The "are videogames art" debate was lost from the very beginning since anything and everything humanity does or creates...

OP is making a compelling argument...

>user never understood the definition of art
>pretends that the definition has changed to mask his lack of understanding

fucking lolicons

my wife

>lust provoking image

Attached: bowie-computer.jpg (800x638, 82.51K)

That shouldn't be a lust provoking image and he also didn't ask a question. Stupid coomer

The goalposts were moved and now the debate is whether they are "high art", whatever the everloving fuck that means

didnt read but the painting is cute

>whatever the everloving fuck that means
why are you invested in the definition if youre not interested enough to understand it lmao go spend your time better

it's whatever snobs high on their own farts like

>doesn't understand art
>people who do are snobs
the tragedy of the commons lmao

Attached: 1651368309556.png (870x683, 279.42K)

Feet

I'm not at all invested in the definition because I recognize it for what it is; hot air to defend some boomer's non-argument

UOOOOOOOOOOHHH FEET

Attached: 126.png (680x710, 163.22K)

I feel like art like this no longer seems amazing because we have pictures but some of my most favorite art is just stuff like this. A person places on canvas with nothing but paint and skill in their whole and undiluted likeness.

ops image has embedded loli porn in it

Attached: 1628707169286.gif (320x320, 82.92K)

>anything and everything humanity does or creates has the potential to be art.

Attached: This+post+is+art+rape+a+pregnant++and+tell_937c1a_5246252.png (656x1524, 215.65K)

it's not hot air, it might be inconsequential or specious to you but it's a valid system of nomenclature that for whatever reason upsets you even though you apparently don't care about it and won't learn about it.

heres the answer in fast forward
>Video games have the potential to be the greatest form of art due to having everything other art forms have while also having interactivity
>This isn't happening because most people want to use games as toys and the people who want video games to be art create garbage like Last of Us 2
Thats it, videogames may never reach the heights the medium allows because most video game players would rather play the latest skinner box or wacky joke game their favourite streamer played.

Die in a fire, pedophile

>whole and undiluted likeness.
OPs image is stylized, it's definitely altered/diluted or whatever you watn to call it.

videogames will never be art just like uno and clue will never be art

How did Bouguereau get away with it?

If I'm upset because the argument was won.
And the goalposts were moved. The phrase that was used to move said goalposts does not matter in the slightest. It is 100% irrelevant. He could have said they're not "quirk art", or they are not "wind art" and it would have been as nonsensical as "high art". There's no such thing.

>Video games have the potential to be the greatest form of art
No they don't, Games are not art, they're Games. The issue here arises when spergs decide that their hobby should be considered art, because other people "apparently" value art, and spergs want to feel validated by having their hobby be considered an object of value or esteem. The reality is, games and art are two entirely distinct 'forms' of content.

So what games are art or the closest to being art?

Cunny

Attached: 1624630268486.jpg (528x1000, 82.04K)

ToT

user, you're talking about a single anonymous discussion you had with a single person, that doesn't mean the definition of art has ever actually changed. It just means that you're still upset about a conversation you had.

dumb bun poster

>tfw no statue gf

In their whole and stylized but pretty well done likeness.
How about that?

No way it has that slit.

>this is 100% legal

I'm not saying it's bad I just hate anons seeing styles with elements of realism and thinking it was some misguided or half-successful attempt at photo-realism rather than just using "realism" as an element or quality

There is a difference between a movie that is art and the latest marvel movie, there is a difference between literature and the latest erotic romance novel for women. One day there may be a game that crosses the line to being something people could consider art. I don't particularly care because I skip all dialogue and cutscenes when I play vidya anyway but there is potential.

Why would it not be? It's literally just a statue of a human body.

Books and Movies are not games.
Games are not art. They're their own "Form". If you don't know what a "form" is, look it up.

Video games should have been rebranded as software entertainment with the particular portion of the hobby that involves the more arcade or kinesthetic experiences being dubbed the subset known as video games.
Just like movies are the next dimension of a picture, software entertainment is the logical next step of being able to control a narrative with current technology and trends lending themselves to interactive movies most effectively. And that shit is just as much a form of art as a picture or a movie, you'd have to be fucking retarded to think otherwise.

"art" means prestigious
which means "does it emotionally and socially service your rulers"
therefore art is filth

I wish I was that smart to scam my way into being wealthy.

>And that shit is just as much a form of art as a picture or a movie, you'd have to be fucking retarded to think otherwise.
You don't understand what art is, you're referencing a cultural idea of "artistic" as a positive descriptor instead of talking about art as a concept. You're equating "art" with "good" or "valuable" instead of understanding that 'art' is merely a way to describe what the item or content is.

whenever there is an attempt of "discussion", especially about psychological or philosophical matters, i get reminded of why most people here spend their time shitposting instead

>wealthy
>barely two years' salary
lmao how's life in the gutter?

There would be a video game that would be art if someone competent wanted to make it, it is much easier to shit out the same game over and over and the only people who WANT it to be art are Hollywood rejects. I don't WANT video games to be art but one day there will be a game made that fits into that category.

Is this the art appreciation thread?

Attached: cbee3b2f4ba22bf108faf5cec5ab4904.jpg (2000x1439, 475.13K)

I want to fuck that statue

Attached: 1650254025347.png (768x768, 129.4K)

>There would be a video game that would be art if someone competent wanted to make it
No, there never will, because by purpose and design video games are not art, they're games.

???
This is a cunny thread

don't look up this dude's other statues
worst mistake of my life

Attached: 1651369364360.jpg (3162x2109, 3.44M)

People consider visual novels and sony exclusives video games

yeah, so what if classification doesn't matter and is purely subjective though. Love isn't real and people still look for it.

You are retarded if you think this is a regular thread.

Attached: 1620140124073.png (850x692, 1.59M)

so what is art, faggot?

did you reply to the wrong post?

The literal engagement of the audience or viewer where they have the ability to change the artpiece or interact with it does not negate that piece from being art if that's what you're implying. A stage play that pulled actual members of its audience onto the stage (not shills) and had them improv and change the plot would still be art no?
If that's not what you're implying, then yes user-sama I admit I'm lost.

Food is not art so games are not art.

No, you could take a piece of classic literature and turn it into a visual novel and it would both be a piece of art and a video game

>waaaaahhhhhhh stop discussing the OP

I've seen some pretty sexy burgers I'd consider art.

what's his name so I can avoid him?

>

Attached: animal-food-art-de-meal-prepper-6.jpg (750x750, 120.05K)

I know the OP image is pretty much bait, but it made me realize... I am very, very, sad because a little girl at my job that I work at often comes with her grandparents and every time I immediately bring their food (since they're really cool people), they say "she has a huge major crush on you!" when I walk away like 7 minutes later, one of my co-workers would say "I wonder if user would like my hair down or not!" I'm not even making this stuff up guys.

Shit sucks man. She's only like 5 but that is without a doubt, the cutest thing I've ever seen. never seen that type of girl at all.

Attached: 2c41394c5b96b137db671086a3b65626.jpg (736x728, 56.87K)

I don't know if it's going to be worth the time to sit here and explain it to somebody who's hostile to the idea that somebody else knows more than he does.
>The literal engagement of the audience or viewer where they have the ability to change the artpiece or interact with it does not negate that piece from being art if that's what you're implying.
That's not what I'm implying, I'm implying that 'art' is governed by intent and purpose of design and that video games have a design philosophy that inherently makes them games, not art. Look, they even put it in the name of the form. video *games*. They're games, not art. Just like how nobody would call a tower a bridge even though both were built using similar skills/disciplines.

Attached: 10garden-I_B-sm4-a-Robert_Mileham-01-640.jpg (640x919, 515.39K)

wtf theres more???

Attached: EiJQfCXWoAEU-2s.png (663x663, 181.97K)

>No, you could take a piece of classic literature and turn it into a visual novel and it would both be a piece of art and a video game
Nope, it'd just be a game at that point. Just like how if you "adapted" a painting by typing up a description of it, it's no longer "art", it's merely a functional description or representation of the original piece, which was art.