A painter makes a static 2D impression of reality

A painter makes a static 2D impression of reality

A game developer creates a living, moving, entire WORLD in 3D, with music and story to go with it, requiring the viewer's input for a truly personalized experience

Other urls found in this thread:

vocaroo.com/i/s0Rlo0xnzPMt
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

I agree, Undertale IS art!

...

why do niggers care if video games are seen as art or not?

Well, if the concept artist is a piece of shit, the living, breathing world is going to look like shit, also.

>tfw you will never make a comfy enviromental painting with a small town and get lost in it with your imagination

No no no no no

THIS is real art.

And this thread is steaming and ready to go!

Video games are art in the same way getting cards are. Mass produced garbage sold to the lowest common denominator

You're right, Mario is more realistic.

WA-HOOOOOO!

YIPEEEEEEEEE

You are right, this beautiful art from a gallery is so much more poignant and profound and beautiful because it's not made for all the plebians

>a living, moving, entire WORLD in 3D
This is not a game.
>music and story to go with it
This is not a game.

>the viewer's input
Well done, you have discovered the game. It's not art, mind you. It's a set of rules which dictate what the player can do, and metrics for how well the players do it. That's what a game is. That's not art.

Remove all the aforementioned art from the game and the game still plays exactly the same way. This is because a game is a game and it is not art.

thx doc

...

aw shucks thanks

All art requires viewer input. That is the point.

Talent is what improves upon it.

Because a painting is the vision of one mind but a game is the product of competing ideas and sacrifices and rarely is there an auteur that makes games. Most games are products of focus groups

I unironically like that painting. It legitimately activates my almonds.

I mean, what is it? A little square in a big square? A corner? A zoom in on a clock? It's like an ASCII game, you can just let your imagination run wild on it.

>painting is the focus of one mind

Not always, and not all art is made by a single person. Just think of some of the massive, intricate, expertly crafted churches and cathedrals in Europe. Would you not say those are art?

I know that Witcher has lots of more impressive scenes to look at.
But what is it about videogames and all that damn brown crap that everyone are forcing? Not only developers forcing brown crap, but fans too. Screenshotting and applauding brown and dull as fuck scenes from videogames.

Meanwhile that painting makes excellent use of contrasts, colour balance, and careful framing.
But videogames just pushes the most boring crap. With arguments of it being "mature" and whatnot and it just drives me mad. What exactly is mature about being incapable of presenting an attractive image?
I know that videogames are videogames and that gameplay always comes first. But if you're going to make such a huge thing about the art, then at the very least do it well. All these hacks would flunk art school. And yes I know that art school is a joke, but they're still strict when it comes to some of the basics and there are plenty of videogame developers who fail even at them.

The painting is rather cartoonish and stylized.

Real life often has such a large amount of browns and orange tones.

I know it depends on what style you are going for, but being able to see the skill and talent behind the surface is what really matters, in my opinion.

>Subjective

This never happens.

Making art is suffering, and you are never good enough.

Art doesn't impose a metric on the viewer's input. If someone completely misses the point of a song or a book or is physically unable to perceive the art work, it doesn't stop the art from being art. Furthermore, if one is ignorant of an art work's intent, the art itself cannot tell the viewer that it has failed to do so.

A game, to the contrary, exists to tell the participants if they have followed the rules of the games to an extent from which a result can be determined on the basis of an arbitrary metric. Art doesn't function in this way. This is how art is not a game.

>left arm of the forbiden one

What do you know about art?
vocaroo.com/i/s0Rlo0xnzPMt

Hate to break it to you but latter is shit from an artistic point of view.

>use any moment as a still frame from a massive fully-realized world, tens of thousands of hours invested in crafting and creating this experience

>not art


>take the same still frame and trace over it or paint it in any fashion you wish in a few hours

>art

Hmmmm....

>The painting is rather cartoonish and stylized.
Yes. It's no doubt an idealized image.
But what I'd like to argue, is that the bottom one basically is too. Only in some of the worst possible ways.
You'd be hard pressed to find a scene just as dull and boring as that in real life. If you searched long and hard enough, at the right time of year and waited for the right weather conditions. Sure, you could. But the same still holds true for the above barring some minor colour correction.

I just almost find it kind of insulting. With people putting so much time and effort into something and ultimately not presenting an idealized image to heighten the beauty of the image. Especially so if your image doesn't even look realistic to begin with, or worse yet, bends the laws of the scene to enhance qualities that just makes it more dull. Neither more realistic, nor more beautiful.
It honestly feels like a trend born from a sense of counter culture from legitimate and purposeful art. As if they're intentionally choosing to avoid an idealized image, for the explicit purpose of not presenting one. As if that makes them better for being different. I may be projecting here, but it still frustrates me and I am almost sure I am on to something even if just to an extent.

>something has to look good to be art

>its a muh subjective interpretation of what art is thread
pls no

There are places that look like that painting

Underrated keks

>people I handed my book to for feedback liked it
>was personally unsatisfied with it so I rewrote it twice
>they absolutely loved it after the second rewrite, to the point where they told their friends/family about it and wanted to share it with them
>still feel like it might not be good enough

If realism is your goal, why aim for an "idealized image"?

Not everything is beautiful, and beauty can still even be found in even rather grim and gloomy places

The word art has no meaning

Damn right. This is why modding is such cancer, art is not meant to be tampered with.

Thread should have ended right here

>art critics
games are art, most devs have a dedicated art team, only people who say it isn't art are people who would agree pic related is 'art'

If realism is your goal, then why enhance features that aren't normally accentuated in real life anyway?
If realism is your goal, then why craft less satisfying scenes than you can find in real life anyway?

If you're going to alter something, why make it less appealing rather than more appealing?

Well, the love labor of one guy and a couple of his friends is certainly more akin to art than the paid work of 300+ industry professionals working for on a million dollars business' latest blockbuster.

Art is just a word we made up to describe products that make us feel things

I could take a shit, call it art, and there'd be no way to disprove me.

Witcher 3 isn't a gloomy or dark or "brown" game anyways, people saying that stuff clearly never played it.

It all depends on weather, time, and location, just like real life.

~:_*:-*~F O O D A N AL O G Y~:_*:-*~

>A game developer can create a living, moving, entire WORLD in 3D, with music and story to go with it, requiring the viewer's input for a truly personalized experience
So how come no one has done so?

>A game developer

Made of up dozens to hundreds of different people just doing it for a paycheck. The expression is completely lost.

But a Bob Ross landscape isn't art either.

Yep. Aesthetics is an inseparable part of the art. That's why modern "art" such as feminists' screaming that they call "mermaid song" or something like that (look it up if you want a cheap laugh at the expense of having a traumatic experience that will scar your psyche for the rest of your life at the same time) is not an art.

Mind that "good looking" does not necessarily mean "beautiful".

You are clearly retarded

You think everything should just be 100% appealing all the time? That is stupid. Especially when it comes to art.

wew

a lot of modern art isn't about skill, per say, but mystique and pushing boundaries. We've seen beautiful portraits and realistic landscapes for lifetimes. We're seen abstractions refractions defractions zhirfractions everything. Now it's about finding something new, anything, that gets your brain moving, like said

Just because you make money off of something doesn't mean you can't be passionate and pour your talent into it

You are part of the problem, this is why retarded "" artists "" get away with shit like blank canvases in huge galleries and museums

Just because more than one person work on something doesn't make it not art

>just doing it for a paycheck.
not every dev is triple A.

Hahah another delayed baby.

You're probably getting fixated on the term "appealing" etc.
For example, here . It's a night time image. An idealized night time image typically focuses on contrasts of darks to present an appealing image. And manages that.

If you somehow think that I somehow think that an image has to have vibrant colours and whatnot to be beautiful then you're way off. But there is sadly a trend in art that diminishes the distinguishable qualities of the art itself, making the overall composition more bland in general. Be it through choosing one or two colours and have it bleed into every other colour, or just through controlled shading, or just having everything be brown or blue or whatever from the get go. And that's disturbing.

And it works doesn't it?
There's no objective way to measure art, you measure it by the worth of its contents.

It's retards like you who try to quantify the qualifications of something being art who are the reason there are urinals in galleries.

It's either literally everything is art to be judged on a subjective basis, or art doesn't exist. There's no in between.

>Just because more than one person work on something doesn't make it not art

Sure, example being bands. But those are people who share their blood, sweat, and tears in a very close and intimate environment.

When it's dozens of people or more, it's more of a collaboration. Like drawball.com

OP posted Witcher, so I went with the example.

The vidya medium as a whole IS art, but when it comes down to indie devs, it's still a case-by-case basis. With Doom, entire levels, songs, and assets were created by one person. You can tell which levels were made by who based on their mapping style.

Downloading trees and rocks from a resource library and placing them nicely in an open world is more like scrap booking.

I guess Picasso never made art once in his life.

My definition

Art is something that requires skill to create

The artist or artists should be passionate about making their creation

It shouldn't be easily recreated by another artist or person

And it should serve a purpose, whatever that purpose may be, such as sending a message, making you feel a certain way or anything else

>It shouldn't be easily recreated by another artist or person
Photographs ended this possiblility long ago.

So what makes that Witcher screenshot so horrible to you

They're both art. In the development of that game they would've hired hundreds of concept artists making thousands of paintings, it's all part of one big process. Art is a huge umbrella term

That's fine, my personal interpretation of art requires it could not of been produced by a laymen. But it's just that, a personal interpretation.

My point is we should judge art by its characteristics, not whether or not it's art because at that point you're just arguining semantics.

Art is *L I T E R A L L Y* a meme word. It might actually be the original meme word as a matter of fact.

Photographs still aren't easily recreated. Unless you're literally both in one spot at the exact same time. But that's kind of stretching the definition of being "recreated"

I don't mean it as in just tracing over a painting, copy pasting a file, or photocopying a photograph, I mean re-creating from the ground up.

not gonna make it

The whole games are art push is what attracted all the garbage people currently in the "industry" in the first place.

It's essentially a colourful image that lacks colour and does a very poor job at accentuating the colours it does have. Without having any striking dark and white contrasts or perspective anything else take centre stage instead of its colours either. Of which it is already lacking.
Which is why I deem it a relatively soulless image. It makes it bland. It doesn't really have much of anything while still lacking a sense of modesty.

As stated. Far from a fan. Never have been a fan. It's directionless. And it's as if artists are trying to explicitly make art out of not having a direction and have that be their direction. Which is really frustrating. What purpose(s) does your image have? Alright. Accentuate them through one or several techniques. Please.

In my opinion for something to be art it should serve no purpose. A game cannot be art because a game has a functional purpose. If you then take the "game" out of the game world I would consider it art. But then would the game world be as interesting?

Name a piece of art that doesn't have a purpose

Every painting ever made?

That's correct. Picasso was an overrated faggot. Painted some squares and triangles and said they represent something and people bought it because humans have a tendency to look for patterns and meanings to shapes, like when children look at clouds and see dogs and faces, and when you suggest the meaning to them, they're more likely to accept it, just like in case of satanic Stairway to Heaven.

>Remove all the aforementioned art from the game and the game still plays exactly the same way.

So remove the world, the music, the story and characters from a game and you're left with, what a concept for a game?

That's like saying remove the music, story, characters and pictures from a movie and what you're left with is what a movie actually is. If it's part of the product then it's fair to use it to define the product.

Games have art in them because games are art.

what's the purpose of a game? It has gaols within it, granted but those goals aren't a purpose for the game itself. You choose the play the game and when you're done no purpose was served outside of the game being finished.

Also didn't gene siskel make that same argument?

Creating something that triggers pareidolia sounds like a pretty wicked art project to me user. Of course it would have to be intentional. I don't know much about Picasso.

They have the purposes of being viewed, looking nice, making you feel emotion, literally anything to do with visual experience

If they had no purpose nobody would want them and they would be worthless

Movies and video games have a list of criteria that makes them such

Art is purely dependent on one's interpretation as such.

That pic was made intentionally to bastardize art, it was made to be anti-art.

so movies arent art?
music? books? those are mass produced, you nig nog

Yeah, more like contemporary art is a con to separate self-indulgent rich people from their money. Making sort of garbage seem profound by employing mysterious jargon and hazy standards dictated by a few ponces, you can sell this crap for big bucks.

But beauty will fucking enchant you. Go to any museum where modern and classical art share a space and you will see people stop in front of the great works of beauty.

I'll take beauty over the cheap charade that passes for art these days.

I completely disagree on the purpose bit.

Since art aims to inspire and trigger certain emotions, the collective concept of those emotions would be an older meme.

Love and Laughter are much older than art lol. Are you trying to imply that something is disingenuous if it's a meme?

Again, I ask anyone to name art that doesn't have a purpose

Only shitty art tries to trigger emotions. Art is about disinterested aesthetic appreciation, not emotions. Read Critique of Judgment you pleb.

It should serve a purpose is a completely useless statement, unless you take it to mean that it was made to serve a purpose. Which is not true of all art.

>Kant
>Unironically

You know he was autistic right?

No he wasn't you moron. He was a hit at parties and was a known socialite.

Cant certain game aesthetics trigger said appreciation?

Certain games, though

Art is about whatever you want it to be, my man :^)

I can't believe there are people who try to argue what is or isn't art. Art is a buzzword. If you appreciate aesthetic, appreciate the aesthetic of art. If you appreciate tone or design, appreciate that aspect of art. You like the colors? Well guess what part of that "art" I'm going to tell you to appreciate.

The term art is for people too lazy to actually assess why it is they like something. The second people realize this is the second traditional art makes a come back.

Mmmm been a while, doc. Thanks.

> Sup Forums discuss what is art

kek

Art is wanting to make art. Anything created by wishing to make art is an art piece.

OBESED

It's either art or not, and it doesn't come down to anything in what you wrote. If 300+ industry professionals working for a computer that randomly generates game designs makes better games, so be it. One guy's effort still can't go that far relative to that game-sausage-factory. Undertale really showcases the limitations, even.

>Art is just a word we made up to describe products that make us feel things

So far so good, even if it applies to sex toys as well at this point. A good question is, how could you design a product to make you feel as much as possible, with the biggest possible "spectrum" available? Art would be an answer, which includes video games. They make us feel things through the craft of seeming like something much more than they are. Music's another most obvious example of this. The sight and sound of something is actually something that makes your body touch itself, art takes advantage of the potential of resemblance to do this.

>Painted some squares and triangles and said they represent something and people bought it because humans have a tendency to look for patterns and meanings to shapes

They also show off with it, too. There's been a kind of war to out-fag other pretentious billionaire art collectors that's been going on for a long time. Spreading confusion (The art critic, trapped in the magnetic fields of modern art bullshit), seeming like they "represent something" when they don't, those are just a couple of the ruses in these small-scale fagwars.

Why is gameplay not art? If that's what defines a video game rather than the art assets that it utilizes, then what makes the gameplay not art? I'd argue that the act of playing a video game evokes emotions that are unlike anything else in the world.

This is one of the dumbest, most pretentious shits I've ever read here.

If you think removing the "living, moving, entire world" from a game would still leave something like a game behind, you're retarded. The "viewer's input" is one side of the coin, and BOTH sides are essential. If you had no feedback, audio/visual/rumble, you'd have nothing left (as far as art goes, at least). Short of that, if you think stripping away the artistic styling aesthetics makes the game play "exactly the same way", that's because you lack feeling for games and don't know the absolute significance of feeling in appreciating them. In other words, you're a robot.

/thread

surpised Sup Forums had user with their minds in t

HOLY SHIT LOOK AT THOSE VISTAAAAASSSSS

Nice try witcher slav subhuman we're on to you