Why does society refuse to consider Video games as a form of art...

Why does society refuse to consider Video games as a form of art, but they consider movies art even though most movies are effortless crap?

But by that logic it means the emoji movie was art

If you consider that as art your opinion is invalid here

Video games are considered a form of art and have been from the get go. Only people who don't know what "art" is or confuse it with high art even ask the stupid question or have the stupid "debate".

this, it's art. Just not high art. I drew a picture on a napkin during breakfast. That is also art.

Video games that claim to be "art" are always unenjoyable and pretentious. They're not fun, and they're not art, either.

But it is art. It's just bad.

Because video games only got that respect by hyping up "art games" with little gameplay. Video games are considered art, but the interactive parts, the gameplay, is not.

If you put a random normie in front of TLOU, they will be interested in the non interactive elements, but as soon as you have to start shooting people their eyes glaze over. Gameplay is something that rudely interrupts the REAL art, and it might even commit the unforgiveable sin of stopping your progression, causing the REAL art to be forever unattainable.

Therefore video games are always going to be looked at as a juvenile joke of an art form, because so many of them take breaks from "real art" for video gamey stuff for so long.

The director of that movie is many things, but an artist is not one of them.

thats exactly my point, user. People consider film to be a form of art, even though stuff like the emoji movie exists, so why aren't vidya considered a form of art?

>vidya not high art
>implying that Sup Forums doesn't consist of only the most qualified, professional critics and aficianados, all highly esteemed and respected by their peers elsewhere in the digital realms of the world wide web.

Why does art have to be good?

Because most people are shallow, ignorant garbage.

>this thread again

>buys cuphead for aesthetic reasons

It's not about being good, it's about what it is, and that isn't art. When he made that movie he was thinking about turning a profit on some low hanging fruit. Good or bad, not art.

Depends on the thread.

We actually are all that and a bag of chips when we get into an actual discussion or perform a game's post-mortem.

Art as a term degenerated in the early 1900s.
Now there are only good paintings/music/sculptures and liberal arts shitters trying to cash-in on the former by attempting to use a formerly prestigious term like "art". (which they genuinely believe a can of shit is as well, so that tells you how much those hacks think of the term)

>When he made that movie he was thinking about turning a profit on some low hanging fruit

Whether or not something is made for profit has nothing to do with whether or not it is art. Some of the greatest works of art in human history were made on commission.

Haha, no.
Artists needed that money and so it was a good deal, get to eat from your art while only focusing on making it.
This movie on the other hand, there is nothing creative about it, not a single piece of the creator is in it, it's a product, nothing more.

People who insist on calling things art are bullshit artists trying to setup an environment beneficial to snakeoil salesmanship.

>society

Whoever says something is not art is only EVER speaking for themselves. So realize that next time its brought up.

Art is literally anything you say it is or isnt.. Thats like the only thing i learnt doing a graphic design art masters degree.

In a sense you could say the word art sort of loses meaning.. To which id agree.. Alongside the word gender and love

>bullshit artists
So you're saying bullshit... is an art?

...

Obviously. Politicians have been great examples of bullshit artists since time immemorial.

>no

Yes. You know nothing about art history. Michelangelo didn't even want to paint the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel, he was mainly focused on sculpting. The Pope pretty much forced him to finish it. But we remember it as one of the greatest works of art ever made.

Whether or not something is a product or made for profit has NOTHING to do with whether or not it is art. No idea why you think otherwise.