Okay Sup Forums, let's make this as clear as possible. Video games are not art and never will be...

Okay Sup Forums, let's make this as clear as possible. Video games are not art and never will be. You might enjoy it as entertainment but the experience you have while playing them is no better than something like reading a comic book. Completely menial.

Yes

Videogames will never compare to the greats like Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Adam Sandler movies and Fast and the Furious.

Flicks are not art either and have never been

Video games aren't art, and Blade Runner was an awful movie. I'm glad me and Roger Ebert are on the same page.

Movies aren't art either. You don't see people spending millions on a movie ticket the same way they would a painting or sculpture.

Producers spend tens and hundreds of millions to make a visual experience that's only worth about ten dollars.

...

>Film is not art
>Video games are not art
>Comic books are not art

THEN WHAT THE FUCK IS ART!?

This post.

...

What would a pleb like you know?

Isn't this is the guy who said that the Friday the 13th movies painted such a bleak picture of the world that they'd make teenagers suicidal?

...

Art itself.

I do not want them to be considered art because "artistic" people are some of the most insufferable, pretentious cunts on the planet.

Why does anybody who likes playing video games care about whether or not they're considered "art", I've never understood, it seems like such a pointless inconsequential categorization

>compose a beautiful piece of music
>"art"
>compose a beautiful piece of music and put it in a video game
>"not art anymore"

Video games are either art in and of themselves or at least a means to experience art, to claim there is nothing artistic about a video game at all is to say that there is some difference between music on an album CD and music on a video game CD, which is senseless.

I think a more fair viewpoint is that most games are shit art.

Ebert later went back and said he was wrong and made that statement out of ignorance.

Also he claimed Home Alone 3 was the best in the series, the best movie of that year and an amazing all around family classic. So think about that for a second when you think about his opinion on art.

>pretentious
That means the exact opposite of what you are saying. Unless by putting artistic in quotes you somehow expect people to know you actually don't mean artistic? Do you think no one with genuine creativity and talent exists?

Ignore that guy. Movies, literature and music are considered art because they contain some of the absolute greats humans have ever created (pic slightly related for the music side). Ebert isn't entirely right since video games may not be art today but who knows? Maybe in the future.

Yeah but the man kinda lost it near the end. He was a staunch atheist and on his deathbed He would always be talking about how he saw angels so he kinda turned his view around a lot in his final years.

What is the definition of art anyhow?

>Yeah but the man kinda lost it near the end
He said that shit in his and Siskel's review when it first came out in the 90s.

People forget that on their show, Siskel was considered the more knowledgeable one with more respectable opinions on art whereas Roger usually just gave good scores to any blockbuster. This was the crux of why they were always arguing. He was never very critical until he struck out on his own and even then he'd give movies really questionable rating on the grounds that they were supposed to be this bad.

Human works or creations created primarily to elicit emotion or create something aesthetically beautiful.

That's about the broadest definition you can have. From there you can make arguments like that if something fails to be beautiful and fails to elicit emotion from you then it isn't art. That's obviously HIGHLY subjective which is why what is and is not art is highly subjective.

Historically those with money and influence have often gotten to decide what's art by using said money and influence to encourage less wealthy, less influential individuals that what they value is in fact, indisputably art.

What do YOU think pretentious means?

>it's another "claim X isn't A while never saying what definition of the nebulous concept A you are using just to generate a pointless argument" episode

It means someone who attempts to affect the field they are in, usually in a big way but lack the actual knowledge/skill to do it.

It's someone thinking they wrote a brilliant novel on the death of western culture while not realizing that Hemingway did it decades ago because they weren't as well read as they thought they were and aren't as a good a writer as he is.

If someone is genuinely artistic (ie creative and talented) they are not usually pretentious. I wouldn't call someone who is pretentious artistic. Pretentious artists lack talent, that's why they are pretentious.

My point was putting artistic in quotations doesn't make it an insult. What is that supposed to mean?

Ironically people call video games art, when they pretend to be other media, rather than take advantage of their own own unique strengths, no other media can, or can only in very limited manner.

The Sandman is art.

I can't believe I ended up agreeing with him after all these years. And yet game journos are desperate for their hobby to be validated as art like children crying that they are already grown up.

"Art" is not a measure of quality.
The latest Michael Bay blockbuster is just as much art as 2001.
The latest COD is just as much art as Shadow of the Colossus.

A lot of developers, including Kamiya, believe that the design elements of a game (such as compositions) qualify as artistic, but the game itself does not.

I'm not personally sure how that works out, but the argument can be made that a beautiful piece of music remains art once it's in a game.

Sandman is a fucking masterpiece and I will fight tooth and nail against anyone who disagrees.

Animal Man was better.