreciating art anyways.

>It's not even a good painting it's just so famous for it's history.
And you call others "morons". Jesus fucking Christ you idiots have absolutely no shame or even rudimentary self awareness.

We should ask looneys that make outsider art, then?

Are people still under the impression that art automatically means something is good? Art is any form of human expression and video games fall under that category, anyone who says otherwise is literally fucking wrong. However I do agree with him that vidya is usually unable to stand against literature, film, and music as a strong art form.

Attached: 00385.jpg (210x240, 10K)

>"The word GAME being key" HOW?!
if games are art then fucking cup-and-ball is art by your logic.
Michelangelo didn't paint the Sistine chapel so that the pope would clap clap clap and put on a soya face.

Attached: 1.0x0.jpg (750x650, 25K)

>pulling the crybaby definition of art
Going by this, Nabokov’s books are not art.

No, film has montage.

>video games is art
>porn is art
>junk food is art
>mountain dew is art
>crippling depression is art
sure you can keep calling it art but that doesnt mean that you don't have shit taste

Attached: 1557070778618.png (579x525, 457K)

>if games are art then fucking cup-and-ball is art by your logic.
What makes you think that? How the fuck do you arrive at these completely disjointed conclusions?

Games are not art because art is passive, you see the painting, the movie, etc but cant change it. In videogames you interact directly with the game and do whatever you want, the creator cant put his exact vision because you can do things differently.

Subjective.

Pretending to like the Mona Lisa doesn't make you smart user.
You don't care about that painting, don't act like you do.

>it's not art but the stuff in it is art

but

>if someone says it's art, it's art

cool

You're making a lot of assumptions about meaning and conveyance, that amount to postmodernism, user.

>An early example is found in the early 1960s "change-paintings" of Roy Ascott, about whom Frank Popper has written: "Ascott was among the first artists to launch an appeal for total spectator participation".

Something being art doesn't make it automatically good. Art has no inherent value.

nono, this is the real tier list
music>literature>drawing>achitecture>sculpting

I love that in your head, you actually have managed to transform the "I don't get why others like it" to "everyone who does appreciate must be LYING!!!"
I don't know if you are even capable of comprehending the insane levels of narcissim that line of thinking entails. You operate on a fundamentally integrated assumption that the world is ALWAYS wrong and you are ALWAYS right. It's amazing. You are not frankly speaking a human being, but you are a fascinating specimen.

Elaborate please.
My point is that meaning and how much a person values a piece is subjective, yes.
Not everyone who says art is subjective is some 22 yo art student preparing to shit on the streets.

>YIIK Dev says games aren't art
>"haha what a seething retard!"
>Kojima says games aren't art
>"Kojima's based!"

>Oh gaimu not art! No no, gaimu not art role Horrywood! Horrywood best source of art! It wourd be honor to be Horrywood director! Such crass and art! I rove Horrywood movie! Prease don’t say video gaimu is art! Kojima say video gaimu not art! No ray!

nvm drawing is the lowest tier

Except that lots agreed with him. Not without calling his game a piece of shit.

at least read what you posted based retard

i agree his games are not art but others are

Then why would someone stick to the claim that video games are art if it's inherently valueless?
Most games and gaming experiences arent artistic or thought provoking in the slightest, but neets still want to cling on to calling games and porn art, just so they can justify spending an abnormal amount of time on them.

My fault for no clarifying it right. In the post I keep saying "you" that could just as well mean, the average person.
Of course there's people who really do appreciate the Mona Lisa and find it profoundly meaningful. And that's fair, I'm not saying those people are wrong.

What I'm trying to say is that the average person doesn't feel that appreciation and simply thinks of it as art because it's a painting in a museum.

He wasn't as pretentious as we thought, I agree with him, games are just toys.

cup and ball is a game and so are video GAMES.
my original point is that games are purely for entertainment purposes only.
no one is going to a fine arts museum to look at cup and ball. no country is going to place any pride in the fact that their ancestors created a really nice cup and ball toy.

I swear, only manchildren and Journos get upset over their precious vidya not being consider “art”

>games aren't art
>but also, I create art

Attached: 1357143702973.jpg (387x420, 48K)

They may not be, but their position can be used to justify it. My point is that it's uninteresting whether or not something is art, because apparently the word has been debased to mean "anything that u like." In which case, I mean to ask--do you think there are or are not ways to measure the quality of one work against another? If I show you a polykleitos and you say shadman is art too, because you like it, is polykleitos suddenly no different from shadman? See the problem is that saying all art is subjective is itself an objective statement. It's like how "only a sith deals in absolutes" is an absolute. It's mid-century French trash and these fuckers can either read Wittgenstein if they want to slapbox, or fuck off my board

no inherrent value != inherrently valueless

What are some valueless games to you user?
I bet I could look at it and point something out that I found nice, however amall it may be.
Even some trash game YOU hate will have some nice character design, some unique idea, something that's interesting.

How mature of you...

is spongebob art

The notion of art being something sublime and above criticism is pretty common. Add to that that most people who insist that games are art have some sort of agenda, which mostly consists of getting rid of "embarrassing" and "problematic" games and fill the gap with their shitty low-effort indie games about vital social issues 'n stuff. It's the perfect defense for them because if you don't like it it just means that you don't "get it".

Yeah, since it's filmed entertainment.

>I agree with you because you're a film critic
>here's what I think, which contradicts what you say, but I agree with you

If videogames become art we attract the art hoe crowd and literally start swimming in pussy.

If spongebob is art, then video games being considered art is completely meaningless, they're still just children's toys that should be look down on.

Hasn't Kojima said in the past that games aren't art "yet"? As in, games at the time haven't achieved the level of cultural significance that films, paintings and music have?

Attached: 1528410196359.jpg (750x1000, 34K)

Attached: StrawMan2.jpg (600x450, 90K)

WOOOOOW

Attached: 20190607_115706.png (690x142, 52K)

The only thing in this world that is actually art is loli!

Drawing>Music>Literature>Sculpting>Architecture

You're absolutely right.

Holy fuck, what an ego.

>Videogames aren't art
>They're both the art and the art museum
Guys, Kojima said videogames aren't art

Attached: um.png (621x396, 128K)

>What I'm trying to say is that the average person doesn't feel that appreciation and simply thinks of it as art because it's a painting in a museum.
And that is very much fine: that is why the notion art exists in the first place. Separation of mundane from exceptional. An ideal normative established by the particular society at that particular point of time.
I think you are underestimating average people a bit, but otherwise, with this reclarification, you are more or less confirming my stance.

>cup and ball is a game and so are video GAMES.
Yes. Random vulgar scribling on paper is technically TEXT and so is Crime and Punishment.

The fact that we have two objects under the same category - or at least in a kin category, does not in any way prove your point. In fact it's incredibly silly because it's purely english-language bound. For an instance, in my native language, the word "Hra" (game) means both cup and a ball, a videogame, and a threatrical play. So you could literally not even TRANSLATE that line of reasoning into my (and I assume many other) languages, much less actually fucking construct a point.

Do you see how immensely stupid this is? You still have not established what about GAME is inherently contradictory to the possibility of it being considered Art.
Not a single fucking positive reason.

>my original point is that games are purely for entertainment purposes only.
Provably wrong.
Icepick Lodge games. Explicitly on every level, not intended for amusement only. I'm sure we can find several THOUSAND other authors who will agree that there works were not intended for entertainment only.

Not to mention that arguing by INTENT is idiotic. Intent is immesurable, private. There is no way to verify it.

Kojima is saying vidya is more than art, and to call it such is an injustice
art BTFO

Literally all art has viewer participation. It's impossible to make everyone interpret something exactly the way you intended it to be interpreted.

Architecture
Sculpting
>power gap
Literature
Music
>power gap
Drawing

>However I do agree with him that vidya is usually unable to stand against literature, film, and music as a strong art form.
Sure, but I don't see this as evidence that video games are inherently inferior to other mediums when it comes to art. Video games is still a very young medium compared to most other forms of art.
I would also argue that Dwarf Fortress should be considered a masterpiece in terms of art within the video games medium.

Agreed, everything humans create is shit and garbage and should be destroyed.

There is no rule that says art has to be passive. Art requires a creator and an audience. That's all that's needed.

god damn i hate post modernism so much

Are you implying the "games are art" argument isn't constantly used as a weapon?

Fucking idiot

Welcome to nipponese bullshit-bingo

The moment that Art becomes entirely subjective, it ceases to exist it becomes completely undefined. All other Art-forms are a closed system to an extent.

It would be inherrently valueless if it didn't have the subjective artistic connotation added to it.
Again I put forward the claim that if it didnt have inherent value, the term would not exist.
You can take away anything from everything but that still doesn't mean that the object you viewed was art, it just means that you have a brain capable of thinking further than your nose reaches

The very idea of measuring art seems odd to me. What does that even mean. The quality of art isn't something tangible.
You'd need a clear objective, something you want out of it and then look at different pieces and see what achieves that best. If you want a realistically drawn tree and there's 2 drawings in front of you, first one a realistically drawn tree and the second one is the Mona Lisa it's reasonable to say the first one is a better tree. But I find that entire process stupid.
There's just no heavenly order in how good art is.

>If I show you a polykleitos and you say shadman is art too, because you like it, is polykleitos suddenly no different from shadman?
See that's the strawman right there. What are you even talking about?
Turn your brain on please. "Art is subjective" doesn't mean "All art is the same"
Stop trying to look for some absolute authority that dictates the world to you. Think for yourself.
Be creative, that's kinda what art is about.

It's not postmodernism.
The postmodern account of art - as detestable as it is in itself - is far more sophisticated and a great damn deal smarter than this bullshit.
This is just... childishness and cowardice. It has nothing to do with any philosophy, whenever it is a wise or a dead end one.

It's just cowards being cowards.

did anyone read the miniscule article shown in the OP? Kojima basically agrees with this, he says "if 1/100 people think it's interesting then it's art, who can argue"

While the reasoning that "as long as there is audience and creator, it is art" is clearly moronic and insufficient, the claim that art is passive is equally fucking retarded - not only provably untrue and something that only a person with literally ZERO awareness of any art theory... EVER actually could say.

But it is also still arbitrary and you still need to make a reasoning for it.

Are memes art?

lol faggot
I'm imagining how pleased you were to make this post and how happy you are to be a superior creative to Hideo Kojima because he said something you can't make sense of in an interview

>but he stressed the intrinsically popular nature of video games in contrast to the niche interests served by art
So if it's popular then it isn't art? Then nothing is art because all the forms of it are popular.
Mona Lisa is not art.
Michelangelo's David is not art.
James Cameron's "Titanic" is not art.
J. R. R. Tolkein's "Lord of the Rings" books are not art.
The Star Trek TV series are not art.

Crushing this thread. With no survivors.
youtube.com/watch?v=lNI07egoefc

Attached: 1559254291558.gif (400x285, 1.93M)

It has been for thousands of years, user.

it doesn't even have an exact English-language meaning in the first place, so it's something of a doomed effort.

No. The original piece which later became a meme might be art though.

Define art.

Big oof missing the fact that your magical subjective cop out only works with a pretense toward objectivity. Ran out of patience with the rest of your self congratulatory sophistry. Have a day user.

>The very idea of measuring art seems odd to me. What does that even mean. The quality of art isn't something tangible.
See It's a socially negotiated process. Basically a way that each individual society or group essentially constantly negotioates priorities. A way of setting up some general norms of "this is where we should put our attention and resources" and "this is what we should not concern ourselves".
It is in that respect, just a different side of moral reasoning. All values function these ways. Art just happens to projection of these values into the most abstract and highest values and their relationship to artificial produce.

Wow I haven't seen this in forever. Just so you guys know, this is fucking ancient and he'd never say this now. Also, the point he's making is that art isn't in the same league as video games. He's actually hoisting himself on a pedestal.

This. Anything is art. Shit on a canvas is art.

I have in no way claimed that I am superior to him in terms of creativity, management skills, or technical ones.
But when it comes to any kind of theoretical and conceptual thinking - yes, I am. And it's not that I can't make sense of it. It's that it is very, very stupid. Entirely understandable. Just extremely poorly constructed.

Art just means an expression of human creativity. Change my mind.

Already did.

If you create something not for the sake of self-expression, but to please as many people as you can in order to entertain people and get money - it's not art. True art is not trying to please anyone

Attached: 2512.png (458x600, 476K)

you are literally too brainlet to understand what he is saying, I'm sorry user I'm looking right at it and it's not poorly constructed

This made me smile for some reason

See:
Defining art as expression of human creativity is insufficient. It literally makes it synonimous with creativity. It clearly does not fit understanding of art through out history and across societies. It does not explain why in practical life we discerne between "art" and "not art" even among products and "expressions" of creativity. It does not explain why terms such as "martial art" came into existence.

Dmc5>dmc3>>>dmc4>dmc1

______________
Dmc2
_______________
DmC

Attached: 1545584452005.png (900x900, 97K)

Not him but I define art as "the visual and/or audio expression of emotion and/or message, utilizing refined skills and techniques in order to create a product of aesthetic value."

I won't because I agree.

As I said, all the things I listed are not art. People hired Michelangelo and Leonardo to make those paintings and statues, ergo they were made for money and the masses, ergo not art.

user confirms, sistine chapel paintings officially not art

Well, at least you're brief about it.

It's an absolute salat of words and thoughts you idiot. He does, among other, actually arrive at a necessary (but not explicit) statement that car is a service for fuck sake.
God damn you people really do have no shame.

Do you think it's possible to do art well, or just to do art?

That's why I said "to an extent", because there is a play between the creator's experience and the audience, essentially has someone great said, Art acquires a life of its own.

Now, if you're saying that Art somehow is interactive and changed by the viewer, that would be retarded and moronic as well.

The existence of other, older, Art-forms makes this claim empirically untrue. In fact your argument is probabilistic at best, you're pretty much saying that we can't say Art is passive because there's a remote chance based on nothing so far, that it may not be.

Apologize to YIIK guy Yea Forums.

No. No idiot would make long ass minigames that barely make damage.

Fucking finally, exactly my point.

Art is any expression of human creativity that evokes emotions within someone. Anybody that says any different is an autistic gatekeeper.

>you can make an objective analysis of a piece of art
>all you need is all of these subjecive adjetives, a set arbitrary rules about what's good and what's not and a few judges who may or may nt agree with each other and/or change their opinions on the piece tomorrow morning after a good cup of coffee
Okay.

>that evokes emotions within someone
why does it have to evoke emotions? why is writing a novel art but writing a philosophy book isn't? what if reading philosophy makes me feel shit, is it art then?

reminds me of this classic

Attached: art major 1473650911142.jpg (1190x877, 402K)

>Now, if you're saying that Art somehow is interactive and changed by the viewer, that would be retarded and moronic as well.
Except it isn't. Actually the very notion of art is a semiotic object, that is it is by definition constructed by people who use it.
Aside from that, we could bring up thousands of articles about the problem of interpretation. And existence of countless forms of art, some of them incredibly old, that are in fact, interactive, and constantly changing, and involving the audience.

>In fact your argument is probabilistic at best, you're pretty much saying that we can't say Art is passive because there's a remote chance based on nothing so far, that it may not be.
What?
Are high?
No, I am saying that right now, I can start naming forms of art that are not passive you cretin.

My argument is that "passivity" is just an insanely stupid subject to even try to bring up. It's idiotic beyond any level and again, only a person who does not even recognize existence of semiotics ALONE could make.

Yiik as a whole was legitimately a victim of resetera tranny raiders. Not that it’s the best game in the world but a lot of the hate was unwarranted and lots of the meme images trace back to there.

Sorry Kojima... I love ya, but this is one statement that I just flat out disagree with.

>toys are art

Respond to this:

It's not.
The game was just absolute garbage. Politics have nothing to do with it.

None of that contradicts my points. I also fail to see how this is some arguments against relativism.

Maybe I'm stupid but what's the quintessence here?
Art represents values, so what people consider art relates to what they value?

That's certainly true and an interesting way to look at it but aren't you just confirming that art is subjective?
Please keep explaining I'm legit too stupid to see how this contradicts anything I said. The quality of art is determined by it's popularity?
I don't get it.

Yes but it's not inherrent.
You can draw well, but that depends on perspective. People who draw will often say they are terrible at it even though most people might say they are drawing well. Both are reasonable.

Art is the creative expression to express oneself to the public, whether it's through drawing, interpritation, entertainment, storywriting, etc.

Why did you quoted him three times?

>It clearly does not fit understanding of art through out history and across societies. It does not explain why in practical life we discerne between "art" and "not art" even among products and "expressions" of creativity. It does not explain why terms such as "martial art" came into existence.

I think these are not cultural universals. the word "art" is derived from the Latin "ars" which simply means something along the lines of "piece of work" or "constructed object", and came to mean "craft" both in the sense of a manufactured piece (ie a finished product) and the process of its creation (eg the craft of shipbuilding or whatever). further there are plenty of people, even in modern western anglophone civilization, who seriously refer to all creative and artisinal output as art, although I'll concede that some of them are doing it to prove a point. and finally, in the case of terms like "martial art" - again, it's got nothing to do with the idea of the artistic ideal or whether or not something is "art", it's used in the Latin sense of "craft, skill, profession", in this case to mean "war arts," "art of war", or "warcraft (lol)". plenty of languages use words in its place, in those sense, that have nothing to do with "art". off the top of my head, Japanese uses 道 which means "way, road, path" (martial arts 武道 "military way", tea ceremony 茶道 "tea way", flower arrangement 華道 "flower way")

Attached: Tatsuya Nakadai Harakiri.png (941x404, 200K)

>yes you can
>but it's relative
So no? Yes or no? Who gets to decide if the art is done well when it's relative? It's like you're saying "no" but feel in your heart that it isn't true.
Spend more mana, cast bigger spell

Passivity is in every Art-form so far, A great album, a composition, poem or film, all passive you can't alter any of it. This is factual and demonstrable through history.

Go on and start naming other then...you're a bit of a revisionist...how can you deny that the entire foundation o Art is passive?

Do paintings interact with you like in Harry Potter?

All the guy had to do was make ONE minigame for attacks and defense and not have multi-member hits have to be guarded individually. The unnecessary minigames bog down the entire game.

youtube.com/watch?v=iPE1DaAKRUo

If a toilet can be considered art, then, yes, a toy can be considered art.

>games are not art because my artistic genius is too great to be properly conveyed within its limitations. Please notice me, hollywood senpai

>Passivity is in every Art-form so far
No? Music has only become passive now that we have ways to record it, but for the longest time it could only happen actively. Music only existed as long as someone was playing it, unless you want to say that it's only an art for those listening in the audience and not those actually making it, which is quite a silly thing to say. Still, nowadays you'll find that jazz is incredibly interactive, so is improv.

You can do it but what this "doing art well" is isn't set in stone.
What's so hard to get there.
There's no authority over this. Think for yourself if something is done well or not.

Oh yeah guarding against AoE as multiple defenses is by far the worst part of the game for sure. I don’t get the people saying they do no damage though, everything gets one shot pretty much.

I'm not sure how you got that from the bit you replied to

>That's certainly true and an interesting way to look at it but aren't you just confirming that art is subjective?
No, because value is not a subjective concept. It's a NORMATIVE one.
Essentially, people have this incredibly stupid general misconception that there are only two forms of "existence" of statements: "Subjective" (what is in your head) and "Objective" (what undeniably exists).
Now both of these categories are actually massively decieving, but what is even more important is that there is a third category, "Normative".

Normative is a product of human cooperation - a pattern that has physical reference, but it serves as a shared model of behavior. Basically "what we all more-or-less accept AS IF IT WAS TRUE just so that we can get along and work together." The process of establishing these is sometimes called "negotiation", or at other times "arbitration".

The most baseline (and important) example of a normative is any particular meaning of a word.
So for an example, the notion that the word "Cat" is somehow tied to the particular type of animal has no physical reference. No reason why these particular sounds and letters are tied to that particular physical object (it's not even really a physical object, it's a very broad, abstract category of objects).

The only reason why we have the meaning of the word "cat" to be the animal cat is because that is something we all collectively agreed upon, so that we can actually understand each other. We further teach this "norm" (meaning of the word "cat") to our children, and so on.

So those are normative statements: neither objective (don't denote physically observable independent object) nor subjective (because they apply to all members of english speaking public, it's a property of the language as it was socially established).

You can't say that "cat means (animal-cat) is "subjective", right?

Values, work similarly. They are more complex, but they follow the same process.

So explain to me a scenario in which one artwork was done better than another, for you--if you need that conceit. How did you make the value judgement?

> Animation is art
> Writing is art
> Sculpting 3D models is art
> Drawing 2D scenes is art
> Music is art
> Performing is art
So how can anyone argue that the game that is created from things we consider art is not art? It's even more complex form of art because artists (pretty much everyone who works on a game, yes even programmers) have to bring it all together.
Kojima loves to smell his own farts, what a joke

Attached: 1512775116472.png (645x729, 257K)

What he does IS art, according to him.

"objective, subjective" have an "x, ~x" relationship. Normative statements are a subset of subjective statements.

>You can't say that "cat means (animal-cat) is "subjective", right?
I can.

Attached: We have this thread over and over again.png (862x805, 59K)

>How did you make the value judgement?
Not that user, but it's a complex process that relates directly to upbringing and indirectly to genetics. Basically, your environment passively creates ideas in your mind to which you assign positive or negative traits. Art is good when it correlates to positive stuff in your mind, be it one way or another.
Basically, art judgement is never really about teh art itself, but about the person making the judgement, and through that person, the society that has bred them.

>art means nothing
Wow thanks postmodernists. Now kindly get out of academia so we can get back to work on the west again

>The Holocaust
I would make an edgy joke, but I'm too much of a pussy.

>I think these are not cultural universals.
While the word is not a cultural universal, the notion that it denotes IS, and that is kinda my point. As you correctly identify, the original meaning of the word "art" denotes "craft" or even "job": it is something that are proficient with. And that again does lead us to the problem: Not every man is a craftsman, or as the somewhat anachronistic term has it, "artisan".
There is a element of PROFICIENCY, expertise, mastery. A qualitative distinction between just doing something, and being an artisan in that field. Would you agree so far?

Your examples further prove my point. It is true that Japanese use words like Waza, Gi and Dó, which are not perfectly analogical to the history of our word "art" - but they are analogical to our CONCEPT of art.
Quick google for kadó will tell you that it is officially recognized as one of the three traditional japanese ARTS, along with kodó and chadó. The word may have different literary origin, but denotes the same notion, in fact you can see the mirroring etymologies: "Way of flowers" meaning that there is a SPECIFIC WAY of flowers.
If you told a japanese person that any random flowers thrown together are ikebana they would fucking KILL you.

It's this distinction, the distinction of SPECIAL, a qualitative difference between any and some, between craftsman and amateur, between arranging flowers, and doing kadó, that is crucial.

That is the CULTURAL UNIVERSAL we are looking for. Because you will find this analogical process in every culture.
Art, kin, and religion are three universal notions that exist in every single culture in the world, under different names, in different forms, but always analogical.

>I get to decide what's good and what's bad, how dare you try to take that from me

fucking retards

>no one is allowed to think anything is worth more than anything else, how dare you hold me to a standard

mechanics are art and kojima is wrong

I don't think that it's that silly of an argument, it's after all the audience and a majority of people.

I don't agree with it but I like your perspective on this debate. Regards.

>It is a strictly theoretical definition, and it is undeniable.

incorrect, you're biased and you'll use anything to confirm that. your ideas of art have no rigor and it shows, kill yourself my man

art

>Passivity is in every Art-form so far, A great album, a composition, poem or film, all passive you can't alter any of it.
First of all I can. Have you ever heard of the word "intepretation"?
Second of all: Dance, singing, theatre, ritual, rhetorics are all examples of ancient, classic art forms that are ABSOLUTELY, BY NO FUCKING MEANS, passive.

As for more modern examples: Hypertext and performative art are recognized and often highly prized art forms that especially focus on the element of participation.
ALL art in all of history is participatory: some just brings greater attention to it than other.

Horrible perception on art. Honestly this is the ranking of a closet homo.

>no one is allowed to think anything is worth more than anything else
That's exactly right and you can't prove otherwise.

How does that have anything to do with how an individual experiences art?
In the big picture of society it's a good explaination but it doesn't really satisfy me.

Going into the normative feels like you're just dancing around it. Language develops normative but what each word means to an individual is subjective. Just take names for example. Some people might think the name Jack is nice, some people might not like the name.

So in that regard, value is very much a subjective concept in a way.
Not everyone reaches the same conclusion if you give them the same informations

(You)

your definition of passive, besides being non-existent, is completely flawed and retarded my lad

consider suicide

Then why hasn't he? It's not like it's hard to get into Hollywood and he already has connections.

You are an idiot then, with not even most basic understanding of either logic, or epistemology, or semiotics.
The fuck is wrong with you?
"Objective, subjective have a +- relationship". Who the FUCK told you that? What kind of spastic cretin would fucking mislead someone like this? Jesus!
That LITERALLY CRIPPLES you. You don't have basic fundamental tools to function in society. God damn.

Where did you get this shit?

>kek
>cope
underage
also you're right video games aren't art. just stop talking like a faggot.

Non AAA shit is barely any better nor could it stand a chance against the zeniths of other mediums

Attached: hol_gun.jpg (243x315, 27K)

because it's a meme

you are wrong lol
interesting that you chose to spaz out when confronted with that. feel free to argue any time

>. your ideas of art have no rigor and it shows
Interesting how none of this actually provides any points in your favor. In fact it states absolutely nothing but that you are angry and you don't like what I am saying.

Care to point out flaws in my reasoning instead? Or will you prefer to further publicly humiliate yourself.

Games aren't art, they're simulations of reality with different set of rules. You may find an art in the videogame, just like you may find an art in real life, but that doesn't make game an art.

Arguing whether video games are art or not is pointless.
But consider this : if video games grow out to be considered as art in the mainstream media, it will furthermore infested by the same SJW scum that are being shat out from universities. You don't want these people to get in the media and you don't want them to insert politics. Let games be considered children toys and we'll be fine.

this is fucking stupid, a) in the definition it specifically refers to the production of WORKS (i.e. pieces/individual production meant to be put into a context of author-audience paradigm [save for a few works that try to operate outside this dichotomy]) and b) it is incorrectly applied to video games because video games do not operate within this dichotomy, they operate strictly in a game-player dichotomy, outside of audience or burden of singular author

furthermore, video games are almost always compromised. art, true, beautiful masterpieces, are never compromised.

you fucking virgins need to get your heads out of your ass

who cares
just consume the product and then consume the next

>How does that have anything to do with how an individual experiences art?
Nothing.
Who gives flying fuck about that, though? We are talking about cultural systems, about meanings (that is THE USE) of words.

Art is not defined by how some god damn who cares who feels.

Art is defined by what we DO with it. Objects that we consider art are art because we TREAT THEM IN A VERY SPECIFIC WAY. Based on the normative pattern that is linked within the normative meaning of the word.

It's particularly interesting in this case because the cultural system "art" is so deeply rooted that it functions even if people are explicitly convinced they believe in a different definition, that is so hilarious about it. More about that in my original post.

>what I do is run the museum and create the art in the museum
>I don't think they're art
I feel like this is just a poor translation

easy - you state that something is "undeniable" as if definitions of art can be considered axiomatic or as postulates of operandi. this is incompatible with the argument you're trying to make for the value in art is never equatable to observable fact.

you're a faggot and your shit is all retarded - kill yourself quickly please, and abstain from any and all discussion on art in the future (until you're dead please)

Why do you avoid answering my question?
Is it because you can't actually tell?

As he sees it, they have art within, but aren't art itself.

This is just being an idiot. Plenty of games have politics but I'm 100% sure you meant ones where women can dress more moderately now like MK11 or complain about Sony's censorship policies. Vidya will never be stagnate.

the question "where do you get this shit?" I figured it was rhetorical since the rest of your post was just a meltdown. or did you mean a different question?

if we're indulging each other you could start by arguing against with counterexamples or reasoning or basically anything other than 'you are an idiot'

It's worthless because of what? It's from google? How? People who keep assigning their own special snowflake definition to art is what made it so fucking hard to define to begin with.

Art is not. Say it with me. Interactive. Art is to be viewed or heard. It can be movie, a song, a painting.. a drawing. It is not interactive you should not be putting your hands on art. You should not be taking an artists creation and morphing it and modifying to fit your personal desire. Whats funny is MGS4 is less interactive than most games which brings it closer to a movie which can in fact be art. Video games are toys. Nothing more than a series of action figures in a playset.

>easy - you state that something is "undeniable" as if definitions of art can be considered axiomatic or as postulates of operandi.
This one can be, because it is functional. It's no more or less axiomatic as the example with cat: It is true because that is how we use it. Whenever conciously or unconciously, that the is clearly observable cultural universal pattern of behavior that underlines the use of the word "art".

For more, see my original post, as well as these two:
Your argument is far more axiomatic than mine. You simply state that my definition is wrong because it CAN'T be right.

>It's worthless because of what? It's from google? How?
Look up the problem of prescriptive, descriptive and orientational function of dictionaries you god damn idiot. There is an entire field dedicated to it.

>Art is not. Say it with me. Interactive.
I don't know if you are aware of this or not, but the fact that you desperately trying to force these claims as a literal mantra that people have to memorize and not think about tells A LOT about how solid the reasoning behind them is.

Are you actually saying that art doesn't work as a means of self expression and people who look at it loke that are wrong.

Because it needs to be about ten pages worth of explanation to satisfy their superiority complex, I guess.

How does "interpretation" change the majority of arts? Painting, Sculpture, Film, Literature, how is it changing that self-contained piece of its creators life?

Every example you gave has a passive quality, whether it's for the creator or the audience, that you purposefully ignored. Then you mentioned "Ancient and classical Arts" that have evolved to a state you're not acknowledging on purpose again some of them aren't even recognized as Art anymore, and finally hypertext and performance, the butt of all jokes in the Art world.

There's a difference between an album and a live performance of said album, one is a self contained work, the other an experience. Art and entertainment.

Fucking cow.

It's amazing how people twist themselves into knots to exclude video games from any sort of definition regarding what it means to be art.

>the question "where do you get this shit?"
Ok, you are fucking dense that you can't make most basic inference, I'm going to very carefully spell it out for you:

What is the source, origin, authority or logical reasoning behind the statement:
"Objective and subjective are binary opposites"?

Is that clear enough for you? Because I don't think I can simplify it any further.

If you avoid answering one more time, it is ACTUALLY an admission that you pulled that claim out of your ass and have absolutely no clue why actually you think it is so.

Answer. Or try. I already actually know the answer, but I want to see you try.

Philosophers have been debating the definition of art since ancient Greece.
Ebert's and Kojima's comments are really shallow and show they haven't really delved deep into the topic.
Basically you just have to look at the various definitions of the term art different philosophers have come up with and pick whichever you feel is supported by the better arguments.

Quite explicitly, yes. Art does not denote self expression. It denotes specific value and specific role that we attribute to specific self-expressions. Do you understand that difference?

kojimbo is a pretentious shithead

ITT people that can't even draw an eye or have never even played a recorder talking about what is or isn't art

>tfw literally all of this is wrong
Lol

Get your head out of your ass retard

Because he's a pussy. He knows his shit won't sell to anyone other than "muh gamers."

>How does "interpretation" change the majority of arts? Painting, Sculpture, Film, Literature, how is it changing that self-contained piece of its creators life?
So do you really not know what a semiotic turn is?
Let me ask you: what is the logic that drives you to even join these kinds of debates. You clearly do not have even highschoolers understanding of... well, probably anything, but definitely not basic theory of art.

Look. Up. Semiotic turn. It has been the single biggest paradigm change in social understanding of the 20th century West, though it has been very much considered the norm in most other cultures.

The thing, that we talk about - it's not the object. Object-meaning, object-representation, object-interpretation relationship is the problem here. We don't see objects, and we DEFINITELY do not see the authors that have created them. We physically can't.

Again, absolutely basic and absolutely crucial notions that are complete norm, FOUNDATION of any social, cognitive, psychological theory of the past hundred years.

Go read fucking Pierre Menard, Author of the Quixote.
It's here:
hispanlit.qwriting.qc.cuny.edu/files/2011/06/Borges-Pierre-Menard.pdf
Go educate yourself on the most simple and basic groundworks of the subject we are discussing.

Why and HOW THE FUCK did you think this is the place for you to be? Why and how the fuck do you have the delusion that you know what the fuck you are talking about?

ha ha yes! RLM is so based!

Yes.
That is the full reasoning you have at your disposal.

Do you really not feel ashamed of yourself?

>"Art is stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue."

English may not be his first language but I'd have to say most anons are more thoughtful than this. His facile opinion doesn't disprove anything.

Attached: D2bsqR3UgAAhivT.png (700x480, 27K)

Because he knows he is a hack and that his shitty moviegames will only ever appeal to the lowest common denominator (gaymurrrrs)

Art's a spook.

he is already damage controlling his turd walking simulator lmao

most people aren’t actually interested in finding out if video games are art, including ebert and kojima. the real question people want to answer is are video games respectable, and the art angle is just a disingenuous way to worm in a yes or no answer according to their individual sensibilities that are separate from the art question, such the perception that consumers of video games are cringey, weird or immature for example

>"However, this definition also applies to:"
No, it doesn't.
You clearly have trouble understanding english

It's not exactly a disingenious way, it's a very explicit way of adressing the problem. The only "misleading" part of it is the formulation of question:
"Are games art?" which actually should be properly posed as "Can or did videogame produce works that deserve the prestige of being called art?", but the reality is, even though most people do not explicitly realize it, that is what they have always been thinking and asking.

This is adorable.
My definition is clearly disfunctional! That means anyone who tries to come up with a functional one is WRONG!

This is an example of a person literally rather denying existence and role of art - through out the entirety of human history - than have to face the difficulty that understanding it presents. And yet, insults others.

It's... almost magical how pathetic this is.

Attached: tenor.gif (498x330, 1.68M)

Yes. Damage controlling his turd walking simulator that has been in development since 2016.

In an article from year 2006. TEN YEARS before the game was even concieved he already started his damage control for it.
You have to give it to him, that is some amazing determination and fore-thought.

>ellie
filtered

I am very sorry that I'm making you feel insecure. But then again, you might as well start getting used to it. In real life, where you'll find yourself feeling this way every time you talk to anyone who HAS managed to finish middle school, it will be worse.

He wants to have the best of the very best.

Attached: source.gif (480x270, 1.71M)

Anything subject to corporate meddling is not art.

The actual misconception is believing that there is a distinction between "objective" and "subjective".
There is no such thing as a statement that's true "for someone" and false "for someone else"
A statement is either true or false, and that's all there is to it.

Before you even begin realizing how wrong you are, you need a course on fuzzy logic.

Nigger when does art have to be interactive?

user how would "the problem of prescriptive, descriptive and orientational function of dictionaries" change the accuracy of what the definition means in terms of defining what art is

Art does mean shit, but in the context of the question it means nothing- asking if "are videogames art" according to that definition is like asking "is the sky blue?"

user, define "compromised"- that the work's creation is a collaboration makes it a compromise, and, therefore, not art? Does that mean movies aren't art? How are videogame not works? How is a game-player dictomomy different from a author-audience one?

Yes it does, war crimes like the holocaust were done out of human skill and imagination and did evoke emotions out of it's victims.

user how is the definition dysfunctional? How are the other ones functional when they muddle up the definition of art by virtue how many of them are? In addition, you're thinking up actions and motivations that the creator of the image might not have. How is it pathetic? How does it insult other considering we're on Yea Forums? How does your condescension help others accept your viewpoint?

This thread is filled with more pseudo-intellectuals than a Mensa debate, and raises more questions than a game show made by Socrates in terms of rhetoric.

If I say you're acting like a faggot and you think you aren't, neither of us has to be wrong. That's called "subjectivity" faggot.

>There is no such thing as a statement that's true "for someone" and false "for someone else"
You know people have different tastes, right? Like, disliking/liking different foods?

The artist is the creator of beautiful things.
To reveal art and conceal the artist is art’s aim.
The critic is he who can translate into another manner or a new material his impression of beautiful things.
The highest, as the lowest, form of criticism is a mode of autobiography.
Those who find ugly meanings in beautiful things are corrupt without being charming. This is a fault.
Those who find beautiful meanings in beautiful things are the cultivated. For these there is hope.
They are the elect to whom beautiful things mean only Beauty.
There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written, or badly written. That is all.
The nineteenth century dislike of Realism is the rage of Caliban seeing his own face in a glass.
The nineteenth century dislike of Romanticism is the rage of Caliban not seeing his own face in a glass.
The moral life of man forms part of the subject-matter of the artist, but the morality of art consists in the perfect use of an imperfect medium.
No artist desires to prove anything. Even things that are true can be proved.

Attached: 1469472155491.jpg (600x448, 83K)

Doesn't that thing he says at the end basically say that games are art though, provided it radiates from the creator and captivates someone?

>The actual misconception is believing that there is a distinction between "objective" and "subjective".
That is... close to being true, and it is why I said that both of these notions are profoundly misleading.

As for your assessment of truth however, that is ironically very false. I really do wish it wasn't, there was a time where I believed exactly what you are saying, but reality is far more complicated than that, sadly.

But it is true that line between "subjective" and "objective" is extremely blury, at absolute best you could think about it as a form of continous interval where varing degrees of verification move a statement more towards one or another infinite ideal, but even that is insufficient because once again, it's still effectively a binary model for what isn't a binary problem to begin with - the arbitrarity will immediately break it apart completely.

>change the accuracy of what the definition means in terms of defining what art is
How would the problem of asking "what does a dictionary actually tell us?" change how we treat a definition from a dictionary... Hmmm... I wonder... I can sense something... something being there... I just can't... put... my finger on...
oh yeah.

I got it!
Have you?

No artist has ethical sympathies. An ethical sympathy in an artist is an unpardonable mannerism of style.
No artist is ever morbid. The artist can express everything.
Thought and language are to the artist instruments of an art.
Vice and virtue are to the artist materials for an art.
From the point of view of form, the type of all the arts is the art of the musician. From the point of view of feeling, the actor’s craft is the type.
All art is at once surface and symbol.
Those who go beneath the surface do so at their peril.
Those who read the symbol do so at their peril.
It is the spectator, and not life, that art really mirrors.
Diversity of opinion about a work of art shows that the work is new, complex, and vital.
When critics disagree the artist is in accord with himself.
We can forgive a man for making a useful thing as long as he does not admire it. The only excuse for making a useless thing is that one admires it intensely.
All art is quite useless.

Attached: 1506539865935.jpg (640x640, 78K)

>user how is the definition dysfunctional?
How is a definition that does not define anything to us and serves no purpose or use disfunctional, you ask?

100% this.
I'm well conscious that videogames are art, but I'm scared to think about what would happen if this fact gets widespread recognition.
Ironically, the more the people who regard videogames as "art", the less will they actually be so.

I guarantee that whenever someone is changing the paradigm for the Art world he isn't thinking about this academic drivel of semiotic turns you theoretical retard. How are you trying to explain what is and what isn't when you fundamentally don't have the knowledge, since has most great artists have said, it's something you don't teach?

Congratulations on taking a course in humanities, it still won't make you an artist, or able to understand it really, as you wouldn't be able to replicate it. So in conclusion, you're really just spewing someone's theory that you took for granted in a video-game image-board, how pathetic you barren pseud.

It's pretty clear now that we are taking different approaches to this thread, since we're on Yea Forums v/ and I'm not the one citing Borges and other theoretical drivel I'm gonna say you're the retarded one.

I got a legit few questions for any artfags out there, because I sincerely don't know and haven't encountered it myself.

Is that art community as cancerous, and as predatory, as vidyas? Specifically, in the way that the media, and other "artists", have the balls to rally itself to change the artists vision because of how "harmful" it is?

Do the artists themselves actually pussy out and pull/change their projects due to the outcry?

Attached: 1505392639310.gif (600x600, 899K)

Like that isn't already happening and been happening for years.

>It's not like it's hard to get into Hollywood
yes, it is

Museums accept a lot of crap into them and so do galleries.
I find it pointless to compare games to conventional old forms of art because you can't even compare poetry and painting to one another.

>inflated tigers
D..do they float?

Attached: 89999999999999999999999999999999999999999973v8937v87g8e9g.jpg (720x406, 31K)

>I guarantee that whenever someone is changing the paradigm for the Art world he isn't thinking about this academic drivel of semiotic turns you theoretical retard
How the fuck do you even type this shit with a straight face?
Tell me, on what grounds do you "guarantee" this shit? Since you clearly admit that you have absolutely no education on the subject?

>it still won't make you an artist, or able to understand it really, as you wouldn't be able to replicate it.
Never had the faintest intention to be one either. I am a linguist and anthropologist, focusing primarily on semiotics in relation to cognitive and neurocognitive perspectives and evolutionary psychology. I am interested in how behavior, meanings, symbols, and humanity as a biological species function together.

You, on the other hand, literally just started insulting someone because he IS educated. You literally called someone pathetic because he DOES know more than you do.

Are you proud of yourself? Literally using your own stupidity as a reason to insult others? You literally say "You are retarded because you know things, reeee!"

Is that who you want to be? Are you really fine with yourself being that kind of creature?

>Games aren't art.

>But my games are.

What a fag.

Attached: 1557787001259.jpg (339x357, 17K)

That's an extremely retarded thing for him to say.

Simple biology makes it difficult for games to be "art". Having artistic inclinations means that the right hemisphere of your brain is dominant. But then, the left hemisphere which is much better at coding takes the back seat, so if you try putting your artistry into video games it'll likely be shoddy. Few people have the combination of talents needed to make a solid video game that also carries artistic merit. And collaborate efforts are a dangerous road since that's when finances start seriously coming into play.

>So do you really not know what a semiotic turn is?
>You clearly do not have even highschoolers understanding of..

Man, wanna know how I know you're pathetic?

>well, probably anything, but definitely not basic theory of art.

As they say, Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.

>Yes it does, war crimes like the holocaust were done out of human skill and imagination and did evoke emotions out of it's victims.
Was that the reason why they were done? No. So they aren't.

>My definition is clearly disfunctional!
But it's not dysfunctional at all.
It's just him the one who has trouble understanding it, and grossly misuses it.

Games are games

>Do the artists themselves actually pussy out and pull/change their projects due to the outcry?
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_controversial_album_art

Videogames are art. Doesn't mean that all of them are particularly good art, but just how schlock doesn't stop movies from being art, neither does Madden stop videogames.

Imagine being insane enough to come up with the nonsense in this post.

Games > Art

I don't think Kojima understood the question, sounds like something was lost in translation there. "Art is the stuff you find in the museum." Fucking what?

>As they say, Those who can, do; those who can't, teach.
I do mostly research, actually. But again, "If he is telling me things I don't know, that me HE IS PATHETIC!!!"

Once again, are you aware the level of insane narcissim underlying these statements?
Do you have NO sense of self-awareness?

The paintings, the sculptures?

Just suck a few dicks

>But it's not dysfunctional at all.
Yeah, except the part of the post that says that art does not mean anything.
A definition without meaning is not a definition. It's disfunctional as a definition, as it is supposed to deliminate a line between what falls into the category and what does not.

And the fact that this needs to be explained is fucking HORRIFYING.

What about music . Art isn’t something you HAVE to find in museums. It’s definition is way broader

>this is highly valued art, but the entire medium of video games isn't

Attached: il_794xN.1055367264_afsj.jpg (794x1068, 160K)

>Having artistic inclinations means that the right hemisphere of your brain is dominant.
Are we in the 19th century?
What the fuck is this drivel?

Based and redpilled

The word art in Japanese is completely different than the word in the West though.

That's hilarious coming from a hack who thinks he's a big time director just cause his new game has b list actors.

Music is the oldest and greatest art form tbqh, there's not a single other medium that allows for greater artistic freedom/

Games are art, but they aren't movies.

>Before you even begin realizing how wrong you are, you need a course on fuzzy logic.
If you think fuzzy logic disproves in any way what I just said, maybe you're the one who needs a course on logic; not just fuzzy, but basic one.

Yes, and?

Yeah what this guy said. It's not even controversial to say that art isn't defined by "something you put in a museum". But then Kojima goes on and says game designers are the ones running the museum because they decide where the sculptures go and how the lighting works. What the fuck does that mean Kojima?

Redpilled

user you could google the functions of a prescriptive and descriptive dictionary, and realize that under both of them this definition of art still has it's merit. It's just under questions like these make it worth nothing because it makes you captain obvious due to the obvious criteria being matched.

Intention is irrelevant

It's not that I have trouble understanding it, it's that if you assign different definitions to one thing people will have trouble understanding what is what. If you assign x and y to z, people will have trouble with thinking if s and d fall under z due to inconsistent criteria. Condescension and sarcasm won't change that.

It's only meaningless under this question user, learn reading comprehension.

"Videogames are art" fags are insufferable. Stop trying.

Oh Lord, I knew it. I can literally see your semblance as if we were both looking at the same monitor.

Are you this desperate? What a shame going through life citing someone else's words, regardless of the truth in them, to feel superior, not being able to create.

I gave you the answer in the other post I made to your comment, those are the grounds.

"Calamari tastes good" can be true for one person and not another. The taste of calamari in terms of "good" is subjective.

>and realize that under both of them this definition of art still has it's merit.
Yes. I would also quickly realize that on-line dictionaries serve neither of these functions.

>postmodern kike
>everything means everything and nothing means anything

Nobody cares about your boring, unoriginal opinions kike. Have sex, cope, drink tea, while I become the master.

Sure took you long enough to read that wikipedia article on fuzzy logic, champ.

Attached: 1336901366681.jpg (300x297, 48K)

>it's wrong because it's on the internet

Iconography isn't considered art by those who make it.

You talking about just drawn art or "Aesthetic Sciences" in general? Cause music and theater are considered "Art" too, Performance art, but still art and those i can make some statements about.

The "the show must go on" is very omnipresent as is the idea of the performances being everything even at personal expense, rolling with punches and improvising to make shit work and staying in spite of complications is drilled into you as is not getting embarassed about doing humiliating shit.

The focus on the production can result in revamps if something minor starts to endanger the whole production, there is also big on how reinventing and keeping old content "fresh" so people can see and hear the pieces without being bored just as much as it is keeping and knowing the classical way to act or perform something(It is Art, but it is a Art of entertainment), but people also recognize it is very important to remember original intent and how the works were for their times, there is a degree of trust and it is a a team effort, a director directs to make sure shit doesn't get a in-cohesive mess and sets general tone, but individuals have a lot of freedom to develop their own takes and quirks of a character within the boundaries a director finds acceptable.

If something is endangering the production and isn't integral to it it is likely to get pulled, if the whole point of the production from the conception is the HOT TAKE it is less likely to because it IS the production.

And there is no such thing as a production that goes off flawlessly, people will be offended about what you do, props will malfunction, instruments go missing, seats can be empty, vital crew can randomly die, and everything is on strict timetables where every second, breath and movement counts because the Audience expects it all to take x hours and no more and no less with no dead time between scenes and performances.

Depends on troupe/band/orchestra though but that is my own experiences.

>Simple biology makes it difficult for games to be "art".
At least you had the decency to start out with such a retarded statement that I had no option but to stop reading.

You are retarded if you believe any of the dumb shit you said.

He is right and you don't have a clue about what you are talking about tho.

Upon thinking of what you are acting out here, may you happen to be, by any chance, fancing yourself a bit of an aspiring artist?

Because if that is the case, and I strongly do suspect you it may be then let me tell you this:

No matter how desperate mental gymnastics you'll do, you will NEVER get away from the fact that your work will be judged.

And if that notion makes you this scared, and this desperate, if you need to go through this much insanity just to avoid facing the responsibility over your works and the implications other people's judgement will have: You will not last.

You need to have far, far, FAR more dignity and basic selfesteem than this. It will destroy you, or you will never create anything.

Maybe consider consulting a psychologist. You have just arrived at a conclusion that knowlege means other people are retarded and desperate. In the process of denying the simple notion that works of creation are judged, and that evaluation is an integral part of art.

If you have artistic ambitions, and you want to achieve something, you will have to do something about this massive, off-the-chart levels of personality disorder.

You can hide the thread.

>Is that art community as cancerous, and as predatory, as vidyas? Specifically, in the way that the media, and other "artists", have the balls to rally itself to change the artists vision because of how "harmful" it is?
No, because the field of art was already fagocitated in its entirety by """"politics"""". so there is no fear that something might be called "harmful" anymore.
You don't see any war in art nowadays because the war ended years ago (almost 1 century, to be precise) and the winner (i.e.: """""politics""""") definitely claimed the field as theirs, and entirely drove away all the opposition.
Videogames still have a long way to go to reach that level, but that's where they're heading...

Is it your suggestion that the OST if say, the shining, isn't art?

It's not wrong, it's just strictly orientational. It has no perspective and minimal descriptive value. It has never intended to have such. It's not written by anyone who would have any expertise on theory of art. It's probably written by a randomly hired copy-right-writer.
Most likely being a very lazy transcription from another dictionary, which transcribed it from another and so on...

It's OK, it's supposed to give people some incredibly basic and rudimentary orientation of more or less what generally probably people might think off when they hear the word.

But that is precisely and intentionally where it's function ends.
Do they not teach you this in school?

Games are the best art.

True, a fashy goy would never make it to the elite of plastic arts.

Why don't we just treat gameplay as an art form
I mean dance is an art form so why not gamepaly

You come across as a long-winded tool. The definition is fine.

Because gameplay consists of predefined patterns.

>gaymurrrrs
That a pretty derogatory term and for no reason.
I don't get it, aren't you a gamer yourself? Why do you mock gamers like that?

Attached: 1536086504593.jpg (236x223, 10K)

>your video games have any artistic merit and arent soulless constructions designed from the ground up to get money
imagine being a sad petulant fuck who actually believes this

What a retarded argument.

The guys who invented football or chess rules aren't artists. Game design is a science, not an art. It only needs to be standardized and optimized. You don't need a new controller. And videogames don't need game designers as directors. They need story guys as directors such as Cory Barlog, Hideo Kojima or Neil Druckmann. Ths only guys who still put game designers in a directing position are Nintendo so that should tell how outdated is the idea that game design is an art.

Attached: 1292874405184.jpg (400x300, 68K)

>>Games aren't art
>For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum.
>and also create the art
Nice clickbait, at least you didn't post a link.

Attached: 1346056330317.jpg (251x205, 9K)

It's a dead argument that everyone else moved on from years ago but you still have some faggots trying to deny they're art.

that's just useless though. it has too many qualifiers that are entirely subjective to the point that you might as well not have a definition at all. with your definition, I could legitimately call anything art under my personal interpretations of it's meaning and the effort put into it. by just saying "art is something produced by a person or people through creative effort", it becomes the same fucking thing, only I don't need a bunch of retards arguing about qualifiers, since it only requires the basic intent of the artist which is pretty basic, while also excluding shit like art being created accidentally or only existing in a post-creation context.

Because that would not fit with the general fashion for self-loathing and smug "I'm better than those people who think something may be art form because I KNOW that what I play is shit and ironically makes cool" conviction.
You have to realize, this entire discussion is ACTUALLY about insecurity. It has nothing to do with reason of any sort.

Some people are horrified of being judged, so they just destroy art by pushing for a definition so broad it become meaningless, thus removing any possibility of them being judged by media they consume or produce.

Others are afraid of being judged so they do the pre-emtive strike:
"I KNOW it's shit so you can't get me now. hahaha!" This approach has the added benefit of giving them delusion of being "woke" while everyone who contradicts them must be "delusional and insecure themselves".

And that accounts for about 90% of all arguments made in this thread.

Implying that games can be an art form, and implying that art is a subject of merrit both lead to the unbearable implication that you may be judged upon what you consume.

Why would you post a poor reproduction of the Black Madonna instead of just posting the actual Black Madonna?

Yea Forums genuinely hates video games. That's not hyperbole.

>You come across as a long-winded tool. The definition is fine.
Except it isn't, for reasons I'm not going to bother repeating myself, you can just follow the chain of posts and see for yourself.

I don't care that I again make you feel insecure.

>it has too many qualifiers that are entirely subjective

It's almost like that's what art actually is.

>since it only requires the basic intent of the artist which is pretty basic, while also excluding shit like art being created accidentally or only existing
So now it's only all things that people did intentionally. Ever.
Well, I'm happy we narrowed things down, that is a very useful definition you got there.

So video games aren't art because they were made to appeal to the widest audience possible in order to make as much money as possible?
I'm not sure if I actually agree with this idea, but it makes sense at least.

>Except it isn't
It's fine. Guys like you just like vomiting your word salad essays out to make yourselves feel smart.

user, how does a online dictionary not fall under a descriptive function at least?

>Yeah, except the part of the post that says that art does not mean anything.
What the fact does the post of someone who have trouble understanding a simple and clear definition have to do with the definition itself?
If I claim that "square means nothing" does that render the definition of "square" useless?

>Intention is irrelevant
So I was right, you can't into english

Attached: 1559926146071.png (638x211, 6K)

>Be overrated hack
>Be jealous of the writing skills of Tomokazu Fukushima
>Murder him
>Release dog turds since
>Release unfinished dog turd copy+paste fest
>Tried to drop a deux on Silent Hill series too
>Based Konami boss stops me from doing it
>Escape to SJW company
>Create another so called game using the money of SJW company
>Preorders don't look to good
>What do I do?
>"G---Games aren't art"
>"Because you know I'm an incompetent hack and create shit"

I'm starting to think the meme is 100% true. Maybe I'm not enough of an oldfag to know.

>and also create the art that's displayed in the museum
So... it IS art? Why does he say it isn't then?

>If 100 people walk by and a single person is captivated by whatever that piece radiates, it's art
And again he implicitly says they are art while blatantly stating they aren't. Those games I consider my favorites above all are ones that captivated me. Can Kojima use his brain for longer than 10 seconds without a short circuit happening?

Attached: 1551602681413.jpg (1200x675, 67K)

Nowhere near as insufferable as online armchair linguistics arguing over the definition of words and genre categorizations.

Attached: 1551700914143.jpg (320x269, 30K)

On the subject of what is or isn't art? you should ask yourself then: If I can't replicate Art with the knowledge I've amassed in my humanities course, am I really able to define it?

Your view of it is superficial friend, it's fruitless, it's functional at best! You can throw every pseud psych or philosophical theory at it you won't be able to replicate it or even create!

Have you noticed how you're on a video-game image-board trying to make your humanities course pay off, but I'm the one with the problems! Remember your post, the one you gave recommendations and such, that's normal for you?

Also your caricature was an absolute miss, I already gave you the answer you're looking for, you're in denial. Sorry.

>art is not interactive
>books are not art

Attached: wot.gif (220x145, 414K)

It's a 2006 interview. For fuck's sake, Ebert was still alive.

art is the product of creativity, that's all. there is no need to place shit in retarded hierarchies just because a bunch of dead faggots did. they were wrong, and people who need to use art as a pedestal word for differentiation are wrong too. then art just becomes a cope word that allows you not to delve into an individual situation or artistic work. you can just lazily deem things "art" and "not art" and feel good that you're buying into this nebulous collective notion.

Because he doesn't agree with the definition.

Kojimbo is simply living in the past.

>It's fine. Guys like you just like vomiting your word salad essays out to make yourselves feel smart.
At least I do not have to be at any point intellectually dishonest. The reasons have been provided, if you weren't such a little pussy, you'd see for yourself.

Well, for starters because there wasn't any process of validation involved. Again: that would require an actual authority or an expert on the subject for EACH AND EVERY entry and that would be fucking costly.
There are other dictionaries that serve other purposes: Medical dictionariesa and field-specific ones in particular.

But general dictionaries have never been intended to be prescriptive, and they gave up on the descriptive dimension in late 19th century, at the end of what we actually call "the encyclopedic era".

These threads always show the losers that actually hate games. Explains a lot

>Nikolay Dybowski:

Attached: bAjxhTH.gif (400x190, 1.28M)

You're retarded.

>At least I do not have to be at any point intellectually dishonest.
Good for you? I've seen your reasons, but I disagree and still think you're a long-winded tool.

33%?

look at the thread dumbass

Yeah
>Um hurr video games are for children hurr durr! Do I fit in guys?!

Why are we discussing a 13 year old statement?

this.

yes, and things that are endlessly subjective don't need value words like "art" and "not art", because being so subjective any attempt at placing objective value categories on them is pointless and stupid.

Because Yea Forums can't let go of a 13 year old argument.

video games are fun toys, not art. fuck off to resetera seethers

>"Calamari tastes good" can be true for one person and not another.
"Calamari tastes good" it's meaningless unless you specify who tastes it. Once you do, it's either true or false.

>and things that are endlessly subjective don't need value words like

That in itself is subjective, dummy. Pointing out something is objectively art doesn't place any objective value on anything. Your entire protest against this basic fact is pointless and stupid.

To be fair, gradual change of words can completely re-contextualize stories and happenings, just look at how Shakespeares works are considered in a modern spectrum (Babby's First IM CULTURED DAMNIT!) as opposed to the one of his own time (Plays for Peasants).

450 replies.

no, just literally everything that required creative intent on some level. taking a shit does not require creative intent, just the most basic level of consciousness. if I decide to smear my shit on the wall in any shape afterwards, that is art.

>if games are art they can't be fun anymore
brainlet.

Ok? It's still a subjective statement.

RIP in piece.

>Have you noticed how you're on a video-game image-board trying to make your humanities course pay off, but I'm the one with the problems!
Yeah.
The difference between you and me is that I do not have to be intellectually dishonest at any point.
Sure, this is a waste of time. It's also a form of entertainment, and I am aware that what I am doing here has something to do with my own insecurities: I'm effectively bullying tards here. It's not something I would add to my CV but I believe it's relatively harmless. Mainly because even though it's an entirely inefficient way of spending effort, it's not at any point dishonest.

Every claim that I have made: I stand by them. Not the best place or time to say them, but they are not something that I need to be ashamed off. You could literally ONLY benefit from what I'm doing here. I know you won't but since it is also a way of relaxing to me... I'm fine with it.

You, on the other hand, have done quite interesting things. Denounced any academic work as "pathetic". Claimed "the fact that you know things I don't makes YOU a retard, not me!"

So again: The real question is: are you fine with that? IS. THAT. WHAT YOU WANT TO BE.
Is that a person you can live with? If somebody else did that: would you respect them? Would you be willing to interact with them?

Those are pretty important questions. I have my answers, I fucking wonder what the answers are going to be for you.

"Calamari tastes good" literally means what it says. It's neither true or false, because it's not a statement that can be proven. This is basic logic 101.

>radiates
He's saying art is radioactive.

Attached: maxresdefault.jpg (1280x720, 64K)

>for no reason

Anyone who calls themselves a gamer is usually peak cringe material.

To be fair, every person involved in this argument is a pseud.

yes, and I'm saying subjectively people who engage in subjective art vs not art internally or externally are fucking retarded, subjectively. because everything in the universe is fucking subjective when you boil everything down. but subjectively the need to subjectively create semi-objective standards in your own mind for art and not art is a sign of low-iq and lack of understanding.

>Because Yea Forums can't let go of a 13 year old argument.
Does Kojima still even hold these views anymore?
A fucking lot can happen in 13-years.

>art is the product of creativity, that's all. there is no need to place shit in retarded hierarchies just because a bunch of dead faggots did
Again:
How fucking insanely afraid of being judged are you?

Literally the ENTIRETY OF EXISTENCE, entirety of history of human kind, is wrong.

You are right. You know better than all those thousands of people who dedicated entirety of their lives to understand a subject:
They are just dumb and old and stupid.

What makes you think that? What gives you the certainity that it isn't you who is wrong?

Other than the fact that you being wrong would have a LOT of negative implications about you.

video games are peak cringe material so it checks out.

>Good for you? I've seen your reasons, but I disagree and still think you're a long-winded tool.
Yet you cannot put together a single coherent argument why am I wrong.

So what gives you the conviction that I am wrong?

That's your subjectively retarded opinion. Also you are objectively a low IQ retard.

based tard

Attached: #1 boss.jpg (396x428, 52K)

I can generalize too you know.
>usually
So I suppose that you personally don't fall into the "cringe" category, right? Even if you are a gamer.

>Art is the stuff you find in the museum
>Video games are about running the musem
This is a strange argument. So video games are not art, but rather they contain art?
Doesn't that just make it art by the act of containing art?

You've said absolutely nothing of value.

>no, just literally everything that required creative intent on some level.
So... either you base this on assumption of intent which is in ABSOLUTELY NO WAY verifiable or testable or measurable or observable, or you are just saying that everything that was made intentionally is art.

Aside from being absolutely unverifable: why do you think "intent" is even relevant?
Why would we have a category based on unverifiable criterion, that also gives us absolutely no further clue about what that category is GOOD FOR?

>Literally the ENTIRETY OF EXISTENCE, entirety of history of human kind, is wrong.
>You are right. You know better than all those thousands of people who dedicated entirety of their lives to understand a subject: They are just dumb and old and stupid.

Attached: 1490052644903.png (324x271, 5K)

>So video games are not art, but rather they contain art?
Not necessarily. A box containing a painting isn't art.

ART WAS NEVER PRAISED OR CONSIDERED TO BE GREAT!
ART WAS LITERALLY MASONRY, CRAFT, NOTHING SPECIAL!
FUCK, art used to have a very specific purpose, there was no faux fake value attached to it. Only after time it started to gain traction as some mysterious bullshit.
Art the way people imagine it doesn't exist at all, there are things created for a purpose and things that can make you feel something. But potentially anything can make you feel something.

keep coping by thinking placing things on a pedestal has any value

keep coping by thinking your opinions on the defintions of words matter.

>Yet you cannot put together a single coherent argument why am I wrong.
"Cannot"? No, my dear tool. I simply don't care to argue with you. I disagree with your personal beliefs and you'd be better off dropping the matter instead of desperately seeking my attention.

>You've said absolutely nothing of value.
You, in the meanwhile, just willing gave a way a lot of interesting informations about yourself.

It's kinda sad that I can actually appreciate what you just did more than you do. Because you are the one who would desperately need it.

Again, after reading this, how are you supposed to know what an artist is? you make the same mistake over and over again.

Since you recommended me a short story by Borges, maybe grab a book on Cinema, because it's a younger art-form it may be easier for you to understand. Sculpting in Time would do.

You keep fixating on the "pathetic" bit, i think your fist post was much more aggressive to be honest.

And then you evade all the other points I make, because you can't naturally refute them. Those who can, would; those who can't stick to academic fraudulence.

Also, you're not trolling. You are dishonest and very, very frustrated. And now the words that haven't been said but make sense in this situation:

Have Sex

>"Cannot"? No, my dear tool. I simply don't care to argue with you.
Oh my god, you are playing the "I'm too good to engage with you!" card now?
Do you realize what you have been posting fifteen minutes ago?

Games obviously aren't art. It boggles my mind that people don't get this. Games can CONTAIN art but that doesn't make the game itself art. You can, for instance, make a beautifully crafted chess board and each individual tile has a painting on it. So the chess board tiles are art. And the pieces themselves could also be creatively designed, thus being artistic. But that doesn't turn the game of chess into art. It's still the game of chess. Similarly, you can make a video game that contains tons of art, i.e. music, video sequences, pictures, poems etc. You can put so much art in there that the gameplay is buried by it. But the GAME is still the rules of the game regardless of how much art you pile onto those rules. You could of course film somebody playing a game and then that movie could be artistic expression. Or you could make a stage show of somebody playing and that could be an artistic expression. But not the game itself, i.e. the rules underlying the gameplay.

Attached: 1527537745407.gif (600x600, 3.05M)

Learn to not get so mad you can't type right, faggot. Jesus Christ on a stick.

>You are right. You know better than all those thousands of people who dedicated entirety of their lives to understand a subject:
You are patently wrong, people that started auto-felating art were the new fags.
Michelangelo? Da Vinci? Boticeli? Vermeer?
Mostly scientists and artisans, experimenting with light and paint, creating what they see fit and usually with a very specific purpose.
The "elevated" feeling their art has cam from their exceptional skill and intelligence, not because of some intrinsic quality that all art has. For most of history artists were literally living photomachines or church painters. And usually no one was just artist, they were architects, inventors and sculptors on top of being painters or whatever.

>still seeking my attention
Let it go.

Not really. Playing videogames is pretty normalfag.
I play videogames but I'm not a gamer. So no. I don't do cringeworthy shit.

This line of argument about how games only "contain" art and game design is not art has been made and debunked literally thousands of times by now so I don't know who you think will be convinced by it other than spergs who already agree with your viewpoint. Then again I don't except much self awareness or intelligence from an anime shitposter.

The notion of art is contrived and retarded. You can not define art, it has never been defined and it didn't exist as a concept for most of human history.

>Again, after reading this, how are you supposed to know what an artist is?
Easily. My very first post in this thead answered the question. >And then you evade all the other points I make, because you can't naturally refute them.
What points. I'm terribly sorry, I must have missed them. Would you care to just point me to the post that contain points other than "You are pathetic and retard because you have theory and education and shit!"

because in art vs not art it's the same fucking thing. nothing is ever verifiable. so you might as well lower the amount of qualifiers so you have less chance of being wrong. if you make art simply the output of creativity as it should be, you can get rid of all the retards pretending to know shit they don't so that they can elevate things they like as art and things they don't like at not art. then people can't pretend that there is objective value placed on artistic creations, you just have to accept almost anything as art and be content with your own opinions on those things being confined to just individual interpretation of an individual something.

Well, yeah, you are online, USI comes with the standard armchair package. I just meant it more in a basic "Control the meaning of words and you control the public perception" to say why people get all hot and bothered about the meaning of the word.

I mean, Yea Forums itself does this shit in a microcosm as memes and jokes mutate and change meaning at high rates and absorb ones from different cultures to supplement and replace "native" words, like "Kino" and "Normie".

Attached: 1426959303517.jpg (599x978, 131K)

Nah it's pretty cringe brah.

wow it's almost like no opinions on anything ever matter. like opinions on what is art or not. thanks for agreeing with me.

evolution of internet memes and lingo is another subject entirely. pseuds on Yea Forums have literally no relevancy when it comes to the meaning of commonly used words like "art", this entire thread is just intolerable first year philosophy.

not according to social norms

He is right though. "Art" is a descriptor and does not signify achievement. The Big Bang Theory is art in the same way that The Godfather or any other film or show is. You can argue your opinion as to what their quality is, but your opinion does not change the fact of what they are. Trying to deny something is art just because you don't like it is just childish.

It is actually.

>The "elevated" feeling their art has cam from their exceptional skill and intelligence, not because of some intrinsic quality that all art has.
I have absolutely never said anything about any "intrinsic quality", in fact I explicitly made an opposite point.
I argue that their status as artist comes from the fact that the society that surrounded them indentified their work with certain socially constracted ideals and values - mostly the importance of skill, education, patience, pattern recognition and so on.

Since those were recognized (sometimes in their life, more often than not eventually over time) as EXCEPTIONALLY VALUABLE, and since those people proved EXCEPTIONAL POSSESSION of those traits, their work has become used as a validation and exemplation of those values. And as such it has been given a specific prestigeous label, and specific, prestigeous treatment.

The label and the treatment: That is what defines art.

>because in art vs not art it's the same fucking thing. nothing is ever verifiable.
Yeah. Let's just throw our hands in the air because figuring shit out is hard.
Great fucking belief you have there, SO glad you shared with us. Really making a difference here.

No, just your opinions on what is art and not. Your opinions literally don't matter. Video games are art and there's nothing you can that will change that.

>He is right though. "Art" is a descriptor and does not signify achievement.
Based on what arguments?

his games sure aren't. Earthbound is kino, and some day we'll have something better than earthbound, an art-game movement. We just have to wait until the indie dev scene has a few good directors and writers among the autistic furries, retards and neckbeards

In the same way that dog vs cat is the same fucking thing. You can't very the difference because none of the definitons are verifiable.

then by your definition a game is simply it's rules/mechanics? even given that, why couldn't there be art in mechanical design? many games break their own game-rules for artistic effect. besides, the art within the game is nothing without the art of the game design itself. the museum is also an artistic work, and unlike in IRL museums, the "game museum" is created specifically for that game, for the works of art inside it, so isn't the structure also art? without the art of the game itself, the art inside would loose meaning. like the leaked HL2 demo and files, it contains art, but it is held back from ever becomes a higher, more realized artistic work because the art of the game structure and design is not there, so it ends up only having hints of it's true artistic potential. even something as simple as loading saves out of order without having played the game breaks that I think. they are two types of art that complete each other to create a larger 3rd kind of art.

Art is interacted with at the point of viewing, I would go as far as to say Art is not Art until it has been passed through the subjective filter of a human and their experiences.

By the lack of arguments suggesting it signifies achievement alongside the fact that it is used as a descriptor by the vast majority of people.

Funny, cause most great pieces of art were made with private or government meddling

Wrong. Art is an expression of creativity. There are of course virtually infinite ways people can express their creativity.

You can make art that contains gameplay and you can make games that contain art. But games cannot possibly be art. A game is a stystem of rules that limit and guide behavior in a certain way, most notably to either be enjoyable or competitive. The rules themselves aren't an expression of creativity. They aren't conveying somebody's inner self in some way. What you do with these rules in place can be artistic, i.e. you can have an artistic show of somebody playing a game, but the game itself cannot be art.

Fine, you are the one who is going to have to live with yourself. I can only wish you best of luck after all of this.

>people like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton decided to try and make video games evil in the eyes of man and gamers unify to prove them that games are more than just mindlessly killing shit and don't turn people into murder machines.
>The second someone in the field of gaming goes "so I think games can actually mean somehting and are more than just jump and shoot" everyone screeches about how games aren't art.

What do we want exactly? like what is it about games as a media exempts it from being art?

They are actually. Pretty cringe.

I agree

>So no. I don't do cringeworthy shit.
Your posts prove otherwise.

throwing your arms up in the air is not what I'm saying. I'm saying assess things on a more refined level. and express what you think about art instead of going "lol not art I can turn off my brain now". even the notion of art restricts that. arguing about something with 1000 qualifiers that are all subjective will lever produce anything of value, it's just idiots screaming at each-other.

>By the lack of arguments suggesting it signifies achievement alongside the fact that it is used as a descriptor by the vast majority of people.
And you derive that from... where?
Do you think people don't go to art schools and pay massive tuition for the priviledge because it means they won't be getting VALUABLE skills?
Do you think that when people talk about martial arts, they do not think of discipline and proficiency?
Do you think people pay money for the priviledge to see stuff at an art gallery with no prior assumption that works of VALUE will be there?

Do you think the term "priceless" often used to denote works of art implies "without any value?"

I would like to see the reality in which you live.

For the rest of my arguments: see

What a horrible thread.

Attached: 1495560466218.png (498x588, 312K)

>I'm saying assess things on a more refined level
In other words on a level you agree with.

true. but in "real life" it's acceptable to feign objectivity about stuff like cats and dogs because it's useful and breaking down the subjectivity of something's cat-nature is usually pointless.

And I already explained why it's not refined, it's plain out USELESS. Unverifiable criterion and no implication of function or purpose means a pretty fucking unrefined definition to me.

>still confusing art with high art because you are obsessed with your intolerable philo 101 mindset

Holy fuck you are beyond autistic. Take your meds.

but you're agreeing with me again, I never said they were not art, in fact I have always felt that video games being art is obvious. they are a creative work, they are art, that simple.

Unless talking to other people online is now considered cringe my posts don't prove anything.

>You can not define art
It's the expression of human creativity and imagination. There, that's a VERY WIDE definition, but a definition. That means that everything that can both be imagined and somehow expressed can, in principle, be art. But that doesn't change the thing itself.

For instance, the sun isn't art because the sun is a self-luminous heavenly body that wasn't created by a human. However, when a painter draws a sun to express something he feels, or when a peot makes a peom about the sun to express something he cares about, or when photographer stages a photo that includes the sun in order to illustrate some part of his inner self all of these "suns" are art, but they obviously aren't the sun.

Still not verifiable, even if you feel that it's useful to feign objectivity about their definitions. Also breaking down the subjectivity of the meaning of the term "art" is literally pointless.