Can videogames be deep art?

Usually when people talk about the "depth" of a piece of art, they're talking about its use of theme. Games can use themes just as well as any other medium.
But at the end of the day, in order to succeed as a game, it must be engaging on a mechanical level. All other elements, including theme, tone, and story, are subordinate to that one.

You can, actually. Musicians listen to music differently than non-musicians, and are generally much better at picking out individual instruments and elements, and understanding what the song is doing in technical terms.
You should have just kept it simple by saying that games are the only major entertainment medium that possess (and in fact require) interactivity.

The problem isn't that video games are or aren't art; the problem is the post-modernistic conceit of "art." Video games are clearly aesthetic multimedia works that can be evaluated all of the same ways as their constituent visual, aural, and narrative works; but art doesn't need to be anything more than that. It doesn't need to be an obtuse metaphor for some fringe political ideology or to subvert traditional standards of beauty to be art.

Oh boy.

Any creative medium can be used to create art.
However, not all video games art, just as not all movies/sculptures/paintings/etc are art. The intent of the creator to make their work for artistic/entertainment/utilitarian/etc purposes is what makes something art. Being art does not make something good through merit of just being art. Similarly, not being art does not make something bad. It is merely a classifier for what your work is being made for.

Regardless of how "deep" or "profound" the message in your art is, what matters more is the mastery of your craft and how you can portray that message. Art in Greek and Roman antiquity portraying the simplest of messages and themes are often much better than art coming from the 20th and 21st century because they cared more for their craft and how they told their message than what their message was.

Vidya can be "deep" art, but that's not a comment on its value as both entertainment or art, because having a "deep" message is not what makes an artwork art.

Why the fuck does it matter?

A anonymous post on 4chan complaining that the term "art" had become meaningless was printed out, put in a frame, and sold for tens of thousands of dollars.
Kikes have utterly destroyed the idea of art. It's nothing now but another one of their endless array of meaningless buzzwords used to bilk the goyim. Just a bucket of cheap yellow paint they slather on rocks to sell them to suckers as gold nuggets.

In order to have this discussion, you have to first define "art". What is art? According to wikipedia, which is the first fucking thing that comes up when you do a google search for "art", art is as follows:

"Art is a diverse range of human activities in creating visual, auditory or performing artifacts (artworks), expressing the author's imaginative or technical skill, intended to be appreciated for their beauty or emotional power. In their most general form these activities include the production of works of art, the criticism of art, the study of the history of art, and the aesthetic dissemination of art."

By that definition, then yes, video games can be art. They are created using a number of human disciplines, and they are created with a group's desire to express imaginative or technical skill. They can also be admired for their beauty or emotional power. If you don't like that definition, then find an alternative definition and we can continue from there. Video games can be art, and the player's input can also be a sort of performance art, if the game is designed well.

There's no good argument against this stance because art is still a subjective concept to many, so the answer will wildly depend on who you ask. Is every video game on the market art? No, likely not. Do video games have the capacity to be art? Yes, they do. Can a video game be both art and a good game? Absolutely. Just because faggots call Gone Home and other pretentious shit art, doesn't mean that those things are representative of every game that tries to express something.

MUH CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE

You think walking simulators are the only games in existence?

The only good working definition of art that I've come up with is: Any reproducible media that is designed to hold people's attention and provide catharsis.

i think it can be but that depends on quality of the game which i mean how all the games elements: gameplay, art direction, music, design choices that works together well as a whole package.

What if someone found DMC3's combat to be a thing of beauty? What if they it's pacing and difficulty, how it creates tension and delivers relief, to be very emotionally satisfying?

That just sounds like entertainment in general.

My definition would exclude a lot of modern """""art""""" because it mystifies or confuses people, rather than engaging them and providing them with catharsis. A cube sitting on a pedestal in a modern art museum, for example, would not meet my definition.
It would also exclude most pop songs, since they're generally just designed to get stuck in the listener's heads in order to boost sales, and rarely make the listener feel anything (unless they're young or retarded).

Video games are art in the common, lax inclusive definition, but no video game has yet to even approach artistic quality of note.

It's not real art until The Establishment says it is!

check those digits

Nice numbers. Doesn't make video games more than fancy looking (at best) toys.

Games exist to earn money for their creators and grant an opportunity of entertainment for their players. Anything else is superfluous. Like this thread.

Video games are art.

People create games and have created games for free for all of recorded history, whether electronic or otherwise.

People create things, using all means at their disposal. They always have. Creating them explicitly for money is a relatively recent phenomena, historically speaking. There are plenty of free (actually free, not F2P) games, which refutes your idea.

I'd say yes that games can be art if the complexity of gameplay is deep enough.

was just thinking of DMC3 and 4 actually

Art is, has always been and will always be, the representation of beauty
Beauty is beauty, there is neither deep nor shalow beauty because beauty standards are objective, the phrase "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" was coined by people with unusual tastes in beauty, nothing but a firnge minorty of people,
But then postmodernism came apropiated the term and began to realtivise everything, to them, beauty was completly subjective wich is why it took a backseat to whatever pretentious subliminal social message the (((artist))) wanted to comunicate through his talentles, lazy, ugly and underachiving work.
Or so they said, the truth is that it was all about money laundering and speculatiuon bubbles, nobody buys a Pollok a Warholl or a Picasso cus they want to hang it on their wall and see it every day, they just buy them because they know they'll be able to sell them for more later down the road. not because they find any beauty or art in them, everything they say is merelly sugar coating bullshit, and that sugar coating is the very notion of (((deep art)))
It works on paintings because painting is fundamentally an artistic medium where it is easy to sell bullshit to pretentious snobs who just wanna brag to other pretentious snobs about how much of a pretentious snob they are for buy an overpriced pretentious snobbish piece of shit
But games, the other hand, are first and foremost digital toys, a consummer product, that lives and dies on what the pretentious snobs in the (((artworld))) call "the uncultured plebians" aka people who don't swallow the (((postmodernism kool-aid)))
WIch is why every single attemp by (((pretentious talentless hipsters))) at injecting postmodernist art tendencies into vidya has failed so misserably, because games are mass porduced, cannot be bought and sold as invesments inside a pretentiously snobbish speculation bubble, and generally relly on the "uncultured plevians" who despise postmodernism to make moeny

So no
Games cannot be (((deep art))) because (((deep art))) does not exist
There is only art and (((pretentious snobishness)))

*phenomenon

Yes goy. VIDYA is 'art'. Now it needs to be for everybody and promote a FAR LEFT socio-political message. HEHEHE.

We've talked about this before, but this image misses the point a bit. In the age of photography, realism in art became less valued, and understandably so. Adolf's art was fine, but it wasn't particularly evocative, it depended on a mundane realism that was no longer as highly valued, since perfect photographic reproduction was now available. You can still have evocative or expressive art that retains its realist quality, like the Pieta, but from what I've seen, that's not what he was doing.

When you call something "art" you remove the ability to objectively criticise it as some faggot will always say "muh beauty is subjective". Games have objective merits and failings.

I hate postmodernism as much as the next guy, but for the love of God not like this. This shitpost is just embarrassingly hilarious

Well now your definition is highly subjective. Based purely on the reaction of the audience rather than the creator's intention. You can't say what it excludes because that is dependent on the consumers of those pieces. Clearly, the shitty modern "art" and vapid pop music hold enough people's attention, otherwise they wouldn't be as popular as they are (or make as many sales as you say).

Art in general was almost always created for financial purposes first in the modern era (ie 1500+). The Van Gogh kind of starving artist is not the standard, nor did they set the standard for artistic quality. Whether it be the nobility or clergy during the medieval-renaissance, or the growing middle class patrons in the 17th-19th century.

All crafts have objective merits and failings. Art, a use of this craft, itself has this as well. Don't be fooled into thinking otherwise. There is objective analysis of art, because art always comes from intent.

i can cum deep in your mother , that's art

Yes, but it's better to have a simple, clear definition that lead to subjective interpretation, than to have no definition at all.

I would actually say it lies in the interaction of intent and reception. If I make a sculpture that I think is retarded and doesn't convey anything, yet most people view it as deeply moving for some reason that's alien to me, it's still deeply moving, whether I intended it or not. And on the flip side, if I write a play that I think is very cathartic, but the audience feels only apathy at watching it, then is it no longer art, or is it simply that they have failed to grasp the catharsis that I embedded in it? If I watch a movie in a language I don't understand, I'm probably not going to feel invested or engaged, because I don't have the cognitive tools (language, in this case) to do so–but others who do have those tools may very well feel engaged by it.
This is where the subjectivity comes in, but I think that's a problem for any definition of art. My intention was simply to come up with a decent definition, not an objective standard.

*that can lead to subjective interpretation

Kind of. But people over emphasizing that "video games are art" is both desperate for some justification to enjoy your media and pretentious. There are certainly good games that do some surprisingly artful things that are unusual or evocative; Nier's tendancy to break player expectation, the subspace emissary being entirely silent but still conveying simple character motivations and emotions, or DMC3's use of Vergil as a motivator to progress and eventually represent an ideal they clash over. These are just random examples I could think of. While I think that a game with some artful aspects in nice, I'd much rather prefer a good game first and foremost. Last of Us had worse than borderline gameplay, but a story thats interesting but not worth the effort. Horizon Zero Dawn has a pretty unique world with strangely campy designs, but for 3rd person far cry with a bow instead of guns.

i could have switched adolf with frak frazzeta and there would still be some pretentious hippster that would have shat on him for painting pop culture sci fy and fantasy

this is only true if you have renaissance standards

if a game wants to be art, its unique trait of having gameplay needs to be used to its fullest extent, rather than being an interactable movie, otherwise you should just use other formats

only reason other formats arent used is because somehow their modern art is so shitty that even other modern artists won't accept it in long-standing art forms, so they need to make a game to "push the boundaries" or some gay shit

Whatever "deep art" means, if any art form can be "deep art", then videogames can be "deep art" too. It's just that it's not considered the typical medium for it, because the typical kind of people who would claim interest in "deep art" will generally not look for it while holding a controller. Just like they probably wouldn't look for it spray painted on a wall either. Doesn't mean it can't be done.

I enjoy Frank Frazetta's art, but it isn't really comparable with Hitler's. For the record, I think Hitler's art is decent. I'm simply saying that it's understandable why he wouldn't be admitted to art school, based on his style.

I disagree, art is the intelligent and creative production of a work that represents one's own understanding of the world. Intelligence is predicated on technical mastery, and creativity is predicated on having the ability to observe the inconsistencies in reality and place them on display for the informed observant. Beauty is merely one thing that can be expressed, but there are countless other ideas that can be expressed through art.
Life isn't so black and white; even if we agree that beauty standards are mostly objective, they still exist on a spectrum, so "shallow and deep" beauty are merely representations of the objective standard. Additionally, the term "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is meant to express the idea that perspective plays a large role in influencing someone's tastes. Even if everyone's tastes are based on objective standards, you will still see a variance in what people enjoy (i.e. we can all agree that a slim and young woman with sizable breasts and hips is universally considered attractive, but there are some men who like blond hair and blue eyes and there are some men who like red hair and green eyes and so on).
Post modernism is merely a pretentious name for, "analyzing structures that exist in reality". Hitler used post modernism to analyze the political structures of the country that he lived in and its foreign affairs. Marx used it to analyze capitalism and its effects on the working class. Post modernism relies on an already existent philosophy through which someone can examine reality. This can be fine for political or philosophical discourse, even when concerning art; however, the problem arises when practical things - like techniques that build an artist's technical prowess - that just shouldn't be over examined from a subjective perspective are analyzed and disregarded.
That's a separate issue that doesn't have any bearing on what constitutes art. You're talking about a market that has been established around a commodity.
Any form of art can be a commodity in a capitalist economy. Movies, paintings, sculptures, acting and other performance arts, music, wood working, and the rest. You are talking about art's culturally perceived importance or social impact.
What are limited editions and collector's editions and the entire scalper's market?

Yes if the production focus on it, other games like doom are just for fun but you might admire their quality.

Can they be? Yes.
Do they ever actually achieve it? No. mainly because the only people who try don't know what art actually means.

great post m8
You clearly put more brain power in this that my drunk ass is capable of right now

What's the point of art? Why should video games be art?

Literally anything and everything can be can be considered art. Even a piece of shit in a can can be considered art. Even pornography can be considered art.
This whole argument of whether or not video games can be considered art is pointless and is only relevant if you want to convince your out of touch old people that video games aren't just for children. Literally nobody fucking cares and whether or not it's considered art or not will get you nowhere.
Just fucking enjoy the shit you like, it's not that hard.

Anything manmade can be artistic if it is appreciated by somebody in a thoughtful way. Art is incredibly subjective in this manner. A Lego set, vandalism, an entry level book on chemistry, the molestation of a child, a malfunctioning oil rig, a staircase, 9/11, etc. can all be considered art by someone. So, therefore, video games can be considered art, but which games are art will always be up for debate.

You've both swallowed the post-modern Kool-Aid, probably inadvertently.
Art is not a meaningless term. But you could perhaps argue that it's not a useful one.

You forgot to add sunday funnies.

Anything can be art, and it depends how you do it.
Killing communists or feminists in california can be an art.

That's like saying guns are for self-defense and now people on the right side of history need to defend themselves by eliminating all the bad people. Therefore guns should not be allowed.

It has nothing to do with "should." They already are.

No, but you can create bad video games and claim they are art pieces or stylized and some pleb will fall for it.

Video games can be artistic, but we have a societal stigma that prevents it from being seen as art. We see games as merely "play" and because of this, it's considered that they don't evoke feeling or contemplation. But I'm sure someone here has been moved in some form or another by a game, thrill of success, anguish of defeat, physically upset by a character dying, mentally frightened by atmosphere and color… The fact of the matter is, video games are just another form of medium for which one may express his thoughts, emotions or ideas. It's a combination of things like the beauty of paintings/drawings/scultpures, the emotion and empathy of music/spoken word, the narrative and storytelling aspects of novels. These same things make up another artistic medium: movies, film. But video games have an extra medium attached to them that no other artistic medium does, which is "control" "play" or better said "agency."

The definition of art is so vague and let's anything man-made fall under its definition. Art is a meaningless term, as one thing cannot be considered more artistic than another as both things are art. It's like saying that pizza is more food than hamburgers, when they're both fucking food. So yeah, art is meaningless when anything can be considered art.

Can Olympic games be deep art?

Once again, this is a notion of art that only came about under postmodern thinking. Identifying whether or not something was art wasn't controversial, vague, or even much thought about before that. Don't let a subset of continental blowhards subvert your understanding of an entire range of human endeavor for you. Also read the thread.

My definition of art is what's in the dictionary. I don't know what the hell you're smoking.

And what does your dictionary say?

...

...

Art 1:Skill acquired by experience or study. 2: A branch of learning. 3: An occupation requiring knowledge or skill.
So in other word, being a doctor, mechanic, or an aircraft pilot is more artistic than a painter, sculptor, or musician.

tells more about you than me, BTW are board games art?

...

That's not generally what people mean by "art," though; they most often use it to refer to a piece (or range) of work created for others to view or enjoy. Your dictionary is a bit shit.

I dunno, I like this definition of art better. It means people who do actually productive shit in society are the real artist.

Before people start talking about art it should be required that someone explicitly states a set of criteria for something to be "art". Then everyone uses that definition and you can actually have a discussion. This thread is proof that arguing about whether or not something is art immediately devolves into arguing about what qualifies something to be "art" in the first place.

You can't effectively discuss something if everyone has a different meaning for the same word. Discussions around semantics are a cancerous failure of language.

DIfferent dictionaries say different things, go figure. What makes that's definition less valid than the one in my dictionary?

I agree, we should wipe English off of the face of the earth.

They're both from the same dictionary, and are you telling me you're unaware that art has multiple different meanings e.g. "this painting is art" and "the art of woodworking"?

Of course it can. However, too many confuse 'art' with 'merit'. The Piss Christ is art which toured some great American museums for months, before being swiftly forgotten, because it has no merit. The Mona Lisa is art, but not even an especially good one, or one which transformed the way anyone really looks at the world. But it has merit, not so much as art, but because it was tied to a famous artist, and because it accrued cultural merit from originally being stolen and seen on the fronts of newspapers. I'm sure I can go to a storefront for video games right now, and find plenty of art to be had. But how much of them would have merit, and how many games have had merit but passed quietly and unremarked in the night?

Further, we need to consider 'merit' in the terms specific to video games, much like you do specific to any other medium. Does a game of superb and demonstrative technical prowess have the same merit as 'art'? Is a game which pioneers a new way of making a game, or making something in a game work a certain way, have merit that ought to be placed on a pedestal like 'art'? All these questions and more need to be seriously reflected on and seriously pursued for answers, both from the gamers who love their games, and faggoty games journalist who want to pretend they're movies.

/thread

It's not about how there are different definitions, it's about semantics. I'd rather this whole argument end. The word "art" has lost it's meaning due to how subjective art is and now it basically just boils down to things that you do and don't like.

Entertainment mediums are incapable of being art.

drawings and paintings are an entertainment medium, you get entertained by looking at them.

are they not art?

Hate to break it to you user, but the ones primarily pushing for vidya as being an artform are hollywood washouts whom are still butthurt Roger Ebert said vidya couldn't be art, and SJWs who want to peddle their walking simulator trash.

They can but they fail. Game would have a chance if devs would start doing proper gaming stuff instead of shitty puzzles.

It doesn't matter why Hitler was denied. What matters is it resulted with people with much worse art than Hitlers. This picture is one giant shit on modern art and fact it is barely art.
Unless it turns out rest of people who applied actually had some better works and author just cherry picked.

You said Beethoven is not art.
Or prove me music is not entertainment.

Video games were art before they came along and will continue to be art after they're gone.

CHECKED

I have never heard anyone seriously call many games art before they came along, only a very small pool of games qualified and most of those I wouldn't recommend for any serious play through now or ever again. And the majority of those games I guarantee is nostalgia and not legitimate.

All you're fundamentally saying is that neither of those things can be videogames, which is obvious.
Oh, and you're mixing two concepts there: the player and the developer.

Just like a writer can gitgud at writing books, so can a dev gitgud at making videogames, the player's ability to gitgud at reading said books or playing said games does not play a significant part into this.

People that played them placed them in the position of art, even if those weren't the words they'd use.
How'd you hear anyone saying this 20 years ago, when talking with people as easily as you can now wasn't even a concept?

Sounds a lot like many people have no problem letting the media or "the experts" decide on what the consensus about something is, whithout caring abut the individual opinions of those invested in the art itself; which is ironic when said people then turn around and claim they are better than the mainstream faggots because they have their own opinions, nevermind that those were fabricated by someone else…

For the record, Art is everything and anything that can invoke strong emotions and passion in it. Other's might not apreciate it if it fails to inspire any emotion in them but that's still art for yu.

The process of making a game could be considered an artform that very very few have mastered or came close to mastering

Actual games cannot and shouldn't be considered art

I would seriously prefer them not to be, since it often ends up making them into giant pieces of shit, but if you can pull off a good game without being 2deep4u and still be deep art, then I could care less. Also sage for shitty thread.

It really didn't. That would have happened either way.

???

If you mean playn videogames, I'd disagree on the ground that some people can put up quite a show especially in the higher competitive brackets, but not only there.
Several DMC players do quite an amazing performance that's practically the equivalent to virtual coreography.

i like this user

That game was pure

KINO
I
N
O

I never noticed that, but does he have a pony tail?