Do you see this? What is this to you?
To most people this is three basketballs floating in an aquarium.
To 'art people', however, this is an exploration of transience, human frailty and vulnerability to change in fortune.
Three basketballs floating in an aquarium. This is considered a sculpture. This is estimated to be worth between $400,000 and $600,000 dollars.
This is what I am afraid video games may become in the future. You hear it all the time. You hear people wanting games to be 'more than just games'. You hear people saying how games are 'finally being considered high art'. Well, this is what all of that amounts to. It amounts to minimum effort for maximum pay-off and a world in which games are meant to be analyzed with fake meanings instead of played. The problem isn't in the idea of art itself, but rather in the way certain people interpret art.
Video games are art. Every single video game, by definition, would be considered art. But nooo, that's not enough for 'artsy' people. See, once upon a time these artsy people did sculptures, made indie films, and did elaborate bizarre performances. Now, unfortunately, they have realized that video games aren't hard to make and it instantly gets them a large audience rather than them having to rent out art exhibits or film their movies in small private theaters. However, the game community is huge and they're getting more opposition to their ideas than they thought.
What do you think of games as art? What's high art to you?
modern art is bullshit. there are plenty of people who approach art in the traditional sense of portraits, landscapes, etc.
In video games this is indie games. This is already happening.
Modern art is the idea that evoking a thought or emotion is enough for it to be considered art. Indie games is the same in that regard.
additionally modern art is the equivalent of those prank videos where they prank random people and when they get mad the guy goes "it's just a prank, there's a camera." as if that made it ok.
But here's the problem. These 'artists' are talking about making games that are 'more than just games'. Obviously, evoking a thought or emotion isn't enough for them. If it was then they'd all consider Pac-Man to be great art.
Their definition of art is now 'something designed to promote some kind of socio-political change or tell stories with few gameplay elements'.
They can't have 'art' without pretentiousness.
>video games aren't hard to make
It's a hell of a lot harder than just tossing three basketballs in an aquarium. Besides, the thing about video games is that you can't just sell one for thousands of dollars to a dumb artfag with more money than brains, you have to actually make it marketable if you want to sell more than one copy.
>This is estimated to be worth between $400,000 and $600,000 dollars.
They can estimate all they want. Real question is how much would someone pay for it.
And if the thing breaks, and insurance covers it, they won't be getting more than $100 to replace it.
>It's a hell of a lot harder than just tossing three basketballs in an aquarium
Not really. You can basically make a low-budget indie game in a day and people will shower it with praise.
>What we're looking at is a Three Ball 50/50 Tank from 1985. You know, the reason that I used a basketball over another object is really probably for the purity of it, that it's an inflatable, it relates to our human experience of to be alive we have to breathe. If the ball would be deflated, it would be a symbol of death. But it's inflated, so it's a symbol of life.
>The balls always remain exactly 50 percent submerged below the water line, but due to vibration in the room it will move the balls either to the left or right. And that's one of the really wonderful, beautiful, chaotic aspects of the tank.
>I wanted to keep these pieces very, very pure. And so I didn't want to put chemicals in the water because I wanted to keep it very, very womb-like. So there was an acceptance of a maintenance and of a degradation that can occur. Eventually the basketballs do have to be replaced, and they're just replaced with basketballs at that moment hopefully we would have two that are orange and one that would be brown.
>You know, one of the interesting things about the ready-made in art—whether it's a building or whether it's an aquarium or a basketball, is that the ready-mades are really a form of acceptance of the world. So in the journey of art, in a way, the first level is self-acceptance. And then this other calling, almost like a higher level, is to be able to accept, the outside world. And I really believe that the ready-made is a metaphor for the acceptance of others.
I wish I had this guy's job
If we call video games art, that means by extension that gameplay has an inherent value, and that video games can be recognized as art based on nothing but its accomplishments in that regard, without needing cutscenes, fancy graphics, or pseudo-intellectual bullshit.
In other words, it's the ultimate way of saying "games just need to fun."
>This is what I am afraid video games may become in the future.
Yes, because conceptual art is the only kind of art that exists today.
There's room for everything. If you like conceptual, abstract games, play those. If you don't like them, don't play them.
Videogames won't become like modern art because with modern art there will only be one original so they can sell this shit for thousands of dollars and its very useful for money laundering.
If at anything videogames will become more like film. Think modern American box office movie experiences, explosions, excessive CGI, cute actors/actresses and other gimmicks that will get as many people in and out of the cinema as possible.
If literally anyone with access to wal mart can recreate this then how exactly is it worth anything more than the sum of its parts?
I could come up with something more fucking convincing in about half an hour.
Fuck, just say something about the fame of basketball players and how short lived it is is a mirror of life and death in general
I knew I'd get that response. I'm hardly being literal, Christ. Do us both a favor and check up the informal definition of the word, and the informal nature of this board. I take it any mention of soul riles you up as well?
Inflation represents life
If you have the imagination, anything could.
But the rule of thumb is, if you have to spell out to people what your "art" means, you're a terrible artist. Because we could just as easily interpret it as literally anything else.
You got to read the notecard that is next to the display.
Personally I don't believe art should 'tell' you anything. It should be in what you get from it. If I look at a picture and think that it's about some guy whose sad about his dead wife, thats what I'm getting from it.
If I have to read a notecard sitting next to it so I know what the hell I'm looking at, that's not a sculpture or a painting. That's a poem or essay.
To say so much nonsense about something you cobbled together in a few minutes, have people give you thousands of dollars for it and not break out in a stupid grin even once takes some serious balls.
To my plebeian eyes it looks like three basketballs in a tank. I look at something like Starry Night and I think "this is art, it evokes emotion in me, its beautiful".
I look at this and I see three basketballs in a tank. So I'm asking, whats special about it?
yfw this is literally happening right now.
it was just taken down this week
Whoa, hey there anon. When did I say I was mad at people liking the art? I just wanted to understand how people came to the conclusion of "exploration of transience, human frailty and vulnerability to change in fortune" from the image.
It's called subtext.
Even kids' stories have subtext. The story about the fox and the grapes, for example, isn't just about a fox who can't get something and is bitter about it. It's also supposed to tell us something about human nature.
>Video games are art. Every single video game, by definition, would be considered art.
Craft, for sure. Art, only if the creators believe they're making art. Which isn't always the case necessarily.
>The problem isn't in the idea of art itself, but rather in the way certain people interpret art.
I agree with that, but probably not in the way that you mean it. I think "Is x art" is a boring conversation. Obviously video games can be art. The real conversation is "is x good art or bad art".
Emotional response is irrelevant. Something can be art without evoking emotion, and something can evoke emotion without being art.
No. A Christian group pointed out that it in fact looks like a massive dildo, and they removed the display.
Cause no one wants to be the guy in the news under the headline, "Man/Woman stabs giant dildo"
Okay, sure. Metaphors and shit.
I just don't see the connections between the high concepts mentioned and... well, basketballs sitting in a tank. But I guess I'm too plebeian to see it.
>I just don't see the connections between the high concepts mentioned
Well, that's not surprising, is it? People study art for decades, reading hundreds of books. If you take someone to a baseball game for the first time ever, that will look pretty random, too. Just because something look random to you doesn't mean it is random.
>Required to go to contemporary classical music performance for gen ed music class
>Guy on stage starts playing this as the opening piece
>2/3 of it is him just blowing through the clarinet inaudibly
>Music professors sitting next to me are praising it like the second coming of christ
I will never understand artists.
I get that the performance probably took a good amount of technical skill, but it was boring as fuck and everyone seemed to be praising the music rather than the performer.
I've also heard from my music professor that there's a "musical" piece where a pianist will walk up on stage, open the cover on the piano keys and just sit there in silence for like 10 minutes.
Any retard knows what is happening is baseball. You throw the ball, sometimes you hit it, then you run. It's so easy young children do it.
You're not seeing anything special, you're simply applying your own bullshit opinions to a mundane situation because you want it to be more.
How does studying art teach you that basketballs in a tank can mean exploration of transience, human frailty and vulnerability to change in fortune?
I mean, if the basketballs can be a metaphor ANYTHING, then can anything be art? And if they can't be a metaphor for anything, then how do you know what they're a metaphor of?
I don't really approach art that way. To me, it's not about figuring out or solving a puzzle. You should first ask yourself what something says to YOU. And then look at what the artist was trying to achieve. The "human frailty" is just one interpretation.
But it's also important to not dismiss other people's differing readings as "bullshit".
>You should first ask yourself what something says to YOU.
That looks like 3 basketballs in a tank. Let me check aga- nope, 3 basketballs in a tank.
>And then look at what the artist was trying to achieve.
He dropped three basketballs in a tank and called it art.
I dunno man, I don't think this works for me.
>I've also heard from my music professor that there's a "musical" piece where a pianist will walk up on stage, open the cover on the piano keys and just sit there in silence for like 10 minutes.
It's called 4'33".
>I mean, if the basketballs can be a metaphor ANYTHING
It can possibly be a metaphor for anything, and it's up to you to say if you think their explanation is bad
>then can anything be art?
>How does studying art teach you that basketballs in a tank can mean exploration of transience, human frailty and vulnerability to change in fortune?
Off the top of my head, the basketballs have a pretty clear relation to fortune because of the NBA. Them floating up and down in the water can possibly show how the fortune is changed by the environment around it, and the physical relation to the other balls shows how some people have different fortunes than others. That's just off the top of my head, so it's not really far fetched to conceive some sort of meaning for it. Think about it for yourself.
>This is estimated to be worth between $400,000 and $600,000 dollars.
By who?And who would buy this, isn't it easier to make one yourself?Dude is something really wrong with capitalism nowadays or is just people that have gone totally retarded?
Do you not think art only looks dumb because you don't get it? I mean look at it a different way, show this to someone who doesn't know shit about videogames and it just looks like a bunch of meaningless lines and symbols to them.
Sure they "get" games like cod and assassin's creed or whatever, but you "get" pretty pictures of sunsets and flowers
99% of EVERYTHING is shit. That goes for classical art as well as modern. We just don't have a habit of remembering the shit so it's super easy to romanticize past styles while having a more informed view of whatever is currently going on. There is good Modern art, it is just rare, just like there was a whole lot of really shitty classical art that just copied everyone else's work without adding anything interesting.
This is why Hatred, for all the shit it gets, is perfect "high art". It's a biting commentary on how we view violence in our media (specifically, in games). Remove any pretense of justification for your wanton slaughter and what are you? You're no longer a hero but so hated people want to ban and censor your game.
It's the most artistic game we've ever seen.
By "what the artist was trying to achieve" I mean research the artist. Look up interviews with him, look at his other works, read if he has included any notes with the artworks.
And it's not about abstraction. Any painting is just a "bunch of liquid composition smeared on a surface". The same way you can look at this piece and see only "3 basketballs in water".
Art really is terrible. One of my friends is in a performing body class at our uni, and 2 of the girls in there had everyone in the class get some scissors and cut away at their clothes. After both girls were ass-naked they declared that it was a form of expression, and the teacher gave them extra credit. There's a screencap floating around of a guy in an art school talking about how 2 people did a semester final project that consisted of one of the students taking the other student's virginity in front of the student body. Artsy people have a higher ratio of crazies than any other field, and it just gets worse the higher up you go. The worse part is that once someone has reached the top, effort doesn't matter anymore. People pay big bucks for the brand name, without caring about the quality. Sculpting, painting, drawing, theatre, films, music, etc. is all the same. Filled with people famous for being famous.
>Cause no one wants to be the guy in the news under the headline, "Man/Woman stabs giant dildo"
I'd jump at the chance. Hell, I've been in the newspaper under the headline "graffiti sprayer has humor, but no intelligence" before.
It actually is though. Why is a violence in other games acceptable in their context? Is violence ever justified? Should it ever be?
In a lot of ways Hatred is violence without it trying to have a facade of any justification.
Here's the thing, if someone makes Fluid Dynamics: The Statement on the Human Condition the Game: Art Edition, games that are actually fun and worth playing will still exist. If every human on Earth played video games, you'd get such a wide variety of games, complaining about the existence of art games would be as silly as complaining about the existence of art films. Let people do what they want, they aren't bothering you.
>ridiculing modern art
>"games are art too"
stay pleb /v/
John Cage's 4'33" was inspired by blank canvas art. He pretty much took the idea and translated it to music.
It's somewhat different though. The point of 4'33" is to show that there is no such thing as silence. Because when the piece is performed, you're still hearing all the sounds around you. When the piece was originally performed, it was outdoors in a forest area.
Prolonged anal stimulation through displacement since the anus is far less suitable to constant in and out movements than the vagina, unless you're pain resistant and use enough lube to oil a bobsled track.
You know, this might be art.
When I look at it I want to do one thing only
I love how everyone always goes to poop and pee when trying to make fun of modern art.
>but is it art if i poop and pee on a-
Yes it is. It's also been done to death to the point where it's hack to do so.
There's no big story, I've just sprayed "People are funny animals." in a well visible place in the town center one dark night, and a day or two later the newspaper used it as the pickup story for an article about a growing graffiti problem they seem to had planned anyway.
Well, for starters, not every artist creates art for people. And as I've said earlier ITT, it's not only about communicating one fixed idea or emotion, either.
Just because your reading differs from what the artist set out to convey doesn't mean your take has no value or you should try harder.
But the artist's/creator's intentions don't matter according to art critics. The only evaluator for meaning of art is the individual who views it.
So for all the shitflinging Polygon and other sites are sending the way of the developers, trying to discredit them at every turn, they're focusing on something that doesn't matter. Intent of the artist is trivial in art.
It's not a pianist, it's a full orchestra and audience.
"Music" like this is at least interesting because it's pretty much performance art that requires audience participation. Everyone stays silent because it's "music." It requires at least charisma to gather all these people here to do something so ridiculous and sell the idea.
>But the artist's/creator's intentions don't matter according to art critics. The only evaluator for meaning of art is the individual who views it.
Right. My implication was that while Hatred would like to see itself as a subversive comment on violence in culture, I don't think it succeeds in doing that. Or perhaps they're lying entirely.
How about I kill a cow and leave it to rot in the middle of an art gallery? Its constant decay represents the transience of existence and the eternal cycle of mortality, as evidenced by the clouds of flies and maggots swarming all over it.
Okay, I misread your initial post. I get what your on about now. I think by simply provoking outrage and having people defend the violence in other games it does succeed on some level, though not completely.
John Cage wrote mostly for piano, but 4'33" is meant for any combination of instruments. It's been performed countless times by many different groups of people with various instruments. That video is just one example.
>not liking modern art
>and the physical relation to the other balls shows how some people have different fortunes than others
But they're floating at the same height.
You just made that shit up, art is a scam CONFIRMED.
>You're no longer a hero but so hated people want to ban and censor your game.
But that's wrong. People have been looking for people wanting to ban and censor it but have come up with no one.
Also the devs of Hatred say it's not art, it's just a game for "gaming pleasure." It's a product like most games.
What the fuck is wrong with society, why does this pretentious shit exist? I guess what I take away from it is the reminder that humans are a bunch of dumb apes riding a rock through space, this is the human equivalent of flinging poo.
It turns into performance art and becomes even more valuable.
>How about I kill a cow and leave it to rot in the middle of an art gallery?
Yes, and it's been done. A guy shot some dogs for an art piece I think. Just by making it gross or violent doesn't mean it isn't art.
>tfw this thread is estimated to be worth $2 gorillion and is a statement on the cultural effects of the ebola outbreak in west Africa
How about I bring in a blank canvas and say that that my art is all about what ISN'T painted?
>AND THEN I GOT PAID $100,000 FOR THIS MASTERPIECE
Let's say I come with a hammer and smash the glass from that piece of art.
How much do you think I'd be charged for breaking it?
>What do you think of games as art? What's high art to you?
Video games only get close to being art when they emulate another medium
>TLOU is only art by being akin to a movie
>VNs are only art by being akin to literature
This isn't art. It's three basketballs floating in a fish tank.
Art can be anything expressed from human creativity, considering the artist can explain their motivation. Considering the basketballs in water are meant to portray transience, I very much believe that the artist was high and looking at a fish tank. If I ever met the artist, I would ask them what the piece meant, and why.
If this was called "Three basketballs in a fish tank.", then I would consider it art, basing it off the motive of wanting to see how three basketballs look while floating in a fish tank. Sure, nobody would want to buy it, but at least it's not pulling existential '2deep4u' bullshit.
Yes, they change with science. I'm not saying that they stay perfectly still, I'm saying that it's cool that this piece is meant to shift and drift with the outside disturbances and the impossibility of keeping them evenly spaced. It's food for thought.
I actually saw a fucking cool piece of art which was just a collection of sliced cadavers in formaldehyde. One of the cadavers was a cow and it was split down the middle so you could walk right through the two glass formaldehyde containers. I think the artist name was Damien hirst.
Not all postmodern art is shit, sometimes it's neat.
What irks me is not that this is art, anything can be art. A child's finger painting can be art. You can even call this art deep. What gets to me is how much monetary value is placed in art like this. The artist needed no skill to produce this. They needed no effort or training. I guess it's mostly the fault of the buyer, they're allowed to buy whatever they want for however much they want to pay, but I just don't like the fact that someone can just buy 3 basketballs and an aquarium from Walmart, put them together in half an hour and make more money with that than most people do in a year.
If anything, creating shock horror amplifies the visual emotion of the piece, along with it being of limited showing time due to decomposure.
It would work, among heavy protest and publicity.
Only if you sell it right. If you've done your time in art school and people don't have to do too much research on you to know that you know your shit, then you might have a shot.
I went to art school, generally very good with focus on industrial art and illustration, but we did have that one class where we learned how to make bullshit artist statements.
I'm not kidding, you're encouraged to show contempt to the reader of your statement, and get graded on how much you can make fun of them without them knowing.
Its a post-modern artist in-joke.
I went to a place that did this but with real human bodies, you didnt get to walk through it like that, but one of the bodies was all sliced up from head to toe into thin layers
it was pretty cool, but I think it was more for science than art
It doesnt matter WHAT you do. It matters WHO does it. That's modern art for ya. If you have 10 photos of shit - the only one that can be consired as an art is the one made by famous person.
Why the fuck people even care what's art and what isn't? It changes absolutely nothing. Care about FUN, this is what matters, not some bullshit awards
>how deep they are
I'm pretty sure everyone will agree they're just meant to be humorous
I don't think a cow cut in half is cool because its art or it implies something or it expresses something.
I think its cool because its a motherfucking cow cut in half, its a fascinating way to view the inside of a creature.
Gone Home actually had some visual direction and a meaning behind all the walking.
This is just three basketballs in a fishtank. Hell, they didn't even hide the basketball logos.
Hey, I remember similar shit from Jojo's part5. There was one guy killed, sliced into like 20 pieces and then put in to glass cubes. I wonder who thought of that shit first.
But consumers dont get any money from playing videogames. Do you get money from watching shitstains on the wall or fapping to hands of Mona Lisa?
I wasn't referring to consumers, I was referring to developers. They're going to make the decisions that benefit them, that make them money. If micro transactions give them a better chance to make a profit, they'll take it. If cutting game content out of the final build and releasing them later as DLC promises ongoing interest at the least amount of effort, they'll do it.
Industry isn't about fun, anon.
>that's no excuse for three basket balls floating in an aquarium to be worth hundreds of thousands of dollars.
There is no excuse. Some people will pay that much because they're rich and that's what they're willing to pay. Whether or not they're doing it to prove their status or because they love art, or because they've been tricked into thinking they love art is irrelevant and not really provable anyway.
People with more money than they could ever spend want to be entertained for more than a typical drunken orgy lasts, so they buy this expensive shit, from whoever makes the best description of what it really means, so they can tell their friends about it, who may be obvious to the fact that this whole thing is a giant ruse.
The issue here is, what makes an amalgamation of art a piece of art itself? When someone says a movie is art, they usually refer to the movie's underlying meaning or story, unless I'm uninformed. Maybe also because of their visuals. Certainly most people don't call all movies art, just as all games shouldn't be called art. Games do contain music, visuals, writing, many things that are art, but having art in them doesn't necessarily make the games themselves art.
So what makes a good art game? Obviously Gone Home would be this kind of 2deep4u nonsense art, but are there any games that could be called art in the same way that a play or a painting could?
This is where I lack knowledge to continue.
Does anyone know of any existing games which could be called art?
I know where you wanna go, OP, no, vidya aren't art, and it wouldn't be posting BAD real art that you will make a point for your argument.
Written art is in books, not in comics.
Sculpting art is in sculptures, not in action figures.
Visual art is in painting, not in videogames.
Pretentious self-proclaimed artist who want to make art with garbage, feces and other (s)craps are people like you, who lacks philosophical thinking and visual taste, and don't want to study to develop the first or the second.
This may sound like an insult, but really isn't, believe me, OP, everyone can understand and create great things, so you.
>implying these are not the 3 balls required to perform the malicious ritual of the fearsome and evil chaos dunk, forever sealed in holy glass, so only the hero who has proven his courage and wisdom can attain their powers to defeat the monstarz
>The issue here is, what makes an amalgamation of art a piece of art itself?
It may make it easier for you to understand by thinking of a piece of art (e.g a movie) as an amalgamation of crafts. The movie as a whole is the art, not just the story. The parts make up the whole piece.
Journey from a visual standpoint.
WarioLand 4 from a game design standpoint.
Hotline Miami as an edgy, social commentary kind of art.
Gone Home as "are we art yet?" kind of art.
All games are art. They have art direction. There is a position called 'Art director'. As long as it contains human expression that is conveyed to the viewer, successful or not, it is art.
>you will never build a $15 million statue of Cloud Strife conjuring a jizz tornado
I see a triple slam.
>All games are art. They have art direction. There is a position called 'Art director'.
That is a colloquial use of the word "art" wherein the meaning more closely resembles the word "craft".
>As long as it contains human expression that is conveyed to the viewer, successful or not, it is art.
Video games can be/are art, but not for the reasons you provided.
>it just won't feel right on GBA
And I think you're both dumb faggots trying way too hard to sound intellectual and reading way more into Hatred than is really there.
It's nothing more than darker, edgier, more angsty "your mom hates Dark Space 2" levels of high school fanservice. There is no commentary here, "subversive" or otherwise.
Dumb high school kids spend money on dumb edgy things. Publishers have realized this for decades.
Let me rephrase it, then:
"It's plain dumb deing willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for three basket balls floating in an aquarium."
It adds nothing to the "art" debate, but goddammit these thing piss me off.
I once went to an O'Keeffe showing for an art class. Her older art isn't my favorite but I respect the technical ability and can get a partial grasp on thought process, and usage of color. Then I saw the posted picture. This is an O'Keeffe from later in her life. This isn't art, this is two-thirds of a division symbol. No meaning, just pseudo-artistic nonsense.
So what makes some movies stand out in the same way stuff like the Mona Lisa stands out over some random guy painting in his free time?
You can't quantify the quality of movies as a whole, so is it just based on whether enough people happen to agree that it's high art? What makes them think that it's high art? What specific qualities of a movie like, I don't know, Fight Club, makes it more artsy than less iconic films?
>It's nothing more than darker, edgier, more angsty "your mom hates Dark Space 2" levels of high school fanservice. There is no commentary here, "subversive" or otherwise.
Reread our posts. That is what we were saying.
Once again, my implication was that the creators would like to think of themselves as being subversive, when really they aren't.
If you're looking at what the piece means to you, instead of what it meant to the artist, then aren't you denying the meaning of said piece? After all, the artist's intent is the reason behind the existance of of art, ignoring it would be equal to ignoring the piece itself since you aren't looking at it the way it's supposed to be looked at.
Unless part of the meaning behind a piece is for it to be looked at in different ways.
Shadow of the Colossus
They actually make use of the contstraints of the medium to savagely fuck with the player and make a statement, for all three of those it basically amounts to "don't just blindly do what you're told and think for yourself"
fuck man I spent all this time trying to get good pictures of lonesome cowboy and hiropon and you beat me to it. ah well, here's hiropon which sold for $427,500
You don't understand. Its clearly depicting a sunset, except the sun is black. It represents the ever diminishing joy and life in our society as the corporatizationg of our culture continues to encroach upon all that we value as beautiful.
>my implication was that the creators would like to think of themselves as being subversive, when really they aren't.
I don't even think they believe that. It's all marketing bullshit
and it's wroking great.
The basketballs are the only coloured objects in the photograph, so your eyes are naturally drawn to them. Each one is almost perfectly aligned with the others. There are a lot of straight lines and quadrilateral shapes.
It's a very easy image to look at, with enough oddities to keep it engaging. Why basketballs? Why are they in water? Why is the basketball on the right a different colour and brand to the others? What does it mean?
Modern art requires more study into advertising than artistic technique nowadays.
Right. That's why I also said that they might "be lying entirely." (Because they have stated that they're trying to make a commentary, but it does seem more like just trying to be shocking.)
And I disagree with your implication. I don't think the creators had any such thoughts, despite the "it must have been 2deep4u cause the outrage" bullshit their CEO was spouting.
At this point I guess we just have to sit back and wait to see if someone shoots up a mall, school, etc. and makes the claim that the game influenced their killing spree.
>you will never get to watch the reactions of artshow patrons
>Another term for pandering to an echo chamber audience who 'already gets it'
>exclusionary tactic meant to separate those 'who don't get it' and have common sense
If only I could be so grossly incandescent.
I can kind of respect "thoughtful" art when it's done concisely, and doesn't have to be explained to everyone who sees it due to its vagueness.
This one comes to mind. Its meaning is simple easy to get, and I find humor in the implications. But OP's pic requires a fucking paragraph of explanation from the artist himself and even then it's open to interpretation.
I find it ironic that OP is lamenting the "art people" while, at the same time, posturing as an art person.
No one on this board -- or on this planet, actually -- is the arbiter of what constitutes art. The DUMBEST thinking that has become popular is to equate art with good [I like it; therefore, it's art].
High-art, low-art; good art, bad art -- it's ALL art.
My favourite kind of art is the kind that can also be used for practical purposes. Kind of like how I use an old envelope that a birthday card came in as a coaster for several years now.
>artists should be meat photocameras
You'ree no different than grafics kiddies.
Art is for artists. You can take literally anything you encounter and call it art if you analyze and think about it, and I do mean anything.
Most "artists" that try for a deeper meaning tend to have deep rooted problems and are just excerting themselves, there was a time when people did that they would just be locked up, now its fucking enabled and applauded.
Good thing that will never happen because vidya is a consumer driven industry. Three floating basketballs just wouldn't sell no matter how hard they got shilled, just like Gone Homo didn't sell for shit either.
The much bigger actual threat that is already here is the hollywoodisation of videogames. What that means of course is dumbing down and mainstreaming titles so they have more mass appeal and sell better.
Every game trying to be COD or Skyrim is what is killing vidya. Questmarkers, regenerating health and shooting galleries is what I'm really worried about. Of course this faggot shit and artsy fartsy hipster crap is disconcerning but it's not really a threat because it will never generate enough money to be crammed down our throats.
Shitty meachanics and simplified gameplay on the other hand are already here and wrecking house.
>I've never even coded a hello world in C yet I make a lot of assumptions about making videogames!
you're so dumb it hurts
High art is art put together very well. When it comes to games, that means game mechanics that actually aren't glitched to hell and back, which is usually most indie games. Bonus when emergent gameplay is found.
>Not mentally masturbating like a good female
>Random chance doesn't exist
oh boy I wish we had this conversation irl
now it wouldn't matter what I said, linked, showed you'd just post a tips fedora pic and be done with it so I won't even bother
but so you know you are dumb as hell for saying something like that
>Someone makes a thread claiming something horrible is gonna happen to videogames
>Blames something /v/ doesn't like (Women, art, normal people)
>Couple hundred shitty posts where the thread echo chambers about how much they don't like the thing that is "threatening to destroy" videogames
>A new one is made
>the cycle of shitposting and irrational hate continues
I need to get out of here
Unfortunately I had to study Art History in college and I can tell you that this isn't true. Even dating back to the Rennaissance and earlier, artists have always just been about 1-upping each other and deconstructing "trends." Monet shat out this fucking abortion as a critique of realism/formalism in art and was vindicated by history for it. Nobody know what art is or what it's supposed to be.
My brain is constantly looking for and finding bizarre-ass pseudo-philosophical metaphors like this. I see them everywhere, even when, logically, they probably don't actually exist. Sometimes I cry when I find a particularly good one. I think I might be retarded or something.
Am I one tool shed away from being a millionaire?
It's really not even that big of a deal, though. You'd think we were going through another vidya crash by the way people on here talk about it.
It just goes to show how little the average people who post here get outside. None of this stuff really affects anyone outside of /v/
The autofellatio sculpture is symbolic of people like the anon who made the dragon
The artist thinks people like the anon are just showing off their practical skills in being able to make woooow cool dragons, which he equates to just wanking on your face
>someone where I live has done graffitti
>literally put it on every fucking corner
>it looks like shit
>its absolutely everywhere, often on the same wall
>spraying over other peoples actually good mural work
>later find out it was some 16 year old faggot
>a guy whos house he sprayed on had caught and sprayed all the cans in his face and beat the shit out of him
I see why people dont like graffitti, its fucking retards like that. He tried to draw on the guys front window for fuck sake.
I have no doubt that what you fear will become reality. It's already the case in painting, literature, movies, etc., after all. But what you're forgetting is that, side by side with the indie movies about gay cowboys eating pudding, there's also the blockbuster Hollywood stuff, the bigger productions, the smaller productions, the good "alternative" movies, and everything in between. There's room for all of it.
Just because there's a lot of shit, doesn't mean there's only shit. I, for one, would welcome these "high art video games" - because it's a chance for all these idiots to fuck off to their own corner, and leave the real video games to those of use who enjoy them for what they are. High art is just the "best" stuff out there - which itself is a really flimsy definition, I just haven't found a better one. The stuff that actually influence culture. That holds true even for video games; the best ones, those that go down as masterpieces, are what I could consider high art in this field. And, to me, it's not just about the visuals, the music, the writing, etc., but also about the gameplay. Tetris, just because of the gameplay, is art to me. It sure as fuck has me more impressed that white canvas - fucking monochrome painting is a joke for most of it.
So let these dicks stroke each other by themselves. I'll be over here, playing the games I enjoy.
suddenly wishing I saved those pics of the circle of guys completely naked on their hands and knees in a circle licking each others assholes
I think there was a woman or two in the group but for the most part it was just hairy men licking each others assholes with a huge crowd watching
>Video games are art. Every single video game, by definition, would be considered art.
That is about as a false statement as false statements can ever go, dude. Not considering the irony of complaining about the state of high art while continuously pushing the same flawed logic that caused the crisis of art in the first place. If you dislike the idea of three fucking balls in an aquarium being valued, then why don't you actually reject the idea of artistic relativism in the first place?
>What do you think of games as art?
It's a possibility, but there is a deeper problem with the general idea of what art is and is supposed to be, what value and what role should it have. Talking about games that could be possibly considered as art, we need to first sort out the question of what art is.
There are already some games that I'd argue are works of high art already, though there is just a few of them, most of them made by the same company.
>What's high art to you?
A mirror of the social values and a very valuable asset in theory - meaningless and antagonizing in the current social state and under the current art theories.
Art is - and I cannot stress this out more - functionally a evaluative term. It's an umbrella term for objects that represent some form of exceptional socially identified value(s). Be it mastery craft, rarity of the materials, didactic or symbolic representation of a valued message or sentiment or any of the many other possible values a society might want to praise and represent.
Art robbed of such functional role, denied it's evaluative purpose, leads to what OP shows.
It should not be difficult to figure out how games can potentially play into all of this.
Whenever I see people talk about stuff like this, it reminds me of an experience at an Art Museum
>Me and my family are going to the next exhibit on thAt floor
>We then see a man take off his hat and put it on the floor
>He just walks away
>Suddenly people crowd around the hat, discussing what it could mean, trying to take pictures of it, and the lime
>The man from earlier comes back, picks up his hat, and just leaves
>This whole time I'm holding back laughter
I learned a lot about art that day
See, here's the difference between an insane person (an artsy indie dev) and a sane person (a typical person who enjoys video games).
The insane person will look at this aquarium with the three basketballs and start rambling on about what it could mean about human nature.
The sane person will take one look at it then go get three friends and say 'Hey guys, wanna take one of those balls and start a game of 2-on-2? We can use the other two balls as spares and use the water to keep ourselves hydrated.'
>friend goes to art uni
>go to the end of year exhibition with him
>one of the divider walls is blank where the rest have a bunch of work hanging of them, just has a name tag on it
>fuck loads of people gathered around talking and pointing at it
>about 30 minutes later some guy comes bumbling through and starts pinning his work on the board
>he was just late to the show
>everyone shuffles away awkwardly
"art" is fucking stupid and games aren't art, they're games.
if a "game" is "art," it's not really a game. it's "art."
games can have art or "art" in them, but just because it has one of those two in it doesn't mean the whole thing is art or "art"
the only kind of art i like is shit that actually looks really nice and people actually put time and effort in to instead of just slapping paint at random places on a canvas for thirty seconds and selling it for a million dollars
it's a biography of charle's barkley's life
Art Student here
There are multiple types of art
The masters of art are able to do all of them.
For example, Ruebens was a master at baroque art and pioneered drawing human bodies. However, his skill pales in comparison to Picasso. He was able to break concepts down into their most basic form. Picasso could draw things with precision and realism, but he wanted to discover new ways to convey the same ideas with the least possible.
To imply that PPR or Picasso are bad artists because one of them does something you don't like is stupid.
What is stupid is that most modern artists do not have the basic foundation that would grant them access into becoming abstract. Case in point, Jason Pollock could paint landscapes and do forms of naturalism and realsim. But he got bored with it and went on to create new forms of abstract. Modern Abstract artists however don't develop the core.
To relate this to video games. Imagine if you had an indie dev that COULDN'T make a normal standard video game, and could only make their abstract stuff.
"I can draw anime but I can't draw normal, its my style"
THAT is the problem, not because people want artsy games.
Artsy abstract creativity + solid foundation in traditonal art + understanding of the masters = great artist
That message in itself would be fine if the sculpture didn't look like shit.
The message means nothing if you can't actually apply yourself, it shows how little you actually care about that message no matter how 'profound' it is.
Ok, so I guess you don't mind if some 15 year old spray paints the word 'faggot' on the side of your house.
After all, it's art and you certainly sound like a huge faggot.
Maybe painting over it will teach you appreciation for other people's property. If not, hopefully you'll get the shit beat out of you.
The lack of effort is symbolic of a lack of effort when someone elses effort isn't symbolic of actual effort, so he deserves to be ridiculed by someone elses lack of effort.
Sounds like the lazy have the high ground and anyone with a message instantly deserves to have it recognized whether or not he can actually create something that isn't an eye-sore.
I understand the message and it's a really shitty one.
I don't care if it's art or not.
I said it doesn't hurt anyone. A crime without a victim.
So you're confirmed buyfag then?
Gotta support people selling you something that can be copied endlessly!
>I said it doesn't hurt anyone.
Doesn't mean it isn't a crime.
Me coming into your house and repeatedly hitting your computer with a baseball bat doesn't cause you physical harm, but it's still breaking several laws.
Your argument is pathetic, but that's to be expected from the typical 12 year old that thinks graffiti is cool.
I didn't even know what Graffiti is before this discussion started.
>repeatedly hitting your computer with a baseball bat doesn't cause you physical harm
It's not equivalent because computers are a limited resource. Videogames are not.
>"Hurp durp vandalism is a victimless crime"
>"Derp piracy is a victimless crime"
You're either a teenager or just an idiot, but you're opinions are stupid. They aren't victimless crimes because they affect people's property and those people get to decide what's acceptable and what's not. Not you.
I'm okay with some high art in gaming. For as many high art peices there are though there's always three times as much pop art, and our typical stuff would fall in to that category. So if crazy artists start contributing to the industry, whatever, that's cool. Maybe playing them will be fun in some way. There will still be just as much other stuff coming out and hidden gems to catch up on.
Writing and speaking is determined by how eloquent the message is.
It's why Hitler got more support than he would have if he would have walked up to a podium and said something like "YEAH MAN LETS KILL SOME JEWS, GERMANY 1935 LETS GO, WOOOOOO GERMANY!" instead of being an excellent orator.
that is fucking beautiful
all these shitters that can't understand art
Only if you convince people with expendable amounts of cash in that range.
Art being popular or worth a lot all depends on who likes it, when they liked it, how much power and influence they have, and who they told. It has nothing to do with the art itself.
Fags will buy literal coiled pieces of shit if you convinced them it will somehow make them happy, boost their ego, or make them appear more "cultured"
I don't understand why this picture keeps getting posted as an argument against modern art. The guy is clearly a huge autist who probably goes off to call anything he doesn't understand pretentious.
You know the kind of autismal fuck that can't understand jokes or concepts beyond the basic mechanical functions of the universe.
For fucks sake he went to a conceptual sculptry class thinking he could make his epic dragons all day and be respected for it? He can make all the dragons he wants but if they are just decoration
they are worth literally nothing for the class he took.
The rise of 2deep4u indie movies hasn't stopped people from making good mainstream movies, so I don't see how it would be any different with games.
Besides, no one's going to make an AAA version of Gone Home or whatever because people with enough money to finance AAA games generally aren't that stupid. There might be more indie platformers with "deep" stories about cis privilege or whatever, but those devs wouldn't have made anything good anyway, so nothing of value will be lost.
>I didn't even know what Graffiti is before this discussion started.
Good for you. Stop trying to argue that vandalizing someone else's property is art rather than just crime committed by retarded adolescents like yourself then.
>It's not equivalent because computers are a limited resource
Both the computer and that fence children like you ruined with scribbles take time and resources to assemble, you stupid little shit.
What is the F A ∞ of video games?
This sculpture would have a better place as something written or spoken. tell me what you want to say, that's why we have words.
The dragon doesn't look like shit, so I want to see more of it, spectacle isn't all there is to art but it helps to not look like shit. having pieces we generally like the look helps us understand what we find most attractive in aesthetics.
Giving us a piece that's supposed to say something the artist could have wrote down is basically masturbating to how well you think you understand symbolism.
>I don't understand why this picture keeps getting posted as an argument against modern art.
Because it's a great example of THE argument against modern "art."
Scraping together garbage, gluing it together to form a circle and declaring it represents humanity is not art.
Art is something that is created with imagination and skill and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas or feelings.
Modern art takes neither imagination, nor skill, is never beautiful and just because someone says their crudely represented clay penis is an expression of humankind's kindness doesn't make it true.
Stop with your fucking idiotic "piracy hurts no one" bullshit.
Cost to produce game: $10 million
Cost to replicated game: $0.01
Cost to buy game: $60
Do you see how the cost to replicate doesn't mean anything? There is an enormous fixed cost that is recouped by selling millions of copies. When people decide to acquire a game without paying, they cut into the creator's ability to recoup the $10 million. Yes, there's a chance a pirate "wouldn't have bought it anyway", but there are also a lot of people who are interested in a game and just have to choose between paying $60 or nothing. And nothing is obviously preferable.
You are a teenager, aren't you?
>The rise of 2deep4u indie movies hasn't stopped people from making good mainstream movies
This is wrong, but not for the reasons you stated.
Indies are taking off because there are less mainstream releases, which could get me in to a four paragraph explanation of the economics which drives the mainstream.
Less revenue at the theatres over time = less releases per year, however
video on demand/streaming/rentals/bluray has gone up up up over the years, so that makes up for the producing side of films, but not for the physical theatres
That's why here, in 2014, we only have a few hundred (200-300 max) per year, whereas around the millenium, there were almost 1.3 to 1.8x the amount of movies released per year.
Maybe I should tape a piece of canvas to the wall and punch the fucking shit out of it until my knuckles break and bleed all over it, then sell it and say that I was making a statement against modern art.
You have absolutely no idea of what you are talking about.
You have no idea how constructed your view of beauty is, like the current view of beauty in modern art is a construction. Beauty doesn't exist as a constant and is to be challenged at all time.
Beauty is a constant thing.
>is to be challenged
You can scream at the top of your lungs that fat people are attractive, no one but fetishistic chubby chasers will EVER agree with you.
I didn't decide that.
>You have no idea how constructed your view of beauty is, like the current view of beauty in modern art is a construction.
That's exactly what plebs does, however.
Be a massive fucking tool.
Like, holy shit people, stop making me think there are actually worse people than me in this world.
>The Great Gatsby
>Tree of Life
>Last of Us
>two fucking Beatles albums
Then fucking do it.
I'm dead serious. Do it.
This is what a lot of people pertinently and systematically do not get.
They say 'oh i could have done that!'.
But that's the thing, they didn't. They did not fucking do it.
I'm an artfag myself and i'm constantly making fun of modern art in my atelier with the mates. When i have an idea like you had with the canvas, however retarded or un-artsy it is, i actually fucking do it.
That's the kind of statement I can get behind.
>For fucks sake he went to a conceptual sculptry class thinking he could make his epic dragons all day and be respected for it
He does deserve respect because he is an excellent sculptor. The person who he's raging at deserved to have that piece of shit thrown into the garbage can and laughed out of the exhibit because he is neither a sculptor nor worthy of respect.
It's called high art, Anon.
>4′33″ (pronounced "Four minutes, thirty-three seconds" or just "Four thirty-three") is a three-movement composition by American experimental composer John Cage (1912–1992). It was composed in 1952, for any instrument or combination of instruments, and the score instructs the performer(s)
not to play their instrument(s) during the entire duration of the piece throughout the three movements.
>That's the kind of statement I can get behind.
You've got to have IQ in double digits.
Yes I do. The consumer decides if the work is important. If he does, he buys it.
The best works of art got made because the artists wanted some fucking money.
The idea that artists don't owe you shit is true. Just as I don't owe you my fucking money and attention at that point. You and your bullshit can now degenerate themselves to death and hopefully wallow in poverty because just as I am apparently not entitled to a good product you are not entitled to fucking money because you feel like your work is important and its flaws acceptable but nobody with money does.
And something needs to pay off the debt you got from that worthless liberal arts degree you acquired. You have zero skill but PLENTY of bullshit to go around.
Standards have degenerated to the point where, yes, ANYTHING can be classified as art - which means it went from meaning something to now meaning absolutely nothing.
All I can gather from this thread is that art is a meaningless term and retards who form a crude phallus in clay think they deserve the same level of recognition as someone who can turn a tree into a realistic looking dragon.
Toppest of keks all around.
Games aren't usually art. They're fun. Maybe sometimes these things overlap. But any true gamer could care less about when the art part occurs.
Also definitely OP is definitely art by a nigger/nigger lover.
I've met many people from the art scene, from curators to artists to photographers and the whole art thing nowadays is just a massive wank fest for pretentious rich people. It's all about which artist can create the weirdest shit and how much money you are willing to pay for it. Oh, there are also the non buyers who just try to pretend to be smarter than anyone by finding a fucking meaning beneath everything. "Oh, this represents the transience in the human soul," they will say, looking at a crude sculpture of a guy jacking off.
>retards who form a crude phallus in clay think they deserve the same level of recognition as someone who can turn a tree into a realistic looking dragon
They are both worthless abortions.
Your le epic skirem dragons can fuck right off.
>My epic WoW-inspired decorative dragon is much much cooler than that other shit i find complicated and challenging.
Are you actually an edgy 14-year old? Cause that whats you sound like.
I'm guessing from 'maybe you should learn to read' and 'mongoloid' that you're 14-15 or baiting so I'm gonna not reply to you anymore m8
so what's stopping some Anon to going to some high end art gallery and bullshiting his Loss.jpg edits as art
it would probably be better than 90% of modern "art"
Do you see this? This is a shitty fucking video game that people will pay up to $40,000 for.
Stop trying to understand idiots who are obsessed with stupid shit, of course it doesn't make sense to you, you don't care.
imo, if it tells a story, it's art. This includes many games but not all.
But if you are playing games to experience art, you are doing it wrong. Games are meant to be fun, so play them for fun. It's like the tomato - fruit salad analogy