Are video games consider ART?

Not all of them, just like not all books or movies are art. Some focus more on the gameplay aspects rather than covering deep themes that attempt to say something about the human condition. I don't think Nintendo would consider Super Mario Bros 1 art. I would think they would see it more as a toy.

Is OP consider ESL?

For an easily impressionable r*dditor? Certainly.

ART IS SHORT FOR ARTIFICE YOU STUPID MONGREL, MAN-MADE THINGS ARE ART FOR DIFFERENT REASONS.
"ART" HOWEVER IS THE IDEA THAT SOMETHING WITHOUT FUNCTION STILL HAS WORTH IN EVOCATION OF FEELING. THAT SOMETHING WHICH OTHERWISE IS NOT ABLE TO BE USED FOR A SPECIFIED FUNCTION HAS A HIGHER PURPOSE.
TO SAY, "IS THING ART?" THEN IS TO MAKE IT "ART", YOU BLITHERING NINNY.

Attached: Rules card.png (799x1231, 2.09M)

videogame are fart

Too many fuckwits ignore the thing unique to vidya, interactivity/gameplay, when doing their whole muh games is art thing.

All human creative works are technically art.

Is a kid's toy truck with a fresco painted onto it and has a button to play beethoven art?

Arent movies and books also products?

Ori 1 is art. Ori 2 is just Hollowvania #54768.

Yes

anybody who conflates the word art with something being good or highbrow should be shot dead immediately. A transformative project in any medium is art even if it's shit you pompous retards

>anybody who conflates the word art with something being good or highbrow should be shot dead immediately.
It's funny how our society regularly produces people as insecure as you are - literally so broken that a basic concept that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years, a simple concept of value, makes you absolutely shit your pants.

I don't think either of the world wars has produced as many broken children as this era has.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit
lmao go fuck yourself.

they are a creative medium so yes. They also fall into the category of commercial art though, so complaints on the quality of games cannot be brushed aside with "bro it's art"

Art is not a concept of value by itself. It's a term that encompasses all creative endeavours that are transformative using the materials in reality. I suggest you switch your pretentious attitude to using the term 'high art' instead of 'art' because at least with the first one you come off as really annoying rather than flat out wrong.
the guy you replied to is a pompous retard but you're not helping by quoting fucking wikipedia

loool

correct

Nothing is art unless a committee of the wealthiest members of God's chosen people say it is.

Stop seeking validation, if you think it is a work that benefits humanity or enriches the soul of a person, it is art

Attached: merch-1.jpg (1200x675, 71.62K)

Videogames are galleries.
Are galleries art?

The fact that you don't understand the mechanic behind the concept does not change anything. You are broken. The concept of external value system is literally unbearable to you. You can't live as a human being.

>Art is not a concept of value by itself.
Nope. Value is LITERALLY the only meaning the word has, and ever had. It originally literally meant "craft" or "skill". Eventually, with the transition to industrial society, the concept of craftsmanship has lost it's originally inherent value, and for a short period of time, the concept of "high art" was presented to separate the newly created concept of "craft that is not respectable" from that which was deemed valuable - but logically, this only lasted a few decades - the meaning of the word art just moved to whatever new set of values was identified. We don't need the concept of "high art" and we haven't needed or used it in about 150 years.

Art does - always had and always will - represent whatever a given society considers the most valuable produce it can make.

You can contiue to shit your pants about the fact that somebody has a value system and you are not important to it, but that is literally all you can and will do.

>a basic concept that has existed for hundreds of thousands of years
Except it hasn't, pseud. People in the past didn't perceive art the way we do.

But if videogames aren't art, you're invalidating the art in the gallery

>People in the past didn't perceive art the way we do.
They did not percieve it the way YOU do. Because as we established, you are literally completely broken. That was not the norm in the past.

>dude muh etymology
You might be the most annoying motherfucker I've ever conversed with about this topic. I already made my point and you're wrong. Fuck off.

I'm not the same person you were talking to, you little baby.

Sure, but there's two things you should consider.
A) the standards for ART aren't high
B) being ART doesn't actually MEAN ANYTHING
IT CHANGES NOTHING IF IT IS OR ISN'T
IT'S A STUPID MEANINGLESS QUESTION ASKED BY THE MENTALLY STUNTED

Attached: 1650491956639.png (640x620, 455.01K)

>The fact that you don't understand the mechanic behind the concept does not change anything. You are broken. The concept of external value system is literally unbearable to you. You can't live as a human being.
what point are you trying to make here? That cans of shit are art and have value?

>You might be the most annoying motherfucker I've ever conversed with about this topic.
I'm annoying you because as we established, you are broken, and what I say is directly destroying what little mental security you have. You are so incredibly insecure, the concept of art is a DIRECT ATTACK on you, in your broken sad little universe.
That is why you are so angry, which actually really is just fear. You are really just an incredible little pussy.
Also: I really don't think you understand the concept of a "point". Since you have not made any.
You just expressed your insane insecurity. That is not a point, that is just... sad.

No see you don't understand, games are made by evil corporations for money which makes them inherently soulless and incapable of being art. Now buy my shit in a box art for $10 million.

Videogames aren't toy, they are software, and software are for grown gay man

Get laid sometime.

i refuse to believe a real human being is typing this horseshit. If it's bait, good job you got me

Attached: 1627712140401.png (284x404, 127.07K)

>That cans of shit are art and have value?
Since value is something ASCRIBED to objects, yeah. I don't agree with the value system applied, but that does not change anything about the nature of the system.
Modern art is for the most part a very sad reflection of the very sorry state of modern western value system.
But it IS just that. A reflection of a value system. And your obsessive fear of the concept of art is actually just another manifestation of the same shit value system that unfortunately, make us highly value can of shit.

You want to deny the concept of art, because it does not directly validate YOU. That is why it scares you. The same type of retarded, selfish and short sighted value system also makes the public obsess about concepts of novelty, controversy, anything that creates a pretense of introspection and thus essentially glorifies the viewer over the object.
Hence the artist value of shit and urinals. People want to pretend they are more important than they really are: just like you do, and that is why the state of modern art is so bad.

But the mechanic of it, the function, the meaning, is and has always been exactly the same. Even you actually act accordingly. You just don't realize this.

>i refuse to believe a real human being is typing this horseshit
I think refusing to believe obvious things is generally the central theme of your life. Insecurity brings a LOT of denial, that is hardly surprising.

>Since value is something ASCRIBED to objects, yeah.
that makes it meaningless since I can ASCRIBE value to any object I want, such as this shitpost. QED This shitpost is now art that now values at $100K because I say so and if you deny it you just dont get it
dont even need to read the rest of your rambling

>that makes it meaningless since I can ASCRIBE value to any object I want,
Because you are product of the same broken value system that gave us the shit in a can. The value of the shit in a can is the reaction. It's build on a narcissitic assumption that any personal strong response if inherently valuable.
The exact same narcissitic assumption you just used.

You are not important. We live in society that made you delusional about your importance. You are a PERFECT mirror of that shit in a can.
Your ascription of value is shit. A LOT of people think the same, that is why we venerate literal shit in the first place. In a way, that shit in a can: That is you.

>This shitpost is now art that now values at $100K because I say so and if you deny it you just dont get it
That's why you're retarded and all the retards that believe you, needs to be hanged, like NFTfag.

>598486520
I dont know what point you're trying to make here but you should really stop blaming society for not conforming to your delusions

I'm literally the only person in this thread that does NOT have any delusions.
Unlike you absolute fucking mongoloids: I can separate my preferences and feelings from simple facts.
I dislike modern art. In fact I despise the majority of it.
But unlike you shitstains - I don't pretend my feelings on the subject constitute any relevant force or argument. I don't delude myself into thinking that just because it does not agree with me, or validate me, art stops being what it is.
That is your point of view, don't project it on me.

>598488074
>I don't delude myself into thinking that just because it does not agree with me, or validate me, art stops being what it is.
now you're literally agreeing with >A transformative project in any medium is art even if it's shit
your pathetic crusade has been a complete waste of time

I've been watching this argument and your own narcissism has exploded out onto the fore now that you're expressing your perceived position in the moral and logical right
I, I, I, I, I, I, I - I'm the only one that doesn't X - etc
you had good arguments and then revealed your shitty character behind them, coloring them so awfully

>now you're literally agreeing with
I absolutely don't. Because I understand, and can cope with the fact, that the value system that determines what is and isn't art isn't up to me. Or you. It's a product of a complex social discourse in which I play only a very limited role, and you play absolutely none.
Which means that not everything is art. Me, you, virtually any single individual alone has no control or impact on what is or isn't art - that is up to a complex, collective decision making that completely transcends us as individuals.

Anything CAN be declared art, but most things are NOT. In fact, the exclusivity is literally the whole purpose of the label - it doesn't really do anything BUT separates the few rare, exclusive objects from the majority of mundane ones. Through once again, a system of social regulatory mechanics too complex for you to wrap your head around.

>I've been watching this argument and your own narcissism has exploded out onto the fore now that you're expressing your perceived position in the moral and logical right
Are you familiar with the concept of "mirroring"?

>Anything CAN be declared art, but most things are NOT.
>I don't delude myself into thinking that just because it does not agree with me, or validate me, art stops being what it is.
lmao the only reason you dont see the immediate contradiction here is because you believe your opinion is objectively right.
>It's a product of a complex social discourse in which I play only a very limited role, and you play absolutely none
>Through once again, a system of social regulatory mechanics too complex for you to wrap your head around.
and you're now back to blaming society again for why "art" is a meaningless metric of value, while explaining WHY its a meaningless metric of value-because its extremely subjective and its perception and definition changes with society over time.
its remarkable how you keep digging yourself deeper.

art!

Attached: pomao factory medium speed.gif (366x275, 2.64M)

>lmao the only reason you dont see the immediate contradiction here is because you believe your opinion is objectively right.
No. I believe my knowledge is correct - do a degree that it is possible. I would not call it "objective" beause at core, we are discussing semiotics, which are inherently normative. Which is another concept completely alien to you.
There is no contradiction. You just once again cannot see over your own fucking narcissism. You are literally completely dumbfounded by the idea of systems existing outside your own need for self-validation, which is why the concept of exclusivity being a social function is incomprehensible to you.

>and you're now back to blaming society again for why "art" is a meaningless metric of value
No, I never said it's meaningless in the first place. Again: You are unable to comprehend it's meaning because it's something that does not validate you personally. I understand what art is. It's a cultural universal, alongside concepts like "kinship" - it has existed in every society at every point of our history. Unlike you, I bothered to educate myself on it.
I dislike the modern value system because it produces shit like you, but that is a completely separate, unrelated issue. Again: Only you fail to comprehened that the question of "What is art?" and "how do I feel about modern art?" are largely unrelated.
Art isn't meaningless. It does what it is designed to do: it reflects the state of our social values through selecting and currating exclusive collection of our creative techniques and their products. That is in many ways, incredibly useful - it provides us with great insight into the culture that produces it.

There is the fact that to me, and I assume many others, the image isn't exactly flattering, is sad, but once again, a separate issue.

People like you will be the reason of the death of High Art.
Art is when passion and skill succeed in giving to the user emotions and feeling that the artist intended to share, and if you think that anything is to be considered a result of skill and passion, then you're simply spitting on the work of artists that really care and try to give actual value to their work only possible by a result of a career of study and dedication that not everyone are capable of pursuing.

>In December 1961, Manzoni wrote in a letter to his friend Ben Vautier: I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their shit in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his.
>Another friend, Enrico Baj, has said that the cans were meant as "an act of defiant mockery of the art world, artists, and art criticism"
I dont even need to try point out your retardation, because its been done already. The real reason you dont like moden art is because it makes you and your meaningless art degrees look like a joke

>I dont even need to try point out your retardation, because its been done already.
You quoted lines that literally confirm what I said two posts above. The fuck is this shit? I know you are an idiot, but are you actually CLINICALLY retarded?

>The real reason you dont like moden art is because it makes you and your meaningless art degrees look like a joke
Which of my degrees? The one in general linguistics, or the one in clinical psychology?
I do understand the list of things you can't comprehend is very long, but are you now confused by the idea of a person being educated, but not necessarily having a degree in that field?

My problem is not with moder art itself, by the way. Modern art isn't the problem, it's a symptom. It's a symptom of society producing broken, utterly disfunctional cretins like you. The issue is in you, and your parents in particular.

Get your tonsils exported by your trusty butcher and see what he can do, then we'll talk about it again.

>You quoted lines that literally confirm what I said two posts above
you've not actually said anything though? All you've done itt is pussyfoot around the question about what art is with "muh societal interactions!" and how only things like the mona lisa qualify as art because reasons
>Modern art isn't the problem, it's a symptom. It's a symptom of society producing broken, utterly disfunctional cretins like you. The issue is in you, and your parents in particular
just like that. You're blaming society for not conforming to your definitions again
>Which of my degrees? The one in general linguistics, or the one in clinical psychology?
>he admits to having even more meaningless degrees
lmao in my eyes you're literally no different to a tranny claming to be genderfluid
t. major in Biotechnology

The people who want to call video games art are also the ones who want to repurpose them as vehicles for ideological soapboxing.

>you've not actually said anything though?
You literally tried to prove my explanation behind the value ascribed to the infamous shit in a can, and now you are saying I didn't say anything?
Again - and I'm deadly serious here:
Have you ever been through a mental capacity checkup? This is not your regular, garden variety stupidity, you literally have difficulty keeping track of conversation that happened minutes ago. You might be missing out on a pretty fat disability check.

>and how only things like the mona lisa qualify as art because reasons
You see: this is the problem. That is LITERALLY the opposite of what I said. Exact. Perfect. Opposite.
The FUCK is wrong with you kid?
>You're blaming society for not conforming to your definitions again
No, I blame society for training extremely pathological social and cognitive habits. That has fuck all to do with definitions. You are broken - now I see that you are broken on more levels than just one, given the fact that you are actually, factually incapable of text comprehension, but you also are not properly socialized. You lack a set of basic skill and intuitions normal child is supposed to learn around 3-5 years of age.
That is big part of why you are nothing but a burden to everyone around you. I'd say I pitty your family but let's face it: it is their fault in the first place.