Why is it that musicians and music fans tend to be comrades whereas gamers tend to be reactionaries? What is so inherently revolutionary in the concept of art and what is so inherently reactionary in the concept of mere entertainment for children?
Why is it that musicians and music fans tend to be comrades whereas gamers tend to be reactionaries...
Other urls found in this thread:
Games are art. They also heavily feature music, some of the best made in fact. And it's made for adults not children; the average age of a gamer is mid 30s.
Sounds like you should get to know some gamers in person and not spend so much time online.
Video game industry. Look at the types of games most people play, gears of war, metal gear solid, call of duty, halo. It’s all patriotic and pro military. Breeds reactionaries innately.
Conversely musicians deal with crazy exploitation from the industry. Whereas gamers are overwhelmingly consumers and not innately exploited
Nope, video games are not art. They are children's entertainment. Read Hegel
Children's entertainment is art.
I agree with bit i still like to play bideogames
Nope. Again, read Hegel
They are art. And they're made for people in their mid 30s not children. Hegel had nothing to say about an art form that didn't exist in his time.
Read the leftyvr thread
Personally I think it is beca-
Namefags will be killed in the revolution.
"Art is the Idea in intuitive form. Games as such, the concoction of mere children, are a contingent conception and are unfit to embody the Idea.—Games are nothing more than the free bacchanalian play of reason positing arbitrary rules and ends according to mere subjective whim; they are determined by nothing but mere feeling rather than an objective principle of reality. The Universal of the game is posited by and for the subject, and is for-us and not for-itself. Such a childish concept—if we would stoop ourselves so low as to consider it even worthy of the abstract concept—cannot embody the Idea as art does. Could one craft a game that includes the elements of beauty and the the freedom of the Concept? Certainly, but that would be no different than dressing a Javanese monkey in the finest and most beautiful of European dresses finished with a string of pearls and face powder. The monkey would be external to the beauty of what it wears, and likewise the game is external to the art which it disgifures in its shape."
–Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Lectures on Aesthetics
kek, you're namedropping games you've never seen. MGS is extremely anti war and everyone with a modicum of loyalty to nations winds up being shafted in the interests of an elite, and Gears of War displays the government as extremely unpopular and corrupt.
I feel like for many games what you/hegel say is true, yo are mistakingly assuming all video games are the same. I believe there are indeed video games that can be considered art. This is the same with movies, I consider Saving Private Ryan art and all the marvel movies just entertainment for (man)children
halo and gears aren't that popular anymore.
Most games aren't technically works of art because they're mostly made by craftsmen who aren't trying to use the medium as a way to express themselves.
because gamers are fucking retarded
trust me, i autisted out over an unhealthy amount of vidya when i was a fucking idiot and a reactionary. then i read a book
Care to name one game where the 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧game🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 is necessary to the art part? The story, the visuals, the sound, the voices, etc. Are independent of the game aspect in every game people claim is art.
Marx would disagree with you:
“Equality as mutually substitutable individuals is equality by virtue of a false abstraction. For what is crucial about human beings is the variety and plenitude of their talents and functions. The cultural richness and depth of society is a reflection not of mere numbers of individuals, equal and undifferentiated, but of the opposite. Thus to fix on equality as a critical concept is a sign of intellectual mediocrity that cannot cope with the problem of unity and difference.”
–Marx in a private letter to Engels
I can do this all day
Funny thing is games exist that fit his definition and they're terrible, mostly the walking simulator genre.
Also he failed to realize that subjectively crafting arbitrary rules is an art in of itself. Forgivable as game design wasn't an artistic field that existed in his time.
So maybe you should actually read his quote and realize that games have no need to be art and are just different.
But he said games cannot be art. A game could not exist that does this because it wouldn't be a game. It would be like watching a movie or walking through an art gallery.
You're using a different definition of art, the typical nihilist view that art doesn't really exist, that it is whatever we call it. To be very skilled does not make anything an art. "The art of war", "the art of the steal, " and things like these were originally not meant in any deep sense. They were meant in the sense of artisan crafts, or hand made products. All things that men produce can logically be called art as artisanry. Art here is meant as a skill of production, not of any meaningful expression such as what art became understood as after the enlightenment.
Games are not just a random fact of life. They are the pinnacle of bourgeois decadence driving us further and further away from the revolution. To achieve true freedom, they must go.
IMO this is attacking the symptom rather than the disease. Compared to music, gaming in general (especially PC gaming) tends to have a much higher bar to entry because of the hardware necessary to play modern games. In other words, while anyone could buy a secondhand guitar or pirate some songs off the net, gamers are usually comfortable upper-middle-class folk with decent amounts of disposable income.
I feel as if you could apply this as a rule of thumb throughout the gaming community; the console and laptop gamers tend to be liberals, but Holla Forumsirgins with high-powered rigs tend to be more conservative. Combine this with the large contingent of PC gamers who work as computing professionals, as well as an overall culture of elitism, and it's not hard to see why a number of folks on Reddit and especially both Holla Forums's are reactionary.
Also, that whole GamerGate hullabaloo sure didn't help.
Cryin' shame. I'd reckon I spent a quarter of my high school years playing Custom Games on Halo 3.
Hot take, brah. I hope you know that most gamers are actually liberal.
Ever heard of Journey? If not, fuck off and go play it.
Do you unironically believe in the liberal/conservative dichotomy? Why are you hating on gamergate when it exposed a lot of bourgeois nastiness within the journalism industry?
Video games ARE the disease. They sustain the idleness and hedonistic decadence holding us back from revolution harder than any other aspect of modern life.
They teach the people that violence is not only a necessary fact of life, but a great pleasure. This fetishism of violence has long been an essential component of the fascist ideology, as displayed by Marinetti's Manifesto of Futurism and Sorel's Reflections on Violence.
Yes I have. Even it is not free from Hegel's critique of games.
Man, I was part of GamerGate back in the day. In the long run, it hasn't done jack shit. Regardless of whether it turned the tide against IDPol liberals in the industry, all it really boiled down to was a collective harassment and defamation campaign against people we didn't like. Meanwhile, companies like EA still achieve multi-million dollar day-one revenue on titles like Star Wars: Battlefront and their yearly sports games. If its original aim was to instill class consciousness in the community, it failed miserably.
I bailed around a month after the alt-right co-opted it.
Shut up already.
But Journey is not a game. It's literally a giant gallery room. This is the kind of misunderstanding that thinks nature is artistic because it is pretty and amazes you, because it makes you FEEEEEEL something. Art conveys a concept, not a feeling. Take an art appreciation class user, this view of art is nothing but a postmodern bougie meme. The classicals, the ancient, and the Renaissance artists did not make art that was simply pretty, but had an immense amount of conceptual structure to convey.
You cannot deny the fact that the 86% of mass shooters in the past decade have been avid gamers. Nor can you deny that 93% of users on Holla Forums identify as gamers.
Nor can I care, man. But if you wanna waste your time debating whether games are art, that's fine by me.
Vidya isolates, as where music forms sub cultures, and brings people together.
TBH, pulling up Hegel quotes in regards to modern video games is pretty asinine. Games in Hegel's time were nowhere near as sophisticated. They didn't have unique, often orchestral soundtracks. They didn't involve countless hours of digital sculpture and animation. The games he talked about WERE the province of children for the most part, but to consider his views to be equally valid on modern games, you'd have to be under the delusion that games have not gotten more complex in the last 200-some odd years.
Nice quote. I like those threads that start with claiming something as established fact (here: conservatism more prevalent among gamers than in the general population) without anything to back that up, and then asking people to "analyze" how this "came to be". You can analyze all you want, if the assumption you start with is wrong, this is like, to borrow from Hegel, "dressing a Javanese monkey in the finest and most beautiful of European dresses"; and that you yourself brought up that quip doesn't stop Hegel's monkey metaphor from applying to you.
Doesn't this already preclude what you just claimed? What are video games other than games with the dressings of artisan trades? What does the game itself add that is itself artistic?
By that line of logic, when you cook a meal, what does the preparation and combination of the food add that eating the ingredients separately doesn't?
Likening modern games to a monkey dressed in finery is not an accurate comparison. These are not elements that have been draped over a game to fancy it up, these are elements that were often designed for the game from an early point, and often the game itself provides the impetus for their creation, or the context which allows them to carry meaning.
Beyond that, I'd point out how modern games are elegant tapestries of advanced math, which is artful in and of itself. This isn't the same as playing cards with nice art and good music, we are at the point where we are simulating worlds. The things we produce are beyond what Hegel could have envisioned when he spoke of games.
But what does the GAME part of a game add that is artistic?
Music is an art form of conveying intuitive moods as well as story in lyrics. 3D modeling is moving sculptures. Painting conveys moods as well as determines the object. The artistic piece is a unity which uses elements to portray concepts.
So videogames have worlds, stories, music, plastic sculptures, but what does the game part add that is itself artistic or contributing to the artistic unity of the whole? What about Far Cry could possibly not be shown and conveyed without the game part? What in Halo could not be shown without the game part?
I don't like this chart because In Praise of Learning is obviously /ouralbum/ and not Western Culture. I suspect whoever made it just added WC because of the hammer + sickle on the cover.
Why do you insist on limiting it to just children? Adults build sandcastles and create some pretty cool and interesting things sometimes when they do.
The idea of having to expend effort and be actively involved in order for things to play out the way they do. When you have to personally struggle for victory instead of passively watching it unfold, it changes how you think and feel about it. There's other elements but that's one of them I think.
Explain to me how this isn't the biggest fucking spook. The same thing happened with animation and the societal mood is changing as we speak; there is no reason why an entire form of filmmaking should inherently be fit only for children except because that's the societal norm that you have accepted, and the greater population is beginning to realize this. Even though most gamers are over 20+, there's still a conception that games are inherently childish, but over time this too will change as this perception is grounded in absolutely nothing except that it is the societal norm.
The GAME part adds interactivity, and through that creates a personal connection between the audience and the subject of the game. Obviously nobody is advocating halo or far cry as artistic pieces when they say video games have the potential to be art, those two properties are very clearly designed as products first and foremost. However a game that is well designed uses the game mechanics itself to portray a concept through actually forcing the player to experience whatever it is they want to convey. Papers Please, Journey, and LISA are 3 examples of games that use interactivity and mechanics, separate from any music or art design, to convey extremely powerful moods that would not be possible in quite the same way in a movie, song or painting.
But that's not an a concept. A good book also makes you feel the frustration of the payoff, and it is a meaningful frustration. It is the frustration of anticipation, of knowing that the story is something you cannot will to change, the payoff of the tension of a moment.
Games do not convey anything significant to the other artistic elements. In Halo the fight against the flood does not meaningfully hinge upon the shooting gameplay. The gameplay itself cannot even convey the concept of the warrior, for you cannot step into their role and feel their urgency, need, and frustration. Your frustration is nothing but an arbitrary challenge that could be anything. I've never played a game where the game play is integral to the artistic whole. For good single player games with an artistic element the game itself is an external thing to the art.
Aside from Journey, which I cannot really consider a game, Papers Please is actually an interesting example. LISA seems iffy to me.
Go play The Stanley Parable. When I finished that, I had to turn off my computer, go sit down, and just think about the experience for a while. Normally I only have to do that after I finish a good book that makes me think.
I'm not talking specifically about frustration. I'm saying that when you personally are involving in doing a thing you think about it differently than watching it happen in a movie or a book. It's not the same.
I could just as easily turn this around and say the frustration of making it through a game is meaningful because it forces you to come to terms with your own abilities and failures, in a different way than a book or a movie would. You're not really making any kind of argument here, you're just saying why you prefer the one kind of frustration over the other.
Just to emphasize the conceptual thing about art, look at this famous piece. It is a painting portraying the very idea of freedom.
In it we see the representation of an event that really happened (the storming of the Bastille) in a sensuous conceptual form. As a concrete piece, it uses an individual form as the moment. The event in the painting is rearranged for the sake of the unity of the concept, not for the sake of the real event. The Bastille is portrayed as the breaking down of the orders that constrain freedom. Freedom is a woman for historical as well as aesthetic reasons, and the other people are the revolutionaries. The image focuses you on her, the flag (the nation as the people) and the drab smoky colors give the intuitive concept of the mood of the moment in visual form. Revolution is a mess, but freedom can only be had with such a sacrifice of the times.
A game would have to be this kind of tight conceptual unity, with the game aspect being something which can add a necessary intuitive form of a concept which it alone can do.
But what about the frustration is actually conceptual? Most games are nothing essential, in fact their stories outstrip the quality of the games.
As the other person mentioned, the games that actually have an artistic unity aren't games like Halo, not like Ninja Gaiden, not like your typical JRPG. What would make a game an art piece is to have an artistic unity where gameplay, story, and virtual world complement each other and equally enable each other such that the entire experience is an integral unity. A game that was a piece of art would have a story that would be diminished without the game play; a game play that would be diminished without the story; and a visual virtual aesthetic that literally embodied them and which could not be replaced without loss to both game and story.
Again, I'm not specifically talking about frustration. Interaction can affect how you think about the experience beyond just making you frustrated. The idea that how you experience something can influence how you think and feel about it is itself conceptual. Some games take advantage of this to make a point. They're rare, but good execution in general is rare.
Now it's 3:30am here in burgerland, so I'm not going to do a detailed deconstruction of a game. Instead I am going to put down this link that does the job for me and explains the unified nature of Abe's Oddysee (by comparing it against the much less unified remake). It's not specifically tailored to your argument so it spends time talking about things that will be irrelevant to you and doesn't mention several points that I would have made but since I am passing out here it will have to do the job.
In general the oddworld games show a conscious dedication to unity to a central concept thanks to lorne lanning, who is quite political. He talks about it a little further in this PAX talk;
That does seem to be fitting to what I think an artistic game could be. Neat.
Don't know if it would measure up to your standards, but that description makes me think of the Prince of Persia trilogy, from Sands of Time to Two Thrones.
Prince of Persia would measure if it had an actually good story. Frankly, most game play could not really work artistically well without it being explained as metaphor—it's just too contrived and crafted rather than feeling like an organic reality in the world.
The story is just one element of a thing. An experience can be interesting even if the plot/story is subpar.
The measure is within a category, hence there is good art and bad art, and meh art. I am not saying it is not art. Art does not even have to be intended, it can happen. Art is art for an audience, and what today is called art once was just something more mundane or more sacred.
Gaymers are illiterates, that's why
Games are not art, they are just games. Crossword puzzles are not lit.
A hockey is not ballet.
A duck can't make ham.
The spinoff "Revengeance" literally has you murdering an American senator, main series has all kinds of conspiracies about secret societies and stuff.
I'll just choose to view this entire thread as a parody of "homosexuality is bourgeois decadence" that USSR had going.
Gamers are so fucking annoying. They complain about how game companies peddle day one DLC but swallow the whole red scare bullshit pumped out by right wingers. They're so stupid because they don't realise it's capitalism that they're complaining about but then they go on to defend capitalism because "Muh Socialists".
Yeah, not with that attitude you fucking scrub.
I was unsure of even including that one. I know there is stuff like that in those games, same with something like splinter cell. But usually those types of things are framed as the conspirator being corrupted and aligned with actors that are against the state or muh nation, after which you fight them to preserve the status quo. On the contrary there’s only like a handful of games where you are trying to take down the us state or something, like what I believe dues ex is about
honey you need get out of your house, see what the society is doing, this isnt anything new or special
what the actual fuck is this thread?
Are you all redditors who got banned for saying abelist words like "stupid"?
The entirety of the mgs series is about destroying the current system gone rampant and made war a business. You literally have no idea what you are talking about.
Yea I guess I don’t, I haven’t played it
Cuz I didn’t play mgs? Dog this ain’t /vg/. Eat a bag of dicks
Then why you say that is pro military?
Until the 4th game MGS was as anti military as it gets
MGS4 was anti-military, but at that point wars, and occupations weren't conducted by the military but by private mercenaries. Definitely reminiscent of proxy wars in the Middle East.
Also this whole thread is idiots having no idea what they are talking about.
Whole thread is reddit at fuck
Yeah. the 4th was the last anti war one. Imho peace walker wasn't.
I had a friend who played it, was the impression I got from it. I’ve always been more of a fantasy game fan, shit like dark souls
Then why is it that nobody considers the Super Bowl XLIX art?
Sorry boys, but you've clearly lost the argument. Now you must decide: are you a gamer or are you a communist? You can't be both.
why the fuck would anyone want to be a gamer
What horrible logic!
No, it's perfectly reasonable logic. You are just too (what the kids would call) "triggered" to accept the truth
No fun and games under communism, everyone must be serious and spend their time reading Hegel and appreciating True Art (as defined by Hegel).
Hegel wasn't a communist so I don't know how you can conclude this.
No true communist wastes their time on bourgeois decadence like video games. They must read up on theory and fight for revolution
Reading Hegel is bourgeois decadence.
Only wealthy people who don't have to work 8 hours have the kind of time to do that kind of stuff.
Videogames are for people who need something accessible and fun after a dull, long work week.
The proletariat used to read a ton of shit. chronicle.com
Back then, workers were generally far more prone to revolutionary thought. Now that video games have taken over reading, they are generally complacent.
You guys do realise that Hegel lived over a century before there was something called video games, right? Or TV. Or radio. I'm pretty sure the post was ironic
Dude's /ourguy/ 100%
He IS in the chart, in the top left. Definitely agree tho, he's /ourguy/
o shit my bad
And yet he still provided an excellent critique of them all before they were invented. Just goes to show how much of a genius Hegel is
In Peace Walker you imitate Che Guevara and your primary enemy throughout the game is CIA while you help Sandinistas.
why are glasses anime girls so cute
Cute or not, they're still not art
I reject the label because I'm not a pathetic incel from /polv/ whose entire identity and personality revolves around the one hobby they have (which also happens to be one of the least intellectually demanding ones out there).
I like to play video games alongside the other things that I do, but I'm enough of a functioning adult that it doesn't define me.
What is art, faggot?
If you've played even one video game in your lifetime, even if it's by accident, you simply can't be a communist. I'm sorry that it's too late for you
The definition of art has been a subject of intense philosophical debate since time immemorial. While I would personally side with you on the idea that video games are probably not intrinsically art, I'm cautious around someone dogmatic enough to imply it's a done debate and there is no leeway for other viewpoints.
You bet your sweet ass. Read Baudrillard (Simulations and Simulacra). In general just read instead of playing games or being over-indulgent with music. I don't mean puritanically, but you might be a manchild who needs a boot up his ass to escape the quagmire of pointlessness that your life might be. The wheel never stays still, it can either spin one way into taughtness or the other way into slackness; we have no idea the extent to which audio-visual stimulation on tap has made our brains soft and fat.
They technically are by your definitions. I hate anime but you're being inconsistent.
This is not a helpful thing to say. Kinda seems like a falseflag.
Art is dead you retard
Obvious bait is obvious, I'll bite anyway. Football and all sports could be considered an art. Michael Jordan and Leonard Da Vinci put in the same amount of the practice and dedication for the same reasons - to perfect their respective crafts.
God I love the Futurists and yet I hate them so much.
Do you really think a fucking sand castle is art?
The Stanley parable was fucking stupid.
You can easily pirate games, and a modest second hand PC would set you back about as much as a laptop.
In other news the majority of people who get raped wear bras.
Monopoly, Silent Hill, Papers Please, DEFCON, etc.. The games' messages, their assets, and their mechanics are all tightly interdependent on each other, and each lends strength to the other. Other mocking suggestions such as Journey and Gone Home are glorified screensavers lacking nontrivial mechanics.
Also, I think that Hegel's point about games themselves, separate from their assets, not being art, is inane. Look at something like Tetris, Quake III Arena, or Nitronic Rush, finely tuned and perfectly balanced timeless masterpieces that endure recognizably through any change in assets or themes. The invention of those mechanics is an act of high artistic creation in and of itself, no less a marvel of genius than a beautiful sculpture or painting.
you forgot elastomania
When you only select for leftist artists/albums then you don't get anything good overall, even though there are some gems. Non-leftists don't automatically make music that sucks, and often there's not even information to find if someone is a leftist.
But I do agree that musicians tend to be more often more left-wing or at least less spooked. That may be because they can have a massive exposure to non-"white" music, whereas gamers don't really have such experience unless it's "diversity" in the game.
Oh my sweet summer child
Maybe they are leftists because they dont like to be record label's whores.
If you seriously art is "wow it's so cool and so pretty I bet that was hard to make" I want you to take about 4 years of art history courses and sit your ass down in front of a Mondrian painting for five hours.
Art is the intentional, successful transmission of a coherent idea from one mind to another, purely for the sake of expression.
A watch made to tell time isn't art. A watch made to make a watch is.
No, that would make what is or isn't art subjective from person
No, coherence is a choice, sometimes incoherence can be used to imply a tertiary, deeper concept.
No, objects with utility can be art too, see the Schroeder House.
That fucks your own definition, what coherent idea is transmissible in the making of a watch?
Rubbish; computer programs can be art. Why does functionality preclude the state of being artistic?
Because art is not about and individual's expression; not about requiring high skill; not about simply re-presenting life or recording it (why realism is as such is not art); not about making you merely feel.
Against what some other people here have been saying, art is not simply about a conceptual unity in sense form. Art for Hegel is about truths of humans as thinking and social beings, and only sense embodiments of these truths count as Art. Fear as such is not an an art, so a jump scare game, or any thing aimed at conveying fear no matter how perfectly it conveys that experience as a unity, is not an artistic thing. Fear is not a spiritual Idea, it is a natural idea of animals. In an art piece a feeling cannot be the aim.
To set the record straight, is a fake quote. You people need to check things people post here.
That dosen't really answer the question as to why games, watches or computer programs can't be art, unless I'm misunderstanding, in which case please explain.
go back to Holla Forums
If your execution is too incompetent for anyone other than you to understand its meaning, solely from the art itself without any cheating "explanation" from you, does it actually embody anything? I think not.
In that case, the choice of preexisting context in which the artist chose to present their work is the art (and conveys a coherent idea), while the incoherent thing they presented is wholly lacking in artistic value itself. Consider the following:
Art can be used to evoke every emotion and experience the human mind can conceive of. If it exists as part of the human experience art can represent it.
Videogames aren't that broad in scope, their only intent is to be fun.
They can be pieces of art, but cannot be an end in themselves. The whole interactivity of games adds only one thing fundamentally lacking in film: choice. The game lays a field of a preset choices, and the concept the game as game can convey is only choice and consequence. But can a game give one a sense of choice and consequence of spiritual (human social) importance and actual attachment, especially when the choice is either 1) false (Bioshock "would you kindly"), or 2) lacking the finality of consequence (I can do the good route this time and the bad one second, and I won't feel bad because it's just a game anyway)?
A watch which conveys a concept is art. Here, this has often been interpreted as conveying the concept of ontological relative time as the watches deform in space, but that would in Hegelian terms remove it from the category of art, but luckily this easily is interpreted in the realm of human time and creation. Watches are made, and thus we literally have crafted time around our own creations (Marx's points on the homogenization and standardization of modern time), yet time nonetheless bends the watch and distorts it. The psychological experience of time is one of a relative character of moods, activities, and contexts.
art don't real
If that is true, then who the fuck was hosting coast to coast??
It has often been said that researchers in the natural sciences obtain a deep spiritual satisfaction, akin to an artist's audience, from unraveling and understanding the fundamental laws by which the world operates, and the ways in which they interact. Furthermore, artists themselves have universally drawn inspiration from nature, using it to create new ideas which contrast against nature itself.
Is it really so much to imagine that the game programmer's creation of unnatural laws and systems contrasted against reality, purely for the sake of their creation, can't have artistic merit?
The video game industry as we know it emerged in the '80s, an era in which radical left-wing politics had lost all of their legitimacy and supporters. That obviously wasn't the case for music, literature or cinema. That's why "left-wing video games" virtually do not exist.
Yes, they don't have artistic merit, because art is not about the intent, not about the person who creates it, but about a spiritual idea. Fantasy imagination, programming, and fun are not artistic. Do you not wonder why you're so attached to this term 'art' that you feel injured in being denied that title? Art is venerated precisely in its objectivity of infinite subjectivity, not because of its mere subjective representative character. If art gives up its objectivity it loses the venerated implied content that makes anyone want to claim it, but if it takes on its proper objective character many who now take on the title are excluded (and they should be). It is not a thing of pride to have a concept that is not actually a concept, to have a discipline that is not a discipline, to have a definition that defines nothing.
You sound like a modernist dogmatist with a three page understanding of De Style. Sorry, art cannot beam info into your brain, bubby, that's not how it works. Art is a dialectic between the artist and viewer, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. Just because someone is a retard doesn't mean Kandinsky is a bad painter.
How do you not understand the difference between the Schroeder house an a wristwatch?
Consider the following JPEG, fam.
Which art object seen in has had the most impact on history? Which is the most "successful"? Which is the most philosophically impactful?
The problem with laymen is that they're absolute cretins.
This. The revolution is a proletarian project but to imagine the average prole has much if any understanding of philosophy is just a fucking fairy story.
Isn't the universe itself the most transcendant, spiritual, unique, pure idea imaginable? Wouldn't the creation of the universe be the greatest act of artistic expression possible?
I am absolutely not a modernist, I loathe what modern/postmodern art with a burning passion.
The latter two had zero success, historical or philosophical impact. Rather, the context in which they were placed did (in the laziest, cheapest way possible). Second pic related.
Wow, we sure didn't know that for the last 500 years. Oh wait…
The beginning of the universe is a theological expression even in its secular forms. Indeed it is one of the most human conceptions.
Modern/postmodern "art" serves the dual purposes of a means to bulldoze non-capitalist culture with vacuous sophistry, and to act as a money laundering scheme for porky:
I fucking applaud you for actually checking my quote. The people on this board are so gullible and prone to taking bait.
Do you have a discord or twitter I can contact you with? You seem like a knowledgeable person that I'd enjoying having conversations with.
At least it took some amount of effort to crank out something, instead of new "artists" being 100% PR flimflam that can "craft" a Ponzi vehicle at a moments notice.
The fact that you conflate modern and post-modern art shows that you have no idea what you are talking about.
You've never even opened a single art history book, have you?
Separating a work of art from the historical context in which it appeared makes no sense whatsoever. Are you even a materialist?
From left to right
Bouguereau is barely if ever written about and was a pedophilic French hack memed into 4chan /IC/ relevance because of his technical prowess and because 4chan is likewise pedophilic
Duchamp has inspired reams of contemporary critical engagement, public notice and historical documentation and theoretical examination. His work is still relevant and probably always will be.
Mondrian was a revolutionary thinker in Europian art-philosophy and dedicated his entire life to the relation between art, the human psyche and philosophy. His work deeply engages with Hegel and continues to be written about and loved to this day.
Your pic related is irrelevant, none of the works presented are post modern.
Fucking Kek, what a brainlet.
Art is not by definition art for the audience but that's relevant for Duchamp. Mondrian (third pic) didn't produce for an audience at all, he worked for years on individual paintings while his contemporaries begged him to produce more for public recognition.
Fucking this, these Bordon Beterson esque brainlets need to fuck off our board.
Art for an audience is not meant as art made to serve an audience. It means it is art to an audience. Goya too made his famous black paintings for no one, but we got our hands on them and they're art precisely because we recognize something deep about the world in them. The individual does not determine themselves as artist, an audience determines this. One does not have art-in-itself without art being-for-others.
Proles are mostly stupid, be it only because they lack access to proper education and culture. It's not in the proles' interest to pretend they're smarter than they actually are.
People deliberately fed lead, denied education and cointelled into the fucking dirt may or may not be stupid, user.
Conflating a revolution with the brick thrown through the window that started it strikes me as incredibly anti-materialist. Just as the brick itself is not revolutionary in the slightest, modern/postmodern "art" is utterly worthless in every way, aside from the hype campaign of pretentious drivel on the "meaning" of it that it served as the "subject" of.
That analogy doesn't even work, what the fuck? The work of art is not analogous to a brick, but rather the manifesto of a movement or speech. The closest thing in art to a brick is the brush or tube of paint and no one is talking about Braque's fucking turpentine can. How are you this fucking stupid?
The "art" has no meaning, speech, or other discernible content. All value associated with such arbitrary trash is totally external.
Proles were smarter pre-WWII
How are you this fucking stupid?
Correct, but we're talking about today, not then.
Additionally, please post a choice selection of what you feel to be "good, successful" art
But both of those are complete failures of art in the Hegelian sense: they fall back and are extreme forms of symbolic art. They themselves are mere symbols, not embodiments, of the concepts they represent. is right in his critique: all content these 'art pieces' have is outside them, and thus these are not art in even a symbolic sense in that the object you call art itself does not even hint at the content it represents, it has no sensuous connection to it. It is all context and no content, art made and existent not for itself but only by a contingent connection in the arbitrary unity we give it.
You inane sophist, everyone "gets it". The problem with pretending that taking a shit in the middle of a museum is "art" isn't that it lacks meaning, it's that the shit itself isn't a statement, only the contextual choice to put it there is. Please stop equivocating and admit the "art" isn't the thing you're posting pictures of, it's the social con-artistry of soaking up CIA money for something so worthless any untrained idiot could do it.
Pic related is "good, successful art". Fuck you.
The less women you have the more reoctionary you get.
What the hell are you trying to say? A brick thrown through a window is not "context". Context is the set of conditions that ended up in a situation wherein someone threw a brick through a window.
Good golly, stop conflating the two. Pics related: first is early modern, second is (more-or-less) late modern, last two are postmodern. Learn the difference, perfectly decent articles covering the subject are a few clicks away and usually require little effort to go through.
Yeah, I'm sure you have the extensive background in art history required to make that sort of grandiose statement, and totally didn't get that from "my kid could do better"-style memes gleaned from soccer moms on Facebook.
Newsflash: Art can be something more than nice postcards to look at. I understand the prospect of engaging with something beyond its surface value might be daunting to you, but you should nonetheless try it one day.
Big if true
That's pretty much Holla Forums and internet reactionaries in general. They hate the results of capitalism but in order to not blame it they invent bullshit like a jewish conspiracy or sjw's (??) to blame it all on
I'm not a Hegelian but OK famalam.
(Sidenote, if you think Mondrian's work isn't Hegelian you should probably read some more about him, it really is)
My running criterion for TRVE CVLT ART is either culturally relevant expression that functions as dialogue with larger narratives or it can be an honest attempt at exploration of fundamental human experience, functioning as a dialectic between a conveyence of the quality based expression of the artist and the lived experience of the viewer. A variation on the latter form is the experimentation into the inherent manners in which art can be used to influence the phenomena of the viewer's experience. Mondrian tried to do this through a conveyance of formative balance by contradictory relation, essentially he posits the dialectic between the spiritual essence and material form is, as any dialectic, a two way street, and attempts to influence our own experience of the world by conveying this balance of contradiction through material form. Read him, he was a cool dude.
Is that motherfucking Courbet, nigga? Naicu naicu
Asians are natural born cucks with their authoritarian culture.
Literally where, brainlet?
It's a nice photograph and the story behind it is interesting. "Brassou's" work is pretty circus-esque is predicated on side-show but the engagement with the public as to whether or not an animal is capable of art is an interesting topic. Could make for a really fun discussion. Not entirely sure if I'd be jazzed about calling a money making scheme art but I'd love a conversation with the hoaxer or an article on the subject for further consideration.
What the CIA covertly supported (and not somehow invented like you seem to imply) was abstract expressionism — which is a modern, not postmodern current.
Playing video games could be considered “an art”, that doesn’t make video games art
The proper analogy is individual football matches being considered works of art.
Additionally, the fact that you won't post work you actually consider good art and have previously noted the product of a French hack pedophile as "successful" art is very telling.
People that use Hegel are as Hegelian as liberals that use Marx. Just from what he said about art in some quotes I can tell you this guy is not Hegelian by the fact that he thinks Art is transcendental to reality, something Hegel's method explicitly generates denial to. I actually don't care what Mondrian says, because I don't care about non-immanent-systematic theories of anything.
Can you link the quotes? From what I've read from Mondrian he didn't consider art to be transcendental at all, but rather that art could be a gateway to the transcendental. I.E he thought that art could directly interface with the spirit and influence our interactions with the material world but the art itself was still material.
Do you have any recommendations of what to read by Mondrian? I'm very curious
Most of the films that are being put out are disposable garbage. Does that mean "cinema sucks"…?
OP is a pseud who deepthroats A.W on a daily basis. I don't know why you've let this thread go on this long.
If I'm a pseudointellectual, I'm doing a very bad job at being one, since it's pretty obvious that I'm a theorylet. lol
Natural Reality and Abstract Reality is short and really good. You can find it here homepages.neiu.edu
If that is not a transcendental claim I don't know what is. Such things are nothing but romantic, and it is right that he call it abstract art: it's absolutely a poverty of form and content.
Aestheticism, something which Hegel rejects as the failure of romantic art.
Relativism that denies the objectivity of art by conception, it makes art permanently contextual and itself empty, unable to transcend its context into true Ideal universality.
So he gives up content and takes a standpoint of pure form, and yet he cannot convey anything truly spiritual and human in his abstract form. I see only a shadow of spiritual reasoning embodied in his work, none of the content which is so rich is embodied in it. What effect could this have in the world? None by the piece directly, but plenty by his social weight connected in the piece.
Game are an art form in sort of the same way fashion or furniture is: as an instance of design or applied arts, in which form follows function. The thing is video games are a more complicated medium in that the function is not as clear-cut as with say a dress (to get clothed and look pretty) or a chair (to get seated and feel comfortable) notably because games also often have a narrative element — is a game about having fun, being intellectually engaged, having your skills challenged, learning something new, enjoying a unique experience, all of the above? It depends on the specific game you're playing.
For what reasons should Super Mario Bros. not be considered a work of art in the same way a De Stijl table is?
1). Where's the quote from? In the PDF I've linked he says this.
color. On the contrary, it should find its expression in the abstraction of form and color, that is to say, in the straight line and the clearly defined primary color. "
This doesn't seem to indicate that art itself is transcendental but rather that it conveys it.
2). That's my definition, again, I'm not a Hegelian.
3). I reject universality as a concept in and of itself. I don't believe art can have any transcendental quality at all, as a materialist. I like Mondrian and Hegel a lot and find their thought incredibly interesting, that doesn't mean I agree with them.
4). I generally agree, Mondrian's level of thought and meticulous nature warrant his work to be art, in my book. I don't really think he was right, exactly, but I feel he did something worthwhile.
The revolution is the context, the brick is the focus.
Modernism and postmodernism in art are both part of a trend to decrease technical sophistication in favor of something that can be cranked out as fast as rubes ask for more.
You know, I'm amazed at the way people like you can brush off monumental works of popular art like AAA computer games and blockbuster movies due to their "insubstantial" nature, in spite of the fact that they're loaded with mountains of paintings, sculpture, acting, poetry, literature, music, choreography, animation, programming, and more. Then, you turn around, point to a completely arbitrary focus of some significant event that any toddler could slap together or pick up from the ground, and because it has arbitrarily been chosen as the focal point of hundreds of pages of elaborate analysis, "analysis" that could just as easily apply to anything else that had been randomly imbued with importance by the situation they were part of, you hold that up as "art".
"Nice postcards" are not arbitrary junk, because if you change something about them, their place in the world would change. Modern/postmodern art is, performance aside, 100% pure fetishism.
Pic related is a pretty typical example
I think a premeditated hoax intentionally revealed for laughs, is far more authentic than the brainwashed talentless hackery being peddled by the "art" world.
Like all shitposting (and make no mistake, the only defensible specimens were 100% shitposting), it became cancerous when people started taking it seriously. Modern/postmodern art is the zombie meme of our grandparents' generation.
1)That quote more determinately states the quote I posted. He's literally trying to convey an abstraction with no particulars, an impossibility by concept.
2) I don't care for definitions. They're worthless.
3) A nominalist likewise rejects matter, for matter does not exist, it is a universal concept. Even if you step back and say you're just a nominalist of abstract objects as what you mean by transcendent universals, you still cannot be a materialist, only a positivist, and your theories cannot be anything but descriptive and not subject to being true or false themselves.
4) Just because someone is smart and works hard does not make things Art. You like someone's work, you have a personal connection to it, it speaks to you. Why is this not good enough? Why obsess over a label?
Source on that? Sounds like a fun read.
Stop this and post some "good art" with "technical sphistication"
You're literally fucking peddling reactionary fun politics you fucking loon.
1) Expound, why is non-particularity impossible?
2) Whatever you say but you're critiquing me by the standards of a philosophical outlook I reject.
3) I'd describe myself as an functional materialist, I guess, at the same time as the world does appear to function as material relations I'd argue there's a hard line at which point nothing applies but solipsistic apathy.
4) Why not?
Fun = *egeneracy
Cucked by BO yet again, haha
Since you seem to be madly tsundere for Valve, have you ever paused to consider the years that people spend dedicate to these sorts of things, the hundreds of pieces of concept art and pages of design docs that are produced purely to flesh out the competing half-formed ideas in their heads without ever getting into the final work, the genuine passion that's poured into the project by designers, and yes, the detailed texture work on geometry to imbue a measure of the same nuance Michelangelo struggled with marble slabs to create, filtered through the technical limits of the hardware they're targeting?
As opposed to artistically void fodder effortlessly printed like the dollar bills that porkies with more money than taste (not to mention the precious slots in public cultural institutes where they compete against actual art) readily pay for them?
Your Reddit is showing
… What? No. Just admit that your analogy made no sense whatsoever.
Most artists associated with modern art exhibited impressive technical command. They simply decided to make unconventional use of it because they weren't interested in milquetoast academism.
This is blatantly false, but who even cares? Whether a painting took an hour or a decade to be completed doesn't mean anything about its artistic value.
A good chunk of my favorite video games (like MOTHER2 or Yoshi's Island) were published by Nintendo, and I'm also a big fan of The Beatles or New Hollywood films. Your point? Many AAA productions are garbage because their art direction or narration is shallow, derivative, uninspired, pandering — and I don't care if it took an army of thousands and a budget of millions to make it.
You make a lot of assumptions, whining about how we're brainwashed by academia without actually knowing what our approach is. This is the mark of someone who has no argument to make: instead of actually engaging with your opponent, you simply deny him any capacity for intellectual autonomy. The very same tactic used by conspiracy theorists autistically screeching about sheeples. It's useless to debate with someone who is unshakably convinced that his opponents are arguing in bad faith by default.
I don't think that word means what you think it means.
So every artist from Courbet and Matisse to Paik and Murakami is garbage. Got it, pops. I'd be very interested in knowing what you think is "actual art".
While I did like Half Life 2, its art direction is nothing exceptional apart maybe from the Citadel. Most of it is fairly conventional sci-fi fare. If that's what you believe to be the apex of creativity, then I feel sad for you.
Potentially, yeah. Art encompasses more than just the Mona Lisa and the Sistine Chapel.
Let's divide people into groups based on arbitrary characteristics that can be easily assigned to most people. Let's associate one with [good thing] and another with [bad thing].
Let's base our praxis on this categorization. Why is the second group now against us and against the [good thing] we stand for? IT IS A MYSTERY.
I still play minecraft
Art as a whole is a zombie meme of the the caveman generation.
I'm sure a man who died in 1831 is very in touch with why video games aren't art
Gaming teaches defensiveness and aggression. Musicianship teaches none of that.
What are you even talking about?
whoa there buddy, as a fellow socialist, music lover and gamer have to protest this stereotype. Most of my friends are gamer comrades (granted they are musicians too many of them) But games are a form of art as well.
the kind of gamer you are referring to ist just your typical COD idiot. But equating that kind of person to a typical gamer would be to take your average Brantley Gilbert fan as an example of a "music lover"
Lots of great albums are missing.
Not necessarily user. Those with the greatest knowledge of music are shut-ins, outsiders who have no place in the world, who live through music. It's much the same with everything really.