Reminder

>>389331645
Rembrandt or Van Gogh sucks anyways
t.Dutchie

File: 1504354990251.jpg (75KB, 756x314px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 756x314px

dumb baitposter

>>389331645
Modern art is a total effortless joke so i could care less.

>>389331645
Define art

>>389331645

I dont understand your argument here...

Do you think the environments and artwork designed for a game are not "art"? Or do they just not compare to Rembrandt or Van Gogh?

Surely youre trolling

>>389331764
Muh nostalgia.

Video games are art
This post is art
Art is anything done with artistic intent whose inherent qualities can't be disassembled or rearranged.
OP is stupid and his thread is stupid.

>>389331732
Because she's a woman

>>389331838
lol. That only applies to videogames.

>>389331645
All modern art sucks, modern books suck, modern movies suck, modern paintings suck, moderrn sculptors and statue's suck. Not all modern vidya sucks.

>>389331645
I've never spent a weekend enjoying a Van Gogh painting.

File: 1335049586594.gif (993KB, 298x172px) Image search: [Google]

993KB, 298x172px

don't care. 99% of "art" games are 3deep5me pompous bullshit, the less of them the better

>>389331841
>whatever I call art is art
Thanks, modernism

>>389332218
>hurrrrrrrr I want to go back to when art was "good" and people died of dysentery at age 25.
I bet you're not even 20 years old

>>389331645
Ok. Do you have an argument for why?

>>389332218
Define art in such a way that vidya isnt considered but paintings are. It will be the most convoluted shit.

People here have articulated it. Games are undoubtedly art, but they should not strive to be art and fall into the modernist traps that have completely ruined other mediums. Games should instead be viewed as a craft or a trade, we should celebrate mechanical fidelity and level design artifice over one's emotional subjective experience. Once we do that and we can forget the onslaught of Indie "art games" and "cinematic experiences" that are committed to the games as art project.

>>389331645
no one takes van gogh seriously. guy cut his own dick off, remember?

>>389331645
Van Gogh was a sick man and I think that some games like Bloodbornw can be considered interactive art

>>389331645
Vidya games are toys meant for and older crowd than just kids. But just because of that does not mean that shit can't be art.

Everything can be art but not everything is art. So vidya ,depending on the individual, may be considered art by the person experienceing it. And just like modern faggy abstract bullshit art. Who is those who don't "get" it to decide ehst is or is not art simply because they ate not as big fans of it.

No need for anyone to fell defensive about it, from either for or against the idea, since all that matter is ones own opinion in this matter really.

>>389331701
art? more like FART amirite?
lmao

>>389332881
no, they're games. toys are something with no conditions/winstates. some games could qualify as toys I guess, like minecraft.

>>389331645
Art is typically defined as a thing designed to elicit emotion or other strong feelings, videogames as a whole may be art, but gameplay itself is not.

To understand why, you must first be able to seperate gameplay from the context of its story or its visuals. Gameplay itself can only make you feel a small amount of feelings, and those gameplay making you feel negative emotions without positive emotional payout is considered bad i.e. a game where you feel angry at and never feel happy even in victory is considered bad by players.

Can something really be art if it can only make you feel a small amount of feelings and only positive emotion being considered good?

File: taunt-Scout_taunt_laugh.png (109KB, 250x364px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 250x364px

>>389331645
>games will never be taken seriously
GOOD
O
O
D

>>389333081
>as a thing designed to elicit emotion or other strong feelings
no.

>>389331645
good, i dont want them to be.

File: 1388723859346.png (35KB, 163x169px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 163x169px

>>389331732
>read it as "Why does Tiffany believe"
>go mad looking for correct answer

File: 1464344909522.jpg (27KB, 480x443px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 480x443px

>>389331645
>hurr durr something isn't art
>mfw some retard without any knowledge of aesthetics claims that there exist purely formal criteria that can claim to judge and sanction the formative level simply on the basis of artistic virtuosity

o i am laffin

>>389333180
Yeah it is, even if you are some jerkoff post-modernist, you gotta realize shit like Piss Christ and stuff like urinals and boulders are made to create a reaction in you whether anger or disgust or flat rejection of it as a work of art, that it made you feel and have a reaction is why its art.

>>389333556
What a simpleton

Only JRPGs are art due to the narrative. Everything else are just toys.

>implying anyone in this thread even has the same definition of art as anyone else in this thread
and no, just posting examples of what you consider art doesn't count as a definition

>>389331645
Give it time, video games have only been around for the blink of an eye compared to other mediums.
There will be more crashes leading to more freedom and new styles more worthy of being called art than what we have now.

File: 1496325397674.jpg (698KB, 1609x1389px) Image search: [Google]

698KB, 1609x1389px

>>389333556
>that it made you feel and have a reaction is why its art.
So memes can be art?

>>389332283

Ok.. What is the correlation?

>>389334230
You being a faggot.
It ties the thread together.

File: Campbells_Soup_Cans_MOMA.jpg (33KB, 419x237px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 419x237px

>>389333747
Im sorry you're too stupid to understand why this is art, even if I don't like it, it was easy enough to understand it.
>>389334002
Pretty much yeah, I think as long as large enough spectrum of feelings can be felt, and that a meme making you feel negative isn't something to be considered bad.

>>389331645
>My opinion is fact, listen to me /v/!
I couldn't care less but
Fuck off

no one but validationfags care about "x as art"

>>389334330
>understand it
I thought it was supposed to make you FEEL since it's ART. not something to understand or theorize, let alone build around a concept or abstract notions.

>>389332385
Not him but I'll give it a shot for funzies

'art is to be viewed not played with '

>>389334494
Yes you need understand the feelings its meant to make you feel, more specifically you need understand the context of the piece itself.

>>389334628
Installation art proves you wrong.
>>389334680
No, shut the fuck up you fucking simpleton, art is not only about feelings or visceral reactions, art is everything surrounding the work, including its theory and discussion.

>>389333081
Lol what as if gameplay can't evoke feelings. Most of what the character controller in journey was made to make you feel what the character was feeling (specifically the sand surfing, snowy mountain section and final ascension)

>Van Gogh
>"good"
oh I am laffin

>>389334724
Ok fair enough

>>389334724
>art is not only about feelings or visceral reactions, art is everything surrounding the work, including its theory and discussion.
Pretty much this, something that is trully art can be discussed in art related terms, something without technique will never be art, if i poop in a plate i can cause a reaction, but that doesn't make it art.

>>389331645
Video games aren't art, they are propoganda.

>>389335023
So like painting, music and movies?

File: 124611_front.jpg (91KB, 640x937px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 640x937px

Hey it's me, just over here being a game that functions well as a game and a work of art, where the gameplay is inseparable from the story and themes.

It'd be cool if more people played me, I'm sure it would help the discussion a bit.

>>389331645
Good. I prefer games being games to them being pretentious 5deep7you shit.

>>389335214
You do understand that games can be works of art without holding false pretenses or trying to be something they're not, right?

>>389331645

Whether or games are art is kinda a silly question. Can an individual game be art? Sure. I'd say Silent Hill 2 and REZ are on that level. However Video games are definitely an ART FORM. Regardless of what you think.

>>389331645
Video games being art have no bearing on whether I enjoy them or not so I don't give a shit.

>>389335186
Dark souls os surviving puzzle games

>never be art
considering that our population ages, new generations grows up, the world view can change drastically in a few decades, this is always how it has been.

>>389335347
the dark souls of painting naked women

File: pathologic-executioner.jpg (136KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 1024x768px

>>389334929
>but that doesn't make it art.
Sadly, the actual concept of art is PURELY arbitrary, that is to say, it's a social institution rooted in a form of consensus. That is actually all there is to art in it's most universal, and the only actually undeniable definition: Art is what sufficient amount of people who are recognized to hold sufficient amount of authority agree (loosely) to be art.
And we had reached a point - sadly - where enough of people with sufficient amount of authority had agreed upon themselves that poop in a can or statue of Jesus submerged in urine are art. And that is really, ultimately, what they need to be art.

So really the argument and the discussion is not about whenever they are art or not: as of now, across most western societies, they ARE. Period. What we should really be discussing, and striving for, is to change that, rather than to deny that. Demand that art SHOULD include technical mastery, notion of value transcending mere provocation, values of "transcending" and not merely cheaply subjective or relative nature.

People consistently get the discussion about art wrong, because they assume that either the qualities that make something art are absolute and trascendental in nature (art is WHAT INVOKES EMOTION, or art is EVERYTHING CREATED, or art is WORK OF TECHNICAL MASTERY etc...), or just don't exist at all. Both are wrong: art is a reflection value systems of that particular society at that particular time, and that is the only universal truth about the institution.

Modern art sucks not because art has been defined wrong, or because it's "not really art", modern art sucks because our society decided to celebrate questionable values.
So our interest is to challenge THOSE VALUES. Not definitions, but the values. It's about what we should and should not EXPECT FROM ART, rather than about what art IS OR ISN'T.

>>389331645
who gives a shit?

>>389335532
Can't we simply distinguish between good art and bad art? It's much easier to critically evaluate whether something achieved what it set out to do than it is to set a bar somewhere along the line for what hits the "art" standard.

note that i am neither the poster you replied to nor particularly disagreeing with you, just offering an alternative.

>>389335839
>Can't we simply distinguish between good art and bad art?
No. That is FUCKING STUPID. First of all that actually does not solve ANY problem. Second of all it's fucking redundancy.

Why do we need good art and bad art if ART MEANS "GOOD". We are not actually solving the recognition problem because you'll still be stuck trying to explain what makes something good or bad - you just move the problem from "how do we identify art" to "how do we identify good" (literally the same issue) yet you will create this not only needless, but actually counter-effective category of "bad art" which literally translates to "worthless valuable things".

Just make "bad art" into NOT ART AT ALL, and "good art" into ART (AS IT ALWAYS HAS BEEN, BY THE FUCKING WAY) and be done with it. It's far more honest, it's far more functional, it's compatible with the historical model, does not require insane mental gymnastics to justify... no.

All you think you have done by saying "it's all art, just some of it is good and some of it is bad" is that you dodged the definition problem, but you really hadn't. You just moved it one word to the right.

Video games are the ultimate outlet for human expression.

It's everything that a movie is, but also programmed for player interaction and game design is an artform in itself.

File: 1457275966924.png (257KB, 420x340px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 420x340px

>>389331645
>videogames are made by a collection of artists
>it combines 2d art, 3d art, music, sound, etc.
>"it's not art"

Meanwhile, placing a roadkilled animal on a pedestal or slapping your dick on a canvas is "art", huh?

File: art dealer.jpg (71KB, 1340x379px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1340x379px

>art
>literally jewish fraud to extort money
>jews cannot make games good just by saying they are good (bethesda games are excellent examples of such)
OP is doublefaggot for being right from wrong reasons

>>389331645
But they are. In Japan.

>>389336236
Not all art-assets, not all pictures, not all music and not all text are art. In fact the term "art" in the phrase "3rd art" has a very different meaning than the word "art" in the expression "art gallery". Just as the word "art" in "martial art" has a different meaning.
The origin of the word "art" is from Proto-Indo-European suffix ar- which means "fitting together" or ar-ti: "fit together by human hands". It's related to "artificial" (made by humans in modern english), armament (weapon made by fitting together items by a human) etc...
That is why it was perserved in multiple different meanings through out english language with shit like Martial Arts and Art Asset, even though they have little in common with the academic institution of art as a merit of value.

>>389331645
Van Gogh was taken seriously after he died, if video games die then they will be taken seriously

who gives a shit

just play vidya

>>389331645
Who cares? The art industry only exists so that rich people can shuffle money around and avoid taxes.

Right now, a lot of them aren't. They're stupid fucking political commentaries.

>>389331765
artifice, something which is created.
...yep, that's everything

>>389332170
If you'd only post a screencap of a >3000 played hours of Dota 2 your reply would have been glorious

>>389336774
won't be long now, can practically taste the posthumous recognition

>>389337041
Well, that definition is UTTERLY WORTHLESS. Try again.

File: usTNVU7.png (439KB, 910x898px) Image search: [Google]

439KB, 910x898px

>>389336753
All those words yet they mean nothing in the context of the conversation. Well done.

You still haven't told me how 2d art, 3d art, music and the like ceases to be art once it's put in a videogame, even though it's the exact same.

Using your logic if Mona Lisa was created today and first put in a videogame as a 2d asset it would cease to be art? If Für Elise was composed for a videogame today it would cease to be art?
If not, then fuck off.

>>389331645

Of course not, it's entertainment

>>389337139
I'm sure yours is better

>>389337356
But art can be entertainment.

>>389331645
people like you are the reason why many artists get only recognition after their deaths.

>>389337592
But is all entertainment art? If so is fishing or football a art?

Hard to substantiate that claim op since art is subjective. I would say that to consider video games art one would also have to consider mass-produced children's toys as art too.

>>389337701
Neither fishing nor football have audiovisual elements to them. Videogames are on the same category as music and movies are.

>>389337460
Yes, it is. It's actually pretty much definitive and undeniably correct too.

If you provide a definition that neither reflects the way the word has been used (and is being used), and which you can end up substitituing with about a dozen different words, then you just failed in defining.

You said "well it's everything man-made". Yet we do not use it for everything man made. Historically was never used that way either. And it's literally just "everything man made", a concept we can already express in six different words, so why the fuck would we want yet another one?

>>389337182
>All those words yet they mean nothing in the context of the conversation.
You being an idiot is not my problem.

>>389337182
>music and the like ceases to be art
I actually explained how they were never art in the sense OP uses the word to begin with. How did you not get the whole "art has more meanings than one" part?
NOT ALL MUSIC IS ART.
And 2d art is actually a shortage for "2d art-asset". Which does not mean it's art in the same social sense as Van Gogh images are art. It just means they are assets put together by basic craftsmen.

You are basically getting EVERYTHING wrong about this whole discussion. Are you actually mentally challenged in some medically recognized way?

>>389337702
>one would also have to consider mass-produced children's toys as art too.
If childrens toys start requiring skilled musicians, concept artists and writters to make, sure thing why not, include them as well.

>>389331645

Official meaning:

Art creation is ruled with the predominant factors being the emotions and creativity of the author

Not-art creation is ruled with the predominant factors being the necessities of the customer or subject.

So i say that If a picture tries to represent something, it's a illustration, not art. So yeah! the concept of the world is fucked. There was deffinitions like"fine art" and "low art", never "fake art"

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

314KB, 306x455px

Cringe thread?

>>389337182
>"Art is the stuff you find in the museum, whether it be a painting or a statue. What I'm doing, what videogame creators are doing, is running the museum--how do we light up things, where do we place things, how do we sell tickets? It's basically running the museum for those who come to the museum to look at the art. For better or worse, what I do, Hideo Kojima, myself, is run the museum and also create the art that's displayed in the museum." ~ Hideo Kojima

He is basically saying the videogames aren't art themselves but use art.

>>389338053

The red pill was already a meme during gamergate?

>>389338090
So videogames are art museums?
Holy shit, thats even better.

File: wheisenberg.jpg (127KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 403x403px

>>389337801
>"historical" semantic BS
Who would care what 'people used to think' qualifies as what? "Utterly worthless"
Where did you see 'man' mentioned? Everything is created. Reality is art.

>>389338015
It's not really fucked, people are just using it wrong because they are both lazy, insecure and poorly educated.

>>389338379
Because they still think it, it's a historical and cultural universal, which means that it's important.

>>389338379
>Reality is art.
Well that is even more useless than the previous one, AND ETYMOLOGICALLY INCORRECT TOO.
You had ONE thing to go from: you had the etymology of art which comes from ar-ti meaning "man made" and you blow that too?

Seriously, are you fucking retarded? Do you have a diagnosis? If not then you should fucking get one and present it to other people every single time you want to speak so that they would know what to expect.

>>389331645
>Scroll through thread to check if it's filled with post-modernists saying everything is art
Oh what a surprise

>>389338583
>All art is good

Too stupid to understand the meaning of "definition"

If video games are art, why are they sold before being able to play them? You don't buy a painting you can't view, you buy it because you like it.

If games are sold to make money, why do people insist on their artistic integrity rather than giving the customer what they want?

>>389338774
Why is music sold before being able to listen or view a score?

>>389331645
How seriously does society take fine art enthusiasts anyway?

>>389338493
>implying reality=/=god=/=art=/=man
Played oneself, one has

>>389337954
Video games have art assets. Yes.
Video games are art. Not necessarily.

>>389338923
None of those things mean the same thing. This not nearly as clever play as you think.

>>389338874
I mean, the intelligent members of society take them fairly seriously.
But then you have dudebro STEM normies who don't care, correct.

>>389331645
who

>>389338985
all is one, and one is a damn persistent troll

>>389338958
Maybe, but nothing stops people from appreciating the art games are made from.

>>389332529
Possibly the only good post in this thread.

>>389339038
Some dead celebrities

File: 1491511600320.jpg (14KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 200x200px

>>389333132
this

File: 4383824.jpg (118KB, 610x804px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 610x804px

>commercial toys with a few decades of history aren't taken as seriously as cultural pillars of civilizations

WOAH

>>389331645
Reminder that not very many people take Rembrandt or Van Gogh seriously in the first place.
Also impressionism sucks ass and Gogh deserved everything he got.

>>389334330
>>389333556
What about hyperrealism? I don't think that create strong emotions, or it is the objective of the paitings.

File: art.png (876KB, 764x1152px) Image search: [Google]

876KB, 764x1152px

>>389339623
>cultural pillars of civilizations

File: cosmologyofkyoto.png (56KB, 306x360px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 306x360px

Reminder that this is the closest vidya has ever been to being art

File: 1392011971891.png (79KB, 250x282px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 250x282px

>>389331645
daily reminder that the only people who think they know what art is don't know anything about art.

>>389340075
>contemporary art is representative of entire disciplines throughout history

>>389331645
Music isn't art either, if you actually knew how it made or the low effort that goes into it.

>>389340075
If you get over the poor attempt at shock value and the low hanging fruit of political commentary, it's impressive she could draw that well with a tampon.

>>389331645
Nobody denies film is art. The collected works of Neil Breen exists.
Nobody denies literature is art. Stinky Steve exists.
Nobody denies music is art. Hot Problems exists.

CALLING SOMETHING ART IS NOT A MEASURE OF QUALITY.

When people say things like that they are thinking every game is like CoD, Fifa etc. That's like saying every music is like Nick Minaj or every book is like shades of gray.

Most games hold little artistic value, but that's the case in most mediums.

>>389340516
>Nobody denies film is art. The collected works of Neil Breen exists.
People either call cinema "art" in the sense of it being craft (which is a second meaning of the word), in which case they A) do not refer to the collection of works, but rather to the process of making a movie, and B) they generally imply it it is an ARTISTIC PLATFORM rather than saying all works within that platform are art.

In fact nobody calls Stinky Steve "art". Most people actually avoid calling "cinema" or "literature" "art for this very reason.

People call Tarkovsky's Stalker a work of art or an art piece, however. And what they imply by that is PRECISELY THAT IT'S OF HIGH QUALITY.

So yeah: art actually means specifically "something of high value/quality". And when people say "cinema is art" they are saying that that cinematography holds a lot of potential value and potentially high-quality experiences.

It has no other meaning. I mean: "Craft", obviously, but then again what is "craft" other than "capacity to do something WELL". A craftsman is somebody who knows how to do his job better than normal people. So it's still the damn same thing.

ART IS IMPLICATION OF QUALITY OR UNUSUALLY HIGH VALUE. Nothing else, actually.

File: 1478798787636.png (35KB, 700x700px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 700x700px

>>389331645
They can be art, in the sense that if someone want to use it as a way to deliver a piece of art, they can.
See, art uses multiple media to exist. Art can exist thanks to ink, stones, cameras and even the human body itself. Those are all tools that an artist can use to create art.
And all digital media can have the same role in the hands of an artist. Line of codes, gifs, glitches and even videogames are all tools, or medium, art can arise from.

There is the wrong idea in modern society that "painting=art", "poems=art" and so on, but that's terribly wrong. Paintings are the tool artists use to create art. But, believe it or not, not all paintings are art.
You will predictably say then "but dumb anon, who decides what's art or not? Don't you know everything is art? I read it on Wikipedia". People that study art are the ones that decide.
Just like people that study medicine decide what are the real methods to cure people and avoid "miraculous potions" made by wannabe "medics". Just like people that study astronomy decide how the universe work and avoid people to believe dumb shit like "the Earth is flat".
Artists and art students decide what's art, not people that read two notions about art and say "everything is art". And those people that study art decided already: videogames can be art. Just look into Cory Arcangel. Right now in art school there are thesis and discussions about videogames and art.
But you wouldn't write about a topic you know nothing about, right /v/?

>>389331645
Videogames are art... They're just haven't yet hit "fine art" -- an end result where everyone can basically be in awe of it.
Even when a game is atmospheric and doing it's best to stand out from the other mediums it employs, it doesn't exude the raw emotion of something like Caravaggio or Bekinski. It possibly never will either because the skill to make something like that tastefully would be enormous and the budget would be in the stratosphere.

Not being fine art is acceptable. The same could be said for 99% of music/cinema/physical mediums nowadays. I play videogames for fun.

File: 1501024339530.jpg (132KB, 601x601px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 601x601px

>>389331645
Art just means that something is very well done.
Cooking is an art, a sandwich can be art. Why can't a video game?

>>389340905
>ART IS IMPLICATION OF QUALITY OR UNUSUALLY HIGH VALUE.
Couldn't be more wrong. Art is a purely descriptive term making no statement about the quality of the artistic piece.

>>389341156
even homedogs gotta holler

>>389341428
>Art is a purely descriptive term making no statement about the quality of the artistic piece.
OK you fucking mongoloid, and what it describes according to you?
Because historically speaking, as well as intuitively speaking, it always was a descriptive term that described item as "recognized or deemed to be an item of unusually high value or quality".

That is still a description.

>>389341517
>Because historically speaking
It's almost like the definition of art drastically changed over the course of history.

>That is still a description.
Of course, /v/ wouldn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion.

Please, read up on the subject.

Pop culture isn't art

>>389341849
Not all games are pop culture.

>>389341517
Art is many colloquial and euphemist meanings. If we follow your quote to it's logical limits via ad adsurdum, we can conclude that all of music is essentially not "art", because it isn't a thing and holds no real value.

>>389333081
There are ways to tie the gameplay to the narrative. Make your choices have meaning, and you'll have something that other media simply can do.

Look at how the Nier games mess with your save files.

How weebshit like persona makes you spend 100 hours before ending the game. Anyone staying that long is guaranteed to be emotionally attached to the narrative.

Play a (Good) tale-tell game.

Or go full indie. Where the gameplay is the story. Like "Journey".

There are ways to make your game into art.

>>389341967
>meta elements = art

>>389341753
>It's almost like the definition of art drastically changed over the course of history.
The definition of the word, maybe. The institution itself, no. Art exists across all cultures and across all of history as universal institution that has the same function and the same broad role. We started using the particular word "art" to specifically identify this institution "only" some three hundred years ago, but we did use the word in a very related fashion even before that. It used to mean "craft" because we used to identitify this institution with craft, which has always been it's biggest and most important component, historically speaking.

But art as a concept and as an institution has not changed at all.

>Of course, /v/ wouldn't know the difference between a fact and an opinion.
Actually, only a twelve years old still thinks simply the stupid, EXPLICITLY MADE FOR CHILDREN notions of "facts" and "opinions" (which is a completely unacademic terminology).

You also failed to in any way actually address what I asked you to do (provide an actual descriptive definition of art as you claimed to have), or failed to address my counter-argument, that being a descriptive term does not actually in any way contradict the notion that it describes items based on their ascribed value.

>Please, read up on the subject.
Dude, I've studied this subject for well over a decade. You on the other hand, have not said anything but refered to a child's game about facts and opinions. You are not exactly in a position to talk down to people.

>>389341962
>because it isn't a thing and holds no real value.
Here is a hint: "REAL VALUE" is fucking retarded and shows that you have no clue about how value works.
Also, how the FUCK is music not "a thing". Jesus you people are insanely clueless.

>>389333081
>Art is typically defined as a thing designed to elicit emotion or other strong feelings
Your whole post is based on a partially wrong definition of art. Not all art brings up emotions or feeling. Some deliver ideas, other impressions, other again purposely deliver nothing at all.
And gameplay can deliver everything if done properly. The problem is exactly that developers give more focus on graphics, story and such rather than on gameplay. Gameplay will never evolve to something greater if devs ignore it.

File: 1503068354031.jpg (13KB, 285x255px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 285x255px

Everyone on here agrees.

File: 546546546.jpg (77KB, 937x960px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 937x960px

>my only cultural education is video games
>i've never been to an art museum
>i've never read a book beyond genre fiction
>i've never studied art history
>i've never been to the theatre
>i've only watched blockbusters
>i've never viewed any paintings or sculptures in person
>i can't name even 2 art movements
>i only listen to pop music and video game osts

Please tell me why you think you're qualified to talk about art /v/? You're like those video game journalists who can't even play a simple entry level video game trying to explain or talk about vidya

>>389342139
>"recognized or deemed to be an item of unusually high value or quality".
Music has no real value beyond abstraction.
It's also not an ""item"; it is in essence performance. Listening to music or making use of recorded media is simply replaying a replica of the actual art. This isn't the same as looking at a copy of a Caravaggio -- recording is in essence it's own art very separate from music.
Also, you backed yourself into this corner with your own narrow-minded definition that excludes all others. So it's either one or the other; your definition is correct and music isn't capable of being art, or it's incorrect and music is Oxford certifiably capable of being art.
But keep doing mental gymnastics if you want.

>>389335186
I hate this game though, fucking hate having to farm colour

>>389342409
I would say I'm qualified to talk about pieces of music and I'm not a music historian. That being said, I'm trained on cello, viola, guitar, drums, and piano.

>>389342409
>Implying any of that

>>389342623
>Music has no real value beyond abstraction.
REAL VALUE is a fucking oxymoron you retard. I just told you that you are clearly oblivious to what the concept of value entails, and the first thing you do is to repeat the exact same words I told you are fucking wrong and poorly informed?
JESUS. What the fuck is wrong with you?!

Value is normative. It's assigned by arbitration, it's a socially specific term for "priority".

>This isn't the same as looking at a copy of a Caravaggio -- recording is in essence it's own art very separate from music.
This whole part of the argument is frankly so much absolute bullshit I don't even know where to begin. What the fuck is an "essence" and what the fucking shit are you yapping about?

Music is a sequence of defined tones following over time. It's a very much thing of it's own. Just like a painting is a distribution of pigment over space. Nothing that you said there is relevant.

>Also, you backed yourself into this corner with your own narrow-minded definition that excludes all others.
My definition is extremely broad. Anything man-made CAN be art if there is a suffucient social consensus for it to be considered as such you absolute piece of garbage. It does not get any broader than that: the artificiality of it literally being the only NECESSARY formal restraint.

My definition is correct, but you are so fucking retarded I don't think you even understand it, because in ABSOLUTELY NO FUCKING WAY does it contradict music being art. Music is a human product or activity, it can be judged (evaluated): so it can be potentially recognized as art.

Seriously, I think the root problem, outside of those absurd and completely ungrounded ideas of "essence" of yours, is that you literally can't think of the notion of VALUE in some absolutely misguided AND at the same way transcendental perspective.
You are a moron and you have not the faintest clue of what you are really talking about.

>>389338090
Eh makes sense. A beautiful wood carved chess set might be art, but the game of chess itself is not. Not that I agree
>>389338774
You can pre-order books too dude
>>389341517
>recognized or deemed to be an item of unusually high value or quantity
Wtf are you arguing dude that's definition is is subjective as fuck, since each viewer will have their own opinion on an item's merit

>>389343191
>Wtf are you arguing dude that's definition is is subjective as fuck,
That is not subjective you drooling mongoloid, that is normative. What individual viewers think does not matter, the ultimate social consensus does. Keep in mind though that social consensus does not have to be democratic.

>>389331645
Van Gogh wasn't taken seriously during his lifetime either. Novels weren't taken serious during their hayday. Hell, *prose* wasn't considered art for a long time.

Get over yourself.

>>389332385
Vidya is more akin to a museum. It contains art, for sure! And the dev is the curator, determining how and when the player will be interacting with different pieces there.

Or how about this.

Vidya is more akin to a theme park. Is there artistry in a theme park ride? Absolutely! Is a theme park art? No. The dev is akin to a theme park designer, determining when and how patrons will interact with different pieces.

>>389335186
Have that game for years now and i STILL havent figured out how to efficiently farm color
I keep running out.
How'd you do it?

>>389331645
Art is such a fucking worthless word. Say what you ACTUALLY mean, be specific, be detailed. This whole """debate""" is just semantics bullshit.

Reminder that modern art galleries are just money laundering schemes

>>389342409
None of those apply to me (except the last one, my musical tastes are terribly pleb, sue me).

>>389343009
You said "value", not me. Let's proceed under the objective truth that you have absolute dogshit syntax, and "approval", "appeal", or "merit" would have been a better word.

In-essence is a term used to separate something out from peripheral factors -- I won't define words and phrases for you any further.

>Music is a sequence of defined tones over a pattern.
This is a stupid definition because no music performance is defined or absolute and it discounts improvisational music. In addition to that a live performance is very different than a recording.
Furthermore, music media could only be made the way it's made in the studio, through the process, methods, and technique of recording -- this can result in uniqueness, for example Sgt. Pepper.

>Music is a human product or activity, it can be judged (evaluated): so it can be potentially recognized as art.
It's an activity -- the product isn't the art, it's separate.
>"recognized or deemed to be an item of unusually high value or quality".
Music isn't an item. Recording is indefinitely separate.

There's your direct contradiction by your own words.

File: da don 2.jpg (132KB, 628x830px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 628x830px

I think the fact that there needs to be any sort of debate over it at all proves that vidya are art. It's just that, like every other artform, there's a hundred made for mass consumption pieces of media for every beautiful little passion project with all sorts of personal meaning to the man who made it. That's just how things work.

>>389343362
So videogames are art then

>>389342409
>Please tell me why you think you're qualified to talk about art /v/?
This is a really good question, and something most people posting here should ask themselves.

That said, what makes me think I'm qualified is the fact that I had actually study shitton of art theory, come from a family with multiple successful artists, studied tons of philosophy, anthropology and cognitive sciences in general, watched, read and listened to a lot of works, And most importantly, I've discussed them thousands of times, with authorities on the field. I have been forced to re-evaluate my own beliefs countless times, I've had them tested and rejected those that could not stand up to scrutiny, until I've reached the point where I had stopped running into counter-arguments from people who are mostly recognized as authorities in the field that I could not address.

>>389343907
>under the objective truth that you have absolute dogshit syntax, and "approval", "appeal",
Ignoring what I assume is INTENTIONALLY wrong use of the word objective, no. And here you are arguing with the entirety of social sciences, psychologies, philosophy, cognitive sciences etc... Value is the right word to use here. Look up philosophical, sociological, anthropological and psychological theories of value.

>I won't define words and phrases for you any further.
I'm not surprised, because you would have to admit how utterly full of shit you are. Because you just said something meaningless. How do you defined peripheral in this context, for an example?

>This is a stupid definition because no music performance is defined or absolute
What? I just provided a useful absolute definition. It's actually PHYSICAL tool. Literally: it's a definition of music as an undeniable, objective physical phenomenon.

>it discounts improvisational music
What. THE FUCK. IS WRONG WITH YOU?! NO. It does not. Is improvised music not also a set of sounds in time?! WHAT THE FUCK?!

>>389344020
Best post in the thread.

>>389331645
No shit dumb dumb.
They're comprised of art and whatever you'd classify each of design and programming.
A pizza isn't meat, but it's got meat on it.

>>389344020
>if you need to even debate a topic it means one side is already unequivocally right

What's the point of the debate then?

>>389344281
>A pizza isn't meat, but it's got meat on it.


/v/ objectively BTFO

>>389343907
>In addition to that a live performance is very different than a recording.
Well, yeah, it's not an identical set of sounds, though the pattern is usually similar enough for us to conclude that they are the same song, and we generally find the broad patterns more relevant than the more specific. If we need to differenciate, we can, but we don't always need. This is absolutely pointless, by the way.

>It's an activity -- the product isn't the art, it's separate.
No, it's actually a particular pattern. Music is interesting because we experience it in time, but it's not the activity: it's the pattern that matters. Not really here to this subject however.

>Recording is indefinitely separate.
See above. Music is a pattern. Items or actions represent that pattern. THAT IS THE SAME FOR ALL MEDIA. You'd find the same exact problem with visual arts too, by the way. Each monitor will render a representation of the same painting slightly differently. Hell, you can change the look of a painting just by changing the light in the room.

Yet we can pretty fucking easily tell that it's a painting, the same one. Music works the same way too. This is an entirely artificial problem that you made up in your head to avoid what is actually really important.

>There's your direct contradiction by your own words.
No, it's just your fucking sophism and bullshit. OH MY GOD THERE MIGHT BE A VARIETY IN EXPERIENCES, HOW FUCKING TERRIFYING SO COMPLICATED OH MY GOD PROVES ME RIGHT AND YOU WRONG WAAAAH.

No, fuck-face. We have solid enough intuitions to describe and identify music: to identify a song, and if need to identify a rendition of a song IF IT'S RELEVANT TO us, allowing us to classify it as one or two different works IF IT'S USEFUL TO US.
That changes fuck all. Yes, human perception works in multiple levels of fidelity at the same time! Amazing. But trivial, and irrelevant to the problem.

>>389344232
Your syntax is objectively retarded, you picked a poor phrase:
>An item of value.
Anyways, I fully understand your use of the word when I said many posts ago music's value is an abstract.
You don't know phrases common in the English vernacular, literally not my problem.
Your definition contradicts itself when you amended it from "an item" to a "product or activity", your first definition forgoing the performance of music an actual art and instead using recording as your focal point for music.

I accept your re-definition of product or activity to include music; your first definition was unacceptable and incorrect.

>>389338994
The artists, maybe.
The collectors/gawkers?

More like Rembutt and Van Gay amirite guiz?

>>389344281
>Meal comparison

>>389344974
>Your syntax is objectively retarded, you picked a poor phrase:
Once again you use the word "objectively wrong" and yet somehow you expect to be taken seriously? The first time I could get it's a joke but doing this repeatedly just makes me wonder if you really know what that word really means or not. And if you have problem with this, it's YET ANOTHER proof that you are not actually equipped to handle this discussion.

Also, syntax? No, you are talking about vocabulary, not syntax. Do you not know what syntax is either? It's the ORDER OF WORDS, not choice of words.

>An item of value.
OK, I could be more specific, I used the word "item" in a very broad meaning.
More specifically I should have actually said "an act or a product of an act" because we often use the word art to describe not only what art produces, but the act of production too.

>I said many posts ago music's value is an abstract.
Abstract is a another word you are using pretty much wrong, YOU REALLY DON'T GET TO BITCH AT OTHERS FOR THEIR LANGUAGE USE.

>Your definition contradicts itself when you amended it from "an item" to a "product or activity",
Wait... so I did say "an act or product of said act"?
And HOW THE FUCK does it contradict itself?!

>>389344582
I'm not even going to bother getting into it, but songs frequently change over time after the physical media is defined much greater than miniscule imperfections viewing a painting, recording adds character impossible to achieve live, etc.
Music is strictly an activity that employs the use of patterns -- music being just a pattern is patently narrow, and spoken by someone who doesn't play music in groups.
Etc.

>>389331645
reminder, OP is a faggot
he will never not be a faggot

>>389345437
>but songs frequently change over time after the physical media
Nobody gives a fuck. That is irrelevant. Also music IS THE PATTERN, not the activity. Dvorak's 9th symphony is the fucking 9th symphony even when nobody is playing it: it's defined by the order of sounds, which can be represented on a piece of paper with notes. It's the pattern that matters for us to define it.

And sure, every live rendition of it is slightly different. But that difference is not usually relevant, and if it becomes relevant then we can identify it (it's REALLY not that hard to say specifically if you talk about a composition itself, or a particular version of it). And with that being easily solvable, all of this is fucking irrelevant.

It changes absolutely nothing about the fact that art is the identification of value in human produce, as performed by legitimate authorities through societal consensus. That is what fucking matters. It really changes little if we specify this produce specifically as action and items it produces, or if we just call action item too, because item is literally vaguest word in English... if this confused you, you could ask but for fuck sake not scream how it's wrong or contradictory. We can - again - add fidelity to our claims if there is such a need, but conceptual levels always take precedence in normative models.

>>389343362
Social consensus is what makes something art? So if I write a song in my basement, it's not art till I play it for a crowd and they agree it has artistic worth? I suppose Goya's paintings on the walls of his house weren't art until he died and his house was sold too then?Your definition of art is trash

>>389331645
>as Rembrandt or Van Gogh are
You mean two bumpkins that were never taken seriously until many decades after they died?
Wew laddie, at least try to read some basic art history manual before you try making this stale thread.
Do you even know who Duchamp is? If you did you'd know how pointless this meme thread is.

>>389345662
>I write a song in my basement, it's not art till I play it for a crowd and they agree it has artistic worth?
Yes, literally exactly that. It's not art if nobody knows it exists. It would be also pointless to talk about artistic worth of item we do not know if it exists or not.

>I suppose Goya's paintings on the walls of his house weren't art until he died and his house was sold too then?
We yes. If there is no one to call it art, then it's not art.
Well, actually it IS a bit more complicated, because the actual RULES of ascribing value can be actually abstract and general. So if a certain society decides that ALL painting that represent God are automatically art, then even works that have not been discovered yet are still art by the arbitration. The point is that the rules of what defines art are exclusively up to the arbitration of that society and authorities it poses.
A lot of modern society identifies all items of personal expression of pre-urbanized societies as art, and if that is the consensus, that is also correct - within that society. It's how most archeologists use the word, specifically.

>Your definition of art is trash
How? Because it does not define art is a trascendental principle that will always provide you with absolute key, and forces you to consider more complex context when using the word? Yeah, that I can understand can be absolutely terrifying to you.

>>389345408
You provided your initial supposition or argument:
>Art is an item of merit.
I countered:
>Music isn't an item, therefore if we follow your definition to it's logical conclusion, music isn't art.
>Wait, no! Music is art!
You then immediately tried to argue what music is to make it fit into your statement.
When this was no longer logically feasible through watertight logic, you then amended your original statement:
>Art is an activity/product.
The second definition explicitly contradicts the first -- normally an inclusion wouldn't, but you tried to create exact boundaries for something that "is" or "isn't."
Ignore "objectively", "in-essence", "value", etc. This is pretty much the end of the conversation.

>>389346017
>It's not art if nobody knows it exists
>If there is no one to call it art, then it's not art.
So what if I kill your mom and nobody ever finds out?
I guess I never committed a crime in the first place.
>The point is that the rules of what defines art are exclusively up to the arbitration of that society
>Society
>Dictating what is art or not
You have no idea what you're talking about, you should also work on your argumentation and vocabulary because half of the "contents" of your periods do not make any sense at all.

Hurr durr art is not a status to achieve that will make your piece suddenly good.
Durr anything can be art but not anything is good art.
Or whatever.

>>389331645
Videogames are fun, and if they're fun it means they're art.

Video games were always art. All of them are art even if they're bad art. Just because something isn't pretentious with a hamfisted lesson to teach or some obnoxious message to convey doesn't mean it's not art.

File: 1446412407417.png (335KB, 456x522px) Image search: [Google]

335KB, 456x522px

>>389331645
good I want normalfags to leave vidya alone
if they actually took it seriously and did a ton of critical analysis I'm sure a bunch of them will go "BUT MUH SEXUALIZED CHILDREN/WOMEN"

>>389345643
You don't know how much music changes over time.
Do you play music of your own creation in groups? If you did, you'd know that a song can end up drastically different or evolving basis.
Also, your confusing "a composition" for all of music. I will make this amendment for you; "Music" is 3 distinct things, and all 3 are their own distinct art (composition, performance/activity, and recording arts).

>>389346624
>if they actually took it seriously and did a ton of critical analysis I'm sure a bunch of them will go "BUT MUH SEXUALIZED CHILDREN/WOMEN"
So you're not only a brainlet, you do live under a rock.

Rembrandt is the Call of Duty of 17th century painting

>>389331645
its fine, I never took Rembrandt or Van Gogh seriously anyway

>>389333132
>>389339561
fair point desu

File: 1489085300850.jpg (105KB, 431x766px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 431x766px

Real men sculpt and then molest their sculptures

>>389346337
I typed that definition out about six or seven times in this thread, most of these cases with the proper "act or product of an act", on this case I did not even realize that I simplified it a bit.

That said, if you moron just said "well the problem is with the word "item" because there are such things like musical performances", I'd just correct myself.
Instead you went on babbling incredibly confusingly how the definition contradicts itself (IT DOES NOT, it just does not define the object with sufficient clarity - e.g. there is another class of items that could be included, but otherwise the definition IS SELF CONSISTENT), then said something about syntax and something about fucking essence.... So yeah, it took me a damn while to figure out what the fuck are you talking about.

Maybe next time YOU use words right, say "there are more categories that we count as art than just physical items, which your definition does not account for."

>>389346672
ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVANT. And no, I'm not confusing anything, I'm saying that we can differenciate between levels of fidelity in context easily, and none of this contradicts what was the CORE of the argument, the fact that art is descriptive term for objects (including acts) socially ascribed unique value or quality.

It does not matter if we specifically ascribe quality to the composition, or to a specific performance, or both, the fucking important part is that "art" reflects our societies value hierarchies as projected to what we produce an act out.

>>389346372
>So what if I kill your mom and nobody ever finds out?
What kind of analogy is that?

>You have no idea what you're talking about,
I noticed, but that is simply because you are a fucking retard BEYOND ANY BELIEF. There is literally no fucking human excuse for being this dumb.
You are the problem. Not me. You are just a fucking retard. You literally cannot comprehend incredibly basic fucking notions. Just look up the word "arbitration" in the dictionary if you don't know it, it's not my problem that you lack basic english vocabulary.

>>389346017
So your definition of art is whatever fulfills the rules of what a particular society generally agrees is art.
Fair enough, I retract my trash statement.
However I would argue that OUR current society has come to a general consensus that anything involving a creator using a medium to express himself is art. In the same way a society agrees any paintings of God are art, our society has come to think any expression of feeling or lack thereof through a medium is art.

>>389346917
Pygmalion, pls.

File: 1491562874527.jpg (23KB, 290x324px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 290x324px

>>389347103
>What kind of analogy is that?
Your very same absurd logical reasoning.
>You literally cannot comprehend incredibly basic fucking notions
Says the brainlet who doesn't even know what are properties and attributes.

>>389346982
You fucked up your original argument and it had to be amended because your original definition didn't include music, but you said "well, music is art too!"
If you're going to make an argument, make it well so people don't have to assume what you mean when you tenuously use words like "item" expecting me to have a link to your cerebellum.
I attacked a poor argument and made you change it, literally end of story.
This ties into your syntax again. Use it better when forming arguments.
>ALL OF THIS IS IRRELEVANT.
No it isn't, you don't get to to declare relevancy on the matter, thank fuck. It's 3 artforms -- don't forget it.

>>389347392
>So your definition of art is whatever fulfills the rules of what a particular society generally agrees is art.
Yes, precisely. It's the only definition that actually holds up to scrutiny regardless of a particular societal context - it's universal.

>However I would argue that OUR current society has come to a general consensus that anything involving a creator using a medium to express himself is art.
You are right... but this is a problem of what our society identifies as a VALUE. So it's an issue of values that our society holds, and not of art as an institution.
And it's one of the reason why I hate this definition if it's used as a stand-alone definition of art: it pretends that it speaks about ART, but really it only speaks about OUR SOCIETY. And I think that is an incredibly important distinction.

We live under the misguided obsession about individual and expression being inherently valuable. And by proxy, we push this definition of art depending exclusively on those conditions. It's not a very healthy attitude. Though I would NOT ARGUE that say, Duchamp's urinal is art in western society. It is, by the definition I push for.

I just want people to realize that it's not art INHERENTLY, it's art because WE VERY SPECIFICALLY DECIDED to value fradulent projects because we do not value moral or intellectual integrity, or craft, or respect for others, nearly as much as we value relativization of values itself.

This is why I said before: we need to realize that discussions about art should be discussions about discussions about what is important or valuable to us. And that those things can and well change.

>>389331764
This is the right attitude. People who care about games as "art" make garbage like Gone Home. People who don't care about the label of art make games like DOOM. Trying to legitimize games as an art form is part of the problem with video games nowadays.

I feel like this argument was settled decades ago. There's really no reason to treat video games differently from other media. You can follow classes on shakespeare, you can follow classes on pop culture, you can follow classes on video games, and they're really not all that different.

>>389347641
>Your very same absurd logical reasoning.
It's absurd all right, but it's absurd by how disconnected to anything it is.
By the way if I lived in a society where killing mothers is allowed, then you killing my mom would not be a criminal, which is analogical to my point about art being defined by social arbitration.

"Crime" means "what society deems inacceptable to do and worth punishing". And yes: it's only crime if said society recognizes it as a crime. That is why the same act can be crime in one society, but not in another.

And the same goes for art. "Art" is "things that people create which then society deems highly desirable and valuable". Hence an item is only a work of art if it fits the criteria for valuability the society agrees upon.

By the way, expanding on your moronic definition: No, if you killed my mother but NOBODY COULD PIN IT ON IT, then by society, you are not guilty of a crime. So... again, I have no idea how you thought that was a good fucking response.

>Says the brainlet who doesn't even know what are properties and attributes.
Neither of those terms is really relevant to this. You did not even mention them either, I have no idea what makes you think I don't know those terms.

File: 08403b26ed815e52cd7a4748264a0d4a[1].jpg (393KB, 1500x1489px) Image search: [Google]

393KB, 1500x1489px

>>389331645
Sadly, video games can never match the grandeur of music. This is because music stimulates the creative parts of the mind, aiding the listener in creating worlds vaster than any game engine could ever encapsulate. Video games will always be a limited medium, since the worlds they present are by necessity streamlined, as opposed to the free-flowing worlds of music, and as such, no video game will ever be as evocative and apocalyptic as ITCOTCK.

This is also why video games are a lesser art form than music.

>>389347950
>I attacked a poor argument and made you change it, literally end of story.
You attacked my argument far more poorly than I forumulated it, which is the WHOLE reason why this discussion dragged on for so damn long.

It was a simple issue and yes: I admit. I oversimplified it. But you started arguing against it on completely diffrent premises and it took you well over an hour to actually even state where you problem lies.

Basic communication principles, BITCH. Learn them.

Do you niggers know why photography is art? It's because Joseph "Photography is art" Stieglitz put in the god-damned work. Because photography wasn't art before him. The big galleries didn't show photographers or hang their images for sales. Museums didn't want photographs as anything but historical documents.
So Joseph "I'll make that O'keeffe girl paint pictures of dicks" Stieglitz put in the motherfucking effort. He opened his gallery. He put out the magazine. He ran the club. He banged Georgia O'keeffe. He took pictures of clouds. He got people to view photographs as art. That's what it takes, not declaring it to the world but getting the world to believe you.
Right now, vidya are toys. That's what the world thinks. Someone's got to do the work.

File: 1499074903927.jpg (1MB, 988x1024px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 988x1024px

>>389346917
stone tiddies

>>389348143
There is no need to legitimise anything, because people outside this shithole already settled this argument.
These threads aren't about saying if videogames are art or not, these threads are about people that try their darnest to argue videogames not art when they already are.
It's like this whole board is stuck to ten/twenty years ago and refuses to move on. I mean, most people on this board don't even follow basic videogame news (if someone doesn't post them here, nobody would know those news exist), let alone cultural news about videogames.
All you see is people that never cared about art and pretend to be art experts. I've read like five posts in this whole thread made by people that actually know what they are saying.

>>389348474
Replace "video games" with "movies" and chuckle hard.

>>389346917
>marble statues of roast beef sandwiches

>>389348669
They do the work. They've *done* the work already. Video games are studied in academia same as literature, art, and cinema. Video games are displayed in museums and galleries. There are artists who specifically choose video games as their medium. And a large part of the lay public has come around as well. Really, /v/ is just still butthurt about Gone Home after all this time. That's all this is.

>>389348669
Wasn't his name Alfred Stieglitz though?

>>389348972
Bullshit. The public sees games as toys or even children's toys. They haven't come around.

>>389349165
Yeah I always confuse the economist with the photographer. Probably brain damage.

>>389349174
You forget that a large part of the public is people who play video games. Also, that's really the least important part of my post m8.

>>389348669
>Right now, vidya are toys. That's what the world thinks. Someone's got to do the work.
I was absolutely with you up till that very last paragraph. A lot of work has been done already, and a lot has changed. Many college professors are now recognizing games as art, many media run articles on them, fuck the damn Smithsonian actually ran an exibition of games and American law recognizes game production as potentially legally classifiable as art with many legislative implications that come with it, including potential state funding.

So it's not like the society is completely rejecting the notion. It's still transitioning, and it's a lot harder than it ever was because the institution of art ITSELF is in deep problems and has been struggling to maintain it's own relevance in public eyes, but it's already happening.

Otherwise, you are entirely right on what is the damn difference between art and not art. It's just a matter of convincing people to view it as such.

>>389348118
Yeah I agree with you, and I think its the reason contemporary art is such a mess. Our society has come to value expression and 'originality' at the expense of talent and hard work. What's the point of spending years to hone your personal craft and style of painting if you can just sprinkle some gold glitter on a bloody tampon and critics will find them of equal merit

File: ss_aa8160a76accc7bf93c998be79df988e4b70c33d.1920x1080.jpg (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

So u be sayin dat gamez cant be Van Gog n shit?

>>389349174
The "public" think art is dumb as a whole and they also usually think shit like "I could draw that better than the artist, duh".

>>389349307
Actually, that's the most important part because hanging in a museum or being studied in a school isn't nearly as important to a medium as how it is perceived by the public.
>You forget that a large part of the public is people who play video games
So what? You can think of something as a toy and play with it.

>>389349174
>The public sees games as toys or even children's toys.
The public also can't understand people like Klee or Kandisky, nor they can appreciate Opera or tell a piece from Scriabin apart from Liszt.
Ask a random person or one of your friends what they think about Zeami's idea of dance and aesthetic and how that compares to say, Apuleius' or Lucian of Samosata, the public NEVER comes around, it always settles for the lowest common denominator, in the best case scenario.

>>389349174
>Bullshit
Are you forgetting the fact that they have been recognized as art by both Smithsonian and american legal administration, federation-wide? Seriously, being sceptical is one thing, but ignoring clear evidence that things are dramatically changing is another.

>>389349382
There is a LITTLE bit of merit in recognizing individual as valuable, or in valuing challenge, originality, questioning of social assumptions. All of those can be useful to our society. It's just that we took it WAY too far, and ironically stopped being able to question the validity of questioning those values.

Social institutions can calcify (we had seen this in art many times, when formalism took over, when ideological or moral reasoning became more important than genuinity or innovation - we all remember the initial rejection of impressionism in France by artistic community) and art has always served a great deal in consistently challenging itself, and the whole society by proxy.

The irony is that we really did calcify again: art became so obsessed by challenging societal norms and assumptions that it stopped challenging itself.

But yeah, modern art is a mess. Though I genuinely think: It's not art that is mess: it's literally everything else. The society itself is really fucked up. We have major value problems. And art just mirrors them. We have a major problem establishing most basic ideas of "good" or "bad". I don't think the crisis of art can ever be addressed on the level of art itself: it needs to be challenged on broad social studies level - on levels of basic ethics, basic social conceptions, group identities, accepted interpretation codes etc...
But now I'm getting preachy.

Good to know

File: 1476811579579.jpg (97KB, 900x600px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 900x600px

>thread about art
>discussion is immediately steered towards moaning about modern art and circle-jerking over muh old masters
>and of course I DON'T WANT MY TOYS TO BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN MINDLESS TIME WASTERS

File: FFXV_TGS_Lunafreya_Speech.jpg (145KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 1920x1080px

>>389331645
I have something I wanna put into this debate.
Everyone who claims video games are not art never touched a game in their life and see them as toys.
Oh looking at a fucking painting or watching a film is considered art when a literal retard can view it.
Yet video games have in-depth story told by a story board, a design created by people who pursued their entire life to create.
How isn't that art?
Nah, you never even played a game being oblivious to touching them and think they're all Mario when gaming has been about story and plot for years.
Nier, Beyond Two Souls, even fucking Final Fantasy XV was a tragic story of friends losing loved ones.
Even one of the main characters loses their eyesight.
I cried and cried when Lady Lunafreya died.
If that isn't art to you then kill yourself.

>>389331645
>Van Gogh
He wasn't an artist, he didn't make art.

>>389350051
Because on this board people tend to talk about stuff they didn't experienced/studied.
This applies to all topics. You have no idea how many people shit on a game that they didn't even play.

>>389350084
Is this pasta?

>>389331645

Define art.

>>389350394
No, it's art

File: 1426779221057.jpg (109KB, 297x413px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 297x413px

>>389350051
The ones who do what you said are just mouthbreathers, art as a whole can be rightfully defined as a mindless time waste since you're not producing concrete material goods accessible and useful to everyone, if not even actually dangerous to society.
I don't think random peasants were too happy with how many of their relatives died building gothic cathedrals for their sovereigns, when they weren't busy trying to not starve to death of course, that doesn't change the fact that those are art.
Toys and videogames are the same, anything human made you can get any form of enjoyment or interest out of can be rightfully considered a form of art, what further shapes the definition of it is personal experience and tastes.
Also this>>389350205

>>389350841
>art as a whole can be rightfully defined as a mindless time waste since you're not producing concrete material goods accessible and useful to everyone,
Ignoring the (I assume intentional) insane stupidity of what seems to be a radically Marxist though, that is just objectively and factually wrong. There is plenty of art that is accessible to anyone. Even those god damn cathedrals that seems to trigger you so much are largely just lying in the cities and most of them can be enjoyed by anyone who walks by.

>>389350841
>time waste
Sure if you think enriching the human experience beyond eating sleeping and fucking is a waste of time
>mindless
It's ok if you're not creative anon

>Jew cultural revolution has made it so that even random scribbles or a can of shit can be treated as art
>Normies have accepted this paradigm of abstract Jew art as far back as the 1960s
>Any random object that was praised by a Jew critic was likewise rated by the goyim normie cattle
>Liberals believe that literally anything can be considered art... except, for some reason, a visual-tactile piece of software that is known as a video game
>No matter how beautiful, complex or meaningful a game can be, it can never compare to a bunch of scribbles drawn by some fellow named Ginsberg - thus says the goofy world of normie Jewry
>In the eyes of classic Boomer normies, a literal or figurative can of Jewish feces is always going to be more meaningful than any tale told in the interactive software format

So the real question is - why is the Jewish art establishment so afraid of such a benign thing as our video games? Why were the Jews and their Boomer golem thralls so horrified at this brave new art form? Did video games really stir something within the white man's soul, something that made us awake from the deathly slumber brought on by Schlomo's deceptively soothing genocidal fiddler's lullaby?

Video games spawned Gamergate - spawned the Alt-right - spawned Donald Trump - spawned... another Holocaust???

>>389351148
>There is plenty of art that is accessible to anyone.
Accessible isn't meant in the pure physical sense though(If that even applies sometimes), but considering you have a hard time understand irony and getting triggered over nothing, I'm not surprised.
>Even those god damn cathedrals that seems to trigger you so much are largely just lying in the cities and most of them can be enjoyed by anyone who walks by.
Cathedrals are just an example inserted into a historical context, christfag, I could have used piramids or the Kinkaku-Ji to the same effect, the only one triggered here is you.
>can be enjoyed by anyone who walks by.
Except only a small percentual of the actual populace even care or understands them, that was my whole point, they sure don't help you pay your rent either.
How many people in London actually go to the British Museum? Or the Tate? The traffic is MUCH lower than you think.
Just because art is physically accessible doesn't mean it's truly accessible, without some sort of education it's still inacessible to the vast majority of the populace, who simply doesn't care to being with and would rather stay home and watch TV or scroll frantically through their facebook profiles, or shitpost on 4chan.
>>389351452
Nice reading comprehension, but it's pretty much the average brainlet output on /v/.
And here comes /pol/ of course.

>>389331732
Why doesn't she believe him?

>>389351973
>Only a small percentage of the populace understands them
The fuck are you on about? Anyone with a pair of eyes can appreciate a soaring cathedral. It's about as universal as enjoying sunsets or waterfalls

>>389351973
>but considering you have a hard time understand irony and getting triggered over nothing,
You immediately follow this statement by
>Cathedrals are just an example inserted into a historical context, christfag
And don't realize the irony yourself?

>Except only a small percentual of the actual populace even care or understands them
So... they are not valuable because they aren't mandatory?
People having the option and right to decide what they shall take advantage off invalidates value of art? Those London museums are actually free several days in a month, if I remember correctly. People don't take advantage of them because they chose not to. They live in a society with plurality of possible values and they chose those that they desire.

That is somehow bad and invalidates value of those possibilities. Only things that are mandated upon people can be recognized as valuable, apparently.
I was not wrong in assessing you as a Marxist. And coming from a country where even I experienced MANDATED art participation which was deemed to be the only truly valuable... Well, there is a good reason why a lot of people calls for sending people like you to death camps. Before you do the same to us.

The standard for art is pretty low, a bunch of stupid abstract cubes is considered on the same level as a classic european painting

>>389331732
He's the burglar, or did I fall for the bait?

>>389332529
/thread

File: 1319109848191.jpg (15KB, 287x277px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 287x277px

>>389352703
>Anyone with a pair of eyes can appreciate a soaring cathedra
Seems like you don't talk with people too much.
Have you ever worked as a guide?
You'd be amazed at how refractary and dull most people are.
>>389352812
>And don't realize the irony yourself?
I do, seems like you don't though.
>So... they are not valuable because they aren't mandatory?
As always, nice work in completely missing my point, AND putting words in my mouth.
But let me be very clear this time, because you obviously don't have enough grey matter to catch on anything that isn't children's speech.
I never said that any of those aren't valuable(I work as a museum guide, how could I?), I only said, in apparently a tad too cryptic way for your pidgeon brain to understand, that art itself isn't valued by the general public, AND JOKINGLY said it can might as well be largely considered as useless by the vast majority of people because it doesn't bring them food or money.
There is no doubt cathedrals, or even more "lowkey" stuff like liberty style buildings are valuable, they're expressions of humanity and mementos from times long past, they bring money too with tourism and are useful guidebooks for future artists, but you are somewhat missing all of this because you can't catch some ironic discourse and can't even understand somewhat deeper implications.

But keep calling upon the """""Marxist"""""" boogeyman like the brainlet you are, not like I could expect much from /v/, it is admittedly my fault to assume people could catch any form of slightly complex argumentation and, heaven forbid, actual use of irony.

>>389331645
>"HURR DURR VIDYAS ARE NOT ART!"
>Doesn't even give a definition of Art
OP is a faggot.

File: 1504204880240.jpg (217KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1920x1080px

>>389342409
>been to the Lourve a few times, Smithsonian, I know a number of others but the names escape me atm
>reads literally everything, all the books on my shelves are thumbed to fuck all, pretty wide variety in genre
>studied music history, is a music performance major and comp eng. major
>gets free tickets to the local symphonies because family/friends play in them
>took a few pottery classes but it wasnt my thing (holy fuck dry hands)


I like the idea that video games are a medium for other peoples inspiration. A game itself as art? Maybe, but I think that'd only draw true if the game was really really far out in left field compared to the masses of games today. A small indie studio seems like it would have a better chance of making "art" over a AAA studio with a publisher pushing them. Regardless, eye of the beholder and all that, but I can imagine a lot of games have provided inspirational basis for other games, mediums, artworks, movies, fanfilms, writing, etc.

File: 1491225272054.jpg (12KB, 400x265px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 400x265px

>>389344404
>Well my right is more right than your right

What is 'right' then?

>>389331645
Video games are art. You're just too dumb to understand. Only smart people such as myself can see video games as art.

>>389353609
So you were only "pretending" to be retarded. Which is what I originally said you most likely are, but you continued to defend your retarded claim.

Next time, if you don't want to be labeled a Marxist, don't pretend to be one, even in jest. It's not funny or witty, and you really don't get to feel superior to people because they address what you claimed (which was that art is useless because it does it exploits people without being accessible to most of them, your post, a purely Marxist claim), especially if you continue to defend that claim.

Pretending to be an idiot even ironically STILL makes you an idiot, especially if you make it in no way clear that it was supposed to be irony. Maybe you are not a Marxist after all: but you are still equally as garbage person. Have fun with that.

File: Nu_255cac_6151730.jpg (55KB, 645x412px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 645x412px

>>389331701
>t. nu-male KABK student
lmao faggot

File: 1326121229960.jpg (66KB, 398x541px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 398x541px

>>389354257
>Next time, if you don't want to be labeled a Marxist, don't pretend to be one, even in jest
You can label me however you want brainlet, it doesn't affect me in the slightest, especially when you use labels wrong, because Marxist aesthetic doesn't work anything like you think it does, mostly because it's such an elastic and undefined concept.
The middle school class I had last week had more insight and sense of humour than you do, and I was doing a visit for an exposition of fascist propaganda art.
>especially if you make it in no way clear that it was supposed to be irony
>Post evidently silly reaction image
>Make evidently light hearted comments
Nah, you're just a triggered brainlet, where did the big scary """Marxist""" black man touch you?

>>389354867
>Implying I dont do Bioinformatica in Gelderland

Games are literally toys

>>389331645
I count videogames as art so I can look at big Japanese tits and the government can't get mad about it. Unfortunately the people who make money don't have a spine these days so that shit pretty much goes out the window.

But I rather not hinder's someone else's good time unless whoever's making that other person's good time took away something from the thing that I like. Then fuck that other guy, I want my thing.

Video games are toys for children and manchildren

>>389355020
That is a LOT of salt when people call you out on saying something insanely stupid, kid. Again, don't blame people for identifying your retardation when you are the one posted retarded shit. Your "joke" did not work out, mostly because you are desperately clueless. About everything, especially calling Marxism vague and poorly defined. It really isn't, Marx did a pretty good job of defining it, and his followers, including Frankfurt School made it even clearer. You can just go and read it.

You parroted some thoughts that you probably did not even realize where did they come from, in what you thought would be funny. Except your joke backfired, people called out you out on it, you were dumb enough not to straight up admit that you were just saying shit you did not even understand, much less mean, and now you are squirming like stagged pig.

Just fucking go on with your life and be a little smarter, instead of desperately begging us to believe you on how above this humiliation you recieved you actually are.
I'm cutting you off, you don't have to bother replying but I'm pretty sure you will.

I want games to have the protections normal art has, but also fuck normal art since seemingly all of the people who teach art has to make sure you do the thing that they like or it's not real art.

I really hope it's not the majority but the irl artfags I've run into and some I hear about are insufferably picky about what is and isn't art. Shit always needs to say stuff and it's not art if you're not trying to say something political. It's fucking annoying and contradicts the whole "art is about expression" or whatever hippy shit thats supposed to be.

File: 1335198411261.jpg (15KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 413x395px

>>389355387
>mostly because you are desperately clueless.
>Literally the only one butthurt out of not understanding evident satire out of 116 different IPs
>no u
Keep on crying brainlet
>Marx did a pretty good job of defining it, and his followers, including Frankfurt School made it even clearer. You can just go and read it.
>Marxism currents only exists in the Frankfurt School
No matter how many times /pol/ and your pals over at Return of the Kings tell you this, it's not true, you're making yourself look more and more of a brainlet with le evil communist boogeyman.
You can't catch on irony, you don't even know how fragile and fragmented Marxism currents are.
But yeah, tell me more about how you humiliated me on an anonymous imageboard about videogames when you completely and utterly missed the point of every single one of my posts, buddy.