Video games art art, and this proves it

Something like another hour

I’m still mad at how badly they fucked this game over, so much wasted potential

I'm so mad i got tricked into playing this turd thinking it was a game, i should have read the steam reviews, luckily i pirated it

How did they fuck this game up?

Lots of build up. Very little pay off.

They removed all the sex scenes since they were worried about getting taken down.

It had eveything going for it and room to go anywhere in terms of art style, ‘gameplay’, music, themes, and character potential but they just didn’t do anything at all with it, whoever wrote it should be put in a mantle and have rotten vegetables hurled at them.

>no puzzles
>no point and click elements
>nonexistent story for 8/10 of the game and they push a shitty half baked story the last hour of gameplay that makes no sense
>no use for the dream sections except for "uuuh mae have some problems and the dreams are just her subconsious" while pushing at the start of the game that her grandad and her have some type of connection to ghosts but drop it for that shitty cultist plot
>it's basically a "daily life in a shitty city with shitty charachters"
People still hail this trainwreck as some masterpiece because it's woke or something even if all the leftist shit they say comes off as incredibly childish from childish charachters and the devs don't even realize it

It's a visual novel that uses the engine of a platformer.

THE MATRIX WAS A GOOD MOVIE

nightinthewoods.fandom.com/wiki/User:NoIdeaHowToCallMe/Scripts
The script of the game. "Ugh." was said 102 times. Also look how short each line of dialogue is before you have to press a button to advance. Even NES RPGs didn't have lines that short.

>Also look how short each line of dialogue is before you have to press a button to advance. Even NES RPGs didn't have lines that short.
Still longer than your dick

Tits or GTFO.

Anything created by people to provoke a reaction of other people is art. Video games are art, TV shows are art, books are art. Hell, even our posts are art

Isn't this game animated by the same dude who made webm related?

Attached: 1561400470967.webm (720x404, 2.36M)

>double bugger off wanker
i'm british too but this is trying too hard

It would probably be a lot less frustrating as a VN.

Yes.

>art art

You sound like a fucking seal.

Attached: 1546211918775[1].jpg (710x400, 50K)

How do we make NitW better?

make the protag a school shooter

>art art

fitter
happier
more productive

Games are entertainment. Not that entertainment can't be art, but calling games art just attracts pretensious faggots.

The MoMA disagrees

Movies and books are entertainment too and nobody argues about calling those art.

Maybe it's not the mediums fault, but the people who make bad games.

Attached: 1537651420926.png (580x750, 609K)

The cult and monster were shit twists and made the ending feel unrelated to everything else that happened. It undermined Mae's depression to have a literal monster and the dialogue with it was awful. As much as having real threats mix with the mental turmoil was necessary, there were are better ways to bridge that than a monster cult and having around 20 men go missing in the end.

I liked a lot of it and enjoyed the decrepit small town despair, but the ending wasn't validation for Mae's troubles nor a fitting conclusion to the mystery buildup and just left a bad taste.

In order for games to be art, gameplay needs to be art. This is just writing.
Have the story build up along with the events in some way instead of "hang out with friends 5 times, now shit happens". I think the problem is that it tried to do 2 separates stories that accomplish nothing on their own. Either we have Mae's mental journey of depression and anxiety, or we have a murder mistery regarding a cult and eldritch abominations. We ended up having too little of both.

All games are artistic, but some are more artistic than others. What makes them more artistic varies, but all of the factors leave a good impression to the person playing. It's this subjectivity that makes my first statement true.

It'd be an even shittier VN without both stories, but they definitely need to intermingle better. Anxiety needs fears and worries and there was never any real or even nebulous threat. Depression needs regret and personal failure when Mae wasn't even involved for most of it. A few key scenes connecting her condition to the mystery would have made it much better, but that's not what happened.

I want to FUCK that gator

>voting for the guys propped up by the silicon valley assholes
Best thing to do is break apart the union, the confederates were right: the grand experiment has failed.

The MoMa put Street Fighter in their "art is video games" exhibit. I don't think they're the best source for artsy video games.

I like to call this piece of art "look, these are my beliefs" that is all
please appreciate or you are [thing i disagree with]

Attached: no fascists.jpg (736x981, 62K)

I would argue vidya uses art to become something else entirely. It's still the only media that actively requires input from a player, which basically no other media can even begin to replicate.

Why did these rural bumfuck-nowhere's act like coastal city liberals?

I didn't really like the message they put together about the previous generation being responsible for the slow death of the town. There's not much to speak of a hopeful outcome for the characters either. The game's message is to be hopeful and optimistic and things will work out, and that things not working out is a result of a sinister god from another dimension and an association of old people kidnapping young druggies. This isn't grounded in any sort of reality.

look user don't you know that people in small rural towns that are in the midst of dying in the american midwest are all liberal? fuckin dipshit

Because it's made by coastal city liberals who don't know anything else.

That scene was just... Ugh... It was just of fuckin... God... Real... So. Unapologetically. Real. Full stop.

Attached: Holy Shit.webm (800x292, 2.28M)

If movies like Jack n Jill or books like Twilight get to be called 'art' just because of the medium they're told through, then maybe it's better if videogames aren't 'art'

Fucking hell. Who asked for an Antifa dialog simulator?

Video games can be art. And nothing could ever "prove" it, and worrying about it in the first place is the height of faggotry.

youtube.com/watch?v=cvZhRin-plA
Reminder that Brian Moriarty settled the "are games art?" argument.

TL;DW: Games aren't art, but why is it so important that they are? Why not just be games? Just because a skilled woodworker makes a beautiful chess set doesn't make chess itself art.

Bad art is still art though

It's weird when you think about it, a story set in deep rural Appalachia with characters who by their own admission have almost never left it was written by a bunch of Californians living in San Francisco.

At the very least they give you the option to say poetry sucks and just walk out. But Selmers will only be there if you talk to her every day, so you'll probably stop and listen to her.

nah, they're shallow entertainment

someone fucking post porn already /trash/ ain't doin it for me

Art and entertainment are completely indistinguishable from one another to a viewer.
The question "is this art?" is an irrelevant, fart sniffing waste of time.
Make things, make good things, and shut up.

>Electronic toys
Software is not this, brainlet.

I have a feeling that Alec Holokwa was responsible for all the good parts of the writing. I have no evidence for it, but Bea's innocent reminiscence about thinking God lived in the skylight of the mall could only come from someone who used to be religious themselves (which Alec was).

>Brian Moriarty settled the "are games art?" argument.

>TL;DW: Games aren't art
Nice argument

Sure, I didn't say otherwise either. By and large, every medium has a lot of bad art, games are no exception. They're just not accepted as such because the medium is still new. Same thing happened with photography and movies in their early days until those were officially accepted as new artforms.

It's almost as if the developers are extremely close minded, if the webm in didn't make it obvious enough.

You can watch the video then.

>Just because a skilled woodworker makes a beautiful chess set doesn't make chess itself art.

>art
>n. The conscious use of the imagination in the production of objects intended to be contemplated or APPRECIATED AS BEAUTIFUL, as in the arrangement of forms, sounds, or words.

Graphic interactive sex scenes with discoverable fetish scenes.

>taking seriously anything written by a game dev, specially real topics like sociopolitical shit that requires highly cultured people to even be discussed on a decent level without subjectivity or muh feelings getting in the way
I hope nobody is this idiotical

shit walking simulator
/thread

>misunderstanding what I said this hard
If an ARTificer or an ARTisan were to make an ARTifact*, then you will have art, but that doesn't make "chess" itself as a concept or as a rule-set in to art. People call pottery art, but you don't see people saying that eating is art.

*doesn't mean what you think it means

only faggots that try to be "cultured" thinks vidya is art while in reality everybody will have forgotten the game in 5 years time. vs real art, a painting is timeless

Attached: 1d70a6ce3d2925a8b5aa2324568641a9.jpg (1123x700, 642K)

Hey, if Yu-No can deal with all sorts of metaphysics at a competent level then there's no reason that this couldn't have done the same with socio-political and economic aspects.

I don't need to watch the video because nothing said can change the fact that games are art. Trying to restrict the definition of art undermines the very concept of art.

Surely you are for writing such a retarded post.
Sad thing is you probably won't realize how stupid it sounds since you already think that way.

I don't know why people keep using indie games as reasons for why games are art. Even call of duty is art, granted it's imperialist propaganda, but it's still art. Much like WW2 posters were still art even though it was just a piece of paper encouraging people to kill themselves.

This post is so fucking retarded, I don't even know where to start.

Ah, yes, a can of shit. Rather artistic, wouldn't you agree.

Attached: Piero_Manzoni_Artists_Shit_1961.jpg (377x400, 34K)

Is "tag" art?

That painting is shit and its implied meaning is laughable. Saw digital art from fucking tumblr with more SOUL than this.

99% of all paintings ever made are forgotten

Video games are not toys, they are art, just like movies, music and books.

Calling them "children's toys" is why boomer politicians and lawyers want (and have already tried) to ban violent video games but not movies, music, or books, because there's no reason for M-rated or T-rated games to ever exist if video games are toys meant exclusively for little children. Politicians are blaming mature video games for mass shootings and think we should ban them because they can't fathom the idea that games are made for anyone but little children.

The only reason I can think of calling video games "toys" is if you want to keep that happening (if so then, enjoy your video game bans). I can't see anyone why who actually loves gaming wants to keep that stigma going.

Attached: fox-news-video-games.jpg (768x432, 59K)

Why should I take seriously anything written by a neckbeard faggot on a Cantonese wood carving forum on the quality of story writing and sociopolitical commentary that requires highly cultured people to even discuss on a decent level without subjectivity or muh feelings getting in the way

>1 minute of no interactivity and WORDSWORDSWORDS
Riveting. Art is frying your computer with absurd number of enemies and player effects in Risk of Rain 2, because that's unique to videogames.

Get out of my hobby you fucking faggots, take grafixfags with you too.

Attached: 235142.png (680x383, 308K)

Satire can be art.

Make no mistake, I know exactly what you're TRYING to say, but you're saying it moronically.

>Video games art art
youtu.be/3L7VJl76i9U

Says the person who wants to gatekeep what should be considered art in opposition to the functional definition

Videogames are art and art can be awful.

News Flash: art doesn't necessitate sophistication or quality

Don't you know that Yea Forums fucking hates videogames?

Then what does it matter if videogames are art?

YOU JUST KNOW that however wrote this is a butthurt commie

Certain people will make the argument that something created with commercialization as a goal cannot be art.

Then I guess the overwhelming majority of every famous painting, drawing and song cannot be art then

"Art" is a bullshit label made by charlatans so they can erect absolute trash and eyesores and have it assigned some made up value. No one needs to defend an actually beautiful creation as "art" because it defends itself by its own existence. No one needs to assign the label "art" to the Augustus of Prima Porta because no one is insecure of its quality. However they DO need to assign the label "art" to a Damien Hurst monstrosity because no one would want to see, or defend, or pay for, it otherwise.

Those same morons would claim the Sistine Chapel or the Mona Lisa to be works of art.

That is actually all that it necessitates. It has no other meaning.

Fun fucking fact:
Every time one of you idiots argue "X/Y IS/ISN'T ART", you are not actually talking about art, you are arguing about values. Declaring something ART means defending the notion that it represents some form of exceptional value - in direct or indirect way.

People who argue "everything is art" actually just argue complete value-relativism. People who argue games aren't art simply argue that games are inherently an inferior form of medium that can't produce anything of value.

People who argue art means political messages actually argue that those political messages are of highest value, and people who argue art should not be cesonred actually argue that FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION is an utmost value.
And so on and so forth.

This proves it.

Attached: producktive - Division2.jpg (1920x1080, 340K)

But toys are art.

"This" doesn't prove that video games are art, because the medium didn't influence the way the message was given. It could be a comic strip or even an article. Or a fucking twitter post. Are twitter posts art? By definition of art anything can be art, so your op is redundant. Instead say "I am emotionally moved by the views of a useful idiot who is pretending to oppose the very system that spawned him and makes use of his views, here is the piece that affected me".

Because it's not an "if". It's a matter of fact that games are art. That's like saying 'what does it matter if tomatoes are fruits'

Everything you said was fucking wrong

That's what irks me about this game. If the cast was intentionally meant to be packed full of completely unlikable dipshits that dont know how to speak, I would understand, but from how the creator and the fanbase act towards it I'm apparently supposed to like them. I feel like if you're the kind of person to sympathize with these characters I want absolutely nothing to do with you

Yeah, commissions fall into this strange area that gives them a pass to still be great works. Depending on whether the art community likes the artist or not they'll be congratulated for making something good enough that people will pay money for it, or be called a sellout.

Because they probably are oh so relatable to the target auditory.

I am literally the only person in this thread who has at least remote understanding of this subject. I don't care if you don't LIKE it. Most likely because you are one of those pathetic cowards that will get into a panic attack at the mere implication of value systems not being 100% subjective and up to YOU to decide.

But this is what art IS. Functionally, in every society, at every point of history. You yourself still TREAT art this way, even though you pretend to argue against it.

This is the FUNCTIONAL reality of art and no matter what you fucking insecure dipshits will scream, it will remain as such. Because it's as UNIVERSAL institution as kinship, or supersticion.

If you think that Marvel movies are art then I guess there's no reason not to think video games are, but I don't. There are individual games that I can see an argument for but the medium is predominantly entertainment.

I can sympathize with the characters on some level, doesn't mean I necessarily like them. That said Mae is pretty much irredeemable as a character and has almost no positive traits.

>I am literally the only person in this thread who has at least remote understanding of this subject
No, I am literally the only person in this thread who has at least remote understanding of this subject

>wow mae beat the shit out of a kid with a bat likely scarring and misshaping him for life and probably giving him brain damage
>BUT FEEL SORRY FOR HER BECAUSE ITS ALL JUST SHAAAAAPES

Video games are art but they're low tier corporate art like action figures and Marvel films.

Would you say "art" holds a function in being able to show off to other people and claim a certain level of superiority because you made something that almost everyone agrees is impressive and very few people can replicate? Or because you were the first one to think of it?

I'm not him, but can we agree that the thing in op was some of the shallowest art in medium?

>That is actually all that it necessitates. It has no other meaning.
Factually untrue. Troughout history art was definied as possessing one of several qualities, that is:
>beauty
>recreation of reality
>creation of form
>expression
>evoking aesthetic experience
>moving the beholder
And video games are capable of doing any of the above

Video games are the fart jokes in Shakespeare.

I never got the shapes episode Mae experienced, she said she played a video game so much that reality started to resemble the game itself. Then when she was playing baseball and was up to bat, she beat another kid on for no reason and cannot explain why she did. Can anyone explain what happened?

holy shit this is up there with quake hampions and tacodemon

>However they DO need to assign the label "art" to a Damien Hurst monstrosity because no one would want to see, or defend, or pay for, it otherwise.
Art auctions are a money laundering scheme run by the CIA. Nobody actually pays for that garbage because of their supposed meaning.

I'm inclined to agree except there's been artistic film and artistic comics. You'll probably hate me for this but I'd argue Undertale was a legit work of art because it made commentary on the mentality of a game itself while still being fun and replayable.

Nah, that red riding hood game or that thing Brianna Wu made were worse.

because they think everywhere is Portland

>Marvel movies are art
Why wouldn't they be? Honest question because you seem to have the notion that art to be called art must have to it some ethereal quality that is attainable only to the shit you see in history books.

I think The Division 2 does a better job of conveying the feeling of being a hero than any book or movie. The real question is are books and movies still art? I think not.

Attached: flag Division2.jpg (1920x1080, 357K)

>Would you say "art" holds a function in being able to show off to other people and claim a certain level of superiority because you made something that almost everyone agrees is impressive and very few people can replicate?
Art being used to show off status is certainly a universal practice. But it is more about general value models running beneath it: how people will treat the work itself, than about the author. A lot of medieval art was intentionally created in anonymity, because it was believed that all art is utimately only a reflection of divinity, showing through the hands of the author, thus the author himself was essentially considered irrelevant. This has roots in Platonic idea of art.

It's also worth mentioning that the term "art", as we use it today, largely did not exist in most of the history - though the institution did. People just did not have the specialized terminology for it. Original meaning of the word "art" is in fact (and has been, until 19th century) just "craft" or even "proficiency or profession". The idea of differenciating "art" and "craft" only emerged at the dawn of industrial age, where the value of craft plummeted: "just" being good at something just wasn't valuable enough. This resulted in the new notion, "high art", to distinguish EXCEPTIONAL works from "mere" works of craft.
Eventually the notion of craft and art were divorced, so the label of "high" was no longer needed.

But all this time, there was one, underlying notion in all of this:
"Something of exceptional value". From "well made things" (craft) to increasingly more sophisticated forms, it was always just a tool to distinguish exceptional from mundane.

They should fuck off with cult/lovecraft shit and focus on Mae n her friends

And ship her with NotDeadCasey

Why does the flag have the wrong number of stars and stripes?

>that red riding hood game
You mean the Path? It was good. Pretentious but good

When did the focus start to shift towards a fascination with the artist? Certain things like old notes and sketches fetch incredibly high prices at auctions.

If you're looking at it as a whole, then movies and music aren't any different. Most major releases are shallow corporate shit, no matter the medium, but that doesn't cheapen the entire medium.

At this point it feels like the cinema medium is relying a lot on its legacy to justify its status as "high art". Apart from whatever Oscar bait is made yearly so the academy can hold something up as an example. I can't remember the last movie I saw that was primarily made to tell a story. HBO's chernobyl was great though, so good for Yea Forums.

>When did the focus start to shift towards a fascination with the artist?
That is a good question. I'm not all THAT well versed in history of western art. But I would argue that a major revival of fascination with an author happened during the renaissance. Another one came with the enlightement, which actually was the era that brought extreme focus on author, especially in literature.
In 20th century, the notion further moved away from craft, and towards an ideological or conceptual notions. This largely coincides with the so called "Semiotic turn" in the western philosophy. The emphasis shifted away from the author, and towards the audience itself. To what I frankly believe to be an absurd and pointless degree. The denial of art as an expression of value stems from precisely that.

Is Deadly Premonition the only Twin Peaks wannabe that managed to be good?

I guess Gravity falls too

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass'n

Attached: 1557850198754.gif (360x238, 1.43M)

I have a few questions to ask you lot
>How knowledgeable are you about what is uncontroversially considered art? This is important as a starting point because if you don't know art then you have no right to decide what is and isn't. If you don't know who John Milton or Caspar Friedrich or any of the major figures in the canon of at least one long lasting medium are, then your opinion is worthless.
>How much do you engage with art or entertainment from before 1960? I ask this because if you don't, then all you know is postmodernism, and one of the key tenets of postmodernism is blurring the line between high and low culture.
>Do you read books? This is just to satisfy my personal curiosity. If you do, can you only read for the plot?
>Do you think that just because Anna Karenina and Hamlet are uncontroversially art, that every book is art, including Ready Player One, Harry Potter and Twilight? Do you seriously think Marvel movies are art just because The Passion of Joan of Arc is?
>Do you think that something being good makes it art? Do you think that something being art makes it good?
>How important do you consider auteurism to be?
Before anyone replies with '>old thing good', 2666 and Mulholland Drive are from the 21st century, and I would definitely call them art. My view is that individual video games/anime/comic books/genre fiction/whatever can be art, like Shadow of the Colossus, Silent Hill 2, Undertale, Tatami Galaxy, Angel's Egg, NGE, Jimmy Corrigan, Watchmen, Corto Maltese, BotNS and so on, but that doesn't change that they are the exception and the main appeal of those media is entertainment. However, art can be bad and entertainment can be good, it's just that they're fundamentally going for different things.
Also, if chess is art, then so are some multiplayer games.

Pathologic is... well, it's not the same settings or time period, but is one of the few games that are actually in the proper, same genre as Twin Peaks. And comes across as similarly strange, yet not cheap.

>but that doesn't change that they are the exception and the main appeal of those media is entertainment

Doesn't that also apply to books and movies, then?

Oh yeah, I had never considered that Pathologic could be like TP, but it is

Any good games similar to NITW?

Most people just want to be called cultured, so either they try to elevate something mundane into art, or they repeat what some community says about art. In both cases it seems like most of the cases pretending what people consider cultured, instead of just appreciating and liking whatever is that they are experiencing.

Both fall under the genre of Magical Realism. Although they come from different schools of it: kinda like Bulghakov comes from a very different environment and mood as Carter, yet both also fall under the same genre, or more precisely school. But on a non-surface level, they adhere to the same philosophy, same beats.

There's literally nothing wrong with that webm.

It's just a symptom of the current market climate. Nobody wants to take risks, save for low budget productions which you have to look for. Games are unlucky because they haven't been able to shake off the stigma of being a new artform quite yet, but they still got caught up in that same corporatism.

It'll turn around eventually. I'm just thankful we're not in 7th gen anymore.

Attached: cigar.jpg (640x277, 76K)

>mfw watching this

Attached: 1434810385666.png (473x998, 597K)

nah, it had good music tho

It's possibly/hopefully foreshadowing nukes. I didn't finish it yet, so I'm not sure.

proof ?

>chess is art
That's not what anons meant. Chess isn't art, chess pieces can be if they are made with that purpose.

>How knowledgeable are you about what is uncontroversially considered art? This is important as a starting point because if you don't know art then you have no right to decide what is and isn't. If you don't know who John Milton or Caspar Friedrich or any of the major figures in the canon of at least one long lasting medium are, then your opinion is worthless.
I'm plenty knowledgeable.

>How much do you engage with art or entertainment from before 1960? I ask this because if you don't, then all you know is postmodernism, and one of the key tenets of postmodernism is blurring the line between high and low culture.
A lot.

>Do you think that just because Anna Karenina and Hamlet are uncontroversially art, that every book is art, including Ready Player One, Harry Potter and Twilight?
Why not? Calling stuff art is not a form of distinction imo.

>Do you seriously think Marvel movies are art just because The Passion of Joan of Arc is?
Daily reminder that photography and film weren't considered art until fairly recently. On that same note: so were painting and sculpting

>Do you think that something being good makes it art? Do you think that something being art makes it good?
No and no. Although it probably depends on which definition of art you're using.

>How important do you consider auteurism to be?
Depends.

Infotrmate youself, then speak

Attached: Moe_Drill_Tabidachi.jpg (736x662, 286K)

A different way of putting that is to say that most people aren't (or at least in the past did not use to be) absolute arrogant twats and were able to accept that things may have value even if they aren't immediately recognizable to them.
And as such treated the works with respect instead of screeching and assuming the entire thousands of years of scholars are ALL WRONG. Some of them even were compelled to see what the fuzz is about, and many of them learned to appreciate things they could not appreciate at first.

But sure. Everyone is a dumb sheep for not immediately assuming they are the end-all-be-all of judgement.

>Why not? Calling stuff art is not a form of distinction imo.
Then you are using the term wrong. Plain and simple.

The definition in the dictionary says I'm right, art historians say I'm right, some literally who says I'm not presenting no evidence to the contrary. Whom to believe, I wonder?

what game

Deadly Premonition was just a wild ride regardless of whether or not it's a Twin Peaks wannabe. Going around the town was fun because of all the oddball shit going down.

>I think The Division 2 does a better job of conveying the feeling of being a hero than any book or movie.
I think this is a bad thing though. Art isn't about being a hero and other power fantasy trite. It's about reflecting what society is and leaving an impact, which Division 1 did way better and is also why 2 was disappointing to me.

How does Venus de Milo reflect what society is?

The dictionary that you use does not matter, it has no authority and never pretended to have one to begin with (you just don't know how to use the bloody thing). Historians sure as FUCKING HELL do not agree with you, not to mention it's not their job or competence either, and my evidence is the fact of reality: Look at every single definition of art, or any single item that is being treated as art, and you will find this is something they have in common.

I don't care who you believe, shitbag. This is not a matter of belief. This is something that is going to be true even if majority of people will think it isn't. Because it does not matter what people say. In fact art existed THOUSANDS of years before we even first thought of coming up with a name for it.

Again: It's an integral institution of humanity. From the moment people noticed that two people making the same object do not end up with an object of equal use, beauty or interest, the INSITUTION OF ART exists.

Not him, but every definiton of the term I've heard of and looked up implies that art is simply something was made with the intent of evoking emotion and thought. Its quality and whether it succeeds with its intent is another question.

Wether something is art or not is purely based on authorial intent

If the author wanted it to be art, it's art. End of the story

all games with this illustrator shit are trash. western indie games are full of these. on top of that they come from every country. they are cookie cutter soulless trash. they just cut corners.

Yes, and they are all wrong. It's an incredibly idiotic 20th century bullshit that is being copy and pasted in shitty public dictionaries by morons afraid to offend value-relativists. And we live in a value-relativist society, so it makes sense we impose value relativism on art: because art REPRESENTS OUR HIGHEST VALUES, and VALUE RELATIVISM IS SADLY CONSIDERED AN IMPORTANT VALUE, then of course that is what our idea of art will end up reflecting.

But again: that is because we are in a very stupid blind alley. Look anywere beyond that lazy shit and you'll see a very different picture.

Hey arrogant retard, we also went to art school. Video games are perfectly eligible to be art. You can spit your pseud lines and drop names to bolster your own false sense of authority on basic human themes, but it doesn't do jack shit for reality.

The stars are in line with the 1912-1959 flag, but the stripes were always consistent, for some reason there are too many.

>Yes, and they are all wrong

Attached: 1535035315865.gif (245x118, 435K)

>evidence is the fact of reality
Except you have no evidence just unearned some notion of superiority you're unable to back up with anything substantial. You can't even define art on your own.

That's FINE ART, you retard. A term which, by the way, was cultivated by museum owners and noblemen to describe a very specific sect of art. There is no definition of 'art' in the world that insists it must be the pinnacle of human value. You can project your sophomoric anxiety over postmodernism all you want, it doesn't change the meaning of words and it doesn't change art history.

Because in the arts people decided to get more context by studying the period and circumstances of the author, which leads to being about the author itself.

Do you really just think you can repeatedly declare yourself the ultimate authority, and people will believe you? Your definition is inoperable, it has no use.

But you said yourself art can be bad, so I don't see how that contradicts it.

By saying we don't care what women can do we just like their bodies.

I didn't go to art school though, I'm a math boy who loves literature and painting and cinema in my spare time. You don't need to have gone to art school to know who John Milton is, especially in the age of the internet. I'm also very interested in points where low culture produces a work of art, which, happily, is exactly what we're talking about.

I know nobody mentioned chess, I'm just adding on that if chess is art (as many people would argue it is) then so is a perfect multiplayer video game. Doesn't even have to be multiplayer, something like Tetris is also abstractly beautiful and logical enough that if chess is art, so is Tetris

But the Ancient Greeks didn't lived with advanced subject-object dysphoria, and did not consider appreciation for the human body to be an offense against the human mind. You literally have your body, and you're in it, it's you, and your body's virtue is your virtue. The American schizophrenia only comes in after 2000 years of spiritual authoritarianism followed by a mass public subversion of the concept of beauty

Dude, It may not be very obvious to you but we, or I at the very least, DO NOT live in your head, and are largely unable to comprehend vague no-statements. Please try to form your sentences in a way in which they actually have some meaning

you are right about some points but games are more like underground films. games shouldnt be art. also western games have been too fucking overrated by westerners since last gen. its hilarious fucked up and sad.

A long time ago, novels and movies were not considered art at all, but low culture. Oh, how the times have changed.

lol ok sweetheart

>But you said yourself art can be bad, so I don't see how that contradicts it.
No, I did not.

>Your definition is inoperable, it has no use.
Except identifying what is art and what it isn't, how it evolved and how it ties to us on every cultural and even biological level, why is there such a plurality of the interpretations of it, yet still it appears universaly, and also: what we should do to make use of it.
But OTHER THAN THAT, it has no use, of course. You fucking mongoloid.

See above. The notion of fine art was only functional in the context of 19th century, when art and craft still were completely overlapping. Since the word art has not being synonymous with the word "craft" for well over hundred years, the notion of "fine" is no longer relevant.

Well, for starters, I'm the only one who presents a definition that is functional and accounts for all existing previous definitions. And directly ties to our use of the word and it's history. Including - get this - use of the word "art" in such contexts as "martial art" or "the art of war" or "trolling is an art".

None of you have and will be able to present a definition of art that functions and does account for history of the institution, or explain it's functionality and importance.
So that is a start.

If you do not understand the notion of "value" and "representation", then you are an idiot, and most likely a severe burden of the state. Seriously, how do you even use a computer at this point?

A long time ago anything that wasn't mathematics, poetry, tragedy, music and philosophy was considered undeserving

That's what I'm saying, you spit all this stuff about nobody knowing anything, or no interpretation of art being valid because you assume nobody knows what art is or has experience with it
But yeah dude you're a lot of empty platitudes. A guy like Keith Haring is literally art, he literally made expressive social statements in man-made illustrations and artifacts, invoking a sense of public human color related to his experiences as a gay man. That's art, it's politics to say it isn't.
Ernest Hemingway and O Henry and a million auteurs were just soldiers with something to say, or prisoners with enough free time they spend writing. Every time you're on the internet and you see some slipshod DIY meme that catches your eye and invokes a sense of virtue, that's art. Every time you see a sea-worn rock carving of the Virgin Mary sitting on a crag in Ireland, that's art. There is absolutely nothing about your statement that art must be high culture that is in any way true. To insist that nobody every made anything worth looking at, unless they were endorsed by the highest pedigree of elite earners, is a clueless misinterpretation of royal museums and the type of oil paintings the wealthy trade and launder money through.

>Well, for starters, I'm the only one who presents a definition that is functional and accounts for all existing previous definitions
Could you please cite it?

Here's a summary of your post for people who aren't pretentious faggots:
Tl;DR - You're a faggot

Attached: file.png (643x820, 751K)

You say your definition of art is 'something that expresses value and representation'. These terms easily apply to anything, anything can be argued to be art using these terms, and your insistence that these values and representations must only come from the highest places in society is completely unrelated to your definition of art. You have an extremely basic and relative notion of art, but then you turn around and snap against postmodernism, explaining that only modernism is art without explaining why in the slightest. You just repeatedly say 'value', but you never once explained why value can't exist in low culture objects. You just repeat yourself, but you never explain this gap.

but they did

subversively

>tranny commie shop-lifting gender switching dick sucking developer and his """"""""video game"""""'""
>art

No!

Attached: 1560680621950.jpg (399x373, 14K)

>video GAME
>spend 90% of it watching a cutscene with zero interactivity

Attached: mecha.png (224x226, 87K)

How about instead of being theoretical dickwads, we just name some things and decide if they are art? I mean, wouldn't that be more sane that going schizophrenic over semantic arguments with absolutely no subject at hand?
Which of these is Art, and which of these is Craft?
>The Odyssey
>The Bayeux Tapestry
>Duomo di Firenze
>A peasant mother's stone memorial for her martyred child
>The Mona Lisa
>Batman
>The works of Frank Zappa
>The Sopranos
>A really good shitpost that makes you re-evaluate yourself
>The best most expensive plate of scrambled eggs you've ever eaten (what if it turns you to virtue?)
>The Unabomber Manifesto
>The anime that got you out of depression and you remember to motivate yourself whenever you're feeling bad
>Star Wars

Art or craft?

Did they?

>No, I did not.
>However, art can be bad and entertainment can be good, it's just that they're fundamentally going for different things.

Attached: confused.gif (782x543, 5K)

>Theyre toys
Ah Ah
Thats where you're wrong, retard.
They WERE toys, but then they got categorized as toys that inspired violence by being a playground for possible murder simulation.

Videogames legally being an artform allows them the pass of being violent murder sims as they could tell a message akin to a movie, book or other forms of art while still depicting such content/allowing participation in such acts.

>But anyone can tell theyre not art or toys, theyre just videogames
Hey fuckface, humans are fucking fleshsacks, they're not going to use logic and reasoning, if a psychopath gets his rocks off by a toy he's probably going to be enticed. If he has a working brain he won't.
The world is full of both, stop being one of them and recognise the benefit of having your games being "art". You don't lose anything and you also get to have your murder without censorship.

Attached: Videogames need to be art, retard.png (1253x1063, 974K)

Fascinating. So they might be fighting for the type of world before hippies showed up.

art = what I find pretty and appealing to me and my ancestors :)

Attached: 1547128947299.png (1074x339, 52K)

they did

>Could you please cite it?
It's here:But if you need it spelled out in the most clear possible way:
"Art is a notion of prestige, imposed on human activity, or product of human activity, that are deemed to represent the highest values held by the society that employs it."

>You say your definition of art is 'something that expresses value and representation'.
No, you might want to learn to READ before you start tacking subjects such as art. See the definition of above. You literally could not read a single fucking point I've made.
As for being imposed by the highest places in society, while that is generally the truth, it's a logical consequence: the "highest places" are generally those whoa are deemed to be the best judges of value in most societies, so it is logical that people relegate that duty to them. They are often very specifically paid to do that, it's usually their job. Though obviously, this is arrangement may not last in every society. If the society stops valuing their elites, or at least begins to question them, then the model of institutionalizing values may change, as we have seen in plenty of societies over the past century in particular.

As for the rest of your point, it's largely incoherent babbling caused by the fact that you did not read what I'm saying, but projected a WHOLE FUCKING LOT instead.

Really, being able to fucking read is the most basic pre-requisite for discussing any difficult subject, especially one such as art.

expressive, makes a statement, you can see the hand of the creator in it, relevant to its time, made of appeals, thematic in nature. Yep, it's art.

>If the society stops valuing their elites, or at least begins to question them, then the model of institutionalizing values may change
You seriously think this hasn't happened? People hated their elites when they were disenfranchised jewish ex-slaves wandering through the desert. I can see why you deny postmodernism, if you really don't believe in lasting class frustration over the ages. I'm really surprised.

"experimental cartoons" arent art. you can easily find the same looking shits in every indie animation festival every year every month.
you gotta experience other genres.
the most "media art" ish game was rez. experimental electronic musicians like oval, cold cut, ken ishii etc joined the project.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rez

wipe out games during ps1 era were also consumed as the latest street culture.

story wise, silent hill 2, ico, shadow of colossus, etc have good artistic elements. sh2 is particularly noteworthy cause not only are the story great but also it had very quality ambient music by akira yamaoka. hes still respected by many in the electronic music scene.
nowadays games like that dont come out. artsy indie shits everywhere but they all are merely the product of some closed circle jerk or such a mediocre festival/conference. none of them get attention in other genres or are connected to the modern street culture.

>Which of these is Art, and which of these is Craft?
Fundamentally wrong question. I guess you were trying to follow some Plato-esque duality such as that between techné and entheous, but that obviously is going to fail the second you are not a platonic.

Not my post you drooling mongoloid.

The Odyssey is just a Marvel movie but older lol

Where is the gameplay?

Art is a word for something of emotional or ideological importance. Yeah I'll take 'has virtue' as a relative rolling term for art that individuals and groups can separately define, but all this extra stuff about the elite is pointless and mostly related to the trickle-down nature of recorded thought. Any impoverished nine year old can capture an intense and sharable sense of virtue in a crayon drawing of the street signs he remembers from outside the orphanage where he was last truly happy.

Not the same person

Politicians : Videogames are toys promoting murder
Legal system : Alright, Videogames are hereby deemed art like movies so theyre not just toys promoting murder
Yea Forums : HURR THEYRE NOT HIGH BEAUTY ART VIDEOGAMES ARE TOYS

Are you all trying to get your games censored or something lol

Attached: 1548794008496.png (661x688, 699K)

And they were right

It really is
Well, what is each then? There is some action potential where something goes beyond being merely an artifact, and can be considered art, right? What is it?

>"Art is a notion of prestige, imposed on human activity, or product of human activity, that are deemed to represent the highest values held by the society that employs it."
That is an incredibly retarded definition that only some philistine who can't appreciate anything that isn't validated by fart-sniffing critics. It's like saying that the 'technology' is defined by being a computer program. Guess what, a protonigger 10000 years ago using a sharp rock to cut things is technology.

Well, first of all, it's not a game.
It has no loss condition.

>You seriously think this hasn't happened?
It has happened, but it's irrelevant to the definition of art. New value-imposing institutions and new elites will be just established again. They might move away from philosophers to simple religious zealots, and then to plutocrats, only to move back to philosophers, and then maybe to political dictators - as would be the very common pattern that basically most of Europe has gone through, but that does not change the nature of art.
Different authorities and different societies and even different eras may put emphasis on different values. That is obvious and goes without saying. It's the reason why different PARTIAL definitions of art, and the art itself, frequently changes.
But one thing NEVER changes. It is ALWAYS a label of prestige, and it is ALWAYS used to represent what the given society or particular movement within that society, believes as the most important and valuable: what needs veneration, and special treatment.

I don't deny postmodernism. I do actually question the VALUES of postmodernism. I do not believe we should continue to venerate it, and I believe we need a better value system, and better institutions to help us maintain it, but I don't deny postmodernism. It has happened, and it has - even today - major role in our culture.

I don't deny that their works have been art in the time when postmodernism reigned free. I will argue we should stop treating them as such now, because I believe the values that they represent are irrelevant now.

>It has no loss condition.
Oh wow, I guess Wario Land 2 isnt a game either.

Kill yourself, namedrop fag, I know it's you.

>Art is a word for something of emotional or ideological importance
Explain Martial art. Explain art of war. Emotion does not matter, neither ideology.

Normatives matter. Value systems matter. Art helps us orient in the world. It gives us information on what matters to us as a society. That is all.

first, define the word "art".

1. no
2. thats barely a video game
3. i wanna fuck the lizard thing on the left

Attached: 1.jfif.jpg (633x711, 68K)

Because at those points they hadn't had time to develop a canon and they were mostly pulp.
I doubt that most people here are saying video games CAN'T be art, but that at the moment as a medium they aren't, even if individual examples are.
Also is there any distinction between Shadow of the Colossus and FIFA that anyone wants to make or is FIFA art according to you?

>waaah someone sold something for money
>and i cant do it because no reception
nigger they made it on a pc and you can too you dumb retarded indie furshit

>it is ALWAYS used to represent what the given society or particular movement within that society, believes as the most important and valuable: what needs veneration, and special treatment.
No actually, individuals can declare something artful to them. I agree with you completely that, at scale, 'art' is a officiated societal brand of value, and that those who carry the right to declare 'art' are inherently the ethical elites of that society, but individuals actually can imbue objects with personal artistry or personal artistic interpretations. Everyone is their own artistic elite. If we define 'elite' as 'having the right to declare value', then the only people who aren't elite are the truly consenting serfs who forbid themselves their own authority.

>That outfit

This is my fetish. Girls in baggy, comfy clothes.
Is there more?

>That is an incredibly retarded definition that only some philistine who can't appreciate anything that isn't validated by fart-sniffing critics.
Oh the INCREDIBLE FUCKING IRONY in this post.

You are a PHILISTINE if you don't recognize that MY JUDGEMENT is the most important thing in the world! Fuck anyone who isn't me! They are all old farts and I'm edgy and cool and better than anyone, and any definition that does not directly acknowledge MY importance is retarded!

Kid. Just fuck off. You are insecure. Your values are FUCKED, and that is why you demand that art should be fucked. Ironically once again, proving my point.

Art does not exist to validate the importance of your subjectivity.

While we are on the subject: Art is also a word. With meaning. Which is something that you clearly do not actually understand at all. Go and study basic semiotics. Or just... shut the fuck up.

>Every time one of you idiots argue "X/Y IS/ISN'T ART", you are not actually talking about art, you are arguing about values. Declaring something ART means defending the notion that it represents some form of exceptional value - in direct or indirect way.

If everything is art, nothing is art.

Ideology is a pursuit of norms. Are failed attempts at normative expressions art?

You're the only one so prissy as forbid personal values in a personal declaration of art. Your definitions are okay, it's just you're an authoritarian who strictly asserts to authority can be held except through declared social hierarchy, and yet who fiercely denies any hierarchy that might imbue the individual with the right to declare value. This conversation isn't even about art, it's about your authority heuristics and whether or not your personal disdain is enough to banish 7 billion perspectives on human value.

who strictly asserts no*** authority can be held

>No actually, individuals can declare something artful to them.
Yes, and I can also declare that "cat" is that shiny metalic thing on wheels that we use to drive around. They just do not matter. Meaning is not a matter of subjective fancy. And some people using words wrong is just... their fault.
It's just a sick delusion that everyone matters equally. It's honest to god absolutely FUCKED UP way of viewing world. Fuck me, it's straight up sociopathology.
The sickness and the problem of modern art lies in that this sick, fucked up notion is around. People are delusion enough to think themselves above any authorities: that is psychopathy. That is narcissism ELEVATED to the highest fucking social value.

We are fucked up. And our attitude towards art will obviously reflect that fucked-up-ness but that still does not change anything about art. Just means we should probably stop and take a good look at where we are heading.

"Art" just means skill.
Colloquially, "art" is short for "fine art".
Fine art is an artifact produced by a person that was primarily created for its own sake, and beauty is arguably the chief concern of said pursuit.

The important thing to note here is that this definition is based purely on the intent of the creator, which means you can never actually know if something is art or not, and discussing it is a complete waste of fucking time.
Don't bother asking "is it art?", just ask "is it good?"

>If everything is art, nothing is art.
That is precisely why I'm saying what art is and what art is not.

The definition of 'art' as a grand thing has a touch of subjectivity to it.
Snobby well known artists or philosopher can bicker back and forth between actual definitions, but it's still somewhat subjective.

My more personal stance is that a videogame can be seen as a piece of art if someone feels something more profound or some sense of awe from said game.
I would dare absolutely anyone to play through Shadow of the Colossus or Journey and tell me they aren't art. Someone who wasn't some jaded fuck who hated videogames to begin with, anyway.

The only common denominator I can find is that art needs some kind of human-derived intent. Natural features like waterfalls and mountains can look amazing, but I’ve never heard anyone classify them as art.

>You're the only one so prissy as forbid personal values in a personal declaration of art.
Again: If I declare "cat" is a machine to transport things: would you consider that actually relevant to english lexicon? The FUCK is wrong with you?

Fair enough, my mistake. Didn't have to call me a drooling mongoloid, though. You don't get your point across by insulting others, you just come across like a dickhead.

Stop arguing what is and isn’t art, it’s not productive.

Everything is art, however things have different levels of artistic merit.

Idiots call beautiful things in nature 'art' all the time, because to them it sounds more important than just saying that it's beautiful.

You are on the right way, though through the wrong reasons. Intent in general, and much less something being made "for it's own sake" are idiotic ways of defining art.

But you are right that the proper question is "what is REALLY good". Because the answer to that should be the same as the answer to "what is art?"

>I can also declare that "cat" is that shiny metalic thing on wheels that we use to drive around
Dude, if we are some friends building a machine, and you decide you want to name our project after the appearance of the segmented rolling tread mechanism, so you tell me you want to name our company 'Caterpillar', that's perfectly fine. I know that's a very relative example, but yeah if the word suits the communication in the scene we are in, then it's perfectly acceptable, and most people don't have too much trouble accepting the useful language people make up to communicate what they mean, in the scene they are in. Don't be so hung up, these words are meant for communication, if you're going to task yourself with being the curator of an objective definition of art that supersedes the individual, then it's just your lonely prerogative to interrupt and argue with people who are clearly saying exactly what they mean. You're not wrong or anything, it's just I think arguing the non-existence and non-importance of personal interpretation on an anonymous message board dedicated to the expression of individual perspectives, using the individual authority of one man's anonymous posts to argue the individual doesn't matter, against individuals just trying to get their piece in.
What did you think was going to happen?

>Stop arguing what is and isn’t art, it’s not productive.
This is correct.

>Everything is art
This isn't, but also the first thing you said, so who fucking cares.
Is it good? Is it beautiful? Is it interesting? Is it entertaining?
This is what we should be asking.

Well, the word "artificial" should give you a clue that yes, art does require human act. But it's not enough to define art, because well... you'd end up with definition of art as "everything artificial". A definition that would be useless.

Ori and the blind forest was art, that game is pretentious bullshit.

We literally call construction machines Caterpillars, and busses Greyhounds. Me and my girlfriend call the television remote the 'bonker' because the sound the TV makes when we press the buttons. Go fuck yourself.

Self absorbed dumbfuck.

google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=cars named after cats

no one has posted porn yet i'm really disappointed, will i have to be the one

You really think nobody has asked that question?

Go for it. Porn is more interesting than this topic.

What you are missing with that example is that OTHER PEOPLE have to first agree to use the word in such meaning, and that is the fucking point. It's called "Arbitrarity of meaning", it's the most fundamental thing you have to understand if you want to understand semiotics.
And that is my point. That is why personal or subjective declaration STILL does not matter. It has no constitutive or performative value or role.

You can actually convince enough people to just change a meaning of a word entirely. But what you need is the ACT of OTHERS. Art is only art because "art" really means a collection of behavioral patterns we employ: it's art IF PEOPLE TREAT IT AS ART.
That is why art could exist even when we did not have the terminology to identify it. Because even if we did not use the words, we collectively treated certain objects in a certain, exceptional fashion.

A word does not change meaning because of personal declaration. A concept does not change because of a personal declaration. Both CAN change, but individuality and subjectivity is not part of the process. Not until it transcends individuality and subjectivity.

I think that'd be the most productive thing to do right now. Please, go ahead.

the main writer is from pittsburgh and grew up in a pennsylvania small town.

Attached: 1561747598.unknownwolf_gregg_and_angus_wrestling.gif (1200x675, 285K)

See And fucking don't try to talk semiotics if you have no fucking CLUE what they are. God damn retards. Seriously, your arrogance is absolutely mindboggling.

Why do other people have to agree to my meaning for me to consider something art? What am I, some populist bandwagoner who needs my personal thoughts to be corroborated to know what I meant? What the fuck even is this? You have a lot of good points, but it doesn't keep you from being an angry authoritarian dumbass trying to invade argue the simple thoughts people have to themselves should be forbidden because you can't tolerate them. So people have personal value expressions, and they'll use the word 'art' when they detect value in an object. So what? What is the purpose of your authoritarianism in this equation? Feel free to preserve your understanding of CANON art, but if it has you digging into peoples' brains telling them not to respect their own authority when they're charmed by an object they appreciate, then it's fucked.

Why do you TALK like THIS dude. You LOOK LIKE a BLOWHARD.

Attached: lamo.png (255x235, 60K)

Imagine being THIS ashamed about having a penis

Attached: 1539571387354.png (582x535, 286K)

Now you're just stretching the definition. Not everything is art but everything can be art

So people can't have their own personal value symbols, because it interrupts your study of social semiotics? This argument is entirely semantic, humans have an 'art interpretation' function that works on both an individual and societal level. I can see why you're frustrated with the individual level, if you concern yourself and prioritize the social understanding of art, but you gotta understand people are also individuals, and you berating individuals with a collective interpretation of art simply isn't always going to destroy their personal value system. Come on, man.

I was playing this game, when into it blind, and liked it until the shitty guitar hero minigame came out of nowhere. Dropped it there.

Attached: 1533461944693.jpg (326x307, 17K)

If you see an "are video games art???" thread and run into a guy claiming that 'art' is an objective measure of quality while spouting off names of random artists or philosophers then you have come across namedropfag. Namedropfag argues for hours and hours, has long winded, self-aggrandizing posts.
He is also a Canadian art history dropout with psychological issues.

Be sure to tell him to fuck off if you see him.

He's getting angrier and angrier that his limited-study theories on art society can't explain the ability of others to disagree

This.

Guy does come across a bit unhinged.
>He is also a Canadian art history dropout
A fucking leaf, of course.

>He is also a Canadian art history dropout
He already said that he didn't study art history. And why are canadians always the biggest cunts online? The ones I met personally were all swell guys and gals

>if this video makes you mad, then you are the guy in the video

that's like telling a black person "if this minstrel show makes you mad, then you are the person in the minstrel show depicts"

>a game that has art school student level western cartoon stuff
>art

lol
Yea Forums really has no clue about anything other than games

Honestly, the thing that gets me is that it's always the faggots who don't create anything of worth who have the biggest mouth and most retarded takes on subjects relating to art. I've seen this time and time again.

I'm (which I assume you think is a post from namedropfag) and I barely even browse Yea Forums, it's fucking awful. I was not aware of a 'namedropfag', I didn't go to art school, I didn't drop out of any school and I'm not Canadian.
And I will gladly fuck off, this board is awful, I only came here to check on Bloodstained.

>So people can't have their own personal value symbols, because it interrupts your study of social semiotics?
They can't they just don't matter. How fucking hard is that to comprehend? And you bitching about me relying on semiotics when we are discussing the MEANING OF THE WORD ART is fucking pathetic. That is LITERALLY the subject of semiotics.

I understand that people are individuals, but I'm not so fucking insecure to constantly pander to their sick desire to be validated for it.

That is really the core of this entire debate. It's why most people are wrong about what art is. And why art is so fucking disfunctional in this day and age. And why everybody is so constantly fucking stressed and fucked up.

All of this is about people DESPERATE for validation. That is why people are so god damn angry at my definition: It does not do the ideologic act of pandering to their insecurity. Just like you demand:
"You can't define art without sucking cock of individualism and ensuring everyone that they super matter!"

No. Fuck that noise. Grow the fuck up.

Pretty much. His interpretation is completely unworkable for any personal artist. For anyone who's ever put a pen to paper and just written based on what they care about, his definition is incorrect. He's got the attitude of a museum curator, which is fine, but everybody on the planet knows these guys are pompous jackasses who go into panic attacks when they meet someone isn't convinced by their art authority.

Be sure to kill yourself on the way out.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

>Pretty much. His interpretation is completely unworkable for any personal artist
Ironically, kid, I published several works of fiction. I can assure you, the theory is completely workable. All you need is not to be utterly narcisistic and self-absorbed. As for panic, you are the cunts who screech because someone isn't validating their unique individuality QUITE enough.

You will rather screw not just the meaning, but the ENTIRETY of instituion of art than to not suck your own fucking cocks.

You know how I work my theory of art into the my stories?
By working hard and trying to make something of value, and hoping they may be one day valued. And not demanding others to call it art JUST because they are important to me.

>They can't they just don't matter.
They literally matter to the individual, and to me and the rest of the culture who seeks to preserve the value of the individual
>How fucking hard is that to comprehend?
So this is basically you begging, bargaining, pounding at my brain, because you cannot tolerate me representing the individual here. You spit all this bullshit about how the individual doesn't matter, drop names and accuse others of ignorance and cite your posts as hard as you can, and still you need me to back off in order for your theory about the nonexistence of individual interpretation to work? Fuck you. You are not an autocrat, you don't have the infrastructure. You don't even have the consent of your peers, I fucking dare you to find your precious consensus in ANY group of people. Come back to me when you've taken over the state and are executing people who call their mom's dreamcatcher art because it triggers you, or failing that even if you have the VERBAL ability to convince anyone. Get as angry as you like, your angry talk about how little you care about the people you're speaking to is bullshit. How long are you going to sit here and ram your head against the very reason why your interpretation is incomplete?

Shouldn't you be killing yourself right now?
Chop chop.

Does this game have good porn?

Will do, here's some proof I'm not Canadian

Attached: IMG_20190701_172851.jpg (2304x1728, 1.17M)

lololol theyre gay!! lolololol this is art1!!! night in the gays!!! ]i feel smarterr now!!

>I published several works of fiction.
Sure you did. I'm sure they're all fantastic works of art.

You should stop huffing your own farts, it clouds your brain, man.

How is Ulysses and The Illiad related to your citizenship?

Great comeback, kid. I can see you worked really hard on that.

>By working hard and trying to make something of value, and hoping they may be one day valued. And not demanding others to call it art JUST because they are important to me.
That's the most convincing post you've made all day. All right, let's settle. I agree that no art can be made great without some pursuit of higher ideals. I agree that a high standard of ideal curate a high quality of art, and motivates people to a higher quality of art. I do not agree that you need to banish and deny personal value in the field of art, because art is highly expressive and a great deal of art comes from insight due to perspective. We do not live in a monolithic world of pure united value, there are still individuals who can express value themselves better than society at large can. Fixating too much on art history's interpretation of value can prevent growth and innovation. Art elites can be corrupt and selfish retards obsessed with keeping their job as museum curator, and willfully project their importance by downplaying the contributions of others. The proper attitude for an artist going forward to create art, is to be educated in art history and public value, and then to create a directly expressive piece representing their internal educated understanding of those values. This way, we are using our natural human expressive function an evolutionary machine to express lasting traditional values that supersede the individual, through the ever-changing real perspective that is only POSSIBLE to express through the individual.
Is that fair?

Did you really bring out two high-school level public curriculum books to prove your authority as a wise american art critic?

The plug socket, afaik Canadians have the same plugs as Americans
The books were just another way of verifying that I just took that pic

How do the books help in verifying you took the pic?

See Anyone can Google 'UK plugs', adding those books and the note verifies that I just took the pic.

why do people unironically play this pretentious nongame dogshit

we /trash/ now

Attached: e00ce2f811dee9f89d4d1d62c1245bc8.png (768x768, 149K)

You're the one that said he was leaving, 'kid'. Why are you still here?

We're talking about art and I assume that there isn't another pic on the Internet of Ulysses and the Iliad next to a UK plug. I could have edited the note in, but the more specific items in the pic the less likely I stole the pic and the fewer similar pics on the Internet.

How do the books verify you took the pic?

>They literally matter to the individual
Only if that individual is so profoundly insecure he cannot exist without constantly twisting everything that surrounds him into a tool of self-validation.

You do not represent an individual, kid. You represent mental sickness. You represent the belief that truth must exist to validate an individual, and that individual must, at all points of his existence, be constantly re-assured.

That is not an individual, kid. You represent a severe addict. A delusionality. A person that cannot exist on his own, a person throughly and entirely depenedent on endless fucking reassurances.
You represent a fucking vampire. Truth must be twisted to suit you: CANNOT not exist independently of you: it is something that only serves you.

>Fuck you. You are not an autocrat, you don't have the infrastructure
This is a very good example. You are litterally screeching "STOP RAPING BY SAYING SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT VALIDATE ME SPECIFICALLY!!!!"

The very notion that there might be something above you makes you immediately and honestly think you are being attacked. The notion that reality does not pander to YOU SPECIFICALLY literally equals to "some dictator executing people".
I'm not making this shit up. That is what is happening here.

You did not even realize that I do not proclaim the authority on what should be considered art. You are so narcissistic, so fucking mental that you can't comprehend that my definition requires me to accept that I'm just as insignificat in this process as you are.

I am merely stating facts. I'm saying how things are, not how they should be.

But you literally could not even for a second consider that as an option. To you, it's either YOUR way, or a RAPE accusation.

This era really has reduced you to pathetic creatures. It's fucking depressing.

UGH I’M SUCH TRASH TACOS XD

The timestamp is sufficient. Whatever though. You're worried about low quality individuals and postmodernism eroding the greater quality of art, I'm worried about artistic authoritarianism robbing the world of a valued DIY art culture and the potential for evolution through individual developments. I think we have a clear picture now.

You guys ready to admit Yiikes guy was right yet?

>Sure you did. I'm sure they're all fantastic works of art.
They had no acclaim so far, so as it seems, they may not be. Time, and others will have to tell. That is my point.

I'm content because I did my best. It is quite possible that I just do not have it in me. Unlike you fucks, that is a notion I CAN live with. I don't have to twist the entire fucking world, thousands of years of history, entire institution, just to push that notion away.

That is the difference between us.

It's art, just shit art. Kind of like pic related is a shit car. And a shit garden too.

Attached: the thing Division2.jpg (1920x1080, 687K)

And yet... we live in a society

I think that art CAN come from any medium, but not just anything is art. A video game CAN be art but most aren't.

Also sometimes postmodernism is great, big up my man Pynchon

Fine I guess. So I've got a hangup on feelings of pressure to believe personal virtues aren't artful, whatever. At the end of the day I think we're talking in two different language, one coming from the creation-side of art, and one coming from the judgement-side of art.
So in a sense we both agree that both individuals and the collective play a role in art, wouldn't you agree? I guess our argument has been more semantic than has warranted this anger, but come on, is Da Vinci really not an individual? Is the artist not creatively synthesizing ideas based on his own uniquely curated world-perspective and the new never-tried-before education that's required before the moment of innovation?
But you do have to be a vanguard and explore ideas society has not yet breached, in order to produce an art object of insight.

Your idea operates on scale, though. Three people can agree on what is art. Your idea is valid and is largely the prevailing theory on art, but you can have one person impress himself and two other guys with an idea revolutionary to them, and it'd still be art in their circle. It doesn't have to be the biggest, most public, earth shattering ideal in the world for it to be art. People are struck by small things sometimes.

>They had no acclaim so far, so as it seems, they may not be
Maybe nobody wants to read the drivel of someone who has their head so far up their own ass that they couldn't argue about something like art without resorting to insults and claiming to be an authority. Nobody is going to want to believe the shit you spew the way you've been doing it, especially if you have nothing to back it up with. Write something worth reading and people will listen to you, or don't and shut the fuck up.
You're either lying and have tried writing nothing of value, or you've written a pile of garbage and settled for that, neither which give you any right to act the way you have.

>I'm content because I did my best. It is quite possible that I just do not have it in me.
If you actually were a creator, you probably wouldn't be content and actually try harder and reach for those values you rave on about instead of accepting defeat. Trying your best isn't the anti-thesis of what you think other people's definition of art is. Nearly every artist that tries their best isn't content with what they make, because if they didn't they'd have no reason to want to improve their work. It's pretty evident to me you've never actually tried making something of worth.

You're just an insane person on Yea Forums. That's all you'll ever be.

He was right. His game was still terrible regardless.

>I'm content because I did my best. It is quite possible that I just do not have it in me. Unlike you fucks, that is a notion I CAN live with.
Woah woah woah woah woah, where did you get this? That's what we've been talking about the entire fucking time, everybody who makes art is making art according to their standard, and they or their circle might find it to be art. Whatever circle you want to be in, is the concern of you and your circle (you being an individual, of course, and them a circle of individuals). All we've been saying is that people have their own idea of artfulness, and it's not 'not art' just because a circle says it isn't, because you know there are a lot of circles, right?
I don't know man, you're too us vs them. I don't buy it.

Im abit confused about my own stance on vidya as art. I see video games as a medium for art, just as a blank canvas or an empty photoshop layer can be for painting. But not every painting is meant to convey an artists thoughts you know, there's still shit like game art for cards or concept art, and movies are churned out to make a profit like the MCU's safe dime-a-dozen capeshit. But there are still movies made for being artsy I guess. I guess it all depends on the artists vision? But then again some people say as long as its on a canvas its art, so wouldn't that mean stuff like sonic the hedgehog is art? I know pac-man and pong are in some museums.

Attached: 1532066516425.jpg (1916x2048, 375K)

As long as the stuff you're interacting with evokes your emotions it's probably art. Simple as that.

>bottom right
When a girl makes a face like this, does she know she's being molested?

I like how the entire fucking argument you have is "REEE YOUR WORK MUST BE SHIT, YOU ARE SHIT, REEEEEEEEE!"
And you are unironically so fucking dumb that you don't even fucking notice that I have no delusions about quality of my work. Your only fucking tool is an insult, and you are insulting something I readily acknowledged to be lacking.

And then: NO FUCKING SHIT:

You end up with:
YOU HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO THIS TO ME!

I could have not made my fucking point more clearly than you just had.

>If you actually were a creator, you probably wouldn't be content and actually try harder and reach for those values you rave on about instead of accepting defeat
If you were a creator, you'd know that if you never decide to finish something, you'll never create anything to begin with. I have not "accepted defeat" kid, because again: I'm not INSANELY insecure.

I did not write them because I needed to win or prove something. I don't need the label of art: I just need to try what I can and cannot do. I will likely try again. I hope I'll achieve something of value.
But again: It's not up to me to decide what is: my role, as an artist, is merely to do my best.

It's amazing: the incredible fucked-upness of what you post here. You think art is something you NEED TO WIN for fuck sake.
That is the problem.

I think I am the only sane person here, kid. Because I think making something of value matters, and recognizing something of value matters: but I don't think I SPECIFICALLY matter more than either of those two.

That makes me insane?
If yes: I am fucking PROUD of being insane then.

My point is that art should be made and recognized because it's valuable, not because who ever makes it needs to validate himself as an artist. How hard is that to comprehend?

While I was studying graphic design, the topic of what constitutes as art came up, since we did have figure drawing lessons and such. We were told things that serve a purpose but don't evoke any deeper emotion are designed works (like icons, furniture, infographics), everything else made with "deeper" intent is art. A lot of things are somewhere inbetween, and designs can be part of art as well.
I think that's certainly the case for games. You could make a game that's just debug boxes and nothing but mechanics, and it'd technically just be a work of design, but even the most generic stock-music and shitty flash graphics would turn it into art, because they set a tone the creator intended. Even if it's bad or generic or whatever.

Maybe that distinction helps, maybe it's entirely wrong. Fuck if I know.

Get help.

I want to fuck that alligator

Not him, but even though you are right, you should take a look at how you've completely descended into spiteful and hateful language, inviting anyone to discard your decent message because you've gone totally berserk now. We're definitely not all as bad as you say we are.
I hope you're having a good day and drinking or something

Please gookmoot, give this man his italics

What do you think about Bloodstained’s artstyle?

You are on Yea Forums, moron. If I want to tip-toe around, I just go back to my classess. Are you a girl? Do you feel absolutely retarded trying to push the "it's the TONE with which you said!"

Again you insecure twats: again you just desperately look only into issues of identity and security. "You can't be right because you are not jerking me off enough in your manner of speech." On fucking Yea Forums, of all places. Grow some fucking balls, for fuck sake.

tetris is the only acknowledged worldwide vidya art

If you're saying what I think you're saying then I totally agree

This is a good response

Attached: machinarium josef band.gif (377x289, 3.72M)

Are you legitimately autistic or schizophrenic or something?

aren't games like tetris only put into museums because of their history and not because they're art?

Alright fine. I appreciate you. Thanks for the mentorship opportunity, you don't always get that here.

I didn't know 50 year olds browsed Yea Forums

>in reality everybody will have forgotten the game in 5 years time.
Doom will be played and appreciated longer than any piece of art you have hanging in hour house.

low iq

This reads like the only correct comment in this thread. Of course everybody hates it.