Smash this bullshit saying. Defend Video Games

For discussion sake can we put together the ultimate argument to puke in peoples faces when they say "Video Games are art" and all that shit. I am getting sick of this shit.
Only words I see is "Video games are an experience, just like experiencing a picture".

If you give a fuck you're part of the problem.
There is no "art" and "not art"period.
Fuck off.

Okay, thank you for your logical opinion user.

How can video games not be art if they share so much in common with things that are art?

he's right, though.

Ultimately logic in an argument to a massive amount of people is moot, it's about feeling. If you CARE, you make it a subject, but if you laugh it off and call people a faggot en masse the argument will be discarded. It's when you give people a chance that they take it, it's when you ENTERTAIN the thought at all that people will force it through marketing strategies old as time.


Because art sucks and is a medium infested by horrible people who seek to undermine art. Art is the landmine of a culture war.

"Art" is a shortening of "artificial". Everything that isn't made by nature is art by default.
Therefore there is no "art" as in something that is worth more than a toy for humans to play with.
Does that sound logical enough for you?
Can you fuck off now?

pretty much

is right. Art is just a subjective term. If you don't feel it should be called an artform, fine. That's not going to change "art" as having a loose as hell definition. You can debate it to hell and back, but it will always be something that literally anything could hypothetically fall under if you have low enough standards.

Besides, whether or not they're "art" doesn't mean you can't have standards for good and bad games. That's just bullshit journos pushed and now retards like you believe.

I know there are better anons out there.

If a game is fun, does it need to be art?
Here's a question, what does a game being called art add to the table? It doesn't magically make the game better, and from where I'm standing the one thing that changes is the self satisfaction of pompous fucks who think what they like or don't like will totally make them look better in front of their peers.

One question to you, as hopefully the final comment in this shitty raid thread, why the fuck do video games NEED to be art in your eyes?

It doesn't. You seek to attract parasites to something that doesn't need to be scrutinized or taken apart by the public and the fucks who seek to undermine everything under the sun in order to use it as a platform for propaganda.

Last warning, fuck off or get banned, redditor.

What? how is this a raid thread?
Are you baiting me with meme spacing? calm the fuck down dude.

Well shit nigger, there is this international academy or whatever that deems shit "art" and "not art". That's the closest you can ever get to being official.
Do those fucks consider video games art?
That's your answer then, if you don't have your own fucking opinion.

Fair enough, I just thought anons would have a better idea or rebuttal then basic name calling.

There is no art period.
That's my rebuttal you dumb fuck.

bait taken, defensiveness found, and suspicions confirmed. even if it's not a raid thread you're a damned faggot besides. Get the fuck off the board you new faggot, you're either trying to start shit or you lived under a rock even 4chan didn't reach. Have you been blind to the SJW corruption in the industry or are you a blind fool?

Now it's basically confirmed. Good thread, my dude.

(((Okay)))
Great arguments.

What if a creator says word for word "I'm not fucking making art"?

The same it does for a painting or a sculpture, which is to say it gets people who aren't deeply familiar with the medium to at least know of the important bits, like Renaissance works and Doom.


Truly a work of art

stale b8 faggit

So then how would you describe Doom as a work of art? I sure as fuck can not describe any gameplay I have ever played a form of art.

Calm down kid.

It's "subjective" and you can interpret it in ways the author did not intend and insert bullshit about feminism because there's a glowing sword or some shit. That's how these fucks act. Nothing matters to them but their own message, and they'll trample over every work with "critical theory" methods in order to act like their message is enforced by everything when the truth is the opposite.

...

nothing personell (((kid)))

Art has only ever been something like a static picture or image in motion that evokes deep, profound emotions to me.

And now it's gone from being something niche, interesting and vague to nothing but pretentious shit from insufferable, obnoxious spoiled retards.

>(((art)))

Art isn't subjective, and video games can't be art. Believing that art is subjective means that you're supporting modern artists' definition of art. No it's not, it's not simply some kind of creative craft. And it's definitely not simply some kind of pleasurable medium, and therfore video games are already disqualified from the definition of art.

Art is a communal craft that aims towards the well-being of humanity. Well-being that transcends technological progress, civilization, politics and economy, and all of those crap. It's well-being as in the mastery of understanding our existence as a whole.

Sounds like slavery is a lost art.

how are movies are then

Boom.

video games are art, user. But art should not be exempt from criticism, and each type of art has its own way of interacting with the one partaking in it. When someone starts talking about art, you should remind him that the current state of art is fucking abysmal and that while some movies may be art, not every piece of art is a fucking movie

Wouldn't stop me from relentlessly smashing any retard saying I made some retarded "liberal" shit metaphor or tumblrism related spew if I made fappable anime styled lesbians that didn't hate men and just liked tits or made an asexual alien just for wrecking shit without any romantic drama or butthurt.

What the fuck did you just say?

It really doesn't help you that your main crutch word is "smash" and "smashing" since a lot of leftist propaganda uses phrases like "Smash the patriarchy" and shit, and it's a word that comes up often in edgy anarchy shit from reddit.

Also you're ranting and raving pretty incomprehensibly and your mental wellness is questionable and reminds me of a few friends that I cut off contact with.

The videogames are art debate isn't about the artistic merit of videogames, it's about trying to skirt regulatory bodies from censoring games because for some reason american law allows that kind of retarded shit.
It's never been about "art" it's only been about the law in one country because market control is fucked.

In addition the debate is largely irrelevant in 90% of the world because no production level protection from governmental/intercorporate meddling.

I'm fucking aggressive and I like explicitly creating a violently hostile image that says unsubtly to "Fuck off".

Videogames can be art, but that doesn't mean they're a good video game.
Journey is art, it's a creative and imaginative product that's presented masterfully.
Gone Home is not art, it's a tired cliché with a mediocre writing. Art is used to defend a bad videogame, but "games" like Gone Home fail to be both art and a game.

That being said, just because a game is "art" doesn't mean it's good at it or that you're expected to like it. Journey is a good example, but Flower is really fucking boring. There are probably people that like Flower, and I respect the difference in taste. I personally do not, however.

Rather than fight against games being art, ask someone WHY particular games are art and even explain how that can even make them a bad game.

Well you failed, since you come off as a raging madman, which while it might work in real life since people wouldn't want to be near a mentally ill person, it just makes you look like a pure idiot here who can't think at all about what he says.

You talk about making an image with your words, while i'm just going to put it simply by just telling you to fuck off.

Really? Just like experiencing a famous painting? I will be sure to bring some paint and brushes the next time I go to an art museum so I can really experience the art by interacting with it :^)

I don't want to be remotely civil or respectful with these pathetic retards. People don't have to have any patience with any of this shit that isn't remotely deserved and I most of all would personally stomp whatever faggot cuck or hag tries using something I just thought was colorful or sexy for more nonsense.

Literally all I'm doing is being an asshole hatefully using profanity.

Roger Ebert once said video games cannot be art, C-list Hollywood loving Hispter writers who like sucking his rotting dick have been insecure for being part of the vidya industry ever since. Hypocrites ignored the fact that he changed his mind about that when he actually played some vidya later in his life.

Pretentiousness is a fucking contagious mental illness at this point and I still don't know how to fully purge it.

You come on here with some bullshit and got mad that people acted unkindly towards you. The fact that you think that what you're doing should be unique to you, this whole image you put on when you got rebuked, is hypocrisy.

If you can't take the banter and resort to acting like an edgy emo teenager because your idea of a echo chamber board didn't reflect reality, you deserve getting blown the fuck out. If you can't articulate your point in a place where doing so is the only way to get your point across, then you will stay a dumb fuck who has no sway with anyone here. Also it's obvious you're under 17 since you refer to people as "kid" and talk about your emotions and feelings like they're the most important thing in the room, with an emphasis on image rather then actually being right. Come back in 10 years when your horomones calm down so you can actually talk with other people like a normal adult.

*Teleports behind you*

What the literal fuck are you talking about? You're flat out making up complete shit I didn't even imply thinking, like unthinkingly insulting anyone for replying, let alone verbalize.

What's wrong with calling videogames art?

Because if you take away "gameplay" from a video game, what is it?

Watch Tarkovsky, Fellini, Bunuel, Bresson, and Sokurov. Tell me how they aren't.

Art?

So how is gameplay art? do you find the act of play a cheese game art? or playing a video game art?

Shit.

What does this even mean?

Agreed.

It means, that taking away the very soul purpose of a video game aka "gameplay" strips away the most basic function a game should have.

oh yeah,huff it

That's what I meant when I said I wouldn't make art. I'm only concerned with shit being fun to press buttons for and looking and sounding nice with enough plot to base it off.

Then you won't make art. Games aren't art, make a fucking choice with what you want to make.

The OP asked what the best argument for completely destroying Twitter artfaggot shit is, not shilled for it.

But user, I am actually
DATAMINING
MUWHAHAHAHAH.

I don't give a fuck about art. What is wrong with all the misunderstanding in this thread?

Thread can't handle this hot head.

Seriously, stop shitposting or at least don't bump if you don't want to actually burn down this pretentious shit.

Trips of truth, I made the thread dingus.

The art in video games is how well they are put together to maximize fun, and nothing to do with vagina messages.

You need to be aware that this saying is almost always used to discount someone's opinion, or used to place themselves as the authority on video game criticism by saying the other party fundamentally misunderstands. Just say that it doesn't change anything, that no additional standards can be forced into the discussion by saying "games are art". Nothing changes except the label, video games already are art and that the standards for good and bad games remain the same. Insist that they continue the discussion without mentioning games as art as it has already been established and that it can't be used as a reason for why they're right (or "more" right) or why you're wrong, it's dishonest, nonsensical and disingenuous

Hows that censorship and rampant SJWism working out for ya in vidyagames?

I don't like this smug bitch.

Vidya being art does not matter.

Art does not matter.

Non sequitur. Studios and publishers didn't ignore SJWs, even if players did (for a while). Ignoring does work if you're the one who's being pestered and if you're the one able to decide on what is being pushed (e.g. character's gender, game's difficulty, etc). But not if you're some random person who has nothing to do with the issue at all, as it the case with the majority of people interested in video games since people play much less games than they hear or talk about.

Music is an actual art form and look at Journey's OST. If you prefer anything you hear on the radio nowadays over this then you're just fucking dead to me.
Games can only be art if they are meant from the ground up to be this way, and Journey is the sole, only "game" that i am comfortable calling "art". Most games are just games. If you want to use games as an artistic mediium, it can be done. Journey did it. Gone home did not. This user this right.

Your fucking retarded nigger. Its not that video games aren't an art form, its the marxist's view on art that is the problem.
GOD YOU FAGGOTS ANNOY ME

...

Pretty good actually.

People like you is the reason modern art is so shit.

Art = Skill + Beauty
Where Skill = Knowledge + Experience and the definition of Beauty is dependant on the medium.

why?

Entertainment can not be art, even thoughtless works can entertain.

why bother caring is the real question

I have always had a different definition of art than most people. It wasn't until a few days ago that I actually tried to define it.

So here's my definition:
Art is something which one will assign intrinsic value to that is greater than the intrinsic value of its utilitarian function.

If someone, anyone, will buy something based off that assumption then that thing is art to them.
Since the purpose of games is to waste one's time, For a game to be 'art' to them would mean that they would purchase said game under the guise that indulging said game would be worth more than some other activity IE. reading a book.

In this sense, all games are art except for Free to Play games where it is also Pay to Win. For your standard F2P game like Cave story, the creator gave away their art for free and they are not charging money for the consumption of it.
For P2W games the developers have assigned no intrinsic value to their game (for which their is none, because the base case is wasting your time) but instead they have told the player that the in-game items needed to play are intrinsicly valued at something more than its utilitarian function.

Dunno, that's my thoughts.

List one definition of "art" that excludes video games and hasn't been made up by you.

>MUH AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRTTT

...

ars was just as vacuous back then as it is today, you have no idea what you're talking about. The dual meanings of the word:
>A certain talent honed finely to a skill can be an art and have beauty, like the art of dance or martial arts.
have persisted.


It's annoying as shit, isn't it?


This is accurate to the very limited standards that art has had historically. I also prefer this definition to "art is anything made before the 20th century/made by the late French" because it occludes shithustlers like the Suprematists yet allows in talents like Manguin or Saurat, despite the fact that they're relatively close in proximity and timeframe.

Art isn't a mark of quality. A lot of art is shit.

Video games are no more art than a board game is art. You can have artistic elements like nice graphics and sound, but the core mechanic is not art. A video game is a toy, an extremely complicated toy.

What are you on about and what does that have to do with my post you faggot.

See, people like you are the main reason why we lost the culture war for the last generations.

I was referring to
Fear of the marxist's view on art is the problem when in reality they're all dumb and irrelevant. The greentext is an argument regularly used for the 'games are not art' camp, that to smokescreen vidya from all those big bad evil subjectivists you need to make it not art, when in reality the absolute opposite is true.
Maybe I misread your post, I thought I was commiserating.

My point is that video games are technically art but unlike how faggots use it its isn't actually completely subjective and is deserving of standards and criticism.

I like to think there is a bit more to games than just being m, “toys, lol”.
I think that a good game should have some kind of impact on you. I mean, we have our favorite games for a reason. If we just treated them as toys or board games then the concept of having a “favorite game” would not resonate with so many people.
Does that make sense?

See the retarded thing about art is that (((they))) want to turn video games into (((post-modernism))). (((Post-Modernism))) is not about nor was never about the deconstruction of the meaning of art. (((Post-Modernism))) is about who makes the poop sculpture or the menstural blood painting. "Their art is disgusting but it wasn't made by a white privileged cis-gendered racist bigoted nazi man that made this beautiful landscape painting" says the (((fink rat))).

My point is that video games are art but that fact doesn't mean that standards and criticism should be ignored because I don't think art of any variety should be free of standards and criticism.
The other thing I was throwing in was that there is a fear of "making videogames entirely subjective" that people use as an excuse to prevent videogames from being recognized as art. I think that's stupid, because the 100% subjective view is held by a teeny tiny and obnoxious loud minority, one that can be either ignored or laughed at.

When I was little I had this iron giant action figure, and it meant the world to me. I would watch the movie while playing with it. When I lost that action figure I lost the will to even play for a week. I watched the iron giant again the other day and I spent more time remembering how much fun I had with that shitty cereal box toy than I did actually enjoying the movie.

who says toys can't have an impact on our lives?

So we agree.

Yes, exactly, that's why I said
referring to the obnoxious perspective opposed to what we both believe.

When video games strive to be art, it often comes at the expense of game mechanics, gameplay and/or challenge. Space Invaders is 95% gameplay, 5% art - the alien designs are awesome, but it's the gameplay that matters. Artfags don't care about the gameplay enough or at all, so they try to pass walking sims as games.

but when it works it works
for example The Void

You can feel sadness from a video game. You can feel frustration from a video game. There are entire communities that form around video games. I don't see how the quoted definition somehow excludes videogames.

Might as well post this so you people don't fall for the (((abstract art))) meme.

Go smear your shit on a canvas and not on this Christian imageboard you postmodernist fuck.


You're helping the artfags when you suggest that the "gameplay" part of space invaders isn't the part that makes it notable art. Game mechanics are an artform unto themselves and when it comes to videogames they're the most important part.

Ever since their very inception, video games have always been accepted and considered as entertainment, first and foremost. That's still the case, even now. They were never accepted or considered by the masses as a "proper art form" or "proper competitive sport" until just recently. Now that it's become a mainstream thing to retroactively call them as such.

nah

Art is the append to express the transcendent. It is a possess of sneaking mastery. Art is a posses, one may be called an artist and what they produce may be called a "work of art" but art in it of itself is not a product. Video games are a product, therefore they are in it of itself not art.

attempt*

Who's this nigga? I like him.

Multiple definitions of art have existed through history thus eroding any lasting meaning it had possessed, "Art" is a travesty of existence changing meanings and means for the sake of Video Games it is best if they do not become tainted with an association to the simplistic and grotesque contemporary outlooks on art.
Video games are not art for they are something higher.

my definition is the classic traditional definition. Its not a new definition. I fact I am not a huge fan of the modernism invocation of the subjectivity of language to undermine meaning. While dyslexic and inherently poor at the subject, I think grammar is very important. Resorting to linguistic subjectivity is underhanded.

...

This is all that needs to be said.

"Art" threads are always shit because most people here know nothing of the subject. That also being due there really being no standards or at least good examples of modern art that are held high.

Therefore, the only art I'm willing to accept is cute anime girls. I think it's something anyone can appreciate even if they're not horny anons.

A-ah sorry, Forgot to put the comma before
The thing about the subjectivity of both language and art is that is not a really modern phenomenon you can see accounts of people in bygone eras creating and changing meanings of the things that existed in their times, my statement was brought about mainly thinking about the common understandings of art within the people of our times.

my "art" is forever immortalized in Dark Souls 2
:^)

yes but the purpose of language is communication. Therefore ether define your terms, the excuse of "subjectivity" is insufficient. As for art being "subjective", that is dependent on which bastardized use the the term you prefer for the sake of being intellectually dishonest.

ether

I see you are unable to argue in good faith and instead like any pompous academics you prefer to simply divert the focus of valid points into elaborate ways to make your contender give up.
Fuck you nigger, i am no dictionary but what i have said holds true, you are welcome to look it up if you want but do not expect me to make a fucking lexicon just to prove you that art as a concept has shaped to hell and back mainly by the ones perpetuating its existence as a valid word.

Video games are art you niggers, that's how they were fucking defended from censorship in the Supreme Court.
The reason that you don't want it to be is because we are in the postmodern period of art thanks to the fucking pop can man, Andy Warhol. Technically it was in the works a lot longer than that but that was the tipping point.
Its an entirely different form and medium than most with human agency and input, world creation, and most importantly the idea of "gameplay" being the most important and unique aspects to it.
If we weren't in such a cancerous world right now, video games could be called art on a case by case without it being a fucking problem.
Alternatively you could always realize that they're better than most forms and iterations of art because they're actually fun
Its kind of a strange situation.
Roger Ebert said video games weren't art, but he also said that gamers shouldn't give a fuck about that and just enjoy themselves.
I think that's what's important.
I feel videogames can be art just as any other, personally and I don't really care what anyone else says. I think that's what's important, that and protecting the medium from a legal standpoint

In my opinion, a work of art must have these two qualities to be considered such:

If no-one experiences joy (beauty) from a piece of art in one way or another then it has no purpose to exist. And if a piece of art requires no (time, knowledge, experience) skill to produce it then it has no value. By this definition many things can be considered art, including the gameplay aspect of video games.

The problem comes in the way people treat art, not in the art itself.

waste of dubs (you) fucking dishonest kike.

Maybe it's you who doesn't understand the meaning of art, kid.

jej

Videogames are art. It takes artistic talent to design new and interesting gameplay. The problem is that criticism and judgement of art has been discarded by post modernists. Thus, we see shit like fifa and cod rehashes getting 9/10s.

no Video games may be called a work of art and artist have worked on video games. But a video game is not art. according to how I define art based on a traditional historical perspective of the term

Video games are art because they can consist of music, art assets, narration and sometimes cinematography, which are all seen as forms of art. Adding interaction doesn't somehow exclude it from that definition. The only criteria art has is to get an emotion out of their audience. And not all art is good, there's plenty of shitty games that fail to get the intended reaction or enjoyment out of their audience. Much like how there's movie shlock, badly drawn artwork and shitty music.
End of fucking story. Why the fuck do we need to bicker over this shit for YEARS?

Also anyone bringing up the example of modern art can fuck right off. That shit was proven to be a huge money laundering operation. Nobody buys those paintings because they genuinely like them.


Photography wasn't seen as a form of art when it first came up either. Clinging to old definitions is retarded because they don't account for potential changes. Also, your shield design is immortalized in a bad work of art. Get fucked.

bumping with good video with Florian Himsl the creator of The Binding of Isaac talking politics and art. The subject of Video games as art comes up around the half hour mark.

it must be sad to be a fedora tipping fag form Somethingawful who needs to pay $10 to pretend they have friend. :^)

...

Nice accusation, faggot. I remember you doing the exact same thing when I argued with you months ago.
I've probably made more money than you selling game assets. Eat shit.

...

...

...

this is kind of a shitty definition for art imo, you can literally call every single thing in the fucking world art with this definition
Retardation
Stick with your first point about the integration of assets and art elements into video games and the composition thereof making it an art piece, though entirely different from other art mediums as a result of it being a game

Don't shitpost, he had a good point about the assets and elements. If a video game has literature/fiction (the story and plot created) in it it could easily count as art. Same goes for the designed models or maps or what have you.
You can say a drawn map by a fictional writer like Tolkien is art. Why can't you say a video game map is art? Why can't video games be, by extension, art because of the combination of all these elements? The biggest difference between video games and other forms of media is how its experienced

...

first part meant for

most people here are from the USA, where you are taught to see things only in retarded black and white ('MURRICA GOOD ANYTHING ELSE BAD etc.). americans aren't known for their critical thinking or grokking of abstract concepts required to distance oneself from the ego and enjoy art.


a textbook example of the brainwashing described above. he wants art to be "his way" to serve his ego so that he can be "correct".

hot opinion faggot
You're not wrong about the brainwashing though

Fair enough, let me clear it up. Any creation with the intent to evoke a specific emotion can usually be categorized as art. Something like designer furniture is a creation as well but since it has a usage and isn't really intended to evoke any emotion it falls under design rather than art.
Although these days design and art blends together a lot and I definitely think that's the case with games. I'd argue Tetris is less a work of art and more an example of really good design, but that's not a negative or positive thing.

I don't understand your point about professors.

This whole thread is an example of how the left has once again successfully moved the goal posts right underneath the noses of good, honest vidya players. The debate should've never been about whether or not something's art. A kids finger painting or macaroni art is art sure, it's just not good art and that's what this should be about; whether it's any good or not. That helps blow the lid on this whole debate and reveals that this is less a debate about subjectivity or objectivity and more about a conservative standard or the argument for a lack of standards all together. The left can push for their low quality games under the guise of art all they want because at the end of the day we all know the games are shit and, on top of that, those people don't buy games anyway. See lefty cries for broadening the definition of art for what they are: they want to lower the standards of the respective art form. The only winning move is not to play. You can do your part by buying only good games (by extension, rewarding high standard artists) and pirating or ignoring bullshit. if all gamers did this, there would be no problem.

Dumb vivianposter.

what are they then?
entertainment? but what is entertainment?

what I want to know, is what to puke on their faces when people say video games are for kids

that's no my definition of art. I already defined "art" as the pressure of highest mastery which is by its nature transcendental and necessitates a sens of idealism. By my definition art is not a noun. There for a "feeling" or a product cannot be art, one can merely call the product a "work of an artist".

Fucking thank you. That's what I've been saying for years. I don't get why it still hasn't moved past this.

Bingo. But I think that's a self regulating system, good games generally sell and see support.

therefore *

Whether they're art or not doesn't matter. They're still shit.

pursuit*

I thought gamers were dead user.

fursuit?

vidya is made of many different parts that individually can be considered art nonetheless vidya is first and foremost a consummer product
vidya is made to sell
if it doesn't sell they won't make it
and if you consider this as art, then shitty games and movies like CoD and Transformers can also be called art, even though they were made by souless corporations with the objective of milking shekkels and nothing more

First of all, they're "art: because the Supreme Court decided they should be considered art to give them the ability to be protected under the first amendment
Scondly, they are fucking art regardless of what the Supreme Court says. Unfortunately you've got your head up you ass and are so pissed off at shit games like Gone Home that you aren't giving credit to games that are actually artful, like Shadow of The Colossus, or Silent Hill. People generally consider art things that are designed to make you feel emotions and think, and a ton of games clearly fit right under that fucking definition. All of you anons that scream about video games not being art are a bunch of pathetic retards so obsessed with what a bunch of liberal faggots think that make up a miniscule portion of the population that you instantly sperg out and decide you have to think the opposite of what they think.

Videogames are art.
Your problem is that you put art on a pedestal. Most art was made to do similar things to videogames: distract, entertain, and be enjoyed.

The whole point of art is to evoke a feeling, emotion, atmosphere or what have you through your mastery. Honing that skill is what helps you create more effective and meaningful artwork. Your point about idealism isn't wrong, I just don't get the rest of your train of thought.


Also proofread your fucking posts before you hit reply, jesus christ.


Paintings and murals back in the day were sold and commissioned as well, user. Wanting to make money from your craft isn't inherently bad, it becomes soulless when money is the only motivator.

Video games are toys to which children (literal and mental) affix more value than they actually represent.

Nah, I'm sick of this conversation, too. Games can be art, gameplay can be considered a type of "performance art" to some extent, and it's possible for a game to be both "a good game" and "art" simultaneously.

Look at this image. This image features our very own autistic OC. Some would disregard the character and what it represents, and that is fine, but the artist's competency cannot be denied. It's a quality image that was produced with some understanding of color and shading and anatomy. Whether you like it or not, this image can be considered art.

It's art because you can appreciate the craftsmanship. It's art because it can illicit some emotional response from the viewer. It's art because it's an intelligently produced human expression of a concept. Fuck you, it's art.

This is so fucking rich coming from a weebfag.

no it is not you listless mongoloid. The Purpose of a work of art is to communicate, one of these things communicated may be emotional but its not limited to the pathos alone. Art is the pursuit Mastery, this is why one could say they study the art of war or dance. Art is not the fucking product you modern nihilistic fool.

Didn't Miyazaki talk shit to devs making an awful zombie model for a videogame?

Well that explains why you're here.

He talks shit to a lot of people, but yes.

I don't see the harm in people identifying with video games in the way they'd identify with a good book. The only issue is that there are next to no games that reach literature levels of story telling. Most don't even reach decent film levels. The downside of the visual medium is most developers take muh graffix and assume that's a good substitute for a plot.

Morrowind has a great story but it's in the worldbuilding rather than the actual plot, which is pretty dull. Dark souls has practically has no story, which makes you focus on the details. I can think of plenty of visual novels that have good stories but they're just grown up picture books, not games in the normal sense. Ocassionally you get games that combine a fun premise with a point, like papers please. The worst are the walking simulators because they're usually minimalist, poorly written, and dull. And combined with a lack of gameplay that just ruins it. You have to treat a walking simulator like a book, and a book that has those elements is garbage bin tier.


fun fact, you know those wonderful greek sculptures? The ones that kick started the artistic renaissance? They were mass produced products. They were assembled in pieces in a sculpture mill, one group made the arms, another made the legs, and so on. We look at them as stunning because we lost the means to do that. People look at Michelangelo david like it's a pop culture thing because everyone can get a minature david to keep in their house. People used to gather around to look at paintings but nowadays they're mundane things you hang in your house. We appreciate art in the same way the greeks did.

It's tragic, you people don't know what you're talking about. Open up books about art and aesthetical theory and everything.


Video game doesn't direct you towards well-being. Video game is just an interactivity between users and computers for leisure. Outside that purpose, the video "game" would be a cutscene laden trash with forced values that stop you from having fun. Video game is simply not a medium for art, it is and has always been an eletronic toy at it's core.

Sadness and frustration, if any video game tries to impose these feelings it would be trash. This doesn't make a video game art, but rather, it's sadomasochistic. The same can be said for soap opera and other cheap entertainments. Art isn't a medium to complain and complain about your life, it's something where you share a company with others in life, and it has to be applicable to real life to some degree because that's where true sadness and frustration lies. This is the definition of well-being in art.


Well that's not the case mister, because it explicitly says that art is a way of "union among men". In this definition, art is free of ego because it joins men together in the same feelings and progress, and the artist has to sacrifice themselves for that purpose.

The meaning of art is simple. What every human being feels, and what every human being desires for, regardless of age, sex, gender, and everything. It's extremely simple, what does a baby have in common with an elderly person? What kind of feeling and desire can they share? An expression of that would be art.

If art had no meaning as you would suggest there, then anything even the most selfish and ego driven modern abomination of a creation can be called art. People like you are to blame for modern art.


Art isn't mastery of simply anything. The definition of art as a skillful technique and art as an art are non interchangeable. Sure, art as a skill is a mastery, but art as an art not mastery of such a small scoped activity. The meanings are almost similar, but it's still a case of homonym.

Analyzing a videogame based on irma story is like analyzing a movie based on its soundtrack. Look at what makes the medium different from others instead of how they're similar.
Dark Souls is better art than at narrative driven game because it takes advantage of the medium to do things that no other medium could do.

Emotion feels like such a broad and strange criteria to use is what I'm saying. It feels almost too vague. I almost prefer the other user saying its about communicating something and pursuit mastery, but there's something preventing me from accepting that either. Maybe because of the fact that a pursuit can be almost anything you choose to do and make a hobby or passion out of and that feels too subjective to me.
The point about professors was more referring to your criteria in that sentence lacking the part about a "creation". One could argue a professor's lecture is art because it bored me, which is an emotion.

I sort of understand what you're trying to say but at the same time I don't.

Those things are art you faggot. They're just shit art that are incredibly shallow and made to pander to the most common denominator for indeed that purpose. Ugly art is still art. Shit art is still art. Children's art is still art.
Either way, flash games and RPG Maker games and any free game (not f2p MMOs or anything with microtransactions, entirely free games from the start) undermine this post

The best games don't really tell a full-on narrative in their story because the way one immerses oneself in a game is different than how one immerses oneself in a book. In the game's case you can literally see everything that goes on. It has the advantage of film in that regard. One of the "problems" (I personally don't consider it one) with games in terms of storytelling is the differing experiences for nearly every player playing these games. They can experience the same story for a lot of games, but their experience can be entirely different depending on their skill level, the random encounters they get, and so on. Having to account for everything and still have your story be coherent despite this, and other suspensions of disbelief can be incredibly difficult. It gets even more complex when the game gives the players actual choices and the game has multiple endings.
I'd argue that something like Chrono Trigger has an incredibly well-crafted story in its context, though it appears simple on its surface. I was considering doing a full-on write-up on Lavos and the implications of it being a literal god, creating shit like social stratification in the context of the world and whatnot but I ended up not and I sort of regretted it.

Art had always been a product. The Cistern Chapel was a commission, Shakespeare's plays were watched by poor people and he did them to make a living, not to mention books and most portraits.

video games are more like a "craft" than an art. It's like building a piece of furniture more than making a painting in a weird way. Imagine building a chair, sure you can add all the flair to it you want, it's you're chair, but if no one can sit in it what the fuck was the point. There's rules you need to follow to make a good game, and you need to have followed these rules for a good long time before you get to bend those rules. Lotta crackpot devs think they're clever for ignoring the rules because they don't actually like video games and they should be strung up in the streets

...

the only thing you need to know is, if someone says:
or
they're a cancerous fucking retard you can safely ignore. There really is no rebuttal, just move on or call them a nigger or something

He's also a self hating otaku. He got into the industry because he was an otaku he fell in love with 2D and came to hate what he was as he got more experienced. Now that he cringes at his old self, he projects that hate toward other otakus and their love for 2D girls. Despite him being the exact same way and having his passion being born from it.

The solution is actually very simple.
It's not "video games are art". It's "video games are an art".

I wonder if it was painted with water color

Got a sauce?

More like he's self aware.

Should I call you a slimy braggart then?


Well, emotions do have a pretty broad spectrum. Maybe you can define it in some way that you're trying to craft an illusion as best as you can. But I'm getting too tired to formulate anything proper right now.
Right, I see what you mean now. A professor probably doesn't intend to bore their students and I'm not sure if lectures and speeches are seen as art, so that's not what I meant. I didn't mean that absolutely everything can be art because it got a reaction out of you, I did mean creations that were made with the goal in mind to get a reaction out of their viewer/user.


I brought up the point of design earlier which is what you define as craft. I definitely think that's true, but I don't think anything is saying games can't be made to act as both craft/design and art. A game can technically do without any thought out artwork or music but most people would find that boring. But you can't have a game without actual game logic either.

Its a craft, only the intent of the creation & outcome determines if its "art" or like other called just a game/toy alone, hopefully being both being more game desu.

Can I get a recap in english? Are seriously saying it works because it doesn't?

...

...

What's wrong with videogames being an artform? I think they are - dozens/hundreds of talented people with varying skills come together to create an interactive experience full of beautiful visuals and gorgeous music. That's fucking art to me.

Congratulations you have dyslexia.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
And "beauty as dependent on the medium" is defined by whatever authority controls the medium, which will never be acceptable to everyone, especially those barred by gatekeepers for making the "wrong" kind of art. So, your definition of art really is as subjective and worthless as any other.

Post modernists >>>/out/

Any creative expression is art. This shitty doodle I made in 5 minutes in MS Paint is art. That doesn't mean it's good art or fine art of the type that pretentious artfags will stroke their pube-haired chins over for hours and write blog posts about, but those are not the same thing. The entire debate over whether video games are "art" exists because many on both sides of said debate think "art" is some vaguely defined fancypants thing they saw in a museum once and are confusing a value judgment for a categorical one.

Video games can be art. Saying theyre nmot will bring back government enforced censorship like in the 90s with hillary and lieberman.

Video games contain art, and videogames are a form of expression from the creators standpoint. Art is just expression. Movies, music, etc. Too bad most 'art' games arent games.

...

No because video games are more like board-games or hobbies like soccer or ice-hockey. It's a game. You don't call Monopoly art either.

I've played good games, bad games, good
"art" games, and bad "art" games. The only difference is that art games have been getting worse over time at a faster rate than regular games.

The game itself (the rules of play) is usually not art, but the presentation is. Chess, for example, as a game is not art, but the board and pieces of a custom chess set are art.

The dev makes the art, not the observer. The art is in the design itself. Artists design electronics, guns, and even cars. What you use it for is irrelevant. Pottery is widely accepted as art, and i use it to toss my keys in.

Whatabout warhammer

Since when is the waist located almost as high as the navel?

To wit, it's the other way around.

Same things: Warhammer figures are art, the rules of how you play it probably not. In its case there are also original characters, settings, and stories, all of which are also art.

yes it is and you fail to provide a single example disproving this rule.

Art is the process not a noun. If something is done with great still it could be called Artful etc. Calling something a "work of art" means the person who created it was a master of their craft.

no that is what one calls a "work of art" small semantic difference but important distinction.

you are making the same error that e3df43 is making.

You could but it wouldn't make me any less correct.

The act of designing baseball could be considered art, and by extension baseball as in the set of rules that describe what baseball is could be a work of art.
The same goes for monopoly. But playing either of them is consuming art, not creating it.
Saying "Nintendo is my favorite brand of paint" as a refutation of games as art implies that you think the only art is the visual arts, which I turn means that you think feminist vagina paintings have more artistic merit than Shakespeare.
Looking at pretty pictures is literally what most art is for.
"Art" museums are all focused on a specific kind of art. Usually "visual and performing Arts museums" which mess that they are for visual arts (paintings and sculptures) or performance installations. There are also cinematography museums and literary museums. But there aren't any prestigious museums for specifically interactive art, so you wouldn't have seen a videogame in one. Also, videogames are mostly too recent to validate a large museum. Finally using this as an argument means that you trust the opinions of museum curators, who are all liberals with at least a masters literally in Art History.
Movies being better is an opinion and also you just admitted that videogames are arr by phrasing that that way.
I don't even understand what you were trying to say here.

Surprisingly good discussion in this thread, keep it up fags

No u

You're conflating the definitions of two homonyms.
In my post when I say "art" I am referring to the uncountable noun, synonym of "artwork". You are referring to the countable noun, synonym of "artform".
Basically, I said "this water is cold" and you are saying "no, that's a glass of water".

No need for dishonesty use the term "art" when talking about artwork ( artwork being a product of an artist). Don't use incorrect terminology then just assume people are to intuit what you mean. In fact the whole issue of "Art" to begin with is that ((((Leftist))) have deliberately bastardized the term so they can sell you garbage and the illusion of status and sophistication. Modern "art" is nothing more then a racket for fools and money laundering.

Video games > shit > art

this.
Videogames are clearly art.

I really think the entire argument is absurd since video games are on their face obviously art and that the semantic debate about what constitutes art is ultimately fucking worthless because it will never resolve itself. Aside from this, what really pushes video games into art territory is how there is an obvious hierarchy of quality within the medium. We might each subscribe to a different one but it still exists. Hell if we all compiled a list of each of our top 100 or so we could easily Bayesian weight the results to see a rough outline of what the best video games are.

What a fucking faggot.

...

Are you retarded? That isn't the "wrong" terminology and using a homonym isn't "dishonesty" (but conflating them like you did is). Look in any dictionary and you will see that the definition I was using is just as common as the one you were using, in fact, in the phrase "videogames are art" is an example of my definition. Do you think "piece of art" means "piece of artform" or "piece of artwork"? Are you mentally ill?

But they are art. Most things involving expression are art. That doesn't make them good or bad.

That video was retarded, some guys created an algorithm to come up with creepy ways for zombies to walk and Miyazaki sperged out like when grandpa doesn't understand technology and goes "fucking kids with their fucking stupid phones and shit". If I was there I would have slapped him for being so ignorant.

It's because we don't give a shit about writing that obnoxiously acts like it needs to be prioritized over how well the fucking game plays and is made to be, so fuck off.

I realize that most games that try to be "art" focus on narrative at the expense of gameplay, but those devs are retarded. The gameplay is part of the art. Doom is better art than any "art" game because it uses its medium correctly.

Maybe people like me have been burned one too many fucking times and naturally have an aversion to the very idea of it in our $60+ games now.

Remember to filter and report the impotent leftists that want to derail the thread.
Art is beauty and effort/skill. Art is objective.
Games can contain works of art, but are not art themselves.

And Cardboard.

This retarded argument again? You know you never answered my question. Are movies also not art because they contain music and pictures?

the fact you have to beg for help to craft an arguement. I agree those people are cringy but they are right, look at all the artwork and development that goee into games.

We've given logical and sentimental explanations for why something is or isn't arguable as "art". Fuck off with your pathetic, retarded baseless strawman.