Are videogames art? Justify your response

Video games generally have textures, 3d models, often have concept art made for them, have voice preformances, and have narratives

Yes, they are art.

However, not all art is Call of Duty Black op 2 or some shit isn't that artistic in the same way Fast and Furious 4 isn't that artistic, both are designed moreso for entertainment then artistic value.

It depends on the game

>This man fought for your right to not stand during the pledge of allegiance so that means you should stand for the pledge of allegiance

Art is simply expression and interpretation. If something can be expressed and the viewer can have a connection to it, it's art. Doesn't matter how classy or high brow it is, or if you personally don't feel a thing from it while others do, it's still art. Video games are a collection of writing, pictures, music, etc, all of which are art on their own. Many other artistic mediums also exist by combining them. You have to be a literal drooling retard to think video games can't be art.

based Kevin

Movies can be art. Books are sometimes considered an art form. Games are a third variant overlapping both, and sometimes should be considered art, but not like the way pretensious critics think of art.
The Stanley Parable is an example of good writing for a comedic satire while the satire of Super Meat Boy is lowbrow at best.
Is Doom2016 art? No, and even the 'story' in it is that of an edgelords teenager, but damn that gameplay is satisfying

why isn't doom 2016 art?

Why are you judging the artistry exclusively on story and writing? Do you judge all forms of expression by that standard? Do you not consider paintings and sculptures art?

This doesn't make any sense
Allowing interaction STRENGTHENS the effects of your personal imagination, because your own imagination actually effects the art.

Everything is by technical definition art. You not believing its art doesnt stop it from being. You disliking it does not stop it from being. You believing it doesnt matter.

What is, is. What isnt, isnt. Videogames are art, like almost everything can be and is. And so it is.

This will infinitely be repeated by retarded baiters and people stupid enough to answer, aka, me and everyone who even tries. This is the kind of thread that will be repeated ad nauseam until the autists who like to shitpost get bored. And these threads are, in their own way, also art.

So, in short, sawcon my masterpiece of a phallus, you gigantic nigger faggot.

Attached: 1541461909630.png (282x219, 2K)

lol he was defending America's pride and business interests
no American soldier has fought for the rights for Americans in centuries

>Are videogames art?
It doesn't matter. It will never matter.

Attached: 1454936972379.jpg (403x403, 31K)

No, because art is for smart people and one look through Yea Forums proves otherwise

ziocucks btfo

sneed

is sneedposting art?

Do you mean books are not art, because I flip pages manually?

Videogames can contain forms of art but are by themselves not art.

Are you american? I can only expect dumb posts like these from americans.

vidya is a medium, art is what you do with it

Yes.

Art is not the end product, it is the work and craft that goes in to the product. Art is not a badge of pride as it is taught to be today, it is the exercise that creates things of beauty.

Video games require an Art, a craft, that is unique to other products. This is the development of mechanics for the player to interact with. It requires skill and taste to make good mechanics that people want to engage with, and the lack of such expertise can be felt in how derivative and stagnant games have become. Illustration, music, nor anythings else can truly replace mechanics in a game.

Attached: 1495468214_polic.gif (500x254, 257K)

So if the story is bad then it's not art? So a poorly-written book ceases to be art as well?

i literally don't give a fuck
i just PLAY FUCKING VIDEO GAMES
now kys faggot

No, they are videogames

Yes, play DOOM

Yes and no, respectively.

>Are videogames art?
No.
But only because the question is fundamentally ill-formulated.
Games are not art because games are a medium, defined strictly by formal parameters. Where is "art" is a normative concept, based on qualitative criteria.

No medium: books, movies, music, theatre, is "an art". They might be an art-FORM, which is what most people think off when possing the question: basically wanting to ask:
"Are games, as a medium, capable of facilitating/producing works of art within them".

And if the question is specified in such a way, the answer is of course "yes". There is absolutely no reason why games should be seen as fundamentally different from other media: they can produce works, those works can be judged as of greater or lesser value: ergo, it is possible for games to produce works that are valued as works of art.

Another and somewhat more difficult question is whenever games HAD ever produced anything we could consider art. Personally, I'm leaning towards the answer of "yes" for several different reasons. But this can be debated, though lately, the decision to actually display a selected collection of games in Smithsonian made that debate somewhat more loop-sided.

Yes.
The supreme court ruled that video games are art and are afforded the same protections.

Obviously. Anybody who says otherwise has no idea about either video games or the definition of art. Or both.

Like this guy:

what a complete sperg you are

>Art is not the end product, it is the work and craft that goes in to the product. Art is not a badge of pride as it is taught to be today
You got one thing right and a lot of things wrong.

First of all: Art can both refer the creative activity, AND the product of said activity. That is how it has been used for two centuries now, perhaps longer.
Second of all: it is the badge of pride, even though today, most people actually wish NOT to think about this way. It's literally all it is too: a label of prestige.

Now what you DID get right (and what is I think most important) is that art and craft are inherently linked. In fact, for the longest time, English language did not differenciate the meanings of those two words - art and craft used to be literally interchangeable. And while that is not entirely true today, it's an important thing to know to understand how art works as a universal human institution, and how we use the term today.

You see, craft isn't just the process of making something: it's a process of making something BETTER than most would. It's a capacity you have above laymen people. There is a clear line (I think you would agree) between a craftsman (an artisan, as an older term had it), and an amateur.

And this line is also the fundamental demarkation line for art. It's the QUALITY of your work. And as such, art is a badge of pride, just like craft is an acknowledgement of skill or talent.
Or... it used to be. Sadly, in the western society, the concept has been... muddled, to say the least.

How insecure do you have to be to reply like this?

>any sort of interaction breaks the definition.
Nope

is chess art? no. is poker art? no. video games are not art.

>"le art can be anything"
t.jew

This. And films / movies aren't art either.

>is chess art? no. is poker art? no. video games are not art.
Did you actually think that is a solid reasoning?

Sure they are. They got cute girls in them, just like art.

a crummy pledge for a pail of freedom?

Art doesn't mean something is good.
If a statue of aan sucking his own dick, or a can of shit can be art I don't see why video games can't.

Films and movies are just the evolution of stage plays, which have been considered art since the dawn of civilization. No one has ever considered a marathon or hide and seek to be art.

>painting: art
>painting behind curtain that requires viewer to press button to view: not art
You're pretty dumb

Are board games art? No? Then videogames aren't art. The only thing that's "art" is modern pseudo-videogames that aren't real fucking videogames at all, just poor barely interactive imitations of TV/movies, which causes the fucking confusion of gaming and art.
Modern shit "games" should go on Yea Forums, and those are the only ones that should be considered art. Real videogames are not even fucking close to art. End of fucking discussion, children. Lesson learned.

>but not like the way pretensious critics think of art.
How fucking hypocritical of you when you're acting just the same by saying Super Meat Boy and Doom 2016 somehow can't be art by your stupid arbitrary definition of the word.

Attached: dfece1f82407cdc28576958a87ea3fa1.jpg (1025x1920, 327K)

Video games are also a pretty clear evolution of movies.

It's fascinating how frequently and desperately people need to say this, even though that is precisely what art is.
But it's the one thing people desperately do not want it to be. Even though it is literally the only function, only meaning of the defintion.

Not sure if it says something really bad about our society, or about people in these threads, but one thing is sure: something clearly went wrong.

>Are board games art? No?
Why not? They're designed to elicit emotional responses from the people who play them. Go on, explain your reasoning.

Again: you do realize that you are not actually making an argument there, do you?

Yes. As if art ever had a definition. Even the universe, or even just the concept of the universe can be fit within the artistic realm if you squint hard enough.

you mean the walking simulators that real gamers consider terrible? Ask any real critic if they think MGS4 is art. They will laugh in your face. video games are for fucking braindead children and manchildren who never grew up. they are a circus sideshow. the freak display when the carnival comes to town. the amateur magician who pulls flowers out of his sleeve.

>emotional responses
What the fuck is wrong with you fucking children? No they're not. THEY ARE MOTHERFUCKING GAMES. FUCKING CHESS PIECES AREN'T DOING A GODDAMN INTERPRETIVE FUCKING DANCE FOR YOU, YOU PSYCHOTIC FUCKS.
Learn to read with comprehension, kid. Maybe that's your problem.

The longer a medium goes without being considered an artform, the more pure it is as an artform. So no. Vidya will never be art.

>even though that is precisely what art is
No. Different people have different reactions to works based on their own experiences and opinions. Art can be well-crafted, or clearly require a great deal of effort, but whether art is "good" depends on the ultimately subjective interpretation of the person viewing it.

"No". Films are a commercial product aimed at braindead mongoloids, that's why "high-brow" moviegoers consider trash like Citizen Kane to be good films. That's the type of artistic quality we can expect, very low quality.

I asked you to explain yourself, not throw a tantrum. "Chess pieces aren't dancing" isn't exactly an explanation.

>if you squint hard enough
If you're a modern art degenerate who thinks beauty is subjective or some bullshit. Go tell an ugly 1/10 disfigured incel that he's just as valuable as chad. That might be enough to actually get him to start shooting.

Only if you're a religious type

>real gamers
oh boy

No I mean fucking anything with a graphical interface. I guess Zork can trace its lineage more closely to books, though.

>Learn to read with comprehension, kid. Maybe that's your problem.
No. Your argument is literally "I claim that A = false and therfore B = false".
Literally not a single step of your reasoning is sound.

Oh fuck off with this insecure "but muh subjectivity" bullshit. What are you, 12? Is the basic notion of normative literally incomprehensible to you?

There's no art to getting an incel to start shooting people, they do it at the drop of a hat.

"Art" is poorly defined. Video games can be fun, moving, or both, but not usually along the same axis. It depends whether you consider roleplaying "art".

Say you finish a level in Metal Slug without dying, and save every PoW. Even if you feel like a god, and imagine yourself as the hero of a wider war story where those men get to see their families again because the pixel lady didn't touch any Nazi rainbow bombs, your pride at your skill is tied to its place in a piece of throwaway catharsis that you're way overanalyzing into a complex narrative. That's just as much "art" as picking a direction in a VN. I can't draw a hard line.

Art REALLY isn't hard to define, it's more of an issue of what to do with that definition. Which is why proper definition of art is so rarely actually articulated.
There are just some unvoiced implications and functional concerns that surround it that make it such a murky and confusing area.

>Art REALLY isn't hard to define
Right, anyone can do it!

The hard part is for any of them to agree on it.

The problem is when you try to define "art" some angry jew who sucks at painting gets butthurt that you would dare to deny his countless hours of practice toward a skill that he will always fail at because he's a subhuman parasite who will never be white and doesn't have the capacity to create good art.

Attached: angeryjew.jpg (854x480, 52K)

But not because they don't have the definition, Usually they don't agree because they have another agenda that blinds them.
But the problem is that when most people claim to seek a definition of art, that is actually NOT what they end up looking for. Instead, they use the notion of art as a proxy for something else, most frequently their own validation in one capacity or another. Which kinda makes sense when you consider the ACTUAL definition of art, but it still is effectively a breach of the communication principle.

That is a lot of anger and not much else said.

The thing about definitions that nobody agrees on is that they're no definitions at all.

You can destroy any "vidya are art" cucks with censorship. Art is not censored or regulated yet vidya art cucks love censoring and changing games. Videogames are toys and entertainment, nothing more, the "art" is good writing and cinematic visuals, both of which are not part of a videogame's nature.
Censorship kills your "muh art" argument. Lets enjoy our regulated toys, anons.

All craftsdwarfship is of the highest quality.

I never understood this.
Children dont know what patriotism even is.
Those that stand do so because they feel as though it's an expectation by the society they dwell in. Those that don't do so because its "cool to go against the grain"

Nobody stands or sits at that age in favor or opposition of anything the government represents.

videogames are a medium for art, like a blank canvas isn't art but the way an arist paints on top of it is. That being said most developers dont make games for the intention of art, I know some do. Then again pac-man and mario are in museums so what do I know?

You need to read this.

Attached: Schreier_BTFO.png (1303x1023, 399K)

Have you ever had this argument in real life or is it just shower practice theory crafting thus far?

Actually the content of the definition isn't always what matters. In case of art it's particularly evident: the notion of art as we use it today is barely 200 years old, yet the institution it refers to existed for literally as long as humanity itself. We just did not have a special term for it most of the time. Just like we did not have the term "psychology" until recently, yet we all know the thing it refers to always was there.

Definitions matter a LOT LESS than behavior. After all, at their very best, they are an instruction to how we should behave. In terms of art, people argue like retards for century, but the truth is art is still being treated fundamentally the same, even by people who push the opposite of it's definition.

>Art is not censored or regulated
Only a retarded millennial would think this is the case.

Yes
Any creative work meant to be experienced by others regardless of quality is art.
Not all art is good however which is where the confusion comes from something being art or not is no indication of it's overall merit.

>Only a retarded millennial would think this is the case.
Yeah. I missed that post earlier but FUCKING CHRIST how fucking ignorant do you have to be to think this shit.

>art is still being treated fundamentally the same, even by people who push the opposite of it's definition.
Well, something is, I suppose. But is it art?

VIDEO GAMES

Sure, if it's got cute girls.

>Art is not censored or regulated
oh no no no

Its more fair to say gameplay is not art, without the aid of narrative or audio/visuals, it cannot convey any significant meaning or message, it cannot evoke but shallow emotions.
To understand this better, imagine I asked you to pick left or right, then again and again, then imagine instead of left or right it was choose to save your wife or choose to save your best friends daughter, interaction alone cannot create such a powerful feeling.

>Well, something is, I suppose. But is it art?
Yes. Art isn't some kind of magical substance that is intrinsic to certain type of objects or actions. It's simply how we discriminate between objects. The actual act of discrimination, of dividing things into "mundane" and "exceptional", "art" and "everything else" is actually the fundamental nature of art. It does not go any deeper than that. As long as people will automatically differenciate between objects that are mundane, and objects that are treated with special kind of respect, it will be art. Regardless of whenever we agree with the criteria or not.

It's actually a simple, evolutionary conditioned reflex - to judge actions/or objects according to certain shared notions of their value. It once helped us specialize better, and maintain particular behavioral strategies that proved more viable than others.

Art is literally what we call and treat as art. Nothing less and nothing more.

Right, but... that's your definition.

No, that is my observation. There is a pretty major difference.

>in 2000, the Danish-Chilean artist made headlines and ruffled feathers with “Helena & El Pescador.” The piece debuted at the Trapholt museum in Kolding, Denmark, and consisted of goldfish swimming in ten Moulinex blenders. Visitors were given a choice: hit the ON button and kill the fish, or leave the button alone as a way of granting pardon.
>Evaristti said depending on how visitors reacted to the piece revealed if they were voyeurs who liked to watch how others reacted, sadists who switched on a blender or moralists who troubled over the possibility of killing a fish.
Interactive art exists you know

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

Because that's a different notion.
Anything done exceptionally well is art. That's where stuff like "Ethics is the art of living" comes from.
It doesn't contradict the other definition until you claim a literal pile of trash is a deep statement about the struggle of Punjabi veganism in the XXI century schizoid man.

But how can you make an observation about this abstract notion of art that everyone seems to define differently?

I already explained how. Just look at what they do, not what they say. The "abstract notion" is nothing more than a pattern of behavior that thankfully for us is universal apparently to the entire species. It may be along the handful of absolutely universal human patterns of observation, alongside the notion of "kinship" (another suprisingly difficult to define, yet simplistic in nature "abstract notion") or the notion of religion or mythological thinking.

All cultures discriminate between displays of creative ability. All cultures treat displays of particular prowes with exceptional respect.

They may differ in their explanation of why, and in particularities of their criteria, but those are both absolutely secondary to the completely universal underlying logic of the behavior: projection of value systems, and creating specific, distinct patterns of treatment to objects that are identified with the most highly regarded values.

That is an observation that is very, very hard to deny. It's what people did long before agricultural revolution, and it's what every kid that argues that "art is everything" today still do.

What's the name of the VN that Roger Ebert thought was art?

Didn't know about this. Hilarious.
wired.com/1994/09/cosmology-of-kyoto/