Is film the lowest form of art ?

Is film the lowest form of art ?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/7-xPUUtV-1w
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

No, photography is

Did you ask this on Sup Forums because /lit/ made you insecure?

>God Tier
Literature
Music
Film
Painting

>High Tier
Fashion design
Sculpture
Photography
Architecture
Industrial design
Textiles
Theater

>Mid Tier
Calligraphy
Dance
Cuisine
Interior design (as a concept)
Conceptual art
Graphic design

>Useless Shit Tier
Television
Ceramics
Glassware
Woodworking
Printmaking
Jewelry
Fretwork
Metal work
Ivory Carving

>Not Even Art Tier
Videogames

sage

W-whatever do you mean? Hey, nice dubs!

Ranking different forms of art is retarded.

>Textiles

Nice b8

list reminds me of buttsex

Literature is actually first, or even zero person, as you "observe" from the point of view of the omnipotent narrator, capable of observing even thoughts and ideas

Because as soon as you get past the first few inches, its all shit?

Film is almost always third person you retard

that picture is fucking idiotic. literature uses 1st person narration and, sporadically, 2nd person as well.

if anything, the three are distinct by their interactivity, or use of senses.

Samefag pls go

You do know OP didn't make the image right right??

>no baneposting

nice b8

No, because like all lists, it's great when you do it but a pain in the arse when someone else does it to you.


Or so I've heard.

>calligraphy mid tier
>photography, textiles high

yeah fuck off

thats totally not what 2nd person means

No medium is above another. It's about the response illicited. A powerful enough felling could come from a damn infomercial & still be worthy.

If games are 1st person then how come we have 3rd person shooters?

Checkmate Sup Forums

>cinema
>audience observes the subject

No, you observe the subject in theater. In cinema, you are looking at the description of the subject much like in literature, except this time visually through the scope given by the director.

I don't understand the people that make these.

Do they really think pressing X to win makes the story more compelling and solving arbitrary tasks to progress makes it more immersing?

it would be "observes the subject through the eyes of another subject interacting with the subject" like if Hardcore Henry was shot the same way but he wasnt the protagonist i guess.

there might be some found footage films that would qualify as second person or at least have second person scenes.

>using the word 'art' as a stamp of approval
Capeshit fans, everyone.

well done, you're learning

>>God Tier
>Film
>>Useless Shit Tier
>Television

Okay grandpa.

It's about the medium not the content, doofus.

first post best post.

/thread

If you think art has gradations from lowest to highest forms, you already misunderstand art

you forgot jacking off

...

No but video games are a super form of media by encompassing everything Cinema has and including the player in an active role.

Dance in Mid Tier? Get the fuck outta here !

Yea

>Taxi Driver is such a great movie. The only thing that could make it better is if I could swivel the camera around to my content and press Y to shoot pimps

Video games are a dumbing down of other artforms for the sake of base entertainment

I want to know what these people define as "art". But it all comes to how pretentious "critics" feel.

vidya will surpass film sooner or later, deal with it

some are already better than most film

What is the point of art if not to entertain?

I guess it's a good thing I'm not bad at it.

Its really sad that some retards actually think that. I hope you're just shitposting ironically, user

Found the 8yo.

Video games are are the highest form of art but a requirment is having enough intelligence to be good at them.

Art was rarely ever used for pure entertainment throughout the majority of human history. Cave paintings and stone carvings likely played the role of manuals, and pagan symbolics, literature was invented for accounting, poetry came to be to preserve knowledge because with severe lack of paper memorizing things was easier in poetic meter, first songs played the roles of either political propaganda, or religious indocrinations. Art being used for entertainment is a fairly new idea

is that why low IQ Sup Forums drones come here for validation and not /lit/?

Video games are artistic, in that they are a creative endeavor designed to stimulate, but they are not "Art." I think certain games have come close (The Stanley Parable), but we have yet to see any video game that can truly be compared to other works of art.

dance is the purest form of art

youtu.be/7-xPUUtV-1w

hahshahahahahaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaahahahhahahahahaaa

Great art is used to convey higher ideas than just entertainment, and I feel gameplay is inherently at odds with that,

Games are good for action-driven genre stories. Not anything loftier

Video games are designed to be entertaining. There are cinema designed to alienate and be as unentertaining as possible to the mainstream audience. There are movements like French New Wave, Japanese New Wave, German Expressionism, Italian neorealism, Queer Cinema etc. There is nothing like that in video games.

Kino > *

You need to be over 18 to be here.

>Film
>God tier

No. Film requires nothing from its consumers, 99% just stare in a stupor.

not an argument

lol no

see

...

>Woodworking
>Metal work
>useless shit

ok buddy

I wasn't arguing, it's an objective fact sport

This is objectively true.

not an argument

not the user you are baiting but here is a real argument

Video games do not primarily aim to tell something new about the world or frame a particular mindset about a certain human condition, which is what most art throughout history and 90% of the 'good art' today [read: shown in top end galleries] revolve around.

Sometimes the way art does this is sort of artificial, or projected onto by reaching academic cunts, but this is not nearly the majority no matter what deluded anime video game fedora tipping babies on this Indonesian Cotton Picking forum say. There is a shit ton of art that actually comments, reflects, or invents new ways to understand cultural phenomena. look at the work of amalia ulman, brad troemel, and jon rafman for example.

I'd say video games almost never do this, and even in the cases where you could argue it does, it rarely is the main purpose of the video game. those that try to do this sort of are usually those indie games that everyone on Sup Forums shits on anyway so I doubt you are referring to those

most video games aim to create entertaining interactivity. the 'creativity' that goes into most games involves plot, 'mechanics', and character design [and obviously game design]. Creativity does not always equal something artistic.

The way a League of Legends Hero's abilities synergize with each other can be 'creative' and unique, but ultimately don't fucking say anything remotely important about any fucking aspect in the world.


TLDR: Video games 99% of the time aim at creating interactive experience that is ultimately limited to the context of the game, not saying, reflecting, or discovering anything new about the world.
MOST art that is legitimately respected and not troll-y bullshit focuses on either reframing a part of the world or exploring cultural phenomena.
Video games can be art, but most are not used for artistic purposes, just to create a fun experience that means nothing.

not an argument

>not dance or any other performance art

I agree that photography is down there, but it's not the lowest

It is now.

>Video games
Sorry friend, Hollywood is just a multiculti mouthpiece now. Nothing artistic about it at all.

ITT: Anally ravaged children mad that their toys aren't and will never be art

I agree.

As omniscient as the narrator is, you can only see what he tells you, so it's by definition 3rd person. If you really want to stretch you could say 2nd, but actually seeing the characters and the environment is more direct.