"Videogames will never be a legitimate art form" - Mel Gibson

>"Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Alejandro Jodorowsky informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."

Was he right?

Other urls found in this thread:

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/games/2004-09-16-game-movie-meld_x.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_in_the_Museum_of_Modern_Art
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

If he is or isn't I don't really care. I play games for fun.

Jokes on you Gibson-kun

...

Of course he was right, video games are shallow escapism.

...

Discussing the coming fusion of games and film, they said video games are getting closer to a storytelling art form — but are not quite there yet.

"I think the real indicator will be when somebody confesses that they cried at level 17," Spielberg said.

usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/products/games/2004-09-16-game-movie-meld_x.htm

There's plenty of emotional games out there.

>"I think the real indicator will be when somebody confesses that they cried at level 17," Spielberg said.
So many spergs cried at that very level, Spielberg.
In all seriousness I think games have the potential to be art, but none of them have touched me as deeply as literature and live plays. But that's just my personal experience with these mediums.

...

Almost every time I've read a book it felt like a chore. Some how they're considered art, but some one can also shit in a box and call it art. If those are art I'd rather videogames not be art.

Video games are better then movies desu

He's obviously right. VIdeo games are toys meant for amusement. They are not art.

And I sure as fuck don't want them to be art. Let me press escape to skip the cutscene and get back to fragging minorities, thanks.

The biggest failure of games as an artform is that they so rarely capitalize on their unique feature, of direct audience interaction, and when they do it is usually very shallow.

>Almost every time I've read a book it felt like a chore
Either you've been reading shit books or you're just bad at reading. Yes you can be bad at reading.

>but some one can also shit in a box and call it art.
Yes but that's modern art, the only purpose of which is to "challenge the art scene" which effectively means an art community circle jerk slash price fixing racket.

>meant for amusement
Just like books, paintings, music, and movies?

MGS3 is art

MGS2 is art

Silent Hill 2 is art.

and I'd dare any director who says otherwise to play it.

A lot of those are just used to push political opinions or agendas nowadays so no not just like those

...

Everybody's Gone to the Rapture proves the haters wrong. I don't care what anyone says that game was a beautiful experience.

lol no. Artwork and music are for appreciation, not play. The Captain Grid-Iron GI Joe figure I had as a kid had a story printed up on the Joe card and you could play with it; guess that's art, too?

Bunch of highly fluoridated millennial bitch boys in here.

Hacksaw Ridge was terrible oscar bait

I wasn't alive when he said that

daily reminder that the "muh vidya are an art form" comes from a culturally induced feeling of inferiority

while video games may contain art (music, graphics, etc...), the act of gaming itself is something entirely different

"game" may in fact a far purer expression of human conditition than art so there really is no reason to argue for games being art

he's right

Why do you keep quoting these irrelevant has-beens as if their opinion an a topic they know nothing about matters? Videogames left movies behind a decade ago and all they can do is shake their angry fist after us.

I honestly don't really give a shit if games are considered art, but when people describe what is art and that same description applies to games I'm going to point it out.

Mel is a man who has had 9 kids and succeeded in Hollywood despite saying that the jews are the cause of every war. He's right about everything.

>falsely attributing a christopher hitchens quote

Daily reminder that games have always been art and always will be and it's actually impossible to make a game that isn't art. Every game that can be made is automatically art, just like every drawing that can be made is art.

Over 100 posts were made on Sup Forums in between these two posts. Amazing.

Correct,

Incorrect.

Art cannot be rated, yet every videogame in existence has been given a score out of ten or five, by numerous reviewers. Therefore, games are not art.

Did you just get here?

that's a nice argument but you have achieved absolutely nothing with it

He's right. And all those shitty walking sims that try to be art are some of the worst games around.

Games are shallow entertainment. They're not meant to be deep or appreciated, if you want that shit read a book.

MGS3 is for children.
MGS2 is for men.

oven dodgers

Hahaha nobody on fucking Sup Forums watches live plays shut the fuck up.

I wish more people thought this way. Then maybe we could have fewer chin stroking pseudointellectuals wafting their farts into their nostrils having their hands in the market, and fewer idiot publishers and developers willing to pander to them.

I think games are art, but definitely not by that logic. In fact I think that's completely backwards.

The story of a game can never make it art. The same way the lyrics of a song cannot make it art. The art of music has to be in the music and the art of games must be in the gameplay.

People always say "but they're made up of multiple art forms so they must be art" but the only relevant art form is gameplay. If the gameplay isn't art, the game isn't art.

movies also aren't art then

This is just garbage said by a bunch of pretentious elitists. Nobody with a brain and the power of observation cares what these asshats have to say.

He's 100% correct. The best games are ones that are just satisfied being games. If I want anything beyond just entertainment I'll watch a movie or read a book.

I have yet to feel genuinely emotionally moved by a video game and never will.

Reminder that video games were already the subject of an exhibit at MOMA:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_games_in_the_Museum_of_Modern_Art

Notice, however, that Tetris is there while Gone Home is not.

The problem is that most developers who want video games to be recognized as art are doing it all wrong. They're putting all the emphasis on the non-interactive elements and claiming that games should be considered art because of this. Sure, you could say an individual game is a work of art because its story is a work of art, or because its music is a work of art, or because its visuals are a work of art... or all three. However, if you can remove the interactive elements from a game without sacrificing any of what makes the game a work of art, then the game isn't doing anything for video games as a medium. If video games as a medium are to be considered an art form then it must be for the features that actually make them games. Developers need to strive for excellence in game design, rather than simply injecting gameplay mechanics into a pretentious short film.

If architecture is an art form, then it's not because architects like to hang paintings on the walls of the buildings they design. It's because the talented architect will bring a unique kind of excellence to the actual design of the building itself, and do things that cannot be done in any other form of art. The same should be true of video games if they are to achieve that same status.

If you think Tetris can't be art because it doesn't have a story, you're the kind of person who is preventing video games from being recognized as a distinct form of art. As long as you have your way, and story-driven games are put forth as the new art form, the video game will not be taken seriously because everyone will continue to think that a video game cannot achieve greatness without taking everything from film and doing it slightly worse.

...

Why are you quoting Voltaire?

Is my toilet art? Is a farm art?

He's wrong. Art is what you make of it, and video games are art by definition.

Merriam-Webster:
"the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects"

Graphics in video games alone fulfill the aesthetic requisite.

I think that people who "reject" vidoe games as art are conflating the culture of gaming and the quality of games. An "artist" can take a shit, gold plate it, and put it in on display, and that is considered art. But developer who designs, codes, models, writes, and makes music constituting a game isn't art? Nonsense.

I contend that video games are the a high form of art because they combine so many of the elements of "the arts" that we tend to separate or enjoy piecemeal as a race.

I think he would be right if he just used the word literature. The most emotional games compromise game design for something else and end up being simplistic and shallow. Good game design generally demands less direct or controlled story telling. But that doesn't mean a well designed game like ayy lmao isn't its own form of art. No one defined art or high art as only being emotionally engaging. The fact that these "Video games aren't art" guys can only compare it to different mediums they are experienced in is pretty small minded of them.

Yes.
In paintings, for example, you do what you want, always.
In videogames you try to appeal as much people as possible.
The only time this happened was in 2001, with MGS2.
That's why MGS2 is only one of the two games to be in the Smithsonian, along with MGS1.

Actually yeah it is, if it's a well crafted action figure i'd say it's art.

>I say, these newfangled photographs will never be held in the same esteem as paintings.
>While we're at it, automobile racing will never be considered a sport.

>nowadays

This idea needs to go. Art has always been, at the core, about representing something directly or indirectly, and has traditionally been n expression of the artist.

There is a reason classical symphonies caused riots when they debuted - they actually conveyed ideas relevant to the times during which they were created.

What the fuck are you babbling about?

>I enjoy the films of Alejandro Jodorowsky
No, you're a fucking retard and so is he.

>MUH NON ZERO GETS
Fucking newfaggot

>Yes you can be bad at reading.
I'm surprised more people don't understand this. A difficult book is way harder than a difficult video game.

>I say, these newfangled photographs will never be held in the same esteem as paintings.

This is true though. Photography is still considered a lesser art.

If video games aren't art, explain Mega Man X

Again, further proof Sup Forums has no idea what they're talking about.

No, it's proof that one post on Sup Forums made by user was wrong.

It obviously depends on how you define art.
That statement is meaningless because he makes no mention of how he defines art.

Obviously, Mel Gibson's art forms are film and antisemitism.

Sup Forums: We're conservatives now guys! Fuck art, fuck philosophy, fuck psychology, and fuck feelings! We're so awesome.
Sup Forums: What? Video games are NOT art! Allow me to talk out of my ass about art for a second.

His definition of art becomes more clear when you read more than this byline on his opinion.

Video games are games, not art. Games can certainly have art in them, for example a platform game can have nicely drawn backgrounds and sprites. But there is a limit to how well this can work, as too much art in a game eventually takes away from the gameplay. The most enduring games have the bare minimum in terms of graphics. It begs the question, are you playing the game for the game, or for the art? It's pretty clear to me that normie casuals just like the idea of gaming more than actually playing games. Don't be a casual.

Yeah because the entire basis of Sup Forums isn't about stirring shit and pretending to be retarded. Nope. Not at all.

>Sup Forums is Sup Forums

Go back.

this.

I don't care about art when I play a game. I just want entertainment, a challenge, escapism,etc.

It wasn't wrong though. Photography is not on the same level as painting.

Why can't a game be considered art if it falls under the definition of art and is recognized by the government as art? Because they're games? That's so arbitrary.

Who does this? Who makes these threads where they falsely attributeanti-videogame quotes to my favorite people? I've seen it with bowie, morissey, and now based mel. None of them give a fuck about videogames and you stupid fucks never bother to google the quote and see if its legit. I hate all of you

Yeah because that's TOTALLY not the general consensus on Sup Forums.

>an entire website is literally one person
Really taps the spinal

Because Sup Forums is desperate to distance themselves from their hobby in an effort to seem more mature.

I don't think it is. I mean we have boards dedicated to art, philosophy, and humanities. Don't mistake Sup Forums, Sup Forums, and Sup Forums for all of Sup Forums just because they're the only boards you visit.

Again, the vast majority of Sup Forums thinks like this. You can cover your ears and pretend they don't, but they fucking do.

This is an anonymous imageboard. The whole idea is that there is no consensus, no matter how hard you try to grasp for one.

user I browse /lit/ all the time. It's almost as bad as Sup Forums in terms of distancing themselves from their hobby.

Why would want videogames to be art? Look at the money-laundering shitfest that is modern art and ask yourself if you to be associated with that.

BASED MEL

You're a fucking infant. You're going to have to traverse about seventeen layers of irony before you're able to find out what anyone here actually thinks.

Then why does every single thread on Sup Forums that involves video games being art devolve into "NUH UH THEY'RE FOR KIDS AND MANBABIES!"?

t. Someone who has never attempted to take a meaningful photograph

I don't think Mel Gibson said that, I think it was a film critic.

>Sup Forums: We're conservatives now guys! Fuck art, fuck philosophy, fuck psychology, and fuck feelings! We're so awesome.
If you understood philosophy, you'd understand logic.

>It's the Ebert quote episode

I see responses like this a lot when I call out Sup Forums. From now on I'm screencapping every post on Sup Forums denouncing video games as anything more than kids toys so I can rub it in your face and prove you wrong.

Because it's bullshit, basically. Take chess for instance. You can paint a chess board, you can carve the pieces, fuck, you can make it so expensive and artsy that it's unplayable. But the game underneath is still not art. It's a game. See what I'm getting at here? No matter how much art you put on top of a game, it doesn't change the game underneath. So when hipsters praise shit like "journey", they are literally fooling themselves into enjoying a subpar game just because it looks nice. Again, a game can contain art, but the game and the art will always be separate.

I'm sorry, are you saying Sup Forums DOESN'T have this mentality? Because you're full of shit.

It seems that I have been bested in quite the internet argument spectacle this evening, my good man. I will now formally concede defeat. How will you take your concessions?

Every movie in existence has been given a score out of ten or five, by numerous reviewers. Therefore, movies are not art

Every book in existence has been given a score out of ten or five, by numerous reviewers. Therefore, books are not art

Every music album in existence has been given a score out of ten or five, by numerous reviewers. Therefore, music is not art

>Gone Home
>good
Maybe if it was a movie.

So you admit I'm right then?
Like, you can go ahead and say "buhhh internet fight" but at the end of the day I'm objectively right. I win, fucking blow me.

Someone needs to give Mr. Gibson Warband.

Yeah? Why don't you point out where that's happened in this thread?

t. Someone who has never attempted to make a meaningful painting

>the game underneath is still not art
That's wrong though. I'd argue the game is art. It incites emotions the same way art does.

Also did you write that entire rant just to shit on Journey? Not very subtle.