Can video games be art?

Can video games be art?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/61DZC-60x20
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

No

Yes

uwot

They can't "be" art. They can be an artistic medium. Calling something art as a measure of quality is stupid.

Maybe

/thread

They can, here's a paiting that proves it.

Lmao this face. Is he still active in the community?

This "woman" looks worse than one of those people that had acid thrown in their face

>Woman
>Wu man*

Art defined by oxford dictionary is
The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power:

Art is so loose that everything and nothing is and considering current state of it the only criterium is your opinion.

Also games are art and anybody saying anything else is wrong and should be bitchslapped like the whiny cunt they are

/ic/ here.

Art has diferent meanings depending on history:
Can mean:

Skilful in a trade (Reinasance master)
Romantic lover and art being emotional (Victorian era)
Original shit on a canvas, experimental (XX century).

Generally games on a foundamental level are not art, because chess, soccer, tag, tic tac toe and go aren't art.

Art doesn't have a purpose other than being a luxury item for rich patrons and the church.

Games have a purpose, entertaint, that's why pop music and hollywood films aren't generally considered art.

But, art and games can provide in the same sense the same experiences, so in a sense they're not games in a pragmatical way but they can be art.

If games are art, then they're not the same cathegory as static media (books, painting, poetrhy) or temporal dynamic media (music, dancing, film, theather), games are basically into the cathegory of interactive media, with street storytellers, clowns, street comedy and interactive performance.

screencap this for all the same dumb threads.

gameplay is art

tribes and quake are art

Video games contain art but are not art.

Retype it without all the typos and maybe I might.

They already are art. The government considers them art, museums consider them art. It's only really an issue among dumbfuck Sup Forumsirgins

>Can video games be art?
Yes.
>Are ALL video games art?
No.

I'm not a native speaker, maybe you can write it properly.

I forgot to add art is a mystical experience to connect with the magical realm of god for primitive tribes, and it's the origin of art.

It depends on the game, though. A linear game with a story is essentially a book.

I believe so, something like youtu.be/61DZC-60x20 can be interpreted as art. People classify film and photography as art, gaming should be as well.

Well video games can attract good artists which in the end will produce works of war.

For example an artist making a tribute video, or artistic preview of game zones that makes them look more beautiful and get accessible to whole public not just gamers that kill monsters in that zone and ignore the rest of details.

I don't think a single academic think games aren't art.

What they mean when games are not hard is that gaming has not produced yet something that can compare to something like literature cannon or clasical music or hollywood clasic films.

If you watch something like The river on top of Kwai river, you can clearly see the distance film has over the best games can do, that most of the time is manchildren stuff.

>I'm not a native speaker, maybe you can write it properly.

/ic/ here.

"Art" has diferent meanings depending on history. It can mean:
- Skill in a trade (Renaissance)
- Romantic love and emotion (Victorian era)
- Original/"experimental" shit on a canvas (twentieth century)

Generally, games on a fundamental level are not art, because chess, soccer, tag, tic-tac-toe, and go aren't art.

Art doesn't have a purpose other than being a luxury item for rich patrons and the church.

Games have a purpose: entertainment. That's why pop music and Hollywood films aren't generally considered art.

However, art and games can provide in some sense the same experiences, so in a sense they're not games in a practical way but they can be art.

If games are art, then they're not the same cathegory as static media (books, painting, poetry) or temporary dynamic media (music, dancing, film, theater). Rather, games are in the category of interactive media, with street storytellers, clowns, street comedy, and interactive performance.

Screencap this for all the dumb threads of this ilk.

>gaming has not produced yet something that can compare to something like literature cannon or clasical music or hollywood clasic films

How so? What are the metrics? There are some very innovative, expertly designed, deep games which had a massive impact not only on the games industry but also culture.

thanks.

I dunno how to explain, I'm not gonna talk about cynematography or color theory, I'm going to talk about the story.
The best films tend to have more than one layer of conflict and development, that is an internal one, an interpersonal one and the one that deals with the world stakes.

I'm going to give you an example:
Gamers praise FF 7-6-4-8-X

That will tell you how low are gamers expectations on storytelling.

FF7 story is trash, basically an anime fanfic and it's praise by the industry as some of the best stories in gaming.

TLoUS have good writing, and it's better than FF7, but it falls into the trap of making a movie game.

Games best stories are something like DOOM or Super Mario World, you're here, these are the bad guys, kill them.

Games need nothing more than that, and many of the best games in history (Ikaruga, mario world, metroid, castlevania sotn, splattoon, AoEII, Fifa) use that story plot.

When a game try to copy movies, it always comes as copying a simple hollywood action movie, and it's just a shame, because those are the most trashy movies in film.

Games have produced mastepieces, as long as they try to be games and not movies.