Are video games art, /v/?

File: CcsdIVX.jpg (38KB, 500x282px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 500x282px

Nigga what? Bideo games?

>>380949850
Yes, although the games that are most commonly touted as art are not.
I constantly see narrative driven video games that have abandoned gameplay in favour of cutscenes labelled as art when they barely qualify as video games.

>>380949850
ARE TIGER GAMES VIDEO GAMES?

I believe a video game can be art, but not just anything is art.

My definition of art is artificial beauty.

Video games are artificial and beautiful.

Therefore video games are art.

>>380949850
Who cares? It changes nothing

>>380949850
yes, all that it takes to put video games together, to get all the pieces moving and working, is art
music, animation, acting, graphics, art direction, sound, gameplay, etc..

>>380949850

WHO GIVES SHIT

AND WHEN CAN WE GET A CIRI GAME CDPR??

>>380949850
They can be, but are not always. Just as a taking a shit on a canvas isn't art.

You have to hire artists to make a video game, how the fuck is it not art?

File: Cir.jpg (19KB, 210x240px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 210x240px

>ywn lick those collar bones

Why even live, /v/? ;_;

>>380949850
No. Now fuck off Neogaf.

>>380950903
If I hire a bunch of artists to piss in a river, is that art?

>>380951010
That's a false equivalency you're trying to make. If you hire a bunch of artists to draw, paint, or illustrate something - yeah, it's art. I

>>380949850
They are art in the same sense that the shitty framed pictures at IKEA are art. Their express purpose is to make money.

>>380951265
it's really not. an "artist" taking a shit on a canvas is considered to be art so a bunch of paid artists pissing in the river could also have some sort of deeper meaning to it, making it art

>>380951265
So, you're just saying games are art because games contain other art forms? seems like a weak argument.

>>380951272
1. Not all games are exclusively meant to make money, obviously. There are free games.
2. How do you find an object's purpose? If you ask people working on the game, they would probably not say the are making the game just to make money.
3. Why does being exclusively made to make money make something not art? It seems like the motive behind something is not related to whether or not something is artistic.
4. If we take your point of view, it puts us in the ridiculous situation of not being able to determine if something is art or not if the creator is dead and left no record of what the purpose of the object is.

>>380951451
>Trying to derail an off-topic, if cliche thread
>trying to derail it with non-vidya stuff
>trying to derail it with not funny or interesting stuff
>calling a 3D pig your "waifu"
kys mm

>>380950928
She better gain a good 25 pounds for the sequel. She look emaciated.

File: 1496531646281.png (155KB, 630x518px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 630x518px

>>380949850
That's probably the shittiest, trashiest tattoo in the history of vidya
Shame on her

>>380949850
No, and I hope they never get to be, otherwise we will end up with more walking simulators than Ubisoft-esque open world collectathons.

File: gamer food.png (657KB, 930x528px) Image search: [Google]

657KB, 930x528px

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ejdjcun2Jo4&t=2m51s
Just look at Druckmann's face, if games are not art how can they inspire men into such emotions?

>>380951010
It indeed may be. The definition of art is
>The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
If hiring artists to make a statement by pissing in a river is the way you want to express and convey your emotions, why not. Don't expect people to understand it though.

The first episode of first season of Black Mirror is dealing with your question.

File: 1491750810014.jpg (89KB, 1024x644px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 1024x644px

>>380951893
>Just look at Druckmann's face, if games are not art how can they inspire men into such emotions?

>>380949850
Some of them, yes.
Not all drawings are art either after all.

File: GeW1BRj.png (314KB, 306x455px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 306x455px

>>380949850
This is what True Gamers™ actually believe.

>>380951893
That's a fucking terrible definition though. Obviously, not all use of human imagination and creativity is art. I can come up with imaginative and creative ways to do anything. To piss on my wife, to shit in a river, to torture children, to shitpost on /v/.

>>380952024
Jeff Vogel is retarded. Games are art, not better than

>>380950817
>hunt monsters, fuck all the bitches, pick bad decisions
>but as Ciri
I can't imagine how much money CDPR would make off that one.

>>380949850

Is a baseball art? Is a hockey stick art?

No, games are toys.

>>380952421
>is baseball art?
yes
>is a hockey stick art?
a hockey stick is not a game...

>>380952054

That is arguably art though.

A mad man can slaughter people and display their remains into a miniature eifel tower and yes, that is still art because some amount of creativity was put into it.

>>380952139
It'd be taken as blatant fanservice and nobody would be able to see it as anything else. Wouldn't matter if the plot was the most enthralling thing ever conceived. /v/ especially would blast it for being awful fanservice because protag is an EW GROSS GIRL.

It will never happen, and rightfully so.

>thigh tattoo
literally fucking throwing up.

>>380952505
That is not art. No one would could appreciate that in a disinterested aesthetic way.

>>380952471
>a hockey stick is not a game...

It's a tool designed to facilitate play. So are video games.

Tools for play are called toys, therefore video games are toys.

>>380952569
It's some DeviantArt fag. They can't help themselves.

File: eJwNxcsNwyAMANBdGABjPsZkG0QQiZQEBO6pyu7tu7yv-sxLbeoQGWsD2M9V-tz1kj5zq7r13q6ax7l06TdkkVyOuz6ywEZ2KTERGcNI5A04NP8wIAcfYopoAR2jRYdkIns9nqbeH757Im8.png (121KB, 430x430px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 430x430px

>>380952623
gotchu senpai

Without question.

File: original vs emulation remaster.png (662KB, 750x566px) Image search: [Google]

662KB, 750x566px

>>380951963
It's funny since I've been on 4chan since 2006 and visited reddit multiple times through images posted here, like what you did now.

>>380952054
Good art translates the emotion you are trying to convey to other people. Bad art doesn't because the author (you) is lacking the means (study, skill, intellectual capacity, empathy) to translate your emotion through the expression. Yes, an autistic drawing of Sonic is art as is the mastery performed by Van Gogh in one of his drawings after studying objects of his drawings for years.

>>380949850
I don't know about video games but you're picture definitely shouldn't be considered art.

>>380952618

I would :)

>>380952739
>Jesus Christ suddenly becomes a black dude with an afro

>>380952683
games and contest are in the wrong order in this picture

>>380952618

Yes it is. Guro is an art.

>>380949850
Video games can be art in the same way that movies can be art, it's just that most of them aren't.

>>380952739
That's a stupid definition of art. Art is about beauty, not "translating emotion" or communicating anything.
What if the artist is dead and we don't know what emotion he was trying to convey? What if he failed to convey whatever emotion he was going for but the work of art is beautiful anyway? What if a work of art doesn't stir any particular emotion but is nevertheless beautiful?
You don't have to answer any of these questions if you just accept the obvious answer that art is just artificial beauty.

File: Zabaniya_2_5star_full.png (740KB, 904x640px) Image search: [Google]

740KB, 904x640px

Absolutely

>>380952947
It's that all of them are art. And that 99.9% of art is terrible.

File: 1495532375961.jpg (139KB, 764x851px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 764x851px

>>380952629

What? Ciri does have that tattoo.

>>380951893
>If hiring artists to make a statement by pissing in a river is the way you want to express and convey your emotions, why not.

But that's just a creatively made statement, not art. Art is more bound up in simulation, and simulation is a pretty big fucking deal because our instincts respond to what things seem like at a level of appearance (for Max Stirner beauty is "the promise of happiness", a simulation of sorts). Doing something "artistically" is possible, I can piss in the snow creatively, but the "art object" here would be a weak one as far as simulation goes.

What characterizes the best paintings is that they seem like far more than mud on a canvas, they give way to an artistic appearance through simulation (which involves dissimulation, where the canvas "conceals" itself). Same goes for games and novels and so on.

But hey, if you want to really want to act like some bitch pissing in a river or leaking menstrual blood onto a sheet of paper is "art", go for it.

>>380952629
point and laff

>>380952961

No it fucking isn't?

A painting of a nuked out city can still be considered art. It may not be beautiful, but it still sends the feelings of devastation and emptiness. It definitely does not need to be pretty.

>>380952421
>Is a hockey stick art?
This is your comparison point for a videogame? It sounds like something my 90 year old grandmother would ask, precisely because she never plays videogames.

>>380953030
Not that poster but are you serious? I haven't played the games but I've been meaning to. I really like her design and having a stomach-curling tumor is a massive turn-off as you would imagine.

>>380949850
>those faces

>>380953162
Pretty and beautiful are not synonymous. Picasso's Guernica is beautiful, but not pretty.
Also, if I'm looking at a great painting of a nuked out city, I'm not feeling devastation and emptiness. I am impressed by the technique and I'm feeling pleasure for looking at a good painting.

>>380952961
Then it's bad art. The mastery of art implies creating a work that inspires audience it is aimed at into intended emotional state. Art is not only constrained to beauty and beauty creates emotion. Literature is art, yes? So then would you say a cyberpunk genre of literature is art when it's all dark and repulsive?

Also games can be beautiful. Are games like Okami or Journey art then?

>>380953067
>>380953030
Good thing I never saw her as attractive. She's nice as a daughter figure usually, but objectively she's a bit of a mary sue golden child anyway.

>>380953162
It's a stupid definition of art because art's quality is not in the ease of communication. It's just that it evokes something in the viewer. The original artist's feelings and motivation can go fuck themselves.

Art is more likely to be bad if it doesn't communicate the artist's intent, because the disconnection is usually a result of some part of the process being garbage.

>>380953302
Art cannot be centered around intent because we can't always know intent, and because the work itself is separate from intent.

Again beauty is not synonymous with "prettiness." A dark world can be beautiful. People agree Akira is beautiful even though its a dark grimy morally grim world.

Okami and Journey are art, they're just not good games. They are good visual art combined with software. I think strategy games are the height of beauty in games, maybe fighting games too.

>>380953195
Just google "Ciri tattoo"

>>380953272
>I'm not feeling- -I'm impressed by technique

I don't have a generic fedora tipping image to reply to your post with but you get the idea.

>>380953195
In the books when she is sixteen and travelling and being fucked by other girl from the group on a daily basis while snorting on fisstech she gets a tattoo of rose.

File: 1483085107283.jpg (239KB, 1044x770px) Image search: [Google]

239KB, 1044x770px

>>380953453
Thanks I guess.
Fucks sake.

File: Moero chronicle coco.jpg (167KB, 960x544px) Image search: [Google]

167KB, 960x544px

>>380949850
Yes. THIS is art.

>>380953581

When does this release on Steam?

>>380953483
How is that at all fedora tipping? All I'm saying is that viewing a painting that is a *representation* of something grim doesn't make you feel the same way as the real thing would. Instead, you are going to react to the formal/artistic aspects.
People playing a first person shooter aren't feeling sadness when they murder people because they are playing a game. They are having fun with the mechanics of the game. The content is irrelevant.

>>380953162
>A painting of a nuked out city can still be considered art.

Especially if the art highlights what's strengthening about it, or what's uniquely beautiful about it. So yes, even a nuked out city counts as "artificial beauty" (which is just an elaborate artifice being beautiful, like a painting or a song). Beauty still counts, it is just an extension of how deeply an appearance can touch us.

Dark Souls is basically art of a world nuked by magic and cosmic-horror spirit world stuff, but the whole time you surf a beautiful, horrifying, exciting silver lining of that world. Your character also becomes incredibly strong, finds a shit ton of cool items, and meets the most spirited people who ever existed in the world. It's art of the most horrible apocalypse imaginable. People can't even die, they have to consciously rot for nearly eternity, yet you can still affirm the world from what you see (i.e. you would relink the flame). That's pretty artistic.

>>380953451
If art isn't centered around intent it means the artist hasn't mastered it.

>>380951650
Anon, got some bad news for you, CDPR said they will not make a new witcher game. They even referenced that in the Bloof and Wine dlc(best dlc by far for entertenment)

File: IMG_8082.png (95KB, 512x512px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 512x512px

>>380950671

>>380949850
>Are video games art, /v/?
Naw they a multimedia experience now a days.

>>380953664
By that logic all the great works of art would be great by virtue of matching up to intent. That's not the case, though. What was Beethoven's intent with his 9th Symphony? I have no fucking idea, but it's sublimely beautiful. What about Caravaggio's The Crucifixion of St. Peter? Who knows!

>>380953615
July.

>>380949850
Of course

I don't get why a game contains artwork, music and movies(cutscenes or directorial input in image/item placement) yet can't be considered art if everything is put together

>>380954210
>get a bunch of paintings off the wall
>throw them into a pile on the floor
>ART

>>380953858
Just because you didn't ask Beethoven personally what his intent is doesn't mean there isn't one. There must be since it's so masterfully composed that calling it meaningless in intent would be insane. We can only assume what he tried to convey through study of history and his personal life, as well as works of other authors of his age even from different areas of art (like literature). Indeed the intent may be one of unity and freedom translated into a mastery of musical instruments.

>>380951673
It's supposed to be this way.

>>380954416
Except it's obvious that we don't have to do all the guesswork and archaeology because so many people agree his symphonies are beautiful works of art despite not knowing shit about him.
Furthermore, what if a work of art is collaborative and has conflicting intents? What if the artist died and left no written record of his intent, and the same goes for all artists in the field? What if we don't know who made a work of art, or what time period or place its from?

This just opens a whole can of worms. Why not say the obvious thing that art is good by virtue of how beautiful it is, not how well it lines up with the intent of whoever made it?

>>380951272
>Their express purpose is to make money.
And Real Art™ wasn't?

>>380954281
Except videogames are not a bunch of inconsequential cutscenes, music tracks and artwork piled up together.
>inb4 "but they are, vidyas are shit xD"
No.
Also, according to that argument movies (photography + music + writing) aren't art either. I'm not that anon by the way.

>>380953626
poor technique can keep you out of an emotive state, but otherwise they are separate things.

You can absolutely have shooting a character in an FPS be emotive if you happen to care about the character as a result of your interpretation.

A representation might not make you feel something. But most representations can make somebody feel something.

Technique is relatively worthless as it can be recreated. An idea or concept or a viewer/reader/whatever's interpretation cannot be.

>>380954568
It just means we don't know whether the emotion we feel is the emotion the author intended though we can estimate it based on his skill (like strictly holding up to his own set of logic in portraying various elements like proportions).

Also remember that values change so a piece of art conveying more than just a set of emotions but rather information (like say Illiad) can give you different meaning than it did to people it was aimed at. That's why people study art, to understand the intent of various artists. A close-minded reader would call Achilles monster, but he was a hero to his fellows.

File: moeroitem_c_17c.jpg (235KB, 940x1000px) Image search: [Google]

235KB, 940x1000px

>>380953581
This game has many cool-tier girls.

Art is retarded anyway

Either its
>hurrr u just copied something, thats not art
its
>how does this make u feel, what emotions does it invoke in you

The fact that there's no actual baseline for what constitutes as "good" art just means one person can call something beautiful while the next person would say its shit.

Also, leave food alone. Fuck off with your catsup and mustard on a table for $500 while blindfolded bullshit

>hurr muh interpretation of art
So much stupidity in this thread, no wonder everyone looks down on gamers and videogames.

>>380949850
Everything is art.

>>380954568
>Why not say the obvious thing that art is good by virtue of how beautiful it is, not how well it lines up with the intent of whoever made it?
Not him, and your criticism of the concept of intent being central to definition of art is completely correct.
That said, your theory has too major problems too. First is the idea of beauty itself, which is immediately as vague concept as the concept of art: you basically just shifted the problem by replacing one hard-to-define word by a different hard-to-define word.

The second problem is that it just does not seem to be necessarily covering the entire history of art. In very ancient art, we can hardly assume that the intention was beauty considering the extreme codification of artistic experession, which prevents seeking of beauty - clearly in favor of something else, most commonly an universal or codified symbolic language.

The other problem is most recent art: from pop-art to Pasolini's movies, which actually flat out DEFINE their mission as the search for UGLY, plus post-modern and early modernist art which frequently despise the notion of aesthetic beauty for different types of messages.

Your theory of art should be able to account for those cases too.

File: 1497769588605.jpg (22KB, 240x426px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 240x426px

>>380949850
Not if they have this.

Depends on few things, in my opinion. Was it made in an attempt to gain as many sales as possible to generate profit? Nope. Is there no real meaning, insight, or story (doesn't have to be all three) to be told in the game? Nope. Take most modern AAA games as an example.

Now, look at something like Touhou. Each mainline game is a work prompted by ZUN's passion for his music and world that he has developed over the past two decades. He could easily make so much more money by marketing his games better, putting them on steam of in retailers, it he decides not to, purely to preserve its integrity and to stay in the doujin spirit.

File: tumblr_inline_oql1r7rojJ1rv3s52_400.png (192KB, 323x431px) Image search: [Google]

192KB, 323x431px

Is SFM porn art?

File: 1497545565680.jpg (2MB, 1700x2750px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1700x2750px

>>380949850
no way fag.

If this is your definition of art I feel bad for you.

Each their own I guess, but it is that mindstate that is one of the reasons a cancer is growing that is killing videogamea

File: images (1).jpg (11KB, 228x221px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 228x221px

>>380956406
>Imagine being an old bitter man, angry that no one cares about your favourite form of art.
Maybe you should take your meds Grandpa

>>380957151
God damn Yen is so hot.

>>380957420
He's right though

>>380957541
No he isnt, I bet he thinks art is some grand concept while in reality its just a vague definition. If the creator says it is art then it is art and you cant argue with him because "art is expression" wich means it can be what ever the fuck you want it to be.

>>380957151
That's a pretty good model.

>>380956406
You shouldn't be so hard on yourself.

>>380957851
>If the creator says it is art then it is art and you cant argue with him because "art is expression" wich means it can be what ever the fuck you want it to be.
That is such a painfully dumb idea that it physically hurts to read. Do you people ever even stop to think about what you are saying?

>>380958151
Disprove it though.

>>380949850
they could be but they need to excel in the one element that makes them unique to other products (movies, music, literature, painting) for that, and that is gameplay
many of the games that people call art usually excel in story and visuals rather than gameplay, but it still can't compare to non game literature and painting, since those aren't the things videogames should be known for

Definition of art itself is actually really easy.

The problem is not with defining art - from a functional perspective - as a universal cultural and historical phenomenon.

The real problem with art is that people don't care about functional definition of art: people tend to care much more about SECONDARY IMPLICATIONS of theory of art. People care about what art makes them: they desire definitions that VALIDATE THEM in some way, they desire confirmation of their own beliefs or views or values from that definition, instead of mere impersonal, cold observation. As to why this is such a problem and why it's so specific and strong with art, well, we can more easily understand that if we do the definition process.


Art is really, at core, a simple notion.
It's the idea that there are certain creative acts, and products of those acts, that - for one reason or another - are considered EXCEPTIONALLY VALUABLE by the society in question. And that is really all there is to it: that is art. A category singling out items or actions that are celebrated or glorified by the society to a point where they are nearly worshiped (in fact, historically, they frequently were literally worshiped).

It's a product of humans naturally imposing a hierarchy of values on creative activities or created items.

There is really nothing more to it.

EVERYTHING ELSE about art is not a problem of definition of art itself: everything else is exclusively a problem of agreeing on particular value system within that particular society. When people argue about "what is art" - they are mislabeling the subject of their discussion. They are really arguing about "what is valuable" or "what is important": but those things, values themselves, are separate problem from definition of art.

This should explain why suddenly, the validation through "proper" definition of art is such a big deal here. People want THEIR PARTICULAR values to be validated and recognized.

And that really is the whole problem.

>>380958151
Jup I knew you where bitter, art is vague human definition and there isnt a god in the sky thats going to tell us what the true meaning of art is. Get over your self old man, sorry that people these days dont care about your paintings.

>>380958941
slammed

>>380958205
First of all, you need to make an argument for it to be possible to disprove it. It must be a falsifiable one. Since your claim that "art is expression" is not falsifiable - it's arbitrary - that really can't be done.

What I can do is that I can easily prove to you that "you can't argue with that": I already actually done that. I just argued against it.

What we could further point out that a definition that involves "it's what ever the fuck you want it to be" is not ACTUALLY A DEFINITION at all. Because it's not deliminating the category. It's not drawing a distinction between "art" and "not art": therefor it actually does not provide us with any additional understanding or knowledge or tool. In other words: it's not a meanigful concept, according to this definition: if it's not meaningful, it's not linguistically relevant. Except CLEARLY art is and has been a relevant concept through out all of history and all cultures across the globe.

So you just did not do what you settled to do: Your definition completely fails to work as a definition, and completely fails to reflect the actual undeniable reality of art being a relevant and active concept in the world that surrounds us.

>>380958941
>art is vague human definition and there isnt a god in the sky thats going to tell us what the true meaning of art is.
No, but there are people who will do that. That is actually how ALL definitions in the world work. You might want to look into the problem of semiotics, the theory of meanings and symbols one of these days. Like all language and cognitive concepts, it's a functional tool, developed out of necessity for us to manipulate (mentally and physically) the world in ways that are relevant to our survival and existence.

The category of art exists for people: because it's useful or significant to us. Clearly, historical evidence of that is ovewhelming. It's defined by people - on a SOCIAL level, not on an individual level, like all meanings are: through consensus and/or authority derived from necessity or pragmatic usefulness.

Just like just about every single other meaningful idea in the history.

>>380959296
This might be true but there arent a lot of people who actually agree on what art is

>>380949850
This again? For the fuck sake. Art is anything made with the will to make art. I can shit on my floor to wanting to make art and this will be accepted as an art piece.

Literally everything artificial is art.

Even every single post in this thread, so why would games not be?

>>380959521
>This might be true but there arent a lot of people who actually agree on what art is
See this >>380958763
It's not that they can't agree on what art is, it's that they can't agree on what matters to them right this instant. They disagree on societal norms and values, but that is a very different thing than disagreeing on what art is.
Historically, this has been much less of a problem too. Mainly this utter confusion comes from the fact that we have a massive, and I mean A MASSIVE problem actually continuing maintaining reliable and functional society-wide values these days because our society is basically falling apart at this very moment. And of course, this will project itself into public discussion of art. In the past, the problem of what is and what isn't art was much less prominent than you'd think - driven mostly by efficient intuitions or shared cultural standards and background: the absolute majority of historical debate about what is art was not actually about "which work is art and which isn't" (that was usually more-or-less agreed upon, few well known cases like the expressionism dispute or Aristotelian comedy/tragedy problem not withstanding), but rather "what is it about these works that we all more-or-less universally agree to be art, that makes them so special to us."

Triss is objectively better than Yennefer.

I love how the discussion IMMEDIATELY dies just as actual points are made.

>>380961262
These poeple have no valid points.

Like maybe one percent of all games ever made could be considered as a form of art (and that is already pushing it far). For the rest they are just entertainment and that is completely fine. Every game that claims to be 'artisitic' is almost always shit.

>>380961262
Arguing about art is a pointless endeavour

Who gives a shit?
Art can be anything, void of meaning, or full of meaning, so what does it matter?
Are you actually going to enjoy games more if some talking head calls video games art?

>>380962059
Fuck art, I can shit in a can and have it called art. It's pointless.

>>380949850
That drawing is so shit holy fuck

>>380949850
Anything that isn't eating, drinking, sleeping or fucking could be considered art. The word means literally nothing.

>>380962059
>Implying art isn't 'just entertainment' as well
You need to fuck off until you can properly define art before you gabber on about it.

>>380962059
>they are just entertainment
Why can't art be entertaining?

>>380962508
>Art can be anything, void of meaning, or full of meaning, so what does it matter?
The statement "to be art" can be in a way translated directly as "to MATTER". So your question of what does it matter is rather fucking stupid.

>>380962669
>The word means literally nothing.
Wrong. See >>380958763
People who claim that art means nothing are people who are afraid of a value systems and therefor want to insist on it meaning nothing.

Art is that which evokes emotion from those who partake in/observe it. So yes, video games are art.

>>380958763
Get a loud of this guy.

>>380963138
>Art is that which evokes emotion from those who partake in/observe it. So yes, video games are art.
It's not. Evoking emotions might be one of the many effects of art, but it's not what constitutes art, and what constitutes it different from kitsch, or drama, or insult.

>>380963492
Let me see if I'm understanding this correctly. Something is only art if it's valued by society.
>>380958763
This post says 'certain creative acts, and products of those acts', so basically anything that society considers to be art is art. What happens then, when there is no consensus on whether something is art or not, like this thread? Is it not art by default until there's a consensus that it is, at which point it becomes art?

>>380958763
If this is true, isn't art as subjective as morals, eluding any concrete, agreed upon definition and thus videogames are and are not art depending upon who you ask?

>>380963986
>Something is only art if it's valued by society.
If it's a creative process or product of that creative process that has been granted a special recognition as uniquely valuable by society, to be more specific.
But yes, it's the society that based on it's value system gives that recognizes (and thus determines) what is art.

>so basically anything that society considers to be art is art.
Yep, that is how it works. Just as anything that a society identifies as a car is a car. It's literally how all meanings are established: through societal recognition as such.

>What happens then, when there is no consensus on whether something is art or not,
This thread is mostly full of people who have absolutely no impact or bearing on what the society actually recognizes as art: that is up to much more complex and sophisticated authorities to decide: academia, galleries, patrons of art: broad public through trends, fashions, cumulative impact of discourse.

However, if your society has problem to generate such consensus reliably (which our society DOES have), that means that we have a problem as a society. A big one. It means: among others, that the concept of art will fail to perform it's role, and that there is a potential societal meltdown just waiting to happen.

>at which point it becomes art?
I think you are mistakingly assuming that the process is exact and precise. It never is. Claim to art can have various strenghts: the bigger consensus there is, the stronger is the claim to be art of a particular work.

>>380964015
>If this is true, isn't art as subjective as morals
Yes: it's EXACTLY as subjective as morals, which is to say: IT'S NOT AT ALL.
Morals are not subjetive. That is actually an oxymoron. Morals, like art, like all values are NORMATIVE, not subjective. One might have a subjective attitude towards right and wrong, but not subjective morals.

File: confused negro.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>380964664
>Morals are not subjective

Are you saying what I think you are saying? That there are objective morals, as in universal rights and wrongs?

>>380964664
>One might have a subjective morals, but not subjective morals
Are you feeling okay?

>>380964664
Are you mayhaps confusing morals and ethics

>>380964897
He was pretty clear on that
>like all values are NORMATIVE, not subjective

It's not individuals who decide what's moral or not, but what does collective agrees on.

>>380965338
Literally ethics
Morals are internal

>>380964897
>Are you saying what I think you are saying?
No, I'm saying what I am saying. Can you not read?

>>380964976
Not really, but that does not actually affect my judgement on this.

>>380965234
>Are you mayhaps confusing morals and ethics
Nope, mostly because the distinction between the two is actually unclear. At absolute best, the only kinda-sorta-slightly agreed upon distinction between ethics and morals is that "morals" are particular behavioral codes, while "ethics" is a DISCIPLINE that studies those codes from an academic perspective: but this is purely conventional and never really enforced distinction.

>>380965437
They really, really aren't. Consult this with any philosophical dictionary or just ask an ethics professor.

>>380965338
But even if a hundred million people think that murder is wrong, it doesn't mean that it is actually wrong. It is just a subjective opinion shared by a large group of people.

There are no arguments that can be made to demonstrate the existence of objective morals, and to imply that mere collective opinion facilitates objectivity is moronic.

>>380965612
>. It is just a subjective opinion shared by a large group of people.
It's not. Subjective CANNOT BE SHARED. It's private and largely completely irrelevant. It's a NORMATIVE JUDGEMENT agreed upon by a large group of people: and usually enforced.

>There are no arguments that can be made to demonstrate the existence of objective morals
Objective does not mean what you think it means either. You are using these words completely and utterly wrong. Subjective and objective are neither binary oppositions, nor the only possible epistemic states.

>>380958763
Sounds like you have it all figured out.

>>380965814
>Objective;(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts

I don't know what definition of objectivity you are going by, but I am going by this one.

>>380965814
Okay weekend philosophy man.

File: aiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiweiwei.png (380KB, 636x433px) Image search: [Google]

380KB, 636x433px

Reminder that the more you argue for games being art, the more SJW bullshit and the like will be forced into them.

>>380965854
>Sounds like you have it all figured out.
I have, actually.
It's just that it's a small portion of a much bigger problem, that I don't have figured out, and never will: the real problem of what should be considered valuable and what should not be.

How art works: that really isn't difficult to figure out. But it's also not what matters to most people. The problem, the deep, fundamental problem of "what should be giving that special treatment, what should matter to us, which works should be praised and glorified" of course still remains.

But at least we know what we are dealing with, and we aren't conflating terminology.

>>380965985
>I don't know what definition of objectivity you are going by, but I am going by this one.
You are wrong and dumb then, plain and simple. You go by definition of objectivity that does not reflect the reality, or how it's actually used by educated people.

It's like saying "I don't know what definition of science you go by, but I go by definition of science as anything that involves machines with bubbling colorful liquids and arching electricity".
It's just fucking wrong and stupid.

>>380966048
What is even the point of these posts? If you have nothing to add, don't humiliate yourself by doing something like this, it just draws the attention to the fact that you have nothing to reply yet you are too insecure to just let it go.

>>380949850
Is furniture art? Or wine? Vidya is craftsmanship. Nothing wrong with that.

>>380966121
>I have, actually.
Clearly not, but please, don't stop on my account.

File: argument.png (54KB, 500x534px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 500x534px

>>380966259
>Dictionary definitions are wrong because they do not fit my narrative!

Okay, m8. Was nice talking to you.

>>380966121
Maybe things should be considered art when they manage to pass the test of time? I mean, I'm saying this kind of randomly but I feel like if a game is still talked about many many years after its release, then it should be really valuable to many. This way, you could argue that games such as Riven: The Sequel to Myst, Silent Hill 2 or Shadow of the Colossus (to only mention a few) are art since they are still talked about in 2017.

>>380966281
>Clearly not, but please, don't stop on my account.
Do you have an actual counteragrument? If not, then please fuck off. You really don't have to announce to the whole world that you are angry at somebody having better claim than you do.

>>380966259
What definitions of subjectivity and objectivity are you using

>>380953712
maybe she'll have a cameo in CP 2077 and maybe in that world she gains a lot of weight by eating only cyberpunk fast food

>>380966259
You've got your head so far up your own ass you're in the clouds.
Keep using your own definitions and using your pseudo intellectual.

>>380966274
What's the difference between furniture and a sculpture?

>>380966591
Depends on the person.

>>380966385
Which dictionary? Because I'm looking at stanford encyclopedia right now and they don't agree with your idiotic definition.

>>380966403
>Maybe things should be considered art when they manage to pass the test of time?
Yeah, I think that is wise way to go around it. Immediacy often comes with a whole bunch of biases. It's also what is commonly by most self-respecting critics and analytics in other media, particularly literature.

Of course there are many who won't resist the urge to jump in and declare something "true art" right on release, but I think such judgements tend to be a lot less reliable.

>>380966432
>What definitions of subjectivity and objectivity are you using
Mostly pragmatic ones (as it: those established by the philosophical school of pragmaticists) but I draw and base them generally from the entirety of the field of epistemology and just general consensus within basic academic discourse. I do draw a lot from a psychologist and philosopher Jordan Peterson, who has extremely good insight into a problem he calls "Darwinian epistemology" or "darwinian theory of truth".

Objective means "empirically provable" In other way "the state in which things are with absolutely minimal observer bias. Since that can be only achieved by empirical examination, and emprical examination can only be applied to physical matter, "objective" really means "things that are physical matter".

Then you have subjectivity which means "existing as phenomenological experience in the mind of the observer". You know: you are studying the subject of observation, not the object of observation.

And that means subjective is perfectly private, inaccessible: it's the state of your mind when observing: the ONE, ONLY, specific, unique, unrepeatable and inaccessible state of your mind".

But then you have a whole fucking INTERVAL between these two, and most importantly, you also have the concept of "normativity", which happens to me more relevant to us than both prior.

>>380966890
The creator or the consumer?

>>380967313
There's your answer.

>>380966526
>You've got your head so far up your own ass you're in the clouds.
That is literally all you can put together?
You have confidence and THAT MAKES YOU WRONG!

Dude, quick question: what make YOU think you can judge whenever I'm right or wrong? Do you have better errudition than I have? Do you have any actual arguments? Can you provide evidence that I'm using those definitions wrong?

How about you stop being such a fucking pussy for a change.

>>380967139
And how are morals not phenomenological experiences in the mind of the observer?

>>380966591
>What's the difference between furniture and a sculpture?
Context of your question, which is directly related to functionality to which you associate it with.

Furniture is defined as PRAGMATICALLY FUNCTIONAL items in an interior.

Sculpture is defined as three-dimension model of an item or representation of an idea: it's a three-dimensional icon or a symbol, to be precise.

Now, of course, a single item can simultaneously be both: a 3D icon can still also serve a pragmatic function in an interior while simulateneously serving as an iconic representation of an item or idea.

So you differentiate between times you talk about it as about a statute or as about a piece of furniture depending on which of it's qualities you just consider more immediate relevant.

>>380967139
>Jordan Peterson
Ah, that explains it.
How he's patreon doing? $47,000 a month or some such?

>>380967384
I see I've struck a nerve on the pseudo intelligence troll.

>>380967139
This is why actual intellectuals shit-talk philosophy majors. This right here.

>>380967513
>And how are morals not phenomenological experiences in the mind of the observer?
Because they are shared among people and applied to people. They are rules, guidelines existing solely to facilitate better cooperation within the socity.
It's a rule regulating behavior between two agents, and cannot be considered without considering BOTH agents as equal players within it. So you can't limit itself to the content of mind of one. No two people have the same subjective experience. But no behavioral model is considered "moral" if it does not involve agency of at least two people, even if one is hypothetical.

Most importantly, when we talk about morals, we are not talking about what the people are experiencing, we are talking about what they DO. From an external perspective.

>>380967642
>How he's patreon doing? $47,000 a month or some such?
I don't know. To be honest I've been studying him long before that thing started. He is probably currently the smartest person you can find among more renowned academia.

>>380967884
>This is why actual intellectuals shit-talk philosophy majors.
I wonder what you define as actual philosophers. But much like this:
>>380967765
Do you not realize that by posting insults without being able to put together even a single coherent argument, you are just continuosly drawing attention to the fact that you can't actually argue anything?

>>380967948
But what people do has often more to do with the enforcement of a moral code rather than them agreeing with it. "Stealing is wrong because the powers that be say it is wrong" is a commonly held view, but you bet your ass that same person would be taking whatever they want if it wasn't a punishable act to do so.

So I still fail to see how morality isn't internal, the output of which is just forced to fit into a set mold with the threat of punishment.

>>380968083
>current academia
No thanks, have fun man.

Just a tip, you're really coming off as someone who's just getting into this and can't wait to use all the terms you just learned. Probably part of the reason for the reactions you're getting.

>>380968343
Not him but I doubt people see stealing as wrong because the laws say so. I'd wager that people see stealing as wrong because they themselves wouldn't like to have their stuff stolen.

>>380968083
By intellectuals I mean people who do not concern themselves with the meaning of meaning and deal with facts and knowledge as is. You know, scientists, researchers etc.

Hell, even journalists are above you philosophy types and that says a lot.

>>380968343
>"Stealing is wrong because the powers that be say it is wrong" is a commonly held view, but you bet your ass that same person would be taking whatever they want if it wasn't a punishable act to do so.
Now I know you're talking out you're ass.

>>380968523
Adherence to the golden rule is thrown out the window when there is no fear of retribution. Humans, like all living things, primarily look after #1. The concerns of the species come far behind.

>>380968343
>But what people do has often more to do with the enforcement of a moral code rather than them agreeing with it.
And that is one more reason why we need to realize that morality is not subjective. The reasons why they behave in such pattern aren't all that important: some people might adhere to moral code because they fear punishment, others because they genuinely believe such behavior is incordance with the laws of the universe etc... the fear of punishment, the satisfaction that your action is agreeing with the divine provenience etc... THOSE are subjective experiences.
But the adherence to a code of behavior: that is morality itself.

>So I still fail to see how morality isn't internal
You just literally explained it yourself! You know this: you just are accustomed to bad conceptual habit. Individual motivation to behavior is internal and subjective, but the pattern of behavior is not: it's actions, not thoughts or feelings. And it has social, shared significance, it always has because it regulates primarily (well, when you REALLY go deep into it virtually always) your behavior towards other people.
Morality is a code of behavior that regulates intra-social behavior. It's how you act towards other: not really how you feel about it.

>>380968547
I like you.

>>380968718
>It's how you act towards other: not really how you feel about it.

But you act towards others BASED on how you feel about it. The feelings dictate the actions. They are intertwined.

>>380949850
Yes, it's inarguable

>>380968693
Well yes, you're kind of reaffirming what I said. The absence of law doesn't mean there can't be punishment in the form of vengeance. If I stole something from you, I'm pretty sure I could expect you to act back, and vice versa, which means that people see stealing as wrong because they themselves wouldn't want their stuff to be stolen because "me" comes first in the society of today.

>>380968521
>No thanks, have fun man.
Suit yourself, but you do have to realize that you are basically saying "I don't want to be knowledgable and better understanding and educated on this subject".
Which is entirely fine, you can actually go and be useful in an entirely different way, that is fine.

It's just that you should be aware of your own competence and validity of your opinions ON THIS PARTICULAR matter.

>Just a tip, you're really coming off as someone who's just getting into this and can't wait to use all the terms you just learned.
I don't give two fucks. that is their problem. If this arbitrary assumption is driving people to be assholes instead of listening and participating on a proper dialogue, those people are trash and their opinions of feelings have absolutely no value or relevance to anything.

>>380968547
>By intellectuals I mean people who do not concern themselves with the meaning of meaning
Yeah, because meaning is such a silly, irrelevant things. It's not like we are concerning ourselves with research and science because those are MEANINGFUL to us, right? Because those are literally what defines what matters to us.

I have the UTMOST respect for people of empiric sciences and research. But shitstains like you, who don't understand anything, and most certainly don't do any actual science or research themselves still throwing shit and arbitrary deciding what is "real value" and what is "not value" (yet ironically themselves committing a judgement of value and meaning, therefor just proving themselves absolute and pure hypocrites), those I don't respect.

You are an idiot. Hiding behind the backs of people who DO useful things to actually be a brain-dead retard himself.
By saying shit like this, you are insulting real science more than you are insulting philosophy.

>>380952558
Ciri is the ultimate Mary Sue. Her entire character is fanservice. Which isn't CDPR's fault as she was in the books too, but it doesn't change the fact that she's a terrible character.

>>380969134
Your try hardness is really stinking the place up.

>>380968880
>But you act towards others BASED on how you feel about it.
But that does not matter. Morality defines what is RIGHT and WHAT IS WRONG. And yes, there is a whole bunch of possible things to consider when making calls like that, but those reasons are NOT MORALITY ITSELF.

We demand and force people to adhere to moral codes and we don't give two fucks about how they feel. I don't care that somebody FEELS like murder is a cool thing to do: that does not make him extempt from the obligation to adhere to our moral code. That code exists independently on how he feels or why he does it: moral code is the fact that he avoids killing - or that he will get punished and persecuted for killing.

File: Verschneite_Landschaft_mit_Bauernhaus.jpg (562KB, 1920x1511px) Image search: [Google]

562KB, 1920x1511px

>Walk around the Museum of Modern Art, look at those masterpieces it holds by Picasso andJackson Pollock, and what you are seeing is a series of personal visions. A work of art is one person's reaction to life. Any definition of art that robs it of this inner response by a human creator is a worthless definition. Art may be made with a paintbrush orselected as a ready-made, but it has to be an act of personal imagination.

>The worlds created by electronic games are more like playgrounds where experience is created by the interaction between a player and a programme. The player cannot claim to impose a personal vision of life on the game, while the creator of the game has ceded that responsibility. No one "owns" the game, so there is no artist, and therefore no work of art.

>This is the essential difference between games and art, and it precedes the digital age. Chess is a great game, but even the finest chess player in the world isn't an artist. She is a chess player.Artistry may have gone into the design of the chess pieces. But the game of chess itself is not art nor does it generate art – it is just a game.

>>380969296
>Your try hardness is really stinking the place up.
And even more angry screeches because you have absolutely nothing worth of saying, but damn leaving the thread without saying anything would make you have to admit that you just lost an argument!

Again: why do you want us all to be so much aware of this?

>>380969134
Read it again, plato. Meaning OF meaning. Philosophy concerns itself with matters that have no practical value and serve only as thought experiments.

Also, I don't have to be a scientist myself to be able to highlight the difference between actual intellectual pursuits and vapid musings.

>the trolley problem is not about morality because only one person makes a decision

>>380969460
No you

>>380969346
But how is the code that has been collectively created any more right than the personal code of the child killer? Just through sheer majority opinion?

And even if that is true, what makes majority opinion an authority on morality?

>>380969458
But museums have had plenty of displays of interactive art

>>380969134
>"I don't want to be knowledgable and better understanding and educated on this subject".

You're using definitions that nobody outside of academic philosophical circles is ever going to use. And yes, that includes educated people, if educated is not redefined to mean "share my definitions".
If anything learning more about this narrow subject would be detrimential to my further life as a functional member of society

>>380969462
That's not much point in trying with this one, he's pretty far gone.
His type usually is too caught up in it all to see the difference.

>>380949850
Blatant fanservice like in OP's picture is a killer of art.

Nein, Sie schwachmat.

>>380969134
If values are norminative and you know the rest of the world doesn't think like how you do, doesn't it mean you're wrong by your own definition?

>>380953523

lmao, pure girl my ass.
what a degenerate crackwhore.

>>380969462
>Read it again, plato. Meaning OF meaning.
Ironically enough semiotics are actually most studied by general lingusitics, cognitive sciences and experimental psychology which are by far the most scientific of these fields, but let's leave that slide. We can also let the fact that you: despite having no actual education, and therefor no actual logical grounds to build on still find yourself completely sufficiently equipped to dismiss the field.

>Philosophy concerns itself with matters that have no practical value
Except virtually EVERYTHING that you believe now has been established by philosophers, including the very emphasis on empirical knowledge. Every single step you make when you, "think", is just rethread of something established by philosophers: an an act of making moral and semiotic judgements - application of the precise fields that philosophy studies.

Philosophy is wrong a LOT of the time. It's unreliable compared to science, and it tackles problems that are far, far bigger, which makes it far, far easier to get shit wrong.
But it's false to think that it does not have practical impact. It just makes it more difficult to access it, and more difficult to judge the implications.

There is a good reason, by the way, why we have such a faith in emprical science, and why we have such a mistrust of philosophy. But you don't know those reasons: you just blindly repeat vapid shit you heard somewhere and did not quite understand, but you still decided to build your self esteem around it.
And that is always bad.

>>380960040

Her actions in service of the Lodge in the books is questionable at best.

File: thelastnight.jpg (864KB, 3824x1504px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 3824x1504px

>>380949850
Yes.

>>380969134
>You are an idiot. Hiding behind the backs of people who DO useful things to actually be a brain-dead retard himself.
>By saying shit like this, you are insulting real science more than you are insulting philosophy.

And what, if I may ask you grace, have you contributed to science, philosophy, and research?
Oh great one, surely it must be amazing if you can call out others you feel have not contributed enough in your eyes.

>>380969586
>But how is the code that has been collectively created any more right than the personal code of the child killer?
From an evolutionary standpoint, it just proves itself more stable and more sustainable. Establish a particularly bad moral opinion and - just as a particularly poor mutation, it will kill out those who hold on to it. Though moral systems, unlike genes, have the major advantage that they can be changed pretty quickly.

>Just through sheer majority opinion?
Sheer majority of opinion is usually a decent reflector of what is not entirely suicidal. But as 20th century in particular has proven, it's not entirely reliable. Actually the societary consensus does not at ALL have to be decided particularly democratically. In an authoritarian society, a very small group of people might efficiently dictate the code to the majority of people.
That fact that majority does act it out makes it the current main moral code, but that does not mean that everyone in the society (or even majority of the society) has to make a conscious, informed decision to canonize it.

Artistic, maybe. Art? No.There are many pieces of art that go into making a video game, but the finish product is something that you interact with not just with your mind, which makes it a step of abstraction above art.

>>380970153
>It's unreliable compared to science

This is all you had to say, Schopenhauer. And I see you made mention of the few fields of philosophy that actually output something else than "I think...", but conveniently omitted all the ones that are utterly useless.

>>380949850
How come you can't fuck Ciri. She can't be much younger than Triss right?

>>380970401
worst fallacy ever
if you weren't allowed to criticize things without making any contributions towards them nearly every jew in america would be unemployed

wait maybe its a good fallacy, carry on

>>380952810
>Jesus Christ suddenly becomes a black dude with an afro
kek. Just like Jade in Beyond Good and Evil 2

>>380970042
>If values are norminative and you know the rest of the world doesn't think like how you do, doesn't it mean you're wrong by your own definition?
Something being deemed valuable and something being deemed true (or at least as close to truth as we can get) are not the same things.

Let's say that I don't think subjectivity and relativity are not particularly valuable, but most of the society thinks they are. And most post modern art is nothing but representation or celebration of subjectivity and relativity.
Me not thinking those things are valuable, and therefor claiming that postmodern "art" is not really art: that would make me wrong. Despite how justified I might think myself to be on this, when it comes to a call on what is valuable to the society, my invididual opinion does not mean anything.

Being right on the other hand is much more difficult to establish. Truth-value and social value are not the same bloody things. Suddenly, things like logical consistency, lack of counterarguments, errudition and authority the author of the claim etc... come to a play. Especially in our society, that values rationality and cummulative knowledge in it's true-evaluation.

>>380970459
What does the viability of a moral code in relation to the survival of the individual/community have to do with it being right or wrong? Survival is not a virtue, is it?

>>380970743
I was talking more about "the truth of something being valuable"

overwatch tracer and widow makers booty

>>380949850
>Are video games art
No.
Just like paintings are not art, sculptures are not art.

Videogames CAN be art. Just like paintings CAN be art and scultpures CAN be art.
Holy shit anon, it is current year and you still fuck up this simple concept.

>>380970401
>And what, if I may ask you grace, have you contributed to science, philosophy, and research?
So far I've provided an apparently pretty decent definition of art that seems to have rather positive reception. I'm still pretty young and pretty early into what I hope is going to be my career. I could actually turn that question against you, but really, we all know this is silly (it's actually one the rare cases of real ad hominem fallacy you'l see around here) and yet another case of "I have to put you down somehow but I don't have any actual rational claim".

>>380970608
>This is all you had to say, Schopenhauer.
So your logic is that if you have a problem that does not have a highly reliable solution, that problem does not exist or should not be acknowledged and dealt with?

So if a bear is running at you and you don't have a really realiable tool to get rid of him (like a shotgun): you think it's completely best to just ignore his existence, and you think that people who debate whenever you should run or fight or play dead (all of which are extremely unreliable solutions) are just idiots.
That is great thinking, really. That will just get you far.

Here is the worst thing. You actually deal with those "useless" parts of philosophy EVERY DAY. EVERY DAY you make judgements on what is right or wrong. Every day you condemn someone like the fucking SJW or the fucking /pol/ tards. Every day you pass (silently or loudly) judgements on what are acceptable or inacceptable practices of publishers.
Every day you pass political judgements, every day you criticize someone for being useless or using words wrong or something like that.

ALL of that is the "useless" part of philosophy. And every time you do, you use of one of those useless philosophers.
You just don't even know it. It's so integral to your life that you don't question where it comes from.

And that is dangerous. You should be aware of where your own thoughts came from.

>>380970818
>What does the viability of a moral code in relation to the survival of the individual/community have to do with it being right or wrong?
Because being right basically just means "doing that is more viable in the long run"?
That is literally all there is to morality when you boil it down to it's deepest core. It's an evolutionary strategy. We seek answers to what is morally right or wrong because we have to make choices that will impact our own survival. All the rest of morality is just a buildup, expanding on this very, very simple problem. We make preferences among certain behavioral patterns because they probably will influence our viability.
Right means just "more preferable" at core, wrong means "not preferable". And what is and what isn't preferable is ultimately judged by consequences, and there are no more important consequences in biology than those that determine our viability.

>>380970862
>I was talking more about "the truth of something being valuable"
I don't follow, to be honest.

Yes.

>>380970459
Why is the majority wrong now? That completely defeats your position.

By definition, yes.

Then again by definition, I could shit on my bathroom floor, frame it, and say it's art.

File: engie.jpg (159KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1280x720px

>>380971519
See, the bear example is a practical problem with very real consequences if it is not dealt with.

"What is ethical" is not a practical problem, and no harm will come to you if you ignore it in favor of other, more tangible issues.

>>380971519
>And that is dangerous. You should be aware of where your own thoughts came from.
Someone else is thinking my thoughts now?

File: tumblr_inline_ojx7v7djYR1txaa0d_540.gif (2MB, 540x376px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 540x376px

>>380949908
>>380950113
>>380950225

VIDEO GAMES ARE BEYOND ART

>>380969458
>Art critic unironically glossing over the fact both Picasso's and Pollock's "artness" was brought in question by contemporary art critics
pottery

>>380971793
Where is the concrete line where things are considered valuable?

>it's another "dude fuck video games lmao" self-hating look im cool /v/ thread

Your vidya games are art. Get over it

>>380971739
Morality is more than just biological imperatives. It makes very little sense from a biological standpoint to risk your own life to save the lives of completely unrelated people, yet we have entire professions revolving around that very concept.

You could argue that it is to ensure the survival of the species, but that is simply not true when a dent of even thousands of people would have no bearing on the continued existence of the species.

>>380949850
Not the ones you play.

>>380949850
>Are video games art, /v/?
No
>But can they be tho?
Yes
>Do you have any examples anon?
MGS
>what a bad game, surely you jest!
Don't fucking ask then you tool
>how rude
Sorry I didn't eat yet

>>380967139

Why is an individual not allowed to make value judgements, and if they are but it isn't morality, why should they be called something else and what is it?

>>380971863
>Why is the majority wrong now?
They are wrong from our perspective, because they did something that nearly killed them. But those things are difficult to judge. You have to realize that there is always multiple levels of analysis.

The inhabitants of Nazi Germany might have established their own value systems and within those value systems, within their own context, they were right.

But from a different frame of reference, from the frame of reference of more global society, or from frame of reference of historians and scholars they were wrong, as their majoral opinions are different.

>>380971897
>See, the bear example is a practical problem with very real consequences
Do you think communism, SJW, deniers of science, or frauds that abuse art-funding systems to be rewarded for worthless works are completely consequeneless?
Just because you don't actually see the specific consequences does not mean that they aren't there. Every moral judgement you do has consequences.

Hell, you yourself just made moral judgements about the value of philosophy. Either that was clearly an absoute waste of time because your judgement does not have any real pragmatic consequence (and once again proved yourself a hypocrite): or you actually think that passing a judgement about philosophy and it's uselessness WILL have consequences and WILL matter somehow, even if you can't immediately identify how.

>"What is ethical" is not a practical problem,
Law? Social policies? Business practicies? Education funding? Those don't matter to you? Are you retarded?

>>380971949
>Someone else is thinking my thoughts now?
No, you are just repeating thoughts somebody else thought long time ago, then other people taught them to you: that is how they got into your head.

>>380972296
>Morality is more than just biological imperatives.
Technically speaking NOTHING about our existence is anything else but moral imperatives. Of course, they do manifest in an incredibly complex way, but everything ultimately happens in accordance to them. Everything. You are an organic creature.

>It makes very little sense from a biological standpoint to risk your own life to save the lives of completely unrelated people,
It actually makes PERFECT sense, you just don't really know that much about biology. People in general have insanely bad understanding how this whole survival thing works.

>>380972774
>But from a different frame of reference, from the frame of reference of more global society, or from frame of reference of historians and scholars they were wrong, as their majoral opinions are different.

So morals are subjective then, as two value systems formed by two different groups are not identical, which they would be if their values had an objective basis.

File: 1458672135551.jpg (55KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 500x500px

>>380950928

File: Disappointed-Baby.jpg (101KB, 502x406px) Image search: [Google]

101KB, 502x406px

>>380972942
>It makes perfect sense, but I will not elaborate further than that

>>380972378

'scuse the 'tude.

>>380972384
>Why is an individual not allowed to make value judgements,
He is. It's just that they don't mean much unless he managed to convince others to adhere to them. They don't have an impact.

>and if they are but it isn't morality, why should they be called something else and what is it?
It's just a judgement. And he can call it "moral" to imply that he desires that judgement to be treated AS moral (that is: acknowledged by the majority).
But in the end, it's just a belief, or a judgement. Nothing more. It only becomes a moral doctrine IF it starts serving as a moral doctrine: that is if it starts properly involve others.

>>380949850
no, it's not possible for games to be art

>>380973092
>So morals are subjective then, as two value systems formed by two different groups are not identical, which they would be if their values had an objective basis.
Dear. God. You people are retarded, that is beyond belief.
We just went through the whole "THIS IS NOT HOW SUBJECTIVITY AND OBJECTIVITY WORKS".

NOBODY SAID MORALS ARE OBJECTIVE YOU DROOLING MONGOLID.

They are normative. Dictated by the general consensus of the social circle, which serves as the frame of reference. And of course, if you switch the frame of reference, by say, switching to a perspective of a different societal circle, they will alter.
But since they will be SHARED AMONG THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE CIRCLE, they are not subjective.

It's like meanings. Folks, this is important, so please try to answer this questions:

Do you think meanings are subjective, or objective?

>>380973430
You must be fun at parties, actually, you're probably above such lowly interactions, my bad.

>>380973430
But that has nothing to do with the actual morality of the values of any given group, just that they are agreed upon within said group.

The question is whether or not a value system is right or wrong, and the fact that it is agreed upon by the members of the group it is applied in is not an answer to that question.

>>380973184
>>It makes perfect sense, but I will not elaborate further than that
Well, start by reading Tomasello's "Why we cooperate" or actually any insight into evolutionary etology of humans.

You have NO clue how massive advantage we get from cooperation (especially on informative basis) within larger social circles. NO CLUE just how insanely advantageous that is. The likelyhood of survival even of a fireman is thousand times higher than it would be of a caveman who fails to establish reliable network of people to cooperate.
it's just insanely advantageous. Just unbelivably. And it's really not that hard to figure out too.

>>380973564
>You must be fun at parties, actually, you're probably above such lowly interactions, my bad.
And another loud scream of "I'm really intimidate by you" shared for us all to enjoy in this thread. I wonder if you ever realize what exactly you are doing here, but please, continue.

>>380973668
>just that they are agreed upon within said group.
And what the fuck do you think "morality" means then, if not the agreed upon fucking rules?

>The question is whether or not a value system is right or wrong,
What the FUCK do you think the words "right" and "wrong" means to you?
Seriously, did you ever stop and fucking ask yourself what those words actually signify?

Explain to me: what does "right" and "wrong" mean.

>>380973430
>Dear. God. You people are retarded, that is beyond belief.
You're arguing Philosophy on /v/
Yoz are the biggest retard of all

>>380973786
I'm so intimidated by a know it all of nothing.
I'm having fun poking at you, the philosopher of /v.

>>380973942
>Seriously, did you ever stop and fucking ask yourself what those words actually signify?

What they signify to me differs from what they signify to you. My right is probably not your right and your wrong is possibly not my wrong.

That's the whole fucking point. There are no objective definitions for right and wrong (except from a linguistic point of view, I guess), so there can be no objectively moral value systems.

>>380974048
You clearly are, since you are still here, and still desperately explaining and excusing yourself for not being able to actually counteragument yet still feelling like you are totally the winning side.

What the fuck do you think is driving these pathetic attempts at insults that add nothing? Who the fuck do you even think you are talking to and why?

>>380974531
I think I'm talking to someone who is a great philosopher, please teach me great one!

>>380974234
>My right is probably not your right and your wrong is possibly not my wrong.
That is not an answer to my question in the slightest. You don't have an answer then.

>That's the whole fucking point.
The fact that you are clueless is the point? No, it's not. It's just you being clueless. You literally just said "I don't know". Yet somehow, in your mind, that MAKES YOU RIGHT?!
If you don't know the shut the fuck up and listen to those who do.

>There are no objective definitions
Because objectivity is irrelevant. How many times do I have to spell this out for you. Objectivity ITSELF is normative. What we deem objective and what we don't deem objective is an arbitrary catergory that WE AGREED UPON because the term is kinda useful in some context.

The criteria of objectivity are normative you idiot. Just like everything else. NOBODY CLAIMS (and I don't know how many fucking times does this need to be spelled out) that morality is objective.

What it is is NORMATIVE. That makes it neither subjective, nor objective, it means agreed upon by criteria of those establishing the frame of reference.

>>380974743
I love how much you are of a coward that you can't even answer a basic, honest question.

>>380974897
If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would know why.

>>380975089
>If you were half as smart as you think you are, you would know why.
Actually, I know it a lot better than you do. And that is really, really sad part.
You seriously believe that you are honest with yourself here? What a fucking joke.

>>380975380
Keep going, I think you'll figure it out eventually.
Or maybe not, that pseudo intelligence will only get you so far.

>>380974897
>You literally just said "I don't know". Yet somehow, in your mind, that MAKES YOU RIGHT?!

It does make me right when the subject matter is undefinable. You keep repeating that morality is normative, but that only relates to how value systems are arrived to, not their actual moral value, which is the undefinable part.

Let me put it into the form of a question;

>What makes a moral system right or wrong?

And, since I think I know the answer you will give, here's the follow-up question;

>What makes public consensus an authority on what is right or wrong?

>>380949850
No, bacause pathetic weebs such as you ruin them with pornographic cartoon posts.

>>380949850
Yes

>>380949850
Why is Ciri not a romance option?
Anyone who read the books understands why that should be an option.
>But muh daughteru~
This isn't Leon the Professional.
This is at worst Usagi Drop.
In actuality it is a strange rendition of Rumpelstiltskin because more than a few stories are Brothers Grimm inspired.

To answer your actual question, No.
You need to push the envelope, not conform to the sensibilities of plebs .