>"Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to play this game or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, video games cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as Steve Vai informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no video gamer now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."
Was he right?
>implying a has been Racer X fag knows shit about vidya
call me back when someone relevant like Satriani or Malmsteen has something to say.
>>334644538
What a coincidence! Fred Durst said the same exact quote!
Shadow of the Colossus is the only game that is art.
Fight me.
>>334644965
>Malmsteen
>Relevant
>>334644965
Malmsteen is probably the most washed-up of all the 80 shredders, tho
>>334645636
Still more relevant and inspiring than Gilbert.
rock and roll isn't music
movies will never be more than mass entertainment for the plebs
nobody will ever take american art seriously
etc etc
nobody should care what critics say about the future of any medium because they all say wildly different things and most of them will be wrong.
>>334645293
Ico is better.
>>334644538
That's a gay ass guitar.
The fact that so many books still name the Beatles as “the greatest or most significant or most influential” rock band ever only tells you how far rock music still is from becoming a serious art. Jazz critics have long recognized that the greatest jazz musicians of all times are Duke Ellington and John Coltrane, who were not the most famous or richest or best sellers of their times, let alone of all times. Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe. Rock critics are still blinded by commercial success. The Beatles sold more than anyone else (not true, by the way), therefore they must have been the greatest. Jazz critics grow up listening to a lot of jazz music of the past, classical critics grow up listening to a lot of classical music of the past. Rock critics are often totally ignorant of the rock music of the past, they barely know the best sellers. No wonder they will think that the Beatles did anything worthy of being saved.
>>334645903
I actually agree with that for once.
Good comparison.
That's a quote from Roger Ebert you massive faggot.
>>334645903
>>334644538
>need artists for games
>games aren't art
>>334645692
Not really, Malmsteen's playing completely stagnated in the very early 90s and his writing's been on total autopilot since. Doesn't help that he's had a falling out with just about every single Ritchie Blackmore cast-off since and ardently refuses to have utilize co-writers or even decent producers anymore. Hell, his albums don't even sell well in fucking Japan anymore.
Whereas Gilbert's grown on multiple levels since the '80s and is now a completely different monster with a far wider musical vocabulary than he had even a decade ago. Plus he's gone to strength to strength with his teaching career.
>>334645998
Scaruffi's Twitter is a fucking riot.
>>334644965
Both satriani and malmsteen can't write actual songs for shit, everything they do is pure wank. Racer X actually had decent albums
>>334645293
It doesn't work like that
Either every game is art, or no game is art
Personally, I haven't experienced a game I would call "art".
Not that makes video games bad of course.
no
whos dat anyway
>>334646329
then games aren't art
but SotC is the only one that managed to make me rethink it.
Who gives a shit.
No one cares.
Masterful literature comes in two forms.
1. it is executed so well technically and evokes such strong emotions that the reader cannot possibly be anything but moved by the experience of reading it
2. it has a compelling point, well-argued
No games are art at the moment because there are no games that are so technically masterful and emotionally demanding that they're worthy of the title, and there are no games with strong points and good arguments for them.
Good art isn't made by people who want to make art. It's made by people who cannot help but make art, either because they are so fantastically skilled at their craft that the things they make are of such immaculate quality, or because they have intense feelings that lead to passionate and strong arguments.
You can see why videogames are at a significant disadvantage. Writing a book is simple (though not easy). It takes one person and a few months, if you're good at it. A few years if you're bad or lazy. A masterpiece can take longer - some take decades - but there have been equally as good books produced in as short a timespan as a few weeks (How I Found Livingstone, for example). A videogame, even some of the simplest, to have anything approaching reasonable production qualities, takes far longer and far more people.
The more people involved, the less pure the artistic vision. The more effort involved, the less people will actually make works of that type, so the less "chances" there are to make art.
>>334645293
this is an equally retarded statement
>>334646213
They're mad they're getting competition
>>334645998
>Classical critics rank the highly controversial Beethoven over classical musicians who were highly popular in courts around Europe.
Beethoven was adored. His persona was blunt and stormy, but that only contributed to his popularity.
Regardless of who actually said it, he's right. Technically, I see no reason for video games to be explicitly excluded from the definition of art, but they're not art, and they never will be art because the people trying to make them art are idiots.
And let's get real for a second. This debate isn't even about the technical definition of art. The art question is a proxy for whether video games should be taken seriously or mocked as a waste of time. If you claim to want video games to be classified as art, it's because you want to enjoy video games without being ridiculed as a loser who wastes his life on toys. I guess I can't really blame you for that.
But if you're trying to promote the idea of video games as art by pointing to interactive movies and walking simulators, you're not helping the perception of video games at all. Why should someone believe that video games are art if your best proof is a list of works in which the "game" aspect was sacrificed or diminished in order to make what remains more like a movie? You might successfully argue that a particular video "game" is a work of art, but if it's only a work of art because it pushes the boundary of video games closer to an existing art form like film, you're just providing evidence that video games cannot be seriously appreciated for what actually makes video games unique.
TL;DR: Video games might be art, but your "emotional" "interactive story" "experience" bullshit is a terrible example.
>someone who doesn't know dick about video games says something silly about them
>people who play video games pay attention to him
stop worrying about if it's art or not
people said photography wasn't art when it first came about
I see games as art in the same manner as a guy crafting with wood is considered as art. Not for the same emotional/intellectual merit you'd get from a film or literature.
almost all videogames can't be considered high art but the same is true for rock music
>>334646708
Fuck off classical fag
>>334646471
>emotionally demanding that they're worthy of the title
This is completely fucking subjective though, you asshat.
>>334646708
99.9% of fiction writing is generic entertainment with no lasting value or real artistic merit. does this mean that books can't be art?
>>334646471
>it is executed so well technically and evokes such strong emotions that the reader cannot possibly be anything but moved by the experience of reading it
for every piece of literature there exists at least one person that doesn't feel anything by reading it.
so art is subjective?
>>334644538
I hate how much people romanticize the concept of art, anything deliberately made by a human is art. Even if it was made for for commercial purposes it's still an expression of the creator's mind.
>>334647026
>I hate how much people romanticize the concept of art, anything deliberately made by a human is art. Even if it was made for for commercial purposes it's still an expression of the creator's mind.
I like you. Wanna hug?
>>334646708
>>334646973
every artistic medium is completely mediocre punctuated by a handful of transcendent pieces
video games fits right into that tbqh
>"Having re-posted the statement above, I have embraced all opportunities to paste it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I post urging me to paste this pasta and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, copypasta must be posted. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "I posted it again" because never, as 4chan informs us, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no pasta will ever be forgotten long enough for anyone to experience the posts I make as an art form."
>>334644538
>Fred Durst
Hilarious how eras change.
Edgy guitarist who were at the forefront of "counter culture" music are not saying the same things about the new things out there that was said about the stuff they produced.
It's fine though, not going to shit on him like others in this thread. He is an amazing guitarist who makes amazing music and I'll be happy to just think of him that way.
>>334647129
Are you a cat?
>>334647308
...I own a cat.
>>334644538
I miss Ebert.
>Implying for every Ulysses there isn't hundreds of Hunger Games and Dark Towers
>Implying for every Birdman there isn't hundreds of Reboots and adaptions of books above
RIP Roger Ebert
http://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/okay-kids-play-on-my-lawn
>>334646471
I thoroughly disagree.
>>334647351
Then no, I'm dreadfully allergic.
Did Cliffy B go full JUST?
>>334646471
Holy shit you're a pretentious faggot
>>334647439
You too
>>334645903
But I like Dark Souls more than DeS but Ride the Lighting more than Master of Puppets.
I guess in essence I can agree with this though.
The Megadeth version would be
Peace Sells = DeS
Rust in Peace = Dark Souls
End Game = Dark Souls 2
Countdown to Extinction = Bloodborne
Who is the best guitarist ever and why is it Frank Gambale?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lJBwvq9-Czo
>>334646934
>>334647021
In this matter be guided by broad consensus.
If everyone except you thinks it's emotionally compelling then chances are there's something to the work that is emotionally compelling, and not the entire planet being wrong.
"Art" is only "art" because people talk about it, and people only talk about it because a lot of people have something to say about it and are interested in what others say.
That's why all art is emotionally compelling. Not because it has to be, but because nobody cares about things that aren't.
>>334647663
You don't know what pretentious means.
Between the morons telling him to play the TLOU or some japanese garbage he's completely justified in his views
>>334647787
You don't know what alotta things mean.
>>334647146
After certain things have been done all we are doing is slowly building upon the massive bodies of work that were left behind for us so even if experiences are actually better in every way than masterpieces they will never be considered such because they were not the first of their kind.
That is why being "high art" is a worthless praise. Just means people recognized you for something first or you lived in the right era.
http://insomnia.ac/commentary/for_artfags_only/
Fibqlly an excuse to post this
>>334647706
Marty Friedman is alright too. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6u1YmHkVNMc
SNAKEBITE COMING FROM INSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIDE!!!!!!!
>>334647663
Nigga, it's a discussion about art.
Everyone involved is pretentious, especially those who think they aren't.
>>334646329
>Either every game is art, or no game is art
Why? Who gets to decide that?
Are movies not art because schlock like Michael Bay movies exist?
Are paintings not art because I made a shitty drawing one time?
The fuck are you smoking? If this is bait then 10/10 you got me hook, line and sinker.
>>334645998
Same for plays, even classics like Les Mis were panned on opening night by critics for various reasons. None of them mattered.
>>334646471
By your logic movies can't be art, considering the sheer number of people needed to make them. And if you're going to argue movies have a director guiding the overall vision of the movie, so do most video games.
>>334648119
It's summer.
>>334646471
>The more people involved, the less pure the artistic vision. The more effort involved, the less people will actually make works of that type, so the less "chances" there are to make art.
I agree with this and that's why so many video games end up as soulless focus-tested garbage but plenty others are "moving" in the same sense as other artistic mediums
>>334648027
Dude,
What the fuck R U thinking? I can't believe this shit came from the same guy that was responsible for Racer X and played the kick ass solo on Joey Tafolla's "Out of the Sun".
I read where you said "Mike Varney told me to play fast". What is that about? Yeah like you never liked that stuff. The shred guitar world has been totally screwed over by no-talent heroin users and your fucking contributing to it!!
You R capable of a monster neo-classical instrumental album, that's what your real fans want to hear. The ones that have been with you from the start and have suffered every corny blues lick with that shit twangy ass reaming tone. Neo-classical with the distortion tone of Second Heat. Racer X rocks, you're not going to be big in the USA. You're clinging to a dream that's never gonna happen. Your fans are in Japan, the same fans that like Impelliteri, Malmsteen, etc.
Your last effort is appealing to no-one. If you have to get it out of your system fair enough, but for every piece of shit album like this you're morally directed to release a shred album.
I read your column in Guitar Player, while you where in Mr. Big. What was the main topic? Shred. What genre? Neo-Classical.
What like Metal was cool so I'll do that, ooh grunge is big, I'll do that. Fuck!! Have some balls, be true to yourself. Fuck everyone and play what you want. Don't try to tell me it's this shit!! We both know that you love Racer X, you're just obsessed with Popularity and money.
Your a musical prostitute. You suck,
Snakebyte
>>334647730
so it is subjective
>>334644538
I have a feeling its another one of those
>I dont play video games
>thus they are all shit
inb4 >/v/
but seriously metal back when it was new was called the devils music and was incredibly panned by everyone except metalheads
its naive to think that something out of your experience isn't/can't be art
To even point out the lack of evidence or reasoning is just childish
This applies to anyone and everyone
>>334646167
DaS1 is Nightfall in Middle Earth
>I have an opinion
>I'm so tired of people trying to tell me it's not right! Fuck em' all, I don't wanna hear it!
what a faggot
![3cf7ab75f84447b777574cfabe581048[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/evRXPJh.jpg "3cf7ab75f84447b777574cfabe581048[1].jpg")
For me, the whole problem of the "are games art" debate is the fact that people for some reason conflate "art" with "good art".
An artwork doesn't need to be masterful, or technically proficient, or thoughtful, or even good to be art (attendance at your average art show will make this fact perfectly clear, in most cases). Does the a shitty theme song to a kids show stop being music because it's shitty? No, it's just bad music.
Are games art? Yes. Any idiot can see that, unless they employ some sort of elitist BS definition of art to try and inflate the importance of the word. Games are a coming together of various aesthetic forms to create a cultural object, usually with no practical purpose. They could only ever reasonably considered artwork.
More important question: Are games are GOOD art? That's something worth debating, but no, not that I've ever experienced personally.
>>334647730
>If everyone except you thinks it's emotionally compelling then chances are there's something to the work that is emotionally compelling, and not the entire planet being wrong.
No, what you're saying is that if enough people believe something is true, then it gains status as "true" in some kind of universal sense, but the fact is that it's true only for the people it's emotionally compelling for.
Things is, anything is art, for a person, if the person percieves it as emotionally compelling (or any of the other criteria). Anything is art if the person percieves it as art.
The difference is that you take the perspective of some kind of hazy consensus, as if there was something "more" to society than the people that it consists of, while this understanding takes the perspective of the individual.
>>334648293
Not that guy, but it's inter-subjective.
But also there's this idea that you'd trust a tribunal of literary scholars opinions on books more than the local plumbers guild. IMO, It matters a decent amount where the consensus actually lies. Go figure.
All games are art. everything that can or could ever exist is art.
this post is art.
>>334648215
I never even said videogames can't be art, anon.
I just said there aren't any that are yet.
Movies are also at a significant disadvantage compared to books, which is why truly masterful feature-length movies made by the whole kit and caboodle are relatively few and far between. Plus, movies have a far shallower tradition to draw on. Videogames even less so.
Literature is the highest form of art. It combines accessibility, ease of manufacture, scope, dexterity, and capacity - the perfect middleground. Paintings and other visual art lack the fine details, music lacks the ability to make a point, and movies and games are too expensive.
>>334648230
I disagree. I've never played a game as addictive as the Count of Monte Cristo, and the CMC isn't even that good. Most of it is filler.
>>334647686
Megadeth and Metallica are both really bad. Megadeth are better musicians than Metallica, but they both write some of the most childish music I've ever listened to.
I don't give a shit and just play whatever cause I'm not a faggot about my hobby.
>>334644538
if a literal turd with a pretentious note passes as art then videogames sure are.
>>334648504
What bothers me isn't if games are art or not
But how they are fundamentally different from other artforms
Artform in video games is completely creative,new mechanics that think outside of the box, hence why older games who invented modern game mechanics(Doom,XCOM,MGS,etc) are considered art in their performance of what it is to be a video game
Modern "art" in video games is shit like gone home, something with little to no gameplay, with a shoehorned idea with little narrative sense or reason for existing
Seriously, what innovative moments did Gone home or Depression quest(or any of the endless "indie" games out there) actually bring to the medium?
Nothing
Now that doesn't mean every game needs to be reinventing the wheel, Exceptional performance of previous tropes or technology is as good as experimental technology
As a expert practices until he gets it right while a master practices until he can't get it wrong
This whole "game = art" shit is the reason we have garbag SJW games in the first place, so no, I don't want games to be art, I want them to be FUN and PLAYABLE forms of ENTERTAINMENT, not some GAYWAD forms of UNPLAYABLE EXPRESSION.
>>334648293
You can feel however you want about it, but nobody cares about your opinions on the matter.
It's subjective, yeah, but it's not up to you.
>>334648510
If something is emotionally compelling for only one person out of billions then it can hardly be said to be truly emotionally compelling. More than likely it was just a fluke that the one person felt so connected to the work.
What you're saying is that only your opinion matters. If you don't find it emotionally compelling then it's not emotionally compelling at all, never mind the 6.9 billion people who might disagree with you. It's perfectly possible you might not find it emotionally compelling, but you're not the only person on the planet. If everyone else finds it emotionally compelling then the work can be said to be emotionally compelling because it _objectively_ is, and we can prove it by the magnitude of its compulsion.
I would say a game like Dark Souls or Super Mario Galaxy is art. The creativity that went into making them into wonderful experiences that engage your brain and different intelligences, the joy of experiencing a cleverly made level that subverts your expectations time and again or of a level's structural integrity.
People forget that it isn't "artsyness" (in games like Gone Home) that makes art, but the boundless creativity of designers who focus on the aspect that matters: interactivity.
I'd say that the only games that count as 'art' are ones that use the medium to its inherent advantages over other mediums. For example, Half Life 2 (as excellent as it is) isn't art because it doesn't do anything a movie can't do; you're essentially watching a movie except if you screw up and die you have to rewind five minutes and try again. On the other hand, Nier is great because New Game+ is absolutely key to the narrative.
In your first playthrough you go through the game and kill the Shadowlord in a pretty by-the-numbers story (apart from the twist), but only in NG+ do you learn the truth about what was really happening -- which fills you, the player, with complex emotions because you're essentially forced togenocide the original humans all over again from the beginning while they plead for mercy and try to protect their children from you, you just weren't able to understand them the first time around. It's a story that could never be done in anything other than a game, making it one of the few stories that actually DESERVES to be in a videogame rather than in a movie. Ditto for visual novels --> books.
>>334649238
My point in >>334649076
is that there is actual art in games(Doom,etc) that pushes the medium in the right direction of how it can expand the users interaction with said game and then there is "art" in games that as you summed up, SJW drivel
>>334644538
>no source
anyone who replies to this thread is a fucking retard
>>334645998
>Influential jazz musicians
>no Charlie Parker
What the fuck, how is Duke Ellington above the Bird?
>>334644965
>points are only valid if I deem the person saying them worthy
kys :cryemoji:
>>334649260
>If something is emotionally compelling for only one person out of billions then it can hardly be said to be truly emotionally compelling. More than likely it was just a fluke that the one person felt so connected to the work.
>What you're saying is that only your opinion matters. If you don't find it emotionally compelling then it's not emotionally compelling at all, never mind the 6.9 billion people who might disagree with you. It's perfectly possible you might not find it emotionally compelling, but you're not the only person on the planet. If everyone else finds it emotionally compelling then the work can be said to be emotionally compelling because it _objectively_ is, and we can prove it by the magnitude of its compulsion.
No, it's not objectively true simply because some "critical mass" of people subjectively think it is. That's a step of reasoning that defies logic.
>>334649415
Because it's fucking pasta you idiot(s)
>>334644538
Paul Gilbert is really good at guitar, but is wrong about video games. That's not unusual.
http://culture.vg/features/art-theory/on-the-genealogy-of-art-games/
Relevant.
Good. Great. Anything that sets out to be "art" always ends up preachy and stupid. Real art happens when people create without pretense.
Paul Whatever can suck my cock.
>>334649495
It is objectively true that an absolute majority of people feel that X is emotionally compelling.
Seeing as emotional compulsion is _literally_ just how many people think something is emotionally compelling, then if a critical mass of people are emotionally compelled then it is emotionally compelling.
Ergo, you can objectively prove it.
>but it's just opinions
I know. And you can objectively prove that a certain number of people hold a certain opinion. "I believe red > blue" is subjective. "500 people believe red > blue" is objective.
If "X is true when 500 people think X is true" then X can be objectively proven to be true if I can find 500 people who think it is.
The reasoning is sound, you just don't follow the steps.
>>334649775
>>334644538
How? I'm sure a lot of people that don't like his music would argue that it isn't art.
Depends on the person you ask.
A game can be art, but a game can also be very far from ever being considered art.
>>334644538
Yes. Art had objective standards up until the later half of the last century before it was shoved out by retards that thought personal expression was all that was technically needed to qualify.
>>334645293
If movies are considered art then shouldn't video games be considered art? I mean theyre both mediums that tell stories.
>>334649775
/thread
>>334646471
What about movies?
>>334648905
That's cool. I hope you enjoy your "mature" taste in music.
>>334644538
What the fuck is wrong with this people? They give so mich importance to this retarded shit, its video games, its literally irrelevant your opinion on it or what you do with it.
They should spend a week in a brazilian or nigerian slum to see what is to have real issues to worry about.
Who cares if this entertainment is art or not, fucking kill yourself.
How can videogames even compete?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8wr62Dvd32k
>>334644538
>>334644965
What the everloving fuck is this?
>>334649816
So if enough people think that I'm right, I must be right and your definition of art wrong.
Your definition of art is pointless. Why should anyone be interested if all it takes for something to be art is for <50% of the human race or something to think it is? It makes art irrelevant to the life of the others.
>>334644538
>music is art, modeling is art, 2d graphic design is art, voice acting can be art, motion capture is art
>but if you put them altogether it suddenly isn't art
Fuck off retard
>>334646471
god you are illiterate and it fucking shows
>OST
Art
>Motion capture performance & voice acting
Art
>Narratives
Art
>CGI Visual Effects
Art
>>334650064
What about movies? They have many of the disadvantages of videogames and the number of feautre length films that would be considered art is pretty small.
Shorter films (20-30 minutes) are usually more likely to be good art because they're cheaper and simpler.
>>334650280
Wrong. My reasoning will always be correct so long as the definition is the same. You can argue that you have a better definition and we should use your definition, not mine, and _that_ would be up to popular opinion and consensus because that's how linguistics works, but my reasoning will always be correct so long as the definition is the same.
>Your definition of art is pointless
My definition of art reflects how the term is used. Go ahead and consider all the art you can think of and see if it escapes that definition. Consider things that are broadly considered to be not art and see if they fit the definition. (Granted, things like academic papers would be considered art under point 2 but consider an implicit exception for that type of work. I didn't bother to include it because it's not really relevant to the OP but it looks like it's come up anyway. Point 2 more refers to people who, for example, have a beef with the government and use a creative media to express it, like 1984 by Orwell or BNW by Huxley).
I imagine that your definition of art would be prescriptive, not descriptive, and that is where true pointlessness lies. Prescriptive definitions are pointless because they are totally irrelevant to the life of others. They are nothing more than your opinion.
My definition is an attempt to frame art in such a way that we can understand why most people wouldn't consider any videogame art.
Your definition is likely just the world as you would like it to be, and a meaningless waste of time to everyone but yourself.
I'd be glad to be wrong.
>>334646675
This.
Someone arguing why Super Smash Bros is art would catch my interest, but not Dear Esther.
I think people forget how close games are to sports and card games. They always seem to point to the visual style or storytelling when it comes to the artness.
>>334650872
>I imagine that your definition of art would be prescriptive, not descriptive, and that is where true pointlessness lies. Prescriptive definitions are pointless because they are totally irrelevant to the life of others. They are nothing more than your opinion.
All right, I agree with this. But then, it's not so easy again. If I live in a village or internet forum where everyone adheres to my definition of art, then my definition of art is in practice true. We communicate successfully with it and nobody tries to correct anyone else. So while what art is will always be what the winning side of a "war of correction" decides it is. It can also mean different things in different social context, I would suppose?
>>334650872
>and _that_ would be up to popular opinion and consensus
Correction: if it was a descriptive definition it would not, because a descriptive definition can be argued on the basis of fact because its core contention is that it is the most accurate description of the word as it is used.
If you disagree, you areentitled to your opinion.
>>334650901
>Someone arguing why Super Smash Bros is art would catch my interest, but not Dear Esther.
The way I see it, Super Smash Bros (melee) is defintely art. That game has a virtually infinite skill ceiling, and it's pretty much impossible to be bored by it and all the different ways you can play it.
>>334644538
Not that I agree or disagree with his statement, but any stance you decline to enlarge upon or defend is faulty from the get-go and nobody is obligated to give a shit about what you say on the subject.
>>334651316
>So while what art is will always be what the winning side of a "war of correction" decides it is. It can also mean different things in different social context, I would suppose?
You're correct, of course.
The question of "can videogames be art" depends fundamentally on what art is, so the answer depends on the definition of art. If you use a different definition then you get a different answer. I laid out the definition I use and based my answer off of that. I think my definition is pretty good. I certainly don't claim it to be the only possible one, and I'm not arrogant enough to call it the best. It is what it is.
>>334651434
Graduation isn't that bad.
But Dark Souls 2 isn't that bad either.
nvm you're fine
>>334651794
Then I'll go and push my definition of art on everyone until I win.
>>334652127
Doubleplusrightthink, anon.
>>334650172
Why the fuck did you write this post? You should go to a Nigerian slum
>>334644538
>Art is/isn't X
Lmao
>>334644538
>terrible musician
>trying to tell others what is art
He sucks at what he does. Why the fuck should anyone listen to this nobody?
>>334647026
>>334647026
>>334647026
>>334647026
FUCKING THIS
I've thought about this lately a lot, and people who claim that video-games aren't art (or that it's arguable in the first place) clearly don't know the true meaning of the whole concept of 'art'.
The purpose of art is to express yourself. Make something and passing, sharing your emotions & trying to cause some emotion in the audience. Maybe you just want to nudge someone towards some direction of thinking. It doesn't fucking matter. What matters is that the creator had some emotion in his mind and that he creates something to share it. It could've been "oh make mario jump on the goomba, it will FEEL FUN", it really doesn't fucking matter.
Now, with this in mind, I'd like someone to explain to me, how is it even possible to make a game and not classify it as art? From the very beginning of making a game, you're essentially materializing your emotions or ideas how to cause or emphasize a certain emotion. It's exciting when the ball in Rocket League is flashing, shaking, and slowly moving along your goal's line. This is exactly what the creator wanted to cause in me and what he had in mind when he designed those elements in his work of art. (called Rocket League)
I recently read a thesis by some student about this subject, and he was completely stuck in the idiotic youtube comment mindset of games having to be centered around serious subjects (like death and slavery) until they can be 'art', and he also listed some games as examples of somehow being more 'art' than others. (like Dear Esther, Journey, Stanley Parable etc.) without explaining it further. Is it because they're cryptic? Since when, and how has that been the definition of 'art'? It makes no fucking sense, the purpose of the creator has been exactly the same as in Smash Bros; causing some emotions. Just in a different way and in different scale.
>>334653264
This is maybe the most compelling argument I've read about games as art.
>>334653264
agreed
it's almost like people make up their own definition for art everytime they talk about this subject.
seriously, open the oxford fucking dictionary and almost everything someone makes constitutes as art.
People's heads are so far up their own asses it's remarkable.
>>334648543
>inter-subjective
I wish people were more familiar with this word, especially when you realize that all so-called objectivity is really just particular brands of intersubjectivity.
As far as the game of categories goes, psychology research generally suggests that people give enormous deference to the intent of the creator. That is, something is art if it was created by someone who intended it to be art, and if people looking at it don't see that as overwhelmingly implausible. Therefore, a game is art if it seems to players like that was the developer's intention. Likewise, a painting is art if it seems to observers like that was the painter's intention. This is how you separate children's finger-paintings from Landscape with the Fall of Icarus.
I don't understand how people think video games are not art. Video games combine a lot of artistic mediums to include interactivity. Storylines, aesthetic, music, atmosphere, and more. One could make the argument that Video games is the truest form of art of them all. At least until something better comes along.
i don't agree but i love paul gilbert.
>>334649775
damn i never actually thought about it that way fucking shit that analogy is too good for this thread
>Its another underages don't who this quote comes from thread
lamow
>>334644538
>Paul Gilbert
>Paul Brandon Gilbert is an American heavy metal guitarist.
who give a fuck what he thinks?
>>334648119
That's exactly the point anon is making. Either a medium cannot be art, and then it's pointless to sort through examples, or a medium can be art and even Michael Bay makes art.
Being or not being "art" is not a statement of quality, but some people like to think of it that way.
>>334644538
lol, you attributed Michael Mcdonald to this quote too, and people fell for that also
>>334649238
You have to have a pretty narrow definition of art and of things in general if you think "SJW games" are both 1. an actual classification of gaming and 2. artistry isn't present in nearly every game you play.
>>334659317
I did the Fred Durst one, but Michael McDonald wasn't me.I've also seen people credit it to Bowie, David Lynch, Robert Christgau and Yngwie Malmsteen. Every time, people fall for it.
>>334653264
>explain to me
Easy. Video games are toys.
>>334651434
Where the fuck are 808s and Yeezus you mong
>>334649394
>that pushes the medium in the right direction of how it can expand the users interaction with said game
That isn't about art, that is about ingenuity
Are you trying to apply the word art like in the term "martial art" but with game design or something? Because no.
>>334644538
In a day and age where someone can shit on a plate and call it art, is X or Y being art really something to boast about?
>>334644538
Oh no the guy who was in 2 shitty hair metal band then became another boring guitar masturbator believes something isn't art
I won't knock the guy for his skills he's one of the most technically talented guitarists out there but like most other technically talented guitarist he can play scales really fast and in many time signatures but their work is the most uninspired stuff out there people like magnum and reed can make me feel more with one note than most of these guys can with an entire song
>>334658910
Well that is the issue. Most games are products. The only reason why people muse the idea of games are art is because Warhol made art that looked like mass produced products.
>>334644538
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9dIEeYSklc
Relevant.
>>334644538
Art is simply something that has aesthetic value, so of course video games are art.
