Why feminists, SJWs & cucked Western game devs keeps pushing "video games are art" narrative?

user the same could be said of music, movies, and books. Not everything in a medium that has art is art.

This guy gets it. Modern art turned art into a way for useful idiots to help rich people launder money by buying and selling junk for millions of dollars. Now the useful idiots want to "win" at video games the same way they did with art. The big difference is, laundering money with shitty video games doesn't work the same way it does with modern art, so they don't have the support of rich people hiding their ill-gotten funds.

The other reason to get video games recognized as art was to keep the government's hands off it, since art is allowed to be whatever the fuck the artists want it to be. But thanks to video games becoming a billion-dollar industry it doesn't need to worry about protection like that anymore, it has lobbyists now.

This is why games should never, ever be considered as art. Games have standards, modern art doesn't.

Are those books i am posting art? Are all books art? Books became from writing down bible scriptures and merchant countings on stone. They are initially not a form of art.

BECAUSE THEY CAN'T MAKE GOOD GAMES BY NATURE
IF THE EXPERIENCE THAT THE GAMEPLAY CREATES OVERRIDES THEIR SPECIAL SNOWFLAKE MESSAGE THEN THEY WON'T BE REMEMBERED FOR THEIR BULLSHIT

that was my point. Books can be art, but most are not. Same goes for vidya.

Books and games have one thing in common.

They are initially not art, and "artistic" books and games came out only much later.

because people will buy this shit, to a degree. blame indie games and the autists that made them. Most of the SJW's like Quinn are just the whore of the industry. Anita is a con-artist who saw she could shit on games and get away with it. The mainstream media decided to become pro-SJW with the gamergate debacle, because mainly they don't understand anything about the internet and can only understand a surface level with anything related to the internet. also, they wanted a helpless victum to celebrate, so they picked to support the SJW's because they want to be on the cutting edge of whatever movement is next because of civil rights and shit like that.

But there have been very early books and vidya that are considered art. Like you said many books started as bible transcriptions, but the bible can be considered art. Likewise, once games started having narratives and got more complex than pong and pacman there could be ones considered art. Metroid could be considered art.

no entertainment is art. books are made for either fictional or non fictional informative, persuasive, or entertaining reasons. A more famous book doesnt make it anymore of art than one made by a alley hobo.

SJW infiltrated the industry cause everything from California to Washington, which make up over half of the video game industry in the west, are liberal hellholes.

They are not art. Because if they were we'd have to put up with modern 'art' video games that are ugly, non functional and degenerate in theme and style, but you're just a philistine if you disagree and hate freedom.

The definition of something being considered as art came with the new age. Same reason why some guy sucking his own penis is considered "art".

Nothing is truly art when its not created with high artistic quality in mind.

But by that definition no story telling can be considered of any worth. You can't sit there and tell me that "How to suck yourself off in five easy steps." by Hiram Whogivesafuck is on the same level as Homer's Odyssey or Dante's Inferno.

that's the main problem with this argument: abstract artists bitched and moaned that what they make is just as "art" as the traditional values of rembrandt etc, and the public slowly accepted this argument as fact. the main reason being that abstracts said that "art can be anything that makes you feel" and for whatever reason this became the accepted definition

this is why there are forever going to be shitbags saying lady gaga is art as much as beethoven was, and why snowflakes are going to make shitty mspaint comics forever: because they are convinced, and have been told, that since it evokes emotion it is art. why wouldn't the knee-jerk reactionaries of [current age] put this set of values on vidya as well? they're already used to everything they touch and see and interact with being considered "art"

blame clinton and every dem president since Kennedy, along with Tipper Gore.

So no book is art? A collection of poetry is not art? Shakespeare transcripts are not art?

So you can't create art if you aren't trying to? and that would make all the modern art you hate art as the artist very clearly was trying to make art.

It's not the same genre, so of course not. But as far as "art" is concerned, which I considered non existant and a low valued attribute, yes, yes it is.

Either all the media format is art or none of it is art. That's my answer on it.

That doesn't make sense. You would consider a painting by rembrandt or davinci art right? Well what about paintings that are just splatters or different colored squares on a canvas. Both are painting, you cannot deny this, but one is considered art and one is not. Unless you believe that splatters of paint are art.

They're not pushing the "games are art" narrative, they're pushing the "art =/= craftsmanship" narrative, which has been far more destructive, as can be seen in the fields of sculpture, painting, and literature.
Besides, those two greentexts aren't so much "games are art" as they are "games aren't art yet, do [ideological bullshit] and they will be"

Video games are GAME. Games have rules and a fail state. The fact that there are graphics, music and sometimes writing involved are purely tertiary. A game cannot ever be art. The game is more of the video game than the video part.

Let me tell you this. Listen to it carefully:

You can make a beautiful cake, and call it art. Its an artistic cake
You can make healthy cake, with fruits and such, with vitamines and low calories, it will be a healthy cake.
You can make tasty cake that satisfies taste.
But you can also create an ugly penis cake that has cum on top of it, and then call it "artistic cake"

This is the situation we are having with the word "art".

this logic is retarded beyond belief

Art is a irrelevant term given by people who want to bypass the subjective popularity of their work for the sake of virtue signaling. So no, painting, books, video games, movies, none of it is art.

"Art" is a retarded term and descriptor, anyway. You can remove it from existence and nothing of value would be loss except people's justification for enjoying a certain industry.

Why can't a game be art? Just because you are now interacting with it does not remove the qualities of art.

I don't follow. Just because the word is misused nothing is art now?

^ Fucking this.

Generally, a lot of people are lazy fucks who don't want to compete or try hard. Just observe, they don't want to work to get something, they want the thing to come to them while they sit on their asses. But when people of passion and quality do come in, they sperg the fuck out and try to kill them. Just look at any medium and how it started, once it became big the kikes and their lackeyes come sprawling in order to maximize profits or get benefits without any hard work what so over.

But you know what the worst thing is? Their plans are working. Not only that, but don't you fucking dare to have standards, because they will call you entitled. God forbids someone increases his taste and calls newer works shit.

They're each stylized in a specific way and follow a theme so why not? I'm more annoyed by pixelshit indie gamed that are inconsistant with their themes or games like Overwatch which have a confusing art direction.

i agree with you. rembrandt is art, and shit on a canvas is not. what i'm saying is that's why people are arguing that is art, because the definition of it nowadays is totally fucked. people have the same amount of respect for a banksy graffiti tag as they do for michelangelo's david. someone, even one person, would look at that ugly penis cake and say "wow! this is art!". then they would repost it a thousand times on instagram, people would retweet it or however the fuck instagram works, and suddenly people are convinced it's art, or they're trying to convince themselves

SJW's and indie devs treat games as "art" where all qualities, and kike publishers treat games as a science where a game must have all the correct formulas to make as much money as possible. The truth is that games are not art or science, but a craft; they serve a functional purpose, and take skill, passion and effort to make. Think of them as a table; it can be the nicest looking table ever created, but if it collapses as soon as you put something on then it's worthless.

We to push "games are a craft" as much as possible.

it's not about misusing anything. Art is as stupid of a term as rpg.

...

The art of the game is in the gameplay and how good it is, but cucks fail to understand that being retarded.

ok buddy whatever you say.

Where all qualites are subjective*

So nothing is an RPG, nothing is art?

Final Fantasy is a turn based party management adventure game.

anything is a craft. games are fundamentally a form of entertainment, and some people are entertained by games such as Gone Home. These are not the vast majority of people.
Games are no longer made for the masses.

A game is the sum of it's parts. If you look at old game informers they used to break it down into different categories like gameplay, music, graphics etc.

People don't just play games for challenging gameplay. Most of my life I played games for the sake of exploration, and I was never really interested in a challenge until I found Holla Forums.

What? Mass appeal is the thing actively making this industry worse.

Video games are art, they are just shit in a nice package.

so the art of movies is the animation of the picture ?

But exploration is a part of gameplay. You can have good graphics or music in a shitty game but it would still be a shitty game.

The core of a game is its interactivity and the ability of the player to experience and manipulate a digital environment and the SJW shit is shit because they don't allow you to deviate from the set storyline. It's like if someone thought a good movie was a good set of paintings, they don't understand the possibilities of games.

Cinematography and the way the movies are filmed most certainly is.

the art of movies is the cinematography, the editing, the acting, the music score, the set production, the writing, and the choreography. Filmmaking is a mixture of multiple forms of art.

Well, there's a reason why in some countries actors in theatre are called "artists". Not to add to the argument though.

and James Bond films are an episodic international espionage adventure feature.
you can add as many words as you want, the masses of people are still going to call it a spy movie.

Yeah, I was somewhat wrong saying that.
The issue is that games are made to appeal to such specific groups of people, such as COD is now made to appeal to COD fans, and Assassin's Creed is made for Assassin's Creed fans. FIFA is made for football fans and Battlefront is made for Star Wars fans. Tony Hawk Pro Skater wasn't made for just skateboarding fans. Mario Kart wasn't made for go-kart fans or Mario fans. Street Fighter II wasn't made for fighting fans. Games are so far removed from their arcade origins that developers no longer make games to appeal to a general person. The games have been generalized for the audience that it is tailored to.

Wanting to make games art was the worst decision ever. It invited in all the post modern fart sniffing dickheads who use "but its art" as a shield against the fact that they have no skills artistic or otherwise. Just look at how the removal of objective measures of skill from modern art has fucked everything up. Writers who have never read about or played a game in the series they are writing for. Artists who have the technical skills of a 12 year old with cerebral palsy. All getting so high on their own self satisfaction that there is no hope for change. All you can do is learn to be efficient in weeding out trash and hopefully find a quality game that can help distract from the wasteland of trash around us.

Spy movie is better than calling it art.

That's a good thing. The reason why games are so casualized and dumbed down are because they're trying to make the game appeal to and be accessible to as many people as possible.

Not a massive kino guy but off the cuff the core of a movie would probably be the characters and their interactions and how those are set up.

I don't get it.

the "art" of cinema is the camera angles, the shots, the scenery, the framing of the characters. everything from the position of an opened window to the tilt of a camera can lend any number of facets to a scene that would otherwise just be two people talking to each other. watch a kubrick movie; he was huge into camera angles as a vehicle for emotion. 2001 had tons of shots that were specifically designed to make you feel small, for example

Cinema, photography and comics (at least the european ones) did. As for what spurred video games to do it, Roger Ebert. His rant hurt the feelings of a lot of nerds, and the SJW artsy types latched onto the attempts at muh feels that spurred from it. As proof, just look at the contemporary reviews of gone home.

The better question.

Are visual novels art or video games?

You could consider the viewer a character as well.

neither.

Lurk more, retard. If you actually cared why, you'd go to Holla Forums and see what we've known for years now. Video games as art comes from Common Core. Common Core comes from kikes. It's all right there in the Talmud.

Only in a tertiary way. Exploration is exploration. The joy in exploration doesn't come from mastering a system. It comes from the visual experience itself.

If we're going to break it down as far as we can, gameplay is purely systems based.

Because they are all wannabe artists who were somehow too retarded to actually become artists, and in the usual Leftist fashion, have decided to declare wherever they are to be "success" rather than improving themselves or having the decency to commit suicide.

yes and this is why three games have broken 10m on PS4 and none have broken it on Xbone.
Gaming is supposed to be growing but in reality isn't really growing at the rate it should be. We no longer have blockbuster games but a slew of games to appeal to a variety of people. We have too many developers that have stretched the overall talent pool thin and oversaturated the market. The supply has exceeded the demand and if this continues what we see will be a collapse. Major companies will collapse because of the constant busts and small developers will close down.

Hi Holla Forums

No.
NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO NO!
Books are art, music is art, theatre is art, art is art. Movies, television, video games, and radio are NOT art. Why? All these mediums are under 200 years old and have experienced a damn thing. Meanwhile, the former four have existed for ages, hundreds, if not, thousands of years. They gone through ages cover in blood and sweat, they experienced wars and conquerors, they've established the basis of societies and motivated people to do tasks against unwinnable odds, they've recorded the origins of the universe and predicated the downfall of man and our complete and utter destruction.

Meanwhile, in comparison to that, what has technology based mediums been able to accomplish? Anyone who claims that any of the latter four deserved to be considered art either have their head up their ass, or they're insecure about themselves. The discussion over whether or not an item is considered should not be something up for discussion. It should shown it through it's own merits. And, if any of these assholes really cared about pushing for games to be considered an art form, they'd be more worried about turning about a better product than was previously available through whatever means necessary rather than push out an unfinished, unoptimized, bug riddled, mess and demand they be recognized for their so-called "effort''.

Age does not make something art.

movies and TV are just the evolution of theatre. radio is a spoken form of news/theatre or a recorded version of music. Video Games are the evolution of board games.

also this

Guess I should have put more explicitly earlier that what I meant by gameplay would probably be close to interactivity than challenge. Like when you play the game, does the shit you do actually matter in some way?

Or I could just be retarded.

Sorry but I fail to see how 95% of all the books in my bookshelf are art. They are mostly textbooks, historical books and cookbooks, totally devoid of "artistic" interpretation. It's absolutely not like some writings which are aimed to inspire emotions like poetry or most fiction.

...

so it only becomes art once someone has been persuaded to act because of it? Is mein kampf and the communist manifesto art?

Nah you just havent put enough thought into it.

Interacting with things isn't a game either.

The cool thing about words is that they have definitions. So when we use language we can be sure we're all talking about the same thing.

When we talk about games here and gameplay I can only assume we're talking about definition 3

dictionary.com/browse/game?s=t

Animals have been playing for eons.

don't bother replying
I didn't realize we had so many pseudo-intellectuals on Holla Forums

...

Oh, so we simply are not allowed to discuss the matter, and should just know what art is and is not automatically.

By "books" I assume he means literature.

No the objective is that a few "educated" people can tell you what is good art and bad art, and because you are an uncultured swine just take their word because you cannot discuss their judgement.

A game doesn't need to be competitive between players though, unless you consider the AI a player. Interactions requiring skill, is that narrow enough? You still need to master some mechanics to explore in a game without dying unless it's some art game.

...

Why does this debate keep coming up again and again and again when it was already settled a long time ago? Video games are a form of art and your opinion doesn't matter.

Ah yes, we should only listened to what (((educated))) people have to say about things, right?

This is some interesting show you've got there.

Is tic-tac-toe an art? Answer the question before buying into numale indiefag delusions

I have no numale indiefag delusions. Maybe you do, but I don't.

Nah.

Nah to
not the second part.

The main idea is the set of rules, and skill. The "other person" could easily be considered the AI that controls an enemy or any given object.

Gameplay when you break it down to the programming level is just you reducing a number(player's health/ enemies health) to zero before the other player does using a given toolset. (shoot him till one of you dies, etc etc)

Because they are children that seek validation from the "adults".

Never going to even bother pirating your jew indiecuck game. Your industry is going to crash

Considering he encompassed things like sculpture, painting and drawing (I'm sure I'm missing some) as "art", I guess you're right. There is a whole lot of difference between mere books and literature though.

Because there are two definitions of art.

dictionary.com/browse/commercial-art

dictionary.com/browse/fine-art

People think the word "Art" refers to one or the other, when really it refers to both.

Here you go.

Isn't language magical? Literally all you have to do to understand it, is look up what it fucking means.

Why are you talking to me about this?

I bet there are thousands of stories of programmers and artist that have been overworked
Tetris
Gamergate. exempt the unwinnable odds
Deus Ex
Metal Gear Solid 2

...

The Metro devs are the first to come to mind.

Okay, so where does that leaving gaming then?

WHY IS THIS HABBEING TO ME?

Just die quietly somewhere, you're wasting oxygen.

When you have people hellbent on redefining language, understanding it isn't as simple as "looking up what it means". I've seen many words change meaning over the course of my living years and some of the new definitions sure are not meant to be accepted.

Because hes not talking to you but is expanding on the point made in that post.

Welcome to imageboard discussions, faggot.

Feel free to stop projecting any time.

I've been here longer than you.

The cool thing about language is that lingusts resist new definitions and add their modern "definitions" along side the historical ones.

The problem of course comes that over time the old usage becomes forgotten and we collectively become more stupid. But that's all by design.

Please look up what projecting means because you aren't using it right.

You first.

Why isn't it an art?

as an artform

Reminds me of that screencap about someone accidentally dropping something at an art museum, and no one there being sure if they should pick it up or not on the off chance it was meant as an exhibit they just didn't get. Or something like that.

On that note, anyone got that image about some user having spent weeks carving some dragon out of a tree trunk for an exhibit at his school, only for it to get hung up right next to a poorly made sculpture of some guy sucking himself off?

Alright, then why are we having this discussion in the first place?

You lazy fuck.

Telling you that your life is worthless is not projecting. It's calling a spade a spade.

I know what it means, but I guess you don't.

So are you going to hijack this thread and turn it into an argument about me? People just love doing that for reasons that completely escape me.

When so called intellectuals started to rule the art scene they gained the ability to declare various pieces of work art or not art for whatever reason they wished. Things that catered to their complete obliviousness were, naturally, deep and profound. Thus they gained the ability to shape the direction art was allowed to take
They wish to control video games the same way

But they never truly got it, not that that should be a surprise. Like all paintings, all sculptures, all drawings, all poems, video games are art. But being art does not inherently make something automatically good, and the real question, as always, comes down to whether something is good art or bad art

I agree. I used to love reading the dictionary when I had classes (I was raised as a French speaker so in both languages). Back then, there were often the old usage added in them, nowadays with shit like google definitions, kids only learn the latest approved kosher definitions of words, which is yet another example of global brain drain. I had 2 language courses back in school that were specifically aimed towards that. One had a section on old French and the other was in middle English, that is how I learned how absolutely bastardized both modern languages became thanks to multiple reforms and addendum over the years.

Oh there you go, that's a good example of projection.

I call you a fucking idiot, and tell you you're using a word wrong. You argue back but don't actually provide any evidence for your claims and then accuse me of doing what you are doing.

Good show. I'm sure we've all learned something here. Thanks for your help.

No, you're projecting. The fact that you're claiming I'm projecting is itself projection.

So yes, you do intend to hijack this thread. Why not just kill yourself instead?

because people doubt it's quality and lasting impact in comparision to other mediums. And by the way the modern industry is, I can't blame them.

video games are art, but we just have to say what is good and what is shit. I think people completely disregard entire groups of things because of 1 or 2 bad examples in it and forget the rule that most things are shit. I'm betting that conversations of what is quality and what is not and other conversations on standards are universal in all the other mediums as well

And, after reading I should specify that this question applies to ALL the anons in this thread. Why do we need to discuss this? According to the U.S. legal system games are art. According to a dictionary definition, they are art. As the user I previously responded to pointed out, games have gone through the same trials as other mediums.

So, again I ask, why do we need to discuss this?

Don't discuss, don't learn from each other. Doing that is stupid. Everyone shitpost about something.

I'm dicussing the topic of the thread and you are making baseless acusations and begging the question in an attempt to derail this thread and divert discussion away from the topic at hand.

You are a suspicious fuck and you should leave this place and never come back.

Because gameplay in itself is not art, yet should be the main driving force in gaming. What is artistic is mostly what is currently pushed to the detriment of actual gaming. Casuals and normalfags love the artistic parts, true gamers couldn't give a rat's ass about artistic bullshit if it meant gameplay takes a dive because of it. The other aspects to consider are political and economical, thanks to modern art being used as a money laundering avenue instead of being anything of actual merit.

Sometimes I think you people are legitimately retarded. Either that or think all video games are good for is cheap entertainment. In which case, why are you wasting your lives on them?

...

There's nothing to discuss.

...

Then why are we discussing, you pedantic fuck?

Clearly there is much to say if we have much to say.

In what way does hijacking the thread to argue about me constitute discussing the topic of the thread?

There's that projection again.

Take your own advice.

That's a good question.

Gameplay is art though, but the greater art is in making every facet of your game work with the gameplay to become something greater than the sum of its parts.

So games can be art by the ancient Roman definition? Where it meant "A skill or craft taken to such high levels as to have an aesthetic quality".
Unlike the modern definition of art: "something my Jewish masters tell me to pay for".

What you are trying to say is that there is an "art" to good gameplay.

The phrase itself is different than calling gameplay art, thought I couldn't really say how.

I prefer to make a distinction between arts and crafts, but that works as well.

Why isn't it art? How you interact with game and the extent you are allow to interact with them is an aspect that determines their quality. It is a measure of their artistic quality since it is a sum of its whole.

there's an art to game creation and then there's the art to playing the game.

I demand a source on that. Just about anything the Romans, Greeks, (Insert mighty, ancient civilization) trumps just about everything today's philosophers, judges, scientists, etc. have to say.

Then I guess me purifying some natural oil is art too, geez after all if I use some high quality oil with a high quality soap I can make something that greater than the sum of its parts. Really, coding/gameplay isn't art. Neither is my organic chemistry. Both I'd define as technique (what others would simply say "craft").

That is because of the difference in semantics you exposed earlier. The newspeak definition of art which means either commercial art of fine art. Good gameplay being an art fits in the defifnition of commercial art. Gameplay as a whole would never fit into fine art though.

What is art but a craft performed at such a level that it leaves a lasting impression upon those who witness it?

Okay.

A persons looks , muscular structure or beauty, is definitely an art.

Thanks for reminding me. Even cuisines (There must be some reason Europeans are willing to wait in line at restaurants for hours at a time) and battle tactics (Art of War anyone?) can be considered a form of art.

Anything can be art, the faggot is just playing with semantics because he has nothing else to argue with. Art is an expression of human creativity, and there is no requirement that for art to be art it needs to be created purely with an artistic goal in mind. The one requirement it actually has is that skill is necessary to create it.

Dance isn't a craft, idiot.

Only if represented on a medium, which would evoke emotions in a third person simply looking at said medium. Otherwise they simply are beautiful or strong. Beauty standards also changed throughout the years so it isn't immemorial. To think middle age beauties are what we would call fatties nowadays.

.>>12575749
I don't consider my cooking as an art either, yet idiots do call it the art of cuisine, just like other morons call fishing an art.

Art is the creation of something that is aesthetically pleasing and can be judged by said aesthetics. A craft is the creation of something that serves a functional purpose and can be judged by how well it performs said purpose. These terms are not mutually exclusives, and there are things that can be considered both a craft and an art. Take that coachgun as an example: As a work of art it is very nice to look at, but as a product of a craft does it perform well? A gunsmith should be judged by how well his guns work, not just by how nice his guns look.

Art is a buzzword.
This is why the term was so easily hijacked, because every self-declared "intellectual" can change the meaning according to his twisted needs.
The only solution is to admit that "art" as a term is dead. Praise well made paintings, beautiful architecture, interesting book and fun games, but never give any relevance to the term "art" again.

Common Core.
Someone must have the screencap with the whole story behind GG, I don't know where I put mine.

I consider some glassblowing, pottery and metalworking as being part of both in rare cases. What you said is what I pretty much base my definitions on.

I was talking about your comment on gameplay not being art you fuckwit.

And who gets to decide what is aesthetically pleasing? Not that merely referencing aesthetics is enough, consider how shit looking (on purpose) Picasso's paintings are, to define something as art.

A pretty woman is aesthetically pleasing, but you're not going to argue she is art considering no human hand shaped her, she just won the genetic lottery.

This is the biggest problem. It goes beyond vidya. Modern "artists" and "game devs" are lazy fucks who want recognition for the latest pile of shit that they crapped out regardless of its quality. While craftsmanship isn't everything, these people seem to actively avoid putting any skill or effort into their work. And since the public has already accepted that you don't need to be skilled to make good art, it's bleeding into other mediums such as video games.

Sucking dick must really be doing a number on your brain.

What does gameplay have to do with dance. Are you brain damaged?

Well designed gameplay mechanics are no different from a well choreographed ballet piece and when properly performed are pleasing to experience (or look at).

Go be a faggot someplace else.

Also, both require an understanding of the techniques used to achieve the best results and consistent practice to always have the best results.

Is a well-served purpose not aesthetically pleasing?

Of course there's a bit more to it than that, I just didnt want too long of a definition.

It could be argued. That's why I said the two words aren't mutually exlusive.

And that's the thing, just like making good video-games you need a very good technical skills, just like making a painting like that which not only takes years to finish, but you have to be a master aswell.

A game is not art. Artistic assets in a game are art. If you broke a game down to its simplest functions on gameplay alone you would not have art because you would have a sequence of buttons to push to accomplish a goal. If you find beauty out of that you're finding it from your own brain. Dunno why this is still a topic.

Oh yea.

I think the easiest way to define art is that which a large number of people (or the majority) consider to be art, and they usually consider art that which makes them feel an emotion.

So, yes, games can be art, be it through their storytelling or exhilarating gameplay. A well made multiplayer that keeps you engaged and your blood pumping and makes you shout in joy when you win is art.

I think the biggest problem is that people try to equate art with quality, which is really not the case. There's a difference between "just art" and "masterpiece for the ages".

Surely there must be a craft to objectively good gameplay.

Whatever you would describe that as would be considered a commercial art.

How come this definition of yours doesn't apply to movies, or theatre?

Where do you think appreciation of art comes from you dumbfuck? Your penis?

Emotions. I just don't give a fuck if Mario falls into a pit or gets a coin. He's just a greasy Italian plumber.

Please stop posting already.

Because Art has lost all meaning to it except in some circles
Art is just a woman shitting on canvas to these people
They want videogames to be the same

Kill yourself reddit. You fell for the Jewish meme that anything is art so they can dictate whatever the fuck anything is worth.

Because movies aren't games. And you can't break down a movie to a set of inputs or puzzles. Its only existence is to entertain through visual stimulus.

When did I say this? If you took a stick figure doing ballet it would still convey an emotion through rhythm and tone. What can you do to make Pong an art?

One would think the person who created it to address an emotion. But apparently you think everything is open to interpretation like most millennials.

No, you idiot that what you are doing.

You don't even know the difference between objective and subjective.

Your capacity for reasoning is faulty.

Then I should assume that movies belong right next books (Especially comic books), theatre, and art.

of films can be art, then its reasonable to make a case that games are art as well.
what i dont understand is why anyone would want to make that case, just look at what art has become. why would anyone want anything to do with that?

It's not that art has lost all meaning, but that Western society has deteriorated to the point that the vast majority of people are incapable of critical thoughts and will parrot whatever the powers that be tell them to say.

Shitting menstrual blood on canvas is considered art because all standards in society have been eroded to the point this becomes acceptable. Don't blame art, blame a society that is willing to pretend such a thing is art.

Play it well? Not that your strawman is fooling anyone.

Many Renaissance painters were doing contract work for the Church or making portraits for nobles when they created some of their most famous art pieces. Is "gotta pay my rent" an emotion now? What the artist meant is irrelevant to a work being art, otherwise all the shit that comes out of modern leftist artists is art too.

plebian why do you talk about that which you do not know?

A movie is still a direct sequence of events one after the other. It would be less of an art form by your definition.

And besides the amount you are able to interact with is determined by a creator so it is not just complete imagination from your brain. the creator of a videogame has the ability to lead you to a set end your let you have varying ways of reaching to an end

Add a depression story or rape story to it. Then it becomes "inspirational", "powerful" and "engaging"

...

It's a tech demo to show the various ways you can add visual feedback to a game.

I never said they weren't art so I guess so? Or is this a loaded question.

It's not a strawman if you can't answer the question is it?

And at what point did the people who looked at it have to complete a task in order to start enjoying it? Also this is the real Strawman. Them being payed to make something shouldn't have any bearing weather it's art or not.
Which has nothing to do witch what I just said. A set of rules and a state of play isn't art. If you have feelings for those inputs and decisions then fine but I would not consider Simon Says art.

Define events? You can have a single event or a long winded one. There's no restriction in this regard. In games there are however. You have to have some method of play that requires input and decision making, which isn't art in itself.

The amount your able to interact with shouldn't have anything to do with imagination. If I move up and down in pong my and hit the ball my brain isn't being imaginative. If I engage with another player and plan a strategy you might consider that partially imaginative, but only because of the interference from another player.

No it doesn't. I think? That sentence is a mess. But you can play a game infinitely assuming you know the rules.

This is the sort of things presenters on conferences do, when they have nothing interesting to talk about and have to make a quick presentation to have something to present in front of an audience, else their free tickets for participation would get cancelled.
And you are treating it like there is some big lesson to be learned here.
Go to a few *quirky* conferences and you will find tons of these people. They are only a few steps above the girl that comes on stage and has a presentation about marketing, memes and half her slides are facebook pictures taken from her own facebook.
I have no idea what you find in these people.

Meant for

From 4rth greentext onwards. My bad.

You have never played Pong then. It's more than just two paddles and a ball moving across a screen. The position the ball hits the paddle determines it's trajectory. The further you get into the game, the faster the ball goes. And, you do end up having to use your imagination to predict which spot on the paddle would be the best area for the return serve and to make sure that the ball doesn't miss.

That's not art however. That making frontal lobe decisions based on simulated physics. You're not going to find a deeper meaning behind it. Now if it were a story about a ball being pushed around or something then it would have a narrative which would make it art. But on that same hand you could just make that a film. So it goes back to my point that a game without the narrative isn't art.

There is an ART to adding visual feedback to a video game.

There is a reason people play shitty clicking games that don't really do anything like candy crush and the like.

Don't denigrate me just because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Go try to make a video game.

...

There's no aesthetic quality in moving a paddle up and down to manipulate a bouncing ball. There's no aesthetics in input. There is an aesthetic and a narrative in telling your competitor to fuck off, but that's not the games doing now is it? In any case this term taken out of context. A skill can be considered a work of art but it's not inherently a work of art by the same subject that a game isn't a work of art but the person playing it does so in a way to be considered impressive enough to be a work of art. In this context it's not the game that's art it's the person who put the effort and time into it in to manipulate it into one. Pong isn't inherently art. The player being good at it is.

You are the sort of person who would go to every quirky game dev event and drool as he watches some low tier indie devs explain basic stuff. There is a flock of guys like you after every indie presentation, walking after the indie shitter and asking him stupid question after stupid question.
You guys are by far the worst and the usual reason for indie devs to behave like egocentric kings. You deserve to be shat on if that presentation impresses you.
It is exactly that sort of effect adding that has created indie devs spamming artsy games that are worth nothing. So mant that they flooded the fucking market with garbage that should have never made it past their friends.

movies have scenes that are part of a plot. It is what we watch.
You can have long sequences in video games as well, you can even have long cut scenes in a video game too
The tool you have to use is your head. You have to put some form of thought into interacting and you have to have some kind of experience coming out of it to reflect upon what you have just done. what decisions and inputs that the creators have given you for the experience is an art I would say.
Like I say beforehand you have to actually use your brain to interact, reflect, and determine the meaning with a video game like you would use your brain to reflect or determine the meaning, value, purpose of a picture, movie, play, etc. Coming to conclusions about things you experience requie using your brain. There are times when people look at pictures, movies, songs the first time but then listen to it again to see a different meaning or have a different perspective on it. Like videogames people can have different expectations with the outcome of a game when having a different interaction with it. Not everyone has the same eyes or ears so not everyone will like or view a picture or a song in the same kind of way; so like videogames, there is a different kind of interaction with it just like other mediums.

that sentence is a mess I meant to say.

the creator of a videogame has the ability to lead you to a specific end, he also determines the tools you have varying ways of reaching to your end.

Yes you're right. I'm trying to get the point not so much about an ending but about the interaction the developer wants you to have when playing the game. You can reflect upon that experience like you reflect or react to looking at an art piece like any other medium.

I'm sorry I didn't post high level visual design tutorials to illustrate a basic point.

You're making broad assumptions about my character based on nothing because you cant deal with the fact that I called you out.

Try not being a faggot

The fact that you treat that video as learning material is all the proof I need. There are too many faggots like you in the indie scene. We need less of that.

I'm not in any scene and you are still a faggot.

archive.is/nTP2S
tl;dr
Art is about expression and Roger Ebert questions how an interactive medium can preserve its artistic intent. So fags make games that are barely games (barely having meaningful interactions) in order to prove the medium. Also, these fags' idea of a important, meaningful, or groundbreaking game is having the right leftist message.

That is just good old post-modernism.

whats wrong with art?

really, whats wrong with art? concepts cant be destroyed and its a pretty good one. so if its fallen, why would you not want to reclaim it?

Not all movies however. There's no established 1 way to make a movie. There's not 1 established way to make a game either but the only rule a movie has is to be on film. You can't have a game without having inputs. Which aren't art.

Yes but they're still restricted by being manipulated by a person. Which isn't art.
This is where the sentence falls apart. No you don't. At least not in the way you explained it. There's no "reflection" in a game. There's confirmation that something has been manipulated.
No that's just pulling out a list of tools for the player to interact with. If those inputs are given meaning then the assets used to accomplish that meaning is art.

Is that why you're using different words to describe both of them?
By this logic a math equation is art because you used prior experience in learning to solve a question.
Because a person isn't in a static state of mind all the time. Different interpretations come from different context's. That doesn't make the actual tool a form of art though. But a solution to a game is always solved the same way which is by understanding and following the inputs and rules.

Define interaction. You can reflect off of a button input and the success it brings but you don't necessarily gain anything deeper from it. You gain depth if it has a deeper meaning behind it sure but that's only accomplished through artistic assets.

games aren't it, so they don't belong on Holla Forums.

games have some things in common with art, so its not all that ridiculous to see a parallel drawn between them and an attempt to merge them from time to time.
theyre certainly not sports either but people compete with video games as the platform.

Art is a codeword for laziness.

The legal protections afforded via having video games defined as "art" is worth many times more than your pride.
Also, the more attention you give those faggots, the more they're heard. Any attention is good attention for this type of narrative (which btw, isn't a mainstream view).
The only lasting way to counter this is by making the types of games you want to see made, and hopefully influencing other developers (be it current, or future devs).

Lastly, the nice thing about a capitalist market is that if the games suck, have no attention given to them, and lack the essential "game" elements; then if they have a shred of self awareness they'll likely see the error of their ways (be it an unworthy investment of time for profit/time spent ratio, bad reviews, or otherwise).
You'd be surprised at how many people simply don't give a flying fuck about the "games are art" [insert ideology here] narrative, and just want fun video games.

Maybe nowadays, but it wasn't always so.

The true meaning of art was never and will never be an academic subject, just like it's impossible to prove the existence of God using science. But I can be certain that video game isn't art.

There is no spirituality in video games, neither it is purposed to uplift man spiritually. Therefore video games are not and can't be art.

If video game was art, then sports game would be art as well. You might argue that modern games could be considered as art due to the video it contains. Yet, opera and ballet are considered as art but not football and tennis.

Hello jew

What fantasyland do you live in?

who can really say that? you can find spirituality in whatever you wish.i would like to think most Holla Forums anons have a spiritual connection with video games.

the one where video game developers who dont necessarily hail from a rich background exist. you know, the ones that dont get infinite attention for having connections.
i think of more concern is the idea that some games that dont suck might not get the attention they deserve.

I would disagree to that statement
You could say all art is limitied by what a person can do to manipulate it. Can you explain why stage acting is art but the interaction in games is not? The actor on a stage cannot 100% replicate what he did before every single time. sometimes they even interact with the audience.
Sorry if my sentence doesn't make any sense. But what I said in the last post that when you play a game you generate an opinion of it or some idea of it in some way when you play it. Interaction is a part of that general opinion is it not?
those inputs are given meaning as the creator of the game wants you to participate in that said game using those inputs.

I'm writing a lot with these post my bad
I'm saying that, just like videogames, you will automatically have thoughts upon what you are looking, hearing, interacting at, when reflecting upon any other piece of art. like a movie, picture, song, etc. you don't just completely blank out or go brain dead when looking at art.

yes

depending on how you can use it can, and a game can give you many different ways to interact which makes it an art form

I'm using interaction with how you use all the controls and mechanics given to you to play a game.
I'm saying how you look back in shadow of the colossus you are interacting with the actually somewhat peaceful defensive colossi by killing them. How you kill everything in drakenguard with the only tools you have only to realise that you are making the world worse. The way people hoard items in an RPG throughout the whole entire game without using them. They way you can move around in sonic and mario and from that experience go "that was fun trying to reach the goal".

???

If it's 'art' it doesn't have to meet objective standards of quality.

Depends what you're going for.

Difference between shitty artists in the past and shitty artists of today is that shitty artists in the past could paint well, they simply chose not to.

This is a quite good article. There will be a time when walking simulator and immersive sims will be fit to be considered as art, but video games will never be art.

Video game is a form of gratification. The spiritual isn't gratification, the spiritual is something that you truly have faith in, yet transcends yourself.

Depends on what you mean by "shitty". Kubrick could create grandeur visual effects and cinematography, yet his works are devoid of faith.

You don't need to do anything to make Pong art, because Pong is already art, by virtue of being a virtual translation of an existing art, namely tennis.

theres often something divine in all the forces that collaborate to make one. sometimes its almost like its alive. i cant shake that feeling

Roger Ebert doesn't know shit about art, because the audience makes the art, not the artist.

WHY DOSE TRS BRING THERE BULLSHIT HERE? THEY ARE NOT WELCOMED ON Holla Forums THEY SHOULDN'T BE WELCOMED HERE
Holla Forums can fuck right off too btw I am getting sick of you old leftist trying to push that remember when Liberalism was Cool bullshit
do we need to get that Jew mark to Gass some faggots?
WHAT THE FUCK IS WITH THE POST QUALITY LATELY?

It is senpai. N.

To be honest, nothing you posted in this thread makes any sense.

The same people who claim vidya is art now used to laugh at the notion a few decades earlier.

Sage because OP is clearly a brown who can't speak English.

I'm still not entirely sure whether video games should be considered art or not, but they are at very least microcosms of life as a whole.

People here need to watch Jordan Peterson's lectures, not only is this somewhat to what's being discussed here, but it will make you understand the map of all living things and perhaps help you get your life in order.

*somewhat relevant

I only came here to tell you illiterate that "begging the question" and "raising the question" are different things.

The Jews wanted to spread their genocidal poison through games that they'd been spreading through movies and television, but the media foot-soldiers they had trained in academia as "artists" didn't know how to make games. So, they had to get you to accept a flood of "art" types into gaming, and they pushed the art narrative hard and made you defensive about it, and you invited them in so you could show off how your games were art.
Back on 4/v/, there were those of us that tried to shut down those reverse psychology threads and insist games shouldn't be art, but we clearly lost that war.

TBH video games are a jewish invention.

Art is the second biggest buzzword after buzzword itself.

Many of them are Marxists, and bring the Marxist attitude towards art with them.
They want to dismantle meaningful art and replace it with political propaganda and meaningless shapes.
They see games as educational tools rather than entertainment.
They hate meritocracy and resent the self improvement mantra "git gud."
Above all, they see themselves as the Proletariat fighting the evil Bourgeoisie – male gamers and any popular game that doesn't share their ideology.

This exactly.

...

Except there's nothing produced by this manipulation of any merit. With painting you produce a portrait, with games you produce a learned response to a set of rules. Which can't be considered art.

The problem is that nothing is gained from the interaction because there's no actual insight outside of basic teaching to it. Any opinion you could generate from a thought provoking discussion isn't going to reached purely by Pong.

You don't gain any meaning from inputs though. Any meaning you're gaining is from the understanding of how the game functions. How you interpret that largely has to do with the person and the artistic assets applied to the game.

But that interaction isn't stemmed from the game it's stemmed from the player. Those different ways are important if there's an actual artistic asset applied to it. Otherwise the only artistic thought being provoked is from the player who's wondering what the most optimal method to beat the game. Which I would hardly call art.

You see this is my exact point though. If you remove every cutscene, character, narrative, plot element and every art asset in the game and reduce it to wire frame there is no impact felt on the player by any level. If every item in a game was a number or a white block nobody would hoard all of them. And if every element of Sonic was reduced to point A and point B with the same controls and spacial differences it wouldn't be subject to intimate debate among autists everywhere. Players end up getting the most out of the artistic material from a game. Which in turn makes them think that games are art. Games are not art. The assets are art and we assume assets are a game in itself which their not.

I don't consider tennis on the same level of technical detail and nuance as pong. But the "are sports art" debate has been going on for a long time now and I'de rather not compare sports to games which people can barely decide on either.

Videogames have to be fun, engaging and challenging so they require skill, art doesnt have to good or well done to be art, it just needs to be bought by retarded hacks who want to impress their peers.

In other words, you dont have to be skille nor do you have to put a ton of effortd to produce art.

If you were a lazy talentless attention-whoring rich kid what would you chose?.

I wonder who he stole from and which competitors he killed for that title?

Easier to get tax breaks.

Now you know that's simply not true.

And you're pretending like the response of the viewer is what qualifies something as art. Art continues to exist even if no-one observes it. It's the craftsmanship and engineering skill of the artisan that makes it so.

He didn't invent video games, but home console or at least the industrialization of it was certainly his idea.

Yet there's still nothing to discuss from it. Hence it's not art. It's a product of inputs and mathematical decisions and planning that you can make to be more efficient. If Cookie Clicker was a series of numbers and buttons with the same sequence nobody would be making meme videos all over the fucking place and it would not be nearly as popular. What deep provoking thought is gained from a game like cookie clicker that has nothing to do with cookies anyway?

Let them push it. They're digging their own grave, as art in modern times is supposed to be above censorship. Can't ban those sexist violent racist gaems because muh creative freedom. I myseld don't give much of a shit, though.

Holy fuck you are one dense motherfucker. It doesn't matter whether anyone talks about it or not. Talking about modern "art" isn't suddenly going to turn it into a real work of art and a Caravaggio still retains its beauty even when put in storage and forgotten.

All art is - all it means - is craftsmanship. Quality. Most high-quality art doesn't really have any meaning at all and trying to substitute "meaning" in place of actual craftsmanship is what allowing fine art to be turned into a money laundering scam in the first place.

And if you think people played Cookie Clicker because of the cookies theme you really are an idiot. That part of it is completely arbitrary and could have been anything (and has been turned into almost everything between all the imitators).

Does it matter? Honestly these arguments over definitions are best left to the useless academics who will waste their life on them.
If I were a let's say a painter I would never paint with the intention of making 'art'. I would paint in order to make something from my mind reality or to imitate life with my hand or something like that and I would want to do it to my best ability. I think people who try to create with the intention of making art don't end up making art. I think They end up making crap.

except for this guy. the entire "GAMES are ART" push came from a tiny bush of lefty think tanks paying dicksucks like Kotaku and RPS to push their message, we learned this from the leaks.
moneymaking scheme via education grants.

You're missing my point. It's not if nobody discusses it, it's that it's not capable of generating discussion of anything thought provoking by itself outside of numbers and data.

A well made brick wall is art then? This is why art's been trash for a while now.

So basically art is not art then? Basing it off what you just said. If you can't claim any actual significant meaning from something simply because it has none, it's not art. If it's bad art then it's a shoddy job. A shoddy game at it's most basic still isn't art though. It might just be an arbitrary set of rules that make no sense. Like up being left or a missing upgrade gap in cookie clicker.

Which is exactly why it proves my point. If the game were worth discussing on its own there wouldn't be need for so many changes made just to fit a theme now would there? Also try and answer that question I asked. What significant meaning can you actually take out of cookie clicker without mentioning anything about cookies? The only thing I can think of is that it manipulated a person into staying hooked on a very simple process of gradual accumulation and "treats". However this becomes pretty transparent if you were to say, just show every upgrade available in the game without hiding them. Which is a good example of an aesthetic choice over a pure input driven one. Basically, If you saw every upgrade available in the game you would have no inclination to actually continue since you knew what was ahead. But what lies ahead is usually the same thing, but with flavor text and a re-colored sprite. Your entire reason for progressing in the game is to see what happens next. If you were denied this and and were forced to play the game with no art or dialog at all are you really going to tell me you would think the same of the game? And if you really want to go far out and say that you look forward to the "changes" in the game as you progress (which are barely changes but for the sake of argument lets assume they flip the game on it's head) then you're still not getting anything worth discussing about it on a deeper level. All it would manage to do is alternate gameplay. But without any cosmetic approaches to it there's no substance of actual debate or insight on any behavior. There's nothing in it to correlate to what art has always been, any meaning somebody would give it would be entirely dependent on them.

I guess there's a reason why the phrase "interpretation of art" is so fucking touchy these days. Based on you're you could essentially interpret just about anything as art. Based on mine I'de say the word has its limitations. As the Romans said if there's no aesthetic quality in the product, it's not art. And I genuinely don't think a system of rules and basic or even sophisticated input interaction qualifies as an aesthetic product. Just as a means to engage in the more artistic assets while along the ride with the more basic building blocks that is the core game. It's 7 in the morning I'll try to continue this later after I sleep assuming I don't get called in for work, it's been fun

because they suck at video games and want to be recognized as an "adult". People like this don't get taken seriously when they voice their uneducated opinions about older entertainment media like movies or literature, but video games are still young compared to those so when a game comes out that ignores traditional gameplay rules to tell some shitty story the people in the industry who don't make games and can't play games see this shit and go "FINALLY A MATURE GAME, AS YOU KNOW I'M A MATURE PERSON AND PREFER MATURE THINGS SO THIS IS GREAT 🤔🤔🤔"

games aren't art, but there is an art to making a good game. the thing is those artforms are level design, enemy placement and AI, how the in game world functions depending on player actions, creating satisfying feedback for a player through only visual/audio stimulus and maybe rumble feature. there is so much cool shit that goes on while making a -GOOD- game that just goes completely over the heads of these artschool wannabes

Video games are art, it is an art form. It's just another medium to express an idea, an ideal, an emotion, tell a story, etc. Saying "video games are art" doesn't mean that all video games have to be like one particular work.

Your System Shock, your Rapelay, your Bayonetta? They're not going to disappear just because video games are considered to be an artform. Just like not every game is going to be come Flower, Hohokum or Katawa Shoujo.

If a medium being considered art meant that all of the medium had to conform to one work or template, then all movies would be Citizen Kane, all music would be Beethoven, all pictures would be Leonardo da Vinci. All books would be Pride and Prejudice.

That's not the case. If you think that video games are not art because you're afraid that it means your favorite game types will disappear, you're a fucking idiot and should neck yourself.

You forgot the necessary intent. Only things that were created to be art are art, and that only some of them (those succeeding at reaching their goal). It's like there is no murder without the criminal intent behind the killing.

Fuck off, /leftykike/. You're not fooling anyone.

And sadly, artists trolling for attention with ugliness incarnate are successful at that, because they succeed at pissing you off with their shitty creations.

correct, but the danger in labeling games as art with reckless abandon, or praising "art" games that actually suck is it can cause good developers to feel that they might need to push story or cinematic elements more than actually fun and interesting game design

So are propaganda, political speeches, newspaper columns, etc. I think to classify something as art, we must understand what the inherent purpose of art is.

The main purpose of propaganda pieces and political speeches are to attract people to be in agreement with an idea. Newspaper articles, first and foremost, are written to spread information, but editors will decorate them with extra things that will appeal or entertain their readers.

Now regarding video games, the main purpose of video game is to entertain, mostly by delivering challenge, but any kind of interactivity in video games exist for the purpose of entertaining people. Of course some devs try to put art in their games, but those things are complimentary compared to the main purpose, which is to let the player have fun. A game that strays away from it's main purpose comes off as underwhelming.

The purpose of art is wholly different, art exists to make people think beyond themselves, to express spiritual hope that transcends the tormenting existence of life. How can you read Dostoevsky and Kafka and conclude that those were entertaining reads? How can you laugh at a Pieter Bruegel painting? How can you dance to a Bach music? The purest of all art is devoid of the fantastic, but very rich in spirituality, an expression of the emotional and psychological condition of the artist and a question of the meaning of life. On a side note, I consider modern art to be closer to propaganda pieces than true art.

This is why video games can never be art and should never be.

Did cinema being recognized as art stop fun and interesting movies? Did books being recognized as art stop fun and interesting novels?

People can talk about shit all day and that won't turn it into art. There's an entire industry based around it. Museum installations of garbage and menstrual paintings are very good at getting people to discuss them - and I'm sure if you asked the "artist" they'd tell you all about what it's supposed to "mean" - but have no artistry to them. With no skill or craftsmanship they can't be called art. Of course the brick wall is art. Architecture, stonemasonry and structural engineering are each artforms and as the finished building is a work of art (if it's been made skilfully enough) so too is each component (unless it's conspicuously shit, a blemish).

Now you're getting it. People conflate "meaning" and "significance" with quality but a painting doesn't have to be meaningful or significant to be great art, only beautiful. That beauty comes from the hand and skill of the painter. And in a game, the primary aesthetic quality comes from the rules (they absolutely are an aesthetic product), made by the designers and programmers.

People have been making games for millennia and it's a craft as much as any other. There are new aspects of digital games compared to traditional games, sure, but the core of a game is still the rules and making them is still a skilled craft: An art.

Threads like this are pretty fun. There are a lot of opinions and the only thing anyone seems to agree on is that "art games" are total shit.

It's impossible to read minds. Practical things can be aesthetic, so there isn't a clear distinction. Once we have the artifact, it's up to us to judge its quality to determine whether or not it really is a work of art.

Art is ultimately a subset of engineering.

And then there's this guy.

Oh boy…. Define spirituality. And is every art piece questioning the meaning of life? I can also question the meaning of life after being inspired so by a quantum mechanics textbook. Does that make it art?

Art is art and you should all just leave it at that. Don't even fucking try to go any deeper because I guarantee if you're spending your free time on Holla Forums you don't have the intellect necessary to properly mull this over.

I think art doesn't have the purpose of being art like a meme (from the good ol' days) doesn't have the purpose of becoming a meme, modern art is forced art

...

Well, even if we can't read minds, that doesn't stop judges from inferring the intent behind the actions of the accused, does it? Notice the similarity.

MONEY.
Art grants, government funding, stipends, extra programs to "teach" vidya to underprivileged youths. It's all about money and power.

This nigga gets it. Good art doesn't try to be art it just ends up being so. In the same way vidya can be art but doesn't need to try to be.

Depends on how you understand "trying to be art". Trying to convey something meaningful to the one experiencing it, trying to bring a specific reaction out of him is the meaning behind "trying to be art", not asking for a label "Look how artsy I am!"

And there is a difference between mere 'art' and 'good art'.

The more direct engagement with the artists ideas through gameplay. From the tv screen you use down to the controller you hold. It is all an important component in forming your experience with the game in question. Movies, theater, books are more passive by default compared to games. And I feel the direct engagement is the key that holds it all together.

Ironically these art games do their HARDEST to remove that aspect robbing the game of its one true unique ability. Besides every medium goes through its shit phase, trying to find its core aspects and expanding upon it in a meaningful way. Though vidya being a technologically dependent medium might hamper it just a tad. But I feel that would be solved by the forward march of technological progress.

Because modernist fucktards push the angle that beauty is subjective (it's not) and therefore fully relative. Meaning anything can be good art. In the same sense, anything can be a good game if games are art. It's an attempt to push "objective evaluation of games is impossible" just like they try push the same thing with art (which is why modern art is terrible, often being shit that had LITERALLY been taken out of a trashcan. Try visiting your local gallery and you'll see just what pathetic pieces are on display. Yes, this makes me mad.)

Quite literally. Taken from google: relating to or affecting the human spirit or soul as opposed to material or physical things.

It is to be "above" yourself. Like for example, why do you do good for other people? Do you expect to be repaid by them, or is it because of love? The spiritual man would answer that it was because of love. Why does love exist even though it's technically non-beneficial to yourself? Because love transcends yourself. Why do people believe in God even though they can't see them in any way? Because their faith transcends themselves. Art exists within this frame.

As a metaphor. Even when the meaning of life is unspoken, art marks and explores our existence.

Take it this way. However profound his ideas of the world may be, an artist has the emotion and psychology of a child. Quantum mechanic is too hard and insensitive to be art.

...

i KNOW I had the full image/screencap of it saved, but I can't find it for the life of me. I would've never deleted it though why can't I find it??

Anyway, here's the archive of the thread at least.

archive.is/Wf6KC

I fully believe video games are art, but then I don't think art is a term or endearment. A child's shitty drawing is technically art, and even most professional art these days is shit. If it keeps the pretentious art fucks away from my favourite passtime, I'm happy for video games to never be formally recognised as art, even though they are.

B-b-b-but I'm a geeeeeeeek. Don't you want games to transcend mysognistic trash culture and resemble a michael bay/hans zimmer/nike cage flick?

oh boy

What is art?
And who really cares?

A lot of this is some people wanting a piece of a pie that they can never earn. They want to be called "artists" so they broaden the term "art" to include anything that their talent-less arse can do with minimum effort. It reminds me of the people trying to turn STEM into STEAM (A being Art) so that they can be considered in the same field as people who actually earned it and do shit without themselves actually doing anything. Maybe they're both linked.

Also it seems like they never really grown up and are still self-conscious about what other people think. But rather change what they are, they want to change the world opinion so they don't have to change.

We have no common ground to discuss then. I subscribe to philosophical materialism. Rejection of Plato's cave and so on. Ideas have no independent existence from their medium to me, including human soul. Dropping the subject.

Not every game is art, but games can be art.
Not every motion picture is art, but motion pictures can be art.
Not every book is art, but books can be art.
Not every painting is art, but paintings can be art.
Not every song is art, but songs can be art.
Not every sculpture is art, but sculptures can be art.
Not every dance is art, but dancing can be art.
Et cetera.

This user gets it. The issue with whether games are art or not only causes controversy because "art" as people understand it today is a hister circlejerk about how shitstained toilet-paper perfectly depicts the essence of transcendent soul or something like that. Actual art is merely an otherwise ordinary object that had been made with exceptional quality. Mona Lisa is a painting and is a piece of art. A middle schooler's art project is a painting too, but it's not an art (unless the middle schooler is extraordinarily skilled). In that sense, yes, anything can be art. At the same time, however, almost nothing is, since few items reach extraordinary levels of quality.

Surely a well running system with well designed and working mechanics can be considered code poetry. Because it takes talent and effort to make this and one should be impressed how you convinced a box to do this for you.

I dislike this guy. He rants about how hard he made his dragon instead of telling why the dragon is so meaningful to him. The blowjob sculptor probably got there because he's emotionally better articulated about his art than the skyrim autist. Picasso and Warhol made bad art, but they were praised for their interesting views, not their art. If you want to be a more successful artist, you better know what you're doing and be able to convince people that what you're doing is emotionally meaningful.

Beauty (as in the more visible surface) is subjective. However, modern artists don't want to sacrifice themselves for beauty and instead surrender to ugliness.

Might as well not exist at all.

My definition of art is a product of creativity designed purely to entertain. As far as I can see it that's the only definition that works, and isn't based on vague subjective ideas like "does it inspire awe?". So in my mind all video games are art, all books, movies, songs, paintings, drawings, sculptures, and so on are art, but art doesn't really mean anything special. It's a simple, functional descriptive word like "tool" or "food".

You're getting close, but you're definition requires any and all creative works be art regardless of intent of the creator.

Rather, video games can be art. Just as paintings, sculptures, and movies can be art. But just the same they can not be art. Similarly, they can not be art. They can just be entertainment instead. On top of this, art isn't any quantifier of quality, it merely describes the purpose for the creative work. Whether or not the work is good or bad for its intended purpose is based on its own merits.

Can you faggots stop this "beauty is subjective" meme? The reasons we find something pleasing can be traced to our primal instincts and is a way of understanding the world around us.

Beauty can be, to a certain degree, objectivelly evaluated. It's why most people can agree that, say, a sunset is beautiful. I spent several years doing writing as a hobby, taking it seriously with textbooks and mentors and all, and there sure as hell ARE objective criteria. Things like "show, don't tell", proper ways of attributing speech, usage of certain words depending on the emotional context of the scene, etc. The only thing that couldn't be objectivelly evaluated was the premise, since everyone has a certain genre or topic that they preffer, and that they'll jerk themselves sore over even if the actual execution is sub-par. That alone is, however, not more than, say, 20% of the actual "grade" a person would give said text. A good author can make a premise appealing and engaging even to someone who doesn't care for the topic one bit. Sadly, hacks today instead seek out the topics that have the widest possible following (it's called "trends"), write a terribly shitty book that they then sell to their target group, and when they get called out on their writing being absolute shit, they go and say that you can't say that since it's all subjective and that since people buy their shit it means it has to be good and so on. Fuck that.

For all his faults, I like Miyamoto's approach to videogames. Games are toys to entertain designed mechanically and thoughtfully.

They are art.
Not all videogames are art because some aim at commercialism rather than beauty or artistic merit, but some are, and some definitely were before the agenda started.

Games are art but "art games" are shit.

You mean "art" as a form of creative and stylistic expression, which is what most normal people understand art as. Intentionally trying to create something that represents something else through the "artist's" skills.

What college hipsters, post modernist cunts, and cultural marxists say is art is.. anything. Effort and final result are irrelevant, because what matters is the gesture or the intent. Saying you are doing something is more important than actually conveying that something. This is where we have the major breakdown in communication and growing gap between self-appointed experts and leaders in academia, and the rest of the world that lives in reality.

How do you define a objectively attractive arrangement of coloured oils on a canvas? You can't mate with them. You can't eat them. You can't use them as tools or wear them. Where's the objective value?

Well obviously there has to be a product. Art is a thing. You can't just embody art.

Skill, effort, and creativity alone don't make art. However, an effortless artist who's eager to improve his skill and become creative, is unfit to create an artwork. An artist must first have faith in his most prophetic vision, his most humble emotions, and his responsibility as an artist.

Yet it's still subjective, but artists must not deny their instincts.

Cormac McCarthy's The Road can be academically dismissed as incoherent and entirely grammatically incorrect. Many of Gogol's writings use crude peasant language and are technically disjointed. Late Medieval painters and iconographers couldn't draw correct perspective and anatomy. Bruegel The Elder drew objectively ugly looking paintings. Yet, beyond the surface, they created beautiful art.

Contrary to your opinion, I think the premise is easier to be judged objectively than how a piece of art is presented. Not in a systematic way of course, but we have the ability know how deep the premise is. To be objective it has to be systematic, but no system can dictate an art. Too much system and it'll come out as lifeless, banal, and uninspired instead.

Some men find Red Cars beautiful and Blue Cars hideous.
Some people find an ocean to be boring, while a park to be beautiful and vice versa.
Some men find attaching every part they can buy to their cars.

Some men find hideously fat women attractive.
Some men find hideously skinny women attractive.
The problem is not that beauty is subjective.

The problem is that society tells us that it's subjective, then proceeds to mock people for having their own preferences– then on top of the mocking attempt to enforce a hivemind of mutual understanding of what is and what is not good beautiful aka a bunch of faggots making designer dresses for me.

ie, we come back to what's been said eariler in the thread.

You think our instincts lay out an objective view of the world? Don't you understand how insane that claim is, and how easily that could get out of hand? And whose instincts are you going to trust to get the right answer, for starters? In what way are you going to prove something is "beautiful" as an universal truth that can't be argued against, the same way that 2+2=4?

Beauty IS subjective, you can argue we have developed a sophisticated criteria to determine that since the dawn of humankind. The problem with post-modernism is that it tries to destroy value systems that have helped us in the past, but that still doesn't imply objectivity. To be objective, you have to strip away all value and preconceived notions from things, it's a tool only used to tell us about the material world.

This idea we're hyper-rational beings needs to die. Seriously, watch Peterson's lectures.

Probably because they really like the shitfests that art and movies have become, and want gaming to become one as well.

Yes they do. You're full of idealistic bullshit; your opinion on art is like that of a fifteen years old girl's on romance.

All of the things you listed either break certain rules on purpose, which is fully alowed and actually covered by said rules, or would be improved had they not contained said errors. I said a thing has to be of extraordinary quality, not that it has to be flawless.

There are objectively attractive things. A healthy woman is obviously a better mother for your child than a rotting corpse, unless you're a fucking crazy person. It's harder to pin that objectivity down when it comes to art though.

That 1st car's pretty nice

It's not, only a woman is something everyone knows, whereas art is not. Had you focused on art, studied it, and practiced it, you'd find the objective criteria are very apparent.

...

You are retarded. Maybe you should unlearn reading and writing so that you aren't indocrinated into it anymore, and can't make these retarded posts.

Even if you take just production art and ignore the liberal crap you'll find that there are some technical things that just work better than others like with lighting, colors and composition. The post modern propagandists are the ones trying to do away with those things.

To a Muslim, the Koran being the most perfect book ever written seems to be self evident.

How do they work better? Will they produce children for me, fill my stomach, keep me warm in the winter?

I like the owner of the second car, for his sense of humor and figurative balls' size.

Composition determines the focus post and how the viewer's attention flows, you can use colors to make things pop out. Lighting can be the difference between an illustration of horror or serenity. That stuff.

Next you're going to tell me that Kubrick was a good artist.

What rule? Rule of writing? Art breaks superficial objectivity such as rules, rules only exist to make something comprehensible.

Now you're just switching topics to something entirely different, and you're also wrong. Holy books are considered to be absolutely truthful, but few claim them to be the pinnacle of art – even at a ursory glance, their writing style and wording are hopelessly outdated and often difficult to read. To make sure, I asked a muslim friend of mine right now about whether Quran is the most perfect book ever written, and while he maintained that it is fully truthful, he wouldn't call the writing perfect. Checkmate, faggot.

What if someone just doesn't see it? If it all looks ugly to them. Are they wrong?

Common key mistake: The Koran wasn't written, it was willed by Allah, who by nature is infallible and perfect. Mohammad who couldn't read nor write was the instrument for this will.

-t. baconlover.

If they don't react to visual stimuli the same way others do then they probably some sort of disorder.

No you faggot. There are plenty of rules on how to make a good text. Maybe if you actually went and researched the topic instead of making baseless statements, you'd know.

Videogames are art despite your politics.

They exist as recommendations, not rules. Unless it's for scientific essays, but we're talking about art. I'm not saying that art should ignore recommendations, but art doesn't need the rigidness of objective rules.

You fools, you should be the one saying that video games are art and that they have no right to censor art. They are the one trying to restrict artistic freedoms and you are just playing by their rules.

Videogames are entertainment and should regarded as such.

anyone that peddles the videogames are art narrative is either insecure of enjoying videogames as nothing more than electronic toys or a liberal arts major attempting to co-opt videogames to peddle their shit videogames, call it art, and get praised by polygon, kotaku, etc. and revel in that sweet money for no amount of effort.

They are called "recommendations" because they can be broken, as I already mentioned before, but that is mostly semantics. These "recommendations" are there to guide you in the right direction. Once you understand why those recommendations exist, what the reasoning behind them is and what they're trying to teach you, you can of course disregard them as then you'll be able to form more flexible rules of your own.

I see videogames as electronic toys and toys are fun.

Toys are art.

Oh shit nigger what are you doing.
Recently, a webcomic artist. Owlturd deleted his comic because it compared Skill to Talent.
ie, he had a building base of skill and hardwork, while strawman had a floating cloud of talent that brought him up to his level.
The comment section essentially tore him a new asshole because you need, skill , talent , effort and connections to make it in the modern drawing world.

You're both correct.
Videogames can be both.

Rather than fight that it should only be one or the other, we should be gathering the pieces of gaming that are equal to Mozart while avoiding the Duchamps and Pollocks.

But that's not the definition of objective.

Am I supposed to consider anything made by a guy called owl turd to be art?

Dropped.

Is erotic "literature", like this example, also art?
literotica.com/s/the-bond-1

Hey, at least it's better than modern art.

...

...

Top kek lad.

[f]art

Appabend and Sargon both discussed this on Youtube. A game can become a work of art, but it cannot be a work of art or a art piece.

Others in this thread have also stated the same opinion of Appabend almost word for word. The people who want video games to be elevated to "art" status are the ones who want to create shitty games laden with propaganda and have said game protected from bad reviews by calling it art.

I'm just going to say I have to disagree with you on this

different input schemes from fighting games to RTS to action platformers to DDR can have high skill and execution. how much of a mistake they were or not, they created an art of execution and interaction which does deserve some merit. How the game functions is a part of the game, part of the art. you can strip every part down of a medium to a single color, stroke, word, scene, singular actor. From observing that one thing would be meaningless to what it originally was because there is so much more to the original piece. Everything you do as interaction I would say is stemmed from the game because the game gives you its decided tools from it and by how good they are and/or how well they help you interact with the game determine the games quality as well.
There are ways to speedrun through a game or kill a final boss, but sometimes there might be newer ways discovered to that goal. An optimized way to beat isn't always set in stone, if it is, it negatively affects the quality of the game. I could speedrun my way through a mario level but I wouldn't get the full experience of exploring each secret level. I could just rush through and get to the end of ninja gaiden and bayonetta but I could miss out on using all of the weapons. I could use an OP spell in an RPG but miss out on using other spells to see how it affects enemies. The optomized way will not give you the whole picture of a game. If it does I would say that game is ridiculously simple and will not stand up to higher quality videogames.

I could optimize my way of looking at all of Michelangelo painting's by copy pasting them side by side into one big painting by looking at them all at once, or having a wikiread of each painting as I look through each one to get the meaning and the styling of it. I could optimize my way of looking at every painting by looking at a color wheel, exaggerated case but you can say optimize but is that with, speed, meaning? I think you can optimize on one part but miss out on the other parts of the entire experience.

I just gotta disagree with you user

I've never really thought about videogames in this perspective and it has been insightful. I guess this is why we have this conversation. Too bad no one in the industry has conversations like this, we might actually get better videogames if they did.

I know a stereo when I see one Satan.

wew lad

...

Or Mohammed just got some poor schmuck to write all of his illiterate ramblings.

Considering that it's the same poster that thinks Todd Howard is a visionary, it's not that surprising.

So what would be the vidya equivalent of this piece of modern art?

I wouldn't start putting up walls around the term "game" and what it must entail, because putting things in lockers only helps in the critical theorist cunts to break it down even more. Monkey Island has no fail state, is it not a game etc. etc. Is a fail state something that is inherent in the game or does it only mean a block in your path of progress? What if there was a room with 1,000,000 enemies that took half of your life to beat. You couldn't die completely, but you couldn't progress until you beat them. Is that a fail state et. etc. yadayada. Don't go that road, it only makes the faggots hungrier to break down meaning.

...

Without a fail state you don't have even a pretense of challenge, only an 'experience'.

Computation is just the transformation of information, games just put in the player(s) as middleman

But do you then think there should be a different market for "games" and "experiences"? It's what I've been thinking about with all the VNs and walking simulators around, but does deviating from the term "game" do any good? Well, you could argue that if all that shit were "experience" instead then they couldn't be marketed as games and would make it more easy to shit on non-games.

As I have mentioned elsewhere several times, a game is good if it possesses these three qualities:
challenge, immersion, replay value/replayability. Do you know any VN or walking simulator with at least two of those?

Get the fuck out of here.
Call me fanny flustered , call me booty bedazzled, but fuck posting Duchamp and calling it art.

Technically, there is an art to making a video game that many people would enjoy. I would compare it to architecture (which IS an art) more than painting.

Proper build quality takes skill, and aesthetic design requires creativity. You need both of these things to get good at an art.

Aside from what has already been posted, the "video games as art" movement has been pushed by aficionados who play story-driven games and want to feel sophisticated in doing so, but have been ignored because video games have largely been viewed as toys for children.

They are people desperate for recognition while the grand majority of players don't need recognition.

Don't agree. Even with a lack of craftsmanship you can still make a painting and call it art. Whether it actually has something of interest to be considered art is what would stick. Those shit liberal art students who bleed over their canvases I would call art by technicality. That doesn't make it good art however. But it does try to create a narrative and a message. Doesn't make it worth a god damn though.
There's nothing to get. If you're saying only what you think of as art is art because it has talent in it then you're being arbitrary. Everything that has effort and craftsmanship put into it isn't art. It's just fine craftsmanship.
Rules aren't art. We've been over this. There's no deeper meaning in rules to see them as beautiful or thought provoking. They only exist to serve assets which in themselves might be considered art. But I'm not going to consider rules art because they hold no meaning outside of manipulation. You have to pretty much call a match equation art if you're going to say that games are art. And anybody who does that is to far gone to reason with.
Not really. You get nothing philosophical or deeper behind a game. There's no avenue of discussion from it. We've been over it again and again, if it's made to serve a basic function without forming some sort of alternative narrative or meaning it's not art.

I wouldn't say code is the same thing as a game though.

It feels like you're shoehorning the word art in there for no reason. The execution and interaction may be considered an art but I would not consider the actual controls and input to be an art.

You're confusing assets and a base game.

Does a sum of everything without the game elements still make it a game? The artistic value you take away from a game is purely on the assets that have nothing to do with the actual game. You can't say that moving left or right is an artistic motive. But you can say moving left or right to dodge a missile has an artistic motivation. But the missile has nothing to do with the game being a game.

Assuming the tools are the inputs at your leisure then those tools are only in service to artistic assets. I know I say that word "assets" a lot but it really is everything that separates a game from art. I would not consider a tool art. I would consider the person who uses that tool in an amazing way perhaps a little artful. But I would not consider a perfect brick wall art so much as the brick layer a master crafstman.

"looking" is not done in the same capacity as "playing" a game. When you're playing your obeying rules to a set method of play. When you're "looking" your grasping for meaning at something on a level that isn't a puzzle. With your speedrunning rant I get the same thing. You can move faster in a game, but I would not call that art. Just finding a quicker method to navigate through a game. The effort put into it might be considered artistic as it's a lot of difficulty to usually get to a speedrunning point but I would not consider it art so much as dedication to playing a game.

That's fine. I'm pretty sure we won't agree no matter how long this goes on for.

(checked)
Well we're obviously never going to agree since we have completely different conceptions of "art".

Yes. That's literally what "art" means. I disagree that it has to have any kind of meaning (or spiritual component like that other user suggested), and I think identifying art by meaning rather than skill is part of what lead to the decline of the fine arts.

But we'll never see eye to eye. It was nice talking to you.

Is the act of skinning a hunted animal art as well? It requires skill and practice to do that well and considerably fast. If not, what does it lack to be considered art?

Virtue Signaling Amongst The Company.

Read up on the CIA and Modern Art.

Here.

so to you a "good artist" is completing one of history's oldest and most basic cons, convincing other people you know more than them.
(sage for lame thread, not spite)