When people say video games are art, what are they describing exactly? What quality makes video games art?
The fact that every game in existence required some form of creative skill and imagination to produce makes them all art.
It's not very difficult to qualify something as art, to be honest.
>>322126303
This. Everything can be art. The real question should be whether video games are good art or Piss Jesus-tier art.
>>322126139
The art in video games makes video games art
When every game asset has to hand created, soundtracks composed, and coding done that's a lot of personal effort to make a piece if entertainment. How can they not be considered art? Any creative endeavour with enough intelligence and time is art
>>322126139
>>322126550
>>322126303
What makes things art then? All it takes is an ounce of creativity, and it's art?
>>322126139
I honestly believe the whole video games are art thing started by fags trying to justify their hobby. And then it got taken over by sjw and censorship fags who use the art excuse to try and hold games to higher standards, even though true art is never censored because it's meant to invoke a reaction, good or bad
>>322126725
>Any creative endeavour with enough intelligence and time is art
Art needs to be intelligent and take a lot of time? Why is that?
the art of making my dick hard
If something can go wrong, it's probably an art to do it right. If it also requires creativity then it's a creative art.
>>322126858
Basically, yes.
>>322126858
I'm gonna say yes. Pink Floyd had that song where the beginning was just cash register sounds, and the Beatles used feedback from plugging an amplifier in in one of their songs. If random nonsense noise can be turned into art, it doesn't take much.
Hell, there's a whole genre of scuplting called 'found art' that just takes things from teh garbage and uses them to tell a story.
>>322127596
You're describing an action though. Not an object.
>>322127380
I want to cum inside R. Mika's butt.
>>322126858
Yes
>>322126550
I like that one photo of Piss Jesus though, people just get mad about it because the artist used urine instead of dyed water.
>>322126139
The same question could be asked about the works of any other medium. Where is the 'art' in a film? Can you point to something and declare "this is it"?
>>322127637
By that definition, everything humans create is art. From the shit you take, to a master painting.
How can one word describe everything. Yet at the same time be the word that labels some things as being greater than other things?
>>322127728
>If random nonsense noise can be turned into art, it doesn't take much.
Who decided random nonsense noise was art? And why should we take that as truth?
>>322128053
>By that definition, everything humans create is art. From the shit you take, to a master painting.
pretty much.
>Yet at the same time be the word that labels some things as being greater than other things?
it doesnt. Calling something art doesnt automatically mean it's good. Only idiots and hipsters think that way.
There's good art and there's bad art.
>>322128053
The log of shit you plant in the toilet is not art, there was no creative input in that process.
However if you take a picture of that shit, it can be considered art, since you had to put some creativity into the frame and angle of the shot.
>>322128028
>Where is the 'art' in a film? Can you point to something and declare "this is it"?
I don't know what people are describing when they call films art either. But I'm not really into films. I'm into video games.
>>322126139
Stop interpreting art as some indicator of quality. Pretty much any creative work can technically classify under art
>>322127858
don't we all?
creative input i suppose.
honestly the fact that somebody or a team of people working together can create some of the stuff that happens onscreen is pretty damn amazing.
we just take it for granite
>>322128053
Pink Floyd and The Beatles decided that. And they're pretty much taken as authorities on the subject. You're gonna have to show me someone with credentials that seriously says those specific songs aren't art because of their use of noise to convicne me otherwise.
>>322126858
>What makes things art then?
If a single person, just one, thinks something is art, it's art. Doesn't mean it's good art though.
>>322128247
>pretty much.
Then I'm still not sure what the word means. Because we already have a word for creative products: creations.
>There's good art and there's bad art.
Hold on... If "art" applies to everything, then how can there be good art and bad art? "Art" doesn't have any governing properties. Therefore you would have to assess each creation on it's unique aspects.
Rainbow Mika is art.
>>322128612
Now you're learning that the tag "art" is meaningless bullshit.
>>322128248
Your body goes through a complex process to create the shit. And then you go through a process of expelling the shit. How well your body performs the act, will depend on the quality of you shit.
>>322128465
>If a single person, just one, thinks something is art, it's art.
Ok... that seems pretty strange. But if that's the case, then what is that one person thinking when they deem a creation to be art? "This is art because...."?
>>322128729
It's not meaningless, it's just broad as fuck.
>>322128736
This may be a personal thing here, but I only consider conscious creations of human beings to qualify as art.
The creations of the digestive system and other subconscious processes do not qualify for me. In the same way, I wouldn't consider a flower, no matter how beautiful, to be art, it is just a product of evolution, there was no human input (until you start to consider selective breeding, which complicates things a little).
>>322126139
When mainstream critics talk about games as art, they are exclusively referring to the story being serious and thought-provoking. Nothing about the game's aesthetics and gameplay ever gets brought up.
>>322129071
Well if you shit while awake, then certainly you're going to think about the fact that you're shitting, and have a certain amount of control over the process of the shit.
Also, aren't human beings just the product of nature as well? As complex as we may be, we're only acting based on our organic make-up reacting to outside influences. Same as everything else.
Butts are art
Something being art just means it was made with intent to be appealing in aesthetics and appeal without profit being the first priority.
That's fucking it.
Your 9 year old booby doodles are art.
Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot, a fool, or a coward of conformity.
>>322129483
butts by themselves are not art.
what people do with them is.
>>322128257
The question of why is this art/what is art is best answered by widening the scope beyond a single medium because art is present in all of them.
>>322129619
Wouldn't that definition exclude technical fields? Like craftman. Didn't the "arts" used to refer to a person's skills?
>>322129483
I like a good butt
Once wasn't enough, let's have this meaningless discussion just another time.
>>322129483
presentation is key
>>322130172
Well I don't know what you point is about films. I don't know what the art in films are. What "art" is present in all these things?
>>322128998
By creating something with the intent to make art, you have made art.
The art's value is made by the consumer on a case by case basis.
You can, and I'm willing to bet a hefty sum you will, continue to parrot the question begging for a more in depth answer, but you're willingly dismissing the massive, broad definition of art just for the sole purpose of asking redundant questions.
When you ask your version of "Yeah, but what makes THIS art?" you're asking, "What qualities give this value to make it valuable to me?" That's what you're doing. Just because you do not value something does not mean it has no artistic value, no matter how vapid or empty, in the broader scope.
>>322126139
I dunno, is a product which a group of artists collaborate on to create art?
>>322130670
>Just because you do not value something does not mean it has no artistic value
What if you value something, but you don't know what it's artistic qualities are? For example: I love Dark Souls. I STILL don't understand how someone pointing at it and saying "this is art", makes it anything other than Dark Souls.
What you're describing sounds like an imaginary friend. So long as you believe it exists, it exists. But otherwise has no real affect on the world. And other people can say they see your imaginary friend too. But ultimately it's just imaginary, so it's not really there.
>>322126139
What makes a painting art?
>>322131205
Is that a rhetorical question? Or are you really asking me?
What do you think makes a painting art?
>>322130402
The initial mistake, as other posters have pointed out, is conflating art with something being good. This leads to a half-answer to your question. Video games are art, not because art is put into video games, but because video games itself, as a phenomenon, is an example of art. Humans, and possibly some animals with sufficient cognitive capabilities, are the only species to have developed the concept of art. Humans attribute intangible qualities to everything, and this is the foundation for art.
This brings us back to the initial question: video games are art, because they are the result of complex intellectual processes that create symbolic constructs which are then, in the case of video games, presented as virtual simulations.
>>322131201
This is how art gains value, not by your own definition of it, but by the collective observation of a piece and the definition this collective gives it.
That and also pretentious rich fucks who know nothing about art, but are willing to dump thousands of dollars on scam artists just to be able to brag to Brad from Finance about his new exquisite piece in the living room he paid 5000$ for.
He is right, but the world of art criticism is saturated by pretention and hipsters. I know someone should never be too quick to use the hipster card when it comes to art exhibits, but it is the absolute truth, many art show enthusiasts know nothing about art, but are still willing to pay grand sums for literal no effort shit.
But, in the end, bad art, shit art, it's still art and it has every right to be appreciated and exposed.
>>322131549
>Humans attribute intangible qualities to everything, and this is the foundation for art.
I find it VERY difficult to accept that art is intangible.
I'll try this again too.
Video games are games.
Games are a set of rules.
How is a set of rules art?
>>322131820
As in, you can't accept that you can't touch the value that a good novel has for you?
>>322131680
.................... I'm lost. How can something be art if art is something you can't define? And how can something be good/bad art, if you can't define it?
>>322131820
Being pleased by the colors of a sunset is most definitely intangible because your brain's complexity creates the connecton between specific visual information and a sense of appreciation. You can't hold that in your hand, much like you cannot grab onto a sunset.
>>322132192
>Games are a set of rules.
That's a gross oversimplification. That's the same as me saying, "Paintings are colors on canvas. How is a canvas art?"
>>322132196
I can describe the qualities of a book or a game, and how those qualities make the book/game valuable to me personally.
>>322132482
Correct. And those qualities are intangible.
>>322132286
I can tell you the quality of a sunset that I find pleasing.
>>322131420
No I'm asking you.
>>322132472
In a discussion of semantics, the ultimate point should be to keep all definitions as concise and general as possible so that misinterpretation is minimized.
I can't conceive of a more direct way to state what a game is without adding extraneous words.
And I'm glad you've phrased that counter question in that way, as I certainly wouldn't call a blank canvas art.
>>322132859
>I can't conceive of a more direct way to state what a game is without adding extraneous words.
Ok well you failed, because games are more then "a set of rules." in the way a film is more then "a roll 35mm."
>>322132219
Art is the expression of humanity's skills and creativity.
There is a refined and technical aspect to art that many artists have recorded for hundreds of years, techniques, history and philosophies. This is the skillfull and knowledgable aspect of art. Artists who aspire to uphold the standarts established by our forefather while being able to innovate on their methods can be considered good artists and this is why their pieces are exposed in highly regarded galleries.
And you also have less experienced ones down to outright shitty pretentious ones who pass any piece of personal expression as art.
But in the end, art is the definition of "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder." It entirely depends on who's observing the piece in itself to determine if it is beautiful or not. HOWEVER, yes, there are academics who analyse art and determine a lot of technical aspects out of them to determine if the artist is, indeed, skillfull or not, but that is outside of the "is this art?" debate.
Anything that pertains to the expression of an individual is art in one aspect or another, my point is, however, that there are countless "enthusiasts" who actually know nothing about art and only buy pretentious hipster shit to be able to brag about it. There are frauds in every environment.
>>322133073
A roll of 35mm*
>>322129210
But most mainstream gaming critics have no discipline or degree in art. These "critics" are people who flunked out of college and make a living by recapping the entire plot of a movie or video game without offering any good insight.
>>322126139
I hate the fact that video games are art, but under my definition they are. In that they are novel creations born out of an individuals or groups collective idealism and creativity.
The good thing is that the label of art is a shield from criticism because art is about freedom. The reality is that this isn't the case because people have sticks up their arses over stupid shit like sex and violence.
>>322132593
Oh I see. I thought you mean intangible to mean that they couldn't be defined.
OK. In that case, I have to refer to my other post >>322131201
If humans are attributing intangible qualities onto a creation, then isn't that the same as just making up imaginary things? Video games are art, because you're projecting a quality on it?
Most of the time I see artfags is when they only praise the story and/or characters and nothing else. And most of the ones they praise are of the same quality that hollywood just shits out so people have got something to watch.
Hey remember The Last Witch Hunter? Of course you don't. That's the "art" standard most video games artfags hold up to; generic hollywood trash.
>>322133198
It's obvious that professional critics are just people who were hired to fill space and most of them have no real intellectual investment in what they're writing, but there are (in theory) critics whose texts are worthwhile for the reason that they are observant, analytical and well argued.
>>322133489
>Video games are art, because you're projecting a quality on it?
Yes
>>322133073
>more then
I sincerely hope you're underaged and home on Christmas break rather than being at least 18 and this dumb.
Nevertheless, you may redeem yourself by giving a definition of the word "game" which doesn't allow for exceptions or misinterpretation. I'll wait.
>>322132763
Alright. I don't think paintings are art. I think paintings are the result of art. I think art is something you do. Not objects. Certain paintings are the result of higher level of creative and/or technical ability. Thus they become examples of the art of the painter.
>>322133489
>I thought you mean intangible to mean that they couldn't be defined.
Well that's not the definition of intangible at all, but ok.
>>322133550
That's because "video games as art" is a movement which has unfortunately been latched onto by the dumbest group of casual shitters who want to try to make their passing hobby seem cool and so because they don't understand what makes a medium valuable in itself they try to make arguments that because a game has a story or beautiful graphics it is art and they should kill themselves.
The art of a game is its coding, mechanics, physics, etc. The game itself.
>>322133707
Then just apply that to vidya.
>>322133104
>Art is the expression of humanity's skills and creativity.
This I can get behind.
>art is the definition of "beauty is in the eyes of the beholder."
This I can't.
I don't believe art needs to be deemed anything to be art. Because like you said, it's an expression. And an expression is an action. You are defined by your actions, not by what others think of them.
>>322128357
I want to cum on her legs
>>322133879
>The art of a game is its coding, mechanics, physics, etc. The game itself.
Something the MOMA understands at least.
http://www.moma.org/explore/inside_out/2012/11/29/video-games-14-in-the-collection-for-starters/
>Our criteria, therefore, emphasize not only the visual quality and aesthetic experience of each game, but also the many other aspects—from the elegance of the code to the design of the player’s behavior—that pertain to interaction design.
>>322133584
Explain.
>>322133710
I didn't say I thought correctly.
>>322133978
I do. But I don't think others do. That's why I'm asking what others think.
>>322132192
see
>>322133879
>The art of a game is its coding, mechanics, physics, etc. The game itself.
That guy gets it.
I want Mika to beat me up and sit on my face.
>>322134038
That is true and this is why modern art is stagnating and very little innovation is being made to old mediums.
If you want innovation you need to look into niche mediums like photography which is much less popular than, say painting and where you won't meet 10 equivalent to Anthony Burch for one actually worthy photograph like in other galleries exposing sculpture and painting.
The artists that made it in the books are artists who have revolutionized art by their actions, their ways of life and the new techniques they have developed. it is very hard to find such artists nowadays in the world of painting or film because they are all being put aside by circlejerking rich fucks who care more about the money value of a painting than the artist who made it.
>>322134084
>vidya meta thread discussing art
>being a perverted meme posting shit poster
What in the actual fuck do you think you are doing son.
>>322134462
It's ok, anon. I carefully chose that picture of Mika to get just the right amount of attention from people like him, in order to keep the thread bumped.
>>322134093
I would love to read good analysis or even just theory on game design and how playtesting affects it. Coding, not so much because I am not a coder and it requires too much specialised knowledge to really appreciate.
>>322126964
No, it was popularized by game journalists needing an excuse to give good ratings to shit games.
>>322126139
>What quality makes video games art?
You pretty much posted it.
Real answer: This is a very shitty, old debate so I'll make this as brief as possible. Video games can be art, but are not inherently art; if a game is trying to convey some sort of underlined message for example, some may argue that it's art. If a game is very mechanical, and isn't really telling a story, or is telling a very basic story, such as "Mario saves the princess", it's probably a game, and not art. However, one could still make the argument that a game like Super Mario World (or any other Mario game for that matter) is art, in that it has great music, a great atmosphere, a great artstyle, etc. and that it is a unique experience worthy of being called art. However, if it's a very mechanical game, some may make a comparison to sports; you wouldn't consider basketball or baseball to be "art", so why would games be art?
Many fallacies arise from this debate, such as the assumption that people want video games to be art, because they somehow benefit from it (e.g. they want video games to be "taken seriously"). I don't think they are inherently art, and I don't care if some old self-important douchebag (some sort of faux-authority on "art", such as Roger Ebert, etc.) considers them to be art. I just think they CAN be art, and I don't see why we all have to be closed minded to the possibility that they may be art.
>>322134321
Well... I can't disagree with that. I'm not all that much into the art world. But I do some drawing myself. And seeing that weird hipstery shit sell for thousands of dollars is pretty annoying. Also funny to see the kinds of things they get away with.
>>322126139
>When people say films are are, what are they describing exactly? What quality makes films art?
>>322134781
That's a nice well thought out idea.
I think you're wrong though. I don't think conveying an underlying message makes something art.
>>322134321
Photography is more than a century old medium, next to it video games are a wild west of endless potential.
>>322134781
>However, if it's a very mechanical game, some may make a comparison to sports; you wouldn't consider basketball or baseball to be "art", so why would games be art?
Easy. Because sports are something that is performed; actions. Video games are something that is created; products.
You have some good ideas but why is the idea of the inner workings of games as abstract art so lost on you?
>>322134902
That's a good question, actually.
>>322135203
The game of basketball was created.
>>322134781
Bitch please, a chessboard is as much art as a monopoly board. You only don't think so because you don't play board games.
>>322134902
Film is often used to express an idea or a concept. "art" film is often very very boring if you look at it as a movie because everyone has been raised on entertainment. They often expect a plot, they expect action or a semblance of it, they expect things happening, they expect characters and well known actors.
As someone who enjoy Holywood flicks more than art films, I understand why the average joe is more inclined to watch a Michael Bay movie, no matter how shitty it is, than a niche artist one.
Still, as an artist, I find great value in the fact that many film makers still strive to make movies as a means of expression and a mean to say something rather than a mean to entertain. Holywood has greatly damaged film as a form of expression and this is why most movies are made with the intent to generate a revenue rathe rthan the intent to shock and change its audience.
I love mindless action movies the likes of Kung-Fu flicks, Anrold movies and Pacific Rim that rely on style over substance, I'm actually a sucker for this and being friend with a director who make Kung-Fu shorts, I can appreciate the work, talent and even vision put behind many action movies, but, it is important, once in a while, to give an independent film a chance and to REALLY pay attention when you'e watching it to try to see what the author is trying to tell you,
>>322135402
Indeed, you can appreciate the rules of basketball even if you don't appreciate watching it, if you were some sort of connoisseur of sport rules.
>>322135402
Yeah but when you said "sports" you weren't referring to "that time when basketball was created," were you?
>>322134256
No, that's bullshit, because the game itself - the coding, etc., - are rules.
Rules are objective statements. They are not open to artistic interpretation or reinterpretation. Any kind of artistic restatement or representation of a rule doesn't alter the rule. The essential rule is immutable.
I don't call the Rules of the Road art.
I don't call the United States Code of Federal Regulations art.
I don't call rules art.
>>322135203
>sports are something that is performed; actions. Video games are something that is created; products
And since the act of experiencing what a video game is requires action, it thus becomes equitable to a sport instead of an object of art.
>why is the idea of the inner workings of games as abstract art so lost on you?
Because the inner workings of games - i.e., the actual game itself - are just rules, and I don't consider rules to be art.
ps: I'm not the same guy who is responding otherwise.
>>322135203
Sports matches are sort of rituals in that they are sources of communal experiences and have comparable structures, and video games are primarily works, being a product is secondary even if you personally focus on the financial angle.
what is and isn't art is measured solely by intention nowadays
>>322134781
Very few people can appreciate the art of level design. Many critics of any kind of medium like to praise artists for their ability to mentaly challenge their audience through whatever means they can.
Not a lot of people notice that level design and game design is an incredible opportunity to challenge your audience in an entirely new way.
Super Mario Bros is art because it is the pioneer of level design and so are many MANY Mario game. This is why that, no matter how shitty Nintendo is becoming, they will always be relevant because they fucking inovated AND paved the way for the dying medium that was videogame programmation.
>>322135763
>They are not open to artistic interpretation or reinterpretation
Why not? Were they not originally created through the application of human imagination? Do they not result in works that are enjoyable to others?
>>322135761
I didn't say that I'm some other guy.
Is namedrop fag here yet?
>>322135763
>And since the act of experiencing what a video game is requires action, it thus becomes equitable to a sport instead of an object of art.
This arguement is based on the incorrect notion that video games are the act of playing video games.
>>322135763
I bet a lawyer reading a well worded piece of legislation will disagree with you about whether rules are art. Beautiful code exists, as does spaghetti code. I guess you're the type of person with a high "emotional IQ" huh?
>>322135763
So then, does the act of watching a movie (sit down and view it) make movies not art?
Does the rule of having to experience a movie with your eyes and ears. It's an objective fact that you have to see a movie to experience it.
>>322135763
>Because the inner workings of games - i.e., the actual game itself - are just rules, and I don't consider rules to be art.
Well then you are objectively wrong. By definition. Sorry. That's all there is to it.
>>322135763
You're thinking about it all wrong. The mechanics of the game are like brush strokes. Every instance comes together to create a painting. And that picture is the game. Once it's on the canvas, it's state is immutable.
The art in traffic laws, is in creating just the right amount of rules, and training enough people, in order to reduce the amount of traffic and accidents on the road.
>>322135402
Not only this, but you could argue that groups such as the NBA, MLB, etc. are selling tickets and basically putting on a show for people, in the same way game devs make a game and then sell it to people.
Actions are not art. If I put my hand in the air, that's not art. If I do that and it's part of a play or a performance of some sort, and for whatever reason within the context of the play, me raising my hand is symbolic or significant in some way, the action of raising my hand is still not art, but you could consider the performance overall to be art.
Likewise, actions within a game are not art. If Mario jumps, that isn't art. The reason you jumped was to avoid an enemy within the game and avoid a fail / loss state.
>>322135539
So are materials such as wood and cardboard art? Clearly not, it's what's written / drawn on them that could be considered art. However, they serve too much of a functional purpose and aren't really symbolic of anything, so I don't see how they can be considered art.
Art almost has to be useless, aside from conveying a meaning / message, being symbolic, and invoking certain feelings / ideas within the person perceiving the art. You wouldn't argue that a hammer or a screwdriver is art.
>>322136001
As soon as you alter the rules, you no longer have the same game.
You deciding that black goes first in your version of Artistic Chess doesn't allow it to be called Chess the same way that actual Chess is Chess.
>>322136156
If being played is not a requirement, is it a game? I don't think it is.
>>322135763
>It's an objective fact that a picture is taken when photons are transmitted to a light-sensitive material.
>Photographs are not art.
>>322136340
>So are materials such as wood and cardboard art?
The metaphysical board iself is art. Do you think a chessboard would had worked as well if it was various garish colors, or hexes?
>>322126139
there is literally artwork in video games
>>322136419
>If being played is not a requirement, is it a game? I don't think it is.
>if a tree falls and nobody hears it, does it make a sound?
Is that what you're saying?
>>322136613
>would had worked as well
The functionality of the chess board does not make it "art". If anything, that it serves a functional purpose, can arguably make it less likely to be considered art.
>>322136636
And there are literally fruit in pies. Does that make pies fruit?
>>322136847
>Food analogies
Never change /v/
>>322136419
>As soon as you alter the rules, you no longer have the same game.
It's not about that, though, is it? And even if it were, so what? Maybe then it's not the same game exactly anymore, but it is still a game none the less.
>>322136226
I'm a person who has read the entire United States Tax Code.
Rules can be worded in various degrees of elegance but the judgment of artistry behind those degrees doesn't have any effect on how the rules function.
>>322136234
No, because watching a movie is not a game.
>>322136258
Good counter argument, thanks.
>>322136331
Having an efficient and logical set of rules is an ultimate aim and intent, but I don't see where there's a threshold at which reaching a certain point of efficiency makes it art. I just cannot use the word "art" to describe that state. It devalues the word to the point of uselessness.
>>322136953
>Something became popular, so now it's completely invalid.
Never change /v/
>>322136340
Best example I have is the current UFC.
If you look deeply, Top level pro MMA fighters are passionate masters of their craft and they are to be admired and respected for their fighting wits and dedication to the Martial Arts.
The appearance of MMA, howver, is superficial as fuck. It's advertized for douchebags who see nothing more than brutes hitting each others and that's what they love.
Ronda Roussey is my favorite modern example of how UFC has become as rigged and shitty as pro boxing. Her boxing game may be weak and fucking shitty, but she'S a worldwide top level Judo master and boy is she fucking scary on the takedowns.
Her past streaks have given her all the attention she could deserve, Ronda Revolution, an inspiration for little girls and women who strive to become MArtial Artists.
She loses once in an embarrassing manner and almost nobody talks about her anymore. One of the best Judo master in the fucking WORLD and she's set aside like fucking dogshit because she lost the potential to entertain douchebros.
GSP made a great decision to retire because if he had continued, he would have eventually lost and as soon as he'd have lost his title, with all the hype the media and corporate sponsors had build around him, everyone would have started shitting on him.
>>322128357
why isn't there SFM porn of this
like god I would pay real money for porn with that model, jesus christ it's god damn perfect
>>322136473
Try again.
The argument you're trying to make is that you making this statement:
>It's an objective fact that a picture is taken when photons are transmitted to a light-sensitive material.
is art.
I disagree. You have stated a rule. That's all.
>>322136847
Pizza is considered a vegetable, despite having no vegetables in it
>>322136830
Allow me to settle the chess aspect of this discussion right now. The artistic merit of the game of chess lies in the fact that on that simple checkered board there exist more possible moves that the chessmen could theoretically make than there are atoms in the observable universe. Get BTFO scrubs how you like dat?
>>322137038
>Having an efficient and logical set of rules is an ultimate aim and intent, but I don't see where there's a threshold at which reaching a certain point of efficiency makes it art. I just cannot use the word "art" to describe that state. It devalues the word to the point of uselessness.
Art is the practice and refinement of one's respective craft. If your craft is creating regulation, and you regularly practice it, then you are an artist. Even when it comes to rules. If you look over time, rules and regulations become increasingly refined. Re-defined, and altered to fit our modern understanding of how things should work. Rules reflect our current human condition. And will continue to do so.
>>322136830
That's totally your opinion, pleb. Next you'll be telling me the beautiful intermeshing of a well designed gearbox isn't art.
>>322137038
I'm serious though. It's true. Look it up. Responding with sarcasm only shows that your willful denial of the facts.
>>322137395
>despite having no vegetables in it
Well yes, if you order shitty pizza.
Aren't you referring to some dietary chart? What was is? My memory is fuzzy.
>>322137038
>Rules can be worded in various degrees of elegance but the judgment of artistry behind those degrees doesn't have any effect on how the rules function.
So? The judgement of artistry of the Mona Lisa doesn't change how it looks either.
>>322137226
Martial arts literally have the word arts in them. Then again you're talking about the UFC, which has nothing to do wth it, so you're clearly being disingenuous.
>>322126139
> That ass
"I don't know art but i know what i Like!"
>>322137508
The supposed complexity of the game does not make it art. You could make a similar argument about baseball or something, yet you probably wouldn't consider it art.
>>322137601
Tools are not art.
>>322137975
Well if you pay attention, you can appreciate the style of each fighter that you see fight. Even the loudmouths trying to put on a show like Diaz. Diaz is an asshole, but he's a DAMN good fighter.
Still, you have to see through the bullshit and expect that your favorite guy ends up being put into the trash over one shameful loss that is probably rigged anyways.
>>322137816
I'm pretty sure this post is comparing the impact of public opinion on the physical appearance of a woman in a painting to the legal interpretation of the allegedly elegant wording of the United States Tax Code.
Good job /v/
>>322137816
Mona Lisa wasn't constructed by rules, though; in as much as to say that if DaVinci didn't specifically use X stroke or Y color then it no longer qualifies as Mona Lisa.
>>322137583
>Art is the practice and refinement of one's craft.
Christ, man, it's just like what isn't art, then? I appreciate the earnest and thoughtful response but good lord it's just so grating to see how contorted the definition of very basic words like "game" and "art" become the longer this conversation goes.
cc:
>>322137508
>artistic merit of the game of chess lies in the fact that on that simple checkered board there exist more possible moves that the chessmen could theoretically make than there are atoms in the observable universe
So literally everything is art. Or, not literally but close enough. I guess.
>>322138357
A Gearbox is not a tool. It is a system.
And it is conceived by an Engineer, know what engineers do?
They use their knowledge and scientific SKILLS to CREATE systems to overcome problems.
Art is the creative application of a set of skills.
Therefore, Engineers are artists and the things they create are art.
>>322138357
I would frame my wrench if I could.
>>322138357
Yes, the complexity itself is not important. Afterall, neither art nor complexity are any measure of eachother.
That doesn't change the fact that art is there. It must have been when the rules were created. And what is Chess, really, but its own rules?
That such rules are flexible enough to support a game with that many possible moves is what makes them so artistic.
>>322138574
>Mona Lisa wasn't constructed by rules, though; in as much as to say that if DaVinci didn't specifically use X stroke or Y color then it no longer qualifies as Mona Lisa.
If you were someone who wrote rules for a living as a hobby you would most definitely appreciate a well worded law as a piece of art.
>>322138892
The people who created Chess are artists, but the game in itself cna hardly be considered a piece of art by the common uneducated person. However, Chess in itself may not be art, but the Chess players are the artists.
>>322138574
>Mona Lisa wasn't constructed by rules
I mean in the sense that the representation of a human on canvas follows the rules of proportions and color theory in such a way that elicited a response that caused people to regard the painting as art, it most certainly was constructed by rules.
>though; in as much as to say that if DaVinci didn't specifically use X stroke or Y color then it no longer qualifies as Mona Lisa.
But that's true. If DaVinci used different strokes and different paint, it would be a different painting.
Reminder
>>322138604
You're confusing two different concepts, which happen to both use the word "art". Art can mean something like a movie, a book, etc. or it can refer to how something requires a certain set of skills / knowledge.
>>322139212
>http://www.behindthename.com/name/mika-2
>feminine
>>322139107
>If DaVinci used different strokes and different paint, it would be a different painting.
Yes, but if that were the case, he still would have called the not-Mona Lisa the Mona Lisa and we would all refer to the not-Mona Lisa as the Mona Lisa.
Art as defined by Tolstoy is a piece of media that can convey emotions. Games are art, it's just that some games aren't good at being art.
>>322138574
>Christ, man, it's just like what isn't art, then? I appreciate the earnest and thoughtful response but good lord it's just so grating to see how contorted the definition of very basic words like "game" and "art" become the longer this conversation goes.
Dude, look up the classic definition of the word. It was literally to describe one's skill or craft. Did we as people abandon that definition?
>>322139407
Yes?
We're both agreeing that they would be two different paintings.
I think most people have a problem with words more than they have with the ideas.
'Art' is infamously poorly defined, some people demand it must create an emotional response, some demand it's core is creativity and so on.
It does not help that 'art' is also used as a synonym for mastery and skill.
All in all I think we know what games are, we know how it feels playing them and we imagine what they could be in the future (I'm new kinds of gameplay - not better graphics).
Debating if they fit personal and societal ideas of what art is is meaningless. It's the same shit as arguing if e-sports are sports - it's just a word, we can more easily agree what's the reality of things than the words definition
>>322139097
Then their games are their paintings, I guess? Or would that be the log of moves performed over the course of the game?
I am going to have to disagree. I still maintain that the game, in and of itself -- conceptually, the rules of the game -- is the work of art. And all the great chess players of history? These people are the academics who have studied this work of art. And when you look back at a historic game between 2 of these people, then that game and the moves they made can fairly be viewed as those individuals' personal interpretations of the art form.
this
Graphics, sound, animations are all artistic aren't they?
Playing the game isn't art, the game itself is absolutely art tho
>>322139275
>or it can refer to how something requires a certain set of skills / knowledge.
And in all cases, the aspect that define something as art is creation, expression.
I am a mechanic and I work with engineers, I'm also an art enthusiast and a drawfag/painter. Engineering is a form of art in the sense that an engineer trully has to use his IMAGINATION to overcome technical, physical problems. Knowing physics will not give you solutions to physical problems, it is how you can INTERPRETE physics that gives you an edge on how certain physical problems can be overcome.
There are many types of engineer, but I work with mechanical ones. picture a guy sitting in his office, taking measurements, looking through dozens of charts detailing the resistance of all metals and their thermal limits, trying to design a system that is cost efficient, simple, as small as possible and which uses the less expensive materials possible to build while also being able to fit in a defined space.
It requires incredible ammounts of outside the box thinking and imagination. The men who created the combustion engines were pioneers of creativity.
Goodbye thread. It was fun while it lasted.
>>322127637
>>322127728
>>322127987
>>322128465
This is called artistic relativism, you're all impressionable retards that allow the display of white canvases and pictures of assholes.
>>322142158
>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.
>>322126139
Play Ikaruga, then you will understand how games can be art.
>>322142158
>Aesthetic relativism is the philosophical view that the judgement of beauty is relative to different individuals and/or cultures and that there are no universal criteria of beauty.
Are you trying to tell me there is a universal criteria of beauty?
I wish this would become an ass thread
>>322144602
it's not hard to turn it into one
you can do it
![Dragons-Crown_117573[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gY2DtWV.jpg "Dragons-Crown_117573[1].jpg")
>>322144602
No one's stopping you anon.
>>322144602
>>322145332
fuck off
Games have art IN them.
You could consider game DEVELOPMENT art.
Art is subjective.
Beating a dead horse.
>>322145332
I want to stab that leg with a knife and fuck the hole
>>322128357
Man, I've never seen Chun Li look so slutty. I love it.
>>322145519
You don't have to use reverse psychology.
>>322145847
Gross.
>>322126746
Post modernism at it's finest
>>322146036
>people like this ugly shit
>>322146495
Seriously, you don't have to pretend. You can just ask for more.
>>322146495
>t. lonely virgin
>>322139212
so what? a girl cant have a boy name? fucking pleb.
