Movies are art

>movies are art

>kino

what are they then?

name ONE (1) movie that's art.

emoji movie

>I don't make "movies", I make video art installations

The Mona Lisa

except the are

feature in films are played in art museums all the time. when has a video game (that was sold to the public and not created for an art installation) been exhibited?

Why do we hold the word 'art' to such a high degree when most of real 'art' is shit? Any movie is art stop being autistic.

>horror movies

>Seth Rogen movies are art
>Cuphead isn't

>Seth Rogen movies are art
there is such a thing as bad art
>Cuphead
lol go back to Sup Forums if you wanna jerk off their meme game of the month

if you seriously think fucking cuphead is art you should honestly consider ending your life

>not art

>art

>The expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
how does that not apply to cuphead

>children's amusement games
>art
pick one
theres a reason dr. suess never won a nobel prize

You know snoop probably thinks he's the corniest motherfucker in the world

>art

>imbeciles still confuse art with good

Those are the fucking worst. I've seen the rare one that's cool but in most cases (like the rest of postmodern art) they're made by hacks with no knowledge of the medium who know how to market to the clique. Western fine art is desperately in need of a revolution, pop art was the last movement that had any merit. What the fuck will people look at to understand everything from the 70s to the present? Movies, pop music, ads and so on I suppose, because the fine art is pathetic.

>art can be fun

Disney cartoons are art

How does one define art?

gib gf pleas

those hips are art, yes

art

an industrial product

OH IT SHOWS

E-Eba is not kino!

>there are people here who haven't even beat the first world

I would love to see one "X is not art!"-fag show an example of what he thinks art is

>porn is art

I'm a girl and even I think that is so fucking hot

*ahem*

>children's superhero movies
>art

But it has artwork in it, so does that mean the artwork in it is art, but putting it in a game is not? So it's not art, but it features art.

What was up with 'that' level lads?

What is some 1930's kino?

film made in the 1930s? gone with the wind, wizard of oz

Film set in the 30s? Chinatown

wrong image

>video games update themselves every couple of days now
>people still think they're art

I don't get it, the OP is making fun of people who say movies are art

>mfw giantess vore in a mainstream vidya game

Thanks for reminding me of Chinatown. Always wanted to see it but I keep forgetting about it.

i-is this art?

Ghost In The Shell

Suicide Squad

mobies a meme

...

OP is correct. Sadly, cinema can never match the grandeur of music. This is because music stimulates the creative parts of the mind, aiding the listener in creating worlds vaster than any camera could ever encapsulate. Cinema will always be a limited medium, since the worlds it presents are by necessity streamlined, as opposed to the free-flowing worlds of music, and as such, no movie will ever be as evocative and apocalyptic as ITCOTCK.

This is also why cinema is a lesser art form than music.

Oh, I remember that autistic user. Is that you, or is that pasta from one of his posts?

MoMA has a video game installation now, you dolt. It's got about 15 games, including Tetris, Portal, and Street Fighter II

Film is unironically the highest form of art.
It actually contains all the other art forms in all the filmmaking elements, from fashion, architecture, design to music, photography, the writing and performances.

With film, you can express your idea in just one single frame through framing and composition, the performance, production design, sound
etc, while in for example books you have to use multiple sentences just to set up the scene and for the viewer to grasp what's happening. Reading words linearly is not efficient and it relies too much on the readers imagination, film is just much more efficient. Also with film you get an exact fixed artistic expression that can’t be changed, while in books half of the narrative is in every readers imagination and it's entirely different with every single person.

Now that doesn't mean everyone uses the medium to it's maximum potential, but it has a far greater potential than any other art form.

>subtext, ambiguity, and individual interpretations are bad things
Why are cinema fans such plebs? Oh, that's right, their favorite medium isn't an art form.

Deny it all you want, but you know in your bones that I'm correct. This is why your mom would chase you outside when you watched too much TV, but she would never throw you out for listening to too much Bach. Humans have an instinctive understanding of the healthiness of music. This is also why all cultures in history have music, while only decadent and decaying cultures have cinema.

Can chad make art?

American movies were capable of being art before 1977.

>subtext, ambiguity, and individual interpretations are bad things
Where did I say or even imply anything of that?

The point is that with cinema you get EXACTLY what the artist wanted and you're free to interpret it any way you want, while in literature the artist is heavily dependant on the viewer to form the setting he sets up in a certain way which the viewer then interprets how he wants.

I've always believed something's qualification as true "art" came from the subjective process that occurs between the presentation of the medium and the interpretation of it by the consumer as intended in some sort of way by the creator of the piece. Furthermore, each medium of art operates from a primary basis of interaction. Music is an auditory medium, though there can be ways to incorporate visuals into it the 'art' happens in ones interpretation of sound. Film is a visual medium, though there can be sound to it or even weird things like smell-o-vision, the art occurs in the visual interpretation.
Video games, then, are interesting, as I believe that their 'art', if indeed it does occcur, happens in the gameplay, which is already in and of itself an objective interaction, where doing something has an objective impact back on the game, which can be very diffocult to then turn into a subjective experience from the creator's point of view. It's not entirely impossible though. Memes of it being one big movie aside, a game like MGS4 certainly has 'art' to it in sections like the microwave hall where you have to mash buttons to get through it in an agonizing fashion, intended to link the player in some way to the pain Snake is experiencing. That kind of utilization of gameplay as a subjective art is rare though. Not impossible, but rare.

If a child sat inside all day listening to Bach, they're parents would absolutely still encourage them to go outside and be a kid. What kind of autistic household did you grow up in?

>The point is that with cinema you get EXACTLY what the artist wanted
Not true. The massive budgets and production crews that cinema demands compromise the artistic integrity of the products. Meddling from studios and producers stifle creativity in cinema. Only a fool would deny this.

>you're free to interpret it any way you wan
Not true. Since cinema is a heavily constricted, visual medium, very little is left to the viewer's imagination, unlike literature, which leaves almost everything to the reader's imagination. Cinema is low art for lazy consumers, unlike music and literature, which are high arts for cultured patricians.

Imagine being this cucked

>Film will never have a piece of media on the same level of artistry as these three masterpieces

Top kek, are you fags even trying?

I still can't quite get it, is this pasta or no. If not, then congratulations, you're probably the most pretentious autist I've ever seen.

>Not true. The massive budgets and production crews that cinema demands compromise the artistic integrity of the products.
That's your fault if you watch exclusively big budget Hollywood blockbusters. And there are every year a few decent films that get made from Hollywood with director who had absolute 100% creative directorial control (Dunkirk, BR 2049)

>cinema is a heavily constricted, visual medium, very little is left to the viewer's imagination
Yes, and that's why people still argue about what the artist meant in films from Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Lynch etc right?
Cinema does not constrict, it only expands the expands the experience. In literature you are limited to using written sentences which the viewer has to read in a linear way, while in film you can get your thought out with a single frame with the help of all the fillmaking elements possible.

>Dunkirk
>Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Lynch
Hehe, good one. Wait, you're actually serious? Wow...

>while in film you can get your thought out with a single frame with the help of all the fillmaking elements possible.
Exactly. With massive crews and cutting-edge technology, modern "art" forms do all the thinking for you. How convenient and efficient. I can just sit back with my popcorn and shut my brain off. So comfy.

>With massive crews and cutting-edge technology, modern "art" forms do all the thinking for you
Why do you keep talking about "massive crews" "studio meddling" etc, like big budget Hollywood blockbusters are everything that exists in the film industry?
It's like I start talking only the biggest literature best sellers are everything that literature has got.

And your "thinking" point is quite stupid because it does zero thinking for you, it only removes all the limits of the other mediums and you get the unadultareted artistic vision from the director.

>Why do you keep talking about "massive crews" "studio meddling" etc, like big budget Hollywood blockbusters are everything that exists in the film industry?
What's your favorite film that was made by only one person? The Count Of Monte Cristo was created by one man with a pen. Good luck creating something that grand with your camcorder.

>removes all the limits of the other mediums and you get the unadultareted artistic vision from the director.
Oh, I'm laffin'. Cinema is an incredibly limited in scope, since film sets and special effects are far more expensive and limited than the limitless vastness of the human imagination. Even animation is a richer medium than cinema, since the limitations of the pencil are nowhere near as constricting as the limits of film sets.

>What's your favorite film that was made by only one person?
Is there nothing between MASSIVE CREWS and a single person? Inland Empire was basically made by David Lynch and his cheap SD digital camcorder entirely.

>Cinema is an incredibly limited in scope, since film sets and special effects are far more expensive and limited than the limitless vastness of the human imagination
Cinema is limited if the person has limited options on how to make the movie yes, but in the right circumstances cinema has a vastly bigger potential than literature will ever have.
You're only talking about production, I'm talking about the end result here. Tell me how is a film like 2001 limited by it's medium.

>auteur

>redditors trying to shill Cuckhead on Sup Forums now

The game is a bland, soulless metal slug that's attempting to pander to people based on its "unique" art style and it being "hard" (it isn't, and if you're sincerely struggling you might be on the spectrum. DSP beat it) in order to get dumb idiots that play games for an image to purchase it.

But keep playing your retard game, it's fine.

>cuckhead

>and if you're sincerely struggling you might be on the spectrum.
Being good at videogames is not a real skill, are your grandparents autists for not being good at them? Thought so.

t.contrarian retard

No, they're old. They also aren't good at football anymore either. If you are a young adult, play video games a decent bit and struggle with Fuckhead, you're a retard with 0 motor skills. I'm sorry to break this news to you.

>Inland Empire was basically made by David Lynch and his cheap SD digital camcorder entirely.
No, it wasn't. He didn't build the sets, he didn't compose the OST, he didn't do the casting, he wasn't even at the helm of the art direction. A single person could compose a masterpiece with a piano and a sheet of paper. A single person could write a masterpiece with a pen or a typewriter. A single person could paint a masterpiece with a brush and a pallet. No single person could make a masterpiece with a camera, with no outside assistance, that's on par with the greatest works of the formerly mentioned art forms. Cinema is inherently limited by excessive compromise, as well as diminished opportunity for subtext.

>but in the right circumstances cinema has a vastly bigger potential than literature will ever have.

Except it doesn't. A few words can induce more vivid worlds in the mind of a creative reader than a camera could ever capture. The same can be said for music and drawing. Take this piece of art by some highly talented amateur on the internet. To bring something like this to life on the big screen would require a crew and a budget. For a talented artist, all it took was some simple tools and his ability.

Got a webbum with the dancing sunflower boss? That one was my favorite