Video games are not art. They are entertainment. You call this art?

Video games are not art. They are entertainment. You call this art?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=4s0_QKL3O8s&feature=related
recode.net/2014/8/2/11629454/this-post-is-art-framed-Sup
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yes.

Would you call American Pie Are? Of course not.

Does that mean movies as a whole are not an art? Of course not.

I've always thought games should be celebrated for their actual game design, and should be critiqued primarily on their function over form, sort of like architecture.

Super Mario 64 is infinitely more artistic than say, Mass Effect.

Why? Its disgusting and is not subjective at all. Its just plain silly!

this. /thread

Video games are not art because art doesn't have objectives, goals and rules.
This is a fact.

Movies and video games are not art

It's a representation of a red monster and his long journey through the corridors of mathematics.

Sounds like art to me.

I want to fuck Big Bird

Help me out, Sup Forums. Which of these are art, and which aren't:

- A blank canvas
- An unused cassette
- A blank CD
- A dictionary
- The Trans-Pacific Partnership text
- Roulette
- Video game roulette
- Baseball
- Video game baseball
- Games
- Video games

My opinion is "none of the above are art". If you think any of the above are art, please justify it.

If this can be considered art:
youtube.com/watch?v=4s0_QKL3O8s&feature=related
then video games can be considered art.

If you look at the literal definition of art, video games are art.
Doesn't mean they're good art

Thats not art

>art doesn't have objectives, goals and rules
Lies
The artists set objectives, goals, and rules for themselves when making it.

yes

I call this art

Everything that isn't video games is art because Roger Ebert said so.

I think a dictionary is art. Can't really explain why.

ITT and every other "are video games art?" thread: People who haven't dabbled in art since fingerpainting in the 3rd grade trying to tell people what is and is not art

>kino
>not art

Literally everything is art, which make the word "art" pointless.
No. The point in that statement is to say that art doesn't stop being art if it fails at doing something. To even say that art could fail at doing something is illogical. Art just exists. But, again, literally everything is art so who cares.

The Twilight series is a steaming pile of crap, so by your logic, movies and books can't be art either.

>- Video games
created by individuals with a passion ad vision using skill to create visual stimuli that has meaning and purpose and displays the creators vision.

this sentence could be transferable to painting.

though not all games are art and not all painting is art, but in a literal sense art is subjective, so essentially there is no good or bad art.

where I wouldn't call call of duty art but I would call journey art
I wouldn't call a childs finger painting art but call picassos weeping woman good art.
though again it is subjective, some may call call of duty art, some may even call it good art.

I actually studied art so I have a little knowledge into what is considered art and what is not. Video games have become art, they were not always art.

Just like not all movies and paintings are art, not all videogames are art either. But SOME movies, paintings, videogames, *insert any other medium here* can be art.

Cherrypicking an educational shovelware game isn't very smart.

People also call >pic related art.
So, uh, yeah, I guess.

They are not -OP

That's not true, he didn't even consider many movies to be art either.

>for themselves
But not for the people experiencing it, which is all video games are about when it comes to gameplay

Reminder
recode.net/2014/8/2/11629454/this-post-is-art-framed-Sup Forums-post-sells-for-90900-on-ebay

Any expression of imaginative thought into a medium is art, however not all art is profound,thought provoking or valuable.

Well shit, forgot pic.

Oh boy. Every fucking thread.
Tell me, did you know Duchamp? Do you know about his artistic research? Do you know why and in what context he did that?

Of course not. You are just a high school reject that remembers seeing a picture of that thing and thiught "man, modern art sucks". You keep posting that like it's an absolute manifest of all art. You are a dumbass. You know nothing. People like you have no say in discussions about art.

These threads are embarassing.

What does something have to have to qualify as art?

>food analogy
Sup Forums, ladies and gentlemen

>- A dictionary
>- The Trans-Pacific Partnership text
>- Roulette
>- Video game roulette
>- Baseball
>- Video game baseball
>- Games
>- Video games

All are expressions of an idea
Games and sports are representations of the ideas of their creators, the text of the TPP is the culmination of the ideas of it's creators, a dictionary is not only a collection of it's writers interpretations of certain words but also a gallery of thousands of words that are themselves acts of creativity.

You could even argue that at one time all of the blanks were acts of art when they were first invented.

Entertainment is art.

...

Art does not care about the user. Art is the expression of the artist and that's where it ends. But games cannot be like that because you have to worry about the gameplay - you have to set the controls right, you have to make sure you don't break the game by stepping out of bounds etc. And if you're limited in what you can do in the game like walking simulators and other "art-games" do like The Witness, that leads to breaking of immersion and boredom which you cannot have in an interactive medium.

>Why is that guy shitting in the street?
>Hey man, you don't know about his artistic research and the context of him shitting in the street!

>Tell me, did you know Duchamp? Do you know about his artistic research? Do you know why and in what context he did that?
I do. The guy was a fraud, a cunt, a spiteful little shit who spent his entire life resenting art because of his own mediocrity: a guy who's biggest piece of work, the one thing that made him truly famous, was a pure forgery and literal sellout of his own original proclaimed thought. A man who grew so bitter with his inability of produce anything of actual worth that he gave up on art attempting to become a famous chess player - a goal that failed him terribly, because no matter how hard he tried, he proved himself to be mediocre at that as well.

He is a man who literally stated:
"I despise art. I believe art should be destroyed, I believe we should do away with art like we have done away with religion."

That is the true story of Duchamp and the context and research he has done. It's a story of a bitter, spiteful being on a crusade to destroy something that made him aware of his own shortcomings.
The guy would feel INCREDIBLY at home on this board, actually.

What craftsman ship did he show with that piece, did he even create it, what emotion does it invoke? If something has absolutely no merit outside of the supposed meaning it's supposed to have, it's worth is purely determined by factors completely separate from it and the name attached to it, it is trash art, as is modern art, it is trash.
It will never not be trash that deserves no respect.

>You call this art?
Not this particular game, but I could made a solid case for say, Pathologic or The Void to be works of art.

Art is first and foremost a normative category. It's not constituted by objective qualities of a work, it has no meaning outside of a specific social context: it's defined by the arbitrary (in the true meaning of the word) conventions and expectations of the specific social group or circle. It's a projection of value judgements: for something to be art, some body of authority (such as a religious or academic body for an example) must simply proclaim it "art".
As to function of art - it is to award works that re deemed of some exceptional value by the society and the bodies of authority working within it. That is the only true, universal quality of art, that can be found and traced through any society and any historical period. "Art" is a spotlight, a prestigeous label that separates the "mundane" and "common" from "exceptional" and "noteworthy". And this is true even if you yourself find at odds with the particular judgement of value of the particular work.

99% of arguments about what is art are not actually arguments about art, but rather arguments between people upholding different value systems about what is worth.
Some people believe "expression" itself is highly valuable (as part of an extremely individualistic philosophy): those people will claim "art is expression".
Some people are nihilists and relativists and believe nothing should be deemed more valuable than other things. Those people claim "everything is art" or "nothing is art" - both mean ultimately the same.
Other people are conservative in their values, believe hard work and skill should be valued above others: those people will claim art is only what shows high degree of skill/effort.

That is how art - the debate surrounding it - really works.
Art itself is a functional, normative concept: projection of (various) values onto creations of man.

Are you retarded on purpose ?

alright I'll lay down some truth right here

to layman: not art

to gaymer: art of the highest form

to artist: art

to uber artist who only paints naked stone men: it's a disgrace to even consider such things

>I'm an assblasted art history major who thinks every social and political statement is art
Please post your portfolio, I need a good laugh.

Even "games are/are not art" threads don't attract sufficient amount of shitposting to compete with todays Sup Forums shitposting speed anymore.