(1/2)
>"Art only has the capacity, through shock and catharsis, to make the human soul receptive to good."
Video game doesn't make men receptive to good.
>“Art is a meta-language, with the help of which people try to communicate with one another; to impart information about themselves and assimilate the experience of others."
There is no meta-language in gameplay. Everything is very mechanic to the core, it is meant to to be understood practically and give your brain jolts of excitement rather than spiritual experience.
>"I find poetic links, the logic of poetry in cinema, extraordinarily pleasing. They seem to me perfectly appropriate to the potential of cinema as the most truthful and poetic of art forms."
>"He(artist) is capable of going beyond the limitations of coherent logic, and conveying the deep complexity and truth of the impalpable connections and hidden phenomena of Ufe."
There is no logic of poetry in gameplay. Again, they're all very straightforward, mechanic, and symbolic. From level design, enemy placement, character behaviors that affect the gameplay, they're all engineered that way to be logically coherent to be understood (not in an emotional way) by the player rather than poetic. Otherwise it won't be a good game.
yo niqqa noboody gives a fuck lmao
>>335018716
(2/2)
>“The film [Stalker] needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.”
People need calmness in order to turn on the frontal lobe part of their brains and appreciate the spiritual experience of art. Video games are way too fast paced and autistic to be enjoyed spiritually.
>"In science, at the moment of discovery, logic is replaced by intuition. In art, as in religion, intuition is tantamount to conviction, to faith. It is a state of mind, not a way of thinking."
Video game is closer to science than art, because intuition only comes after you win a move set by the computer.
>"Science is empirical, whereas the conception of images is governed by the dynamic of revelation."
Empiricism plays a very large part in the enjoyment of video games. "You have to git gud", some /v/irgin said. There is no dynamic of revelation, there is no infinite metaphor to be found in gameplay.
Therefore, it can be concluded that video game is a much worse form of art than motion picture, or maybe isn't even art at all. There is little to no art in it's practice, it doesn't make you question the meaning of your finite life and the existence of the infinite. It does your soul NO good. Video game is kitsch, not true art.
>>335018716
>>335018809
Andrei died in 1986.
Of course he's going to judge the shitty games back then as shitty art.
>died 1986
How should he know?
>>335018716
>scary movie 4 is more art than the unfinished swan, journey, okami, ico, SOTC; just because it's a movie and not a game
if you are claiming that art is only one thing and is set in stone, then you are a fucking idiot, and you don't understand that "what is art?" is still a question
>>335018948
>>335018976
No, I'm just comparing the elements of video games to Tarkovsky's definition and standards of art.
Ever played The Void, OP?
>Dead old fuck is skeptical of new exciting mediums
Wow dude lmao its like a reoccurring trend in history xD
Pic related:How cringe worthy you look
play better games loser
>>335019309
>Our goal is to create elegant and emotionally rich art for computers interactive entertainment.
They can't, that's why they failed. I've told you that video game is not an effective medium to convey poetic meta language to the viewer. Why? Because video game can never be art.
MGS3 fits his description of art.
>>335020074
pls elaborate
>>335019180
You fail in doing that, because you treat games as a single whole without any differences.
All you "VG are too x to be y" only applies to some games, but not most others.
Other times you are simply wrong
>Empiricism plays a very large part in the enjoyment of video games. "You have to git gud", some /v/irgin said. There is no dynamic of revelation, there is no infinite metaphor to be found in gameplay.
You apply these principles like they were a formula, but they are not mathematic, they are more of a philosophy.
>>335018716
>implying anyone in the world is qualified to define art
>implying vidya isn't art
Must be difficult being this wrong all the time. Your boyfriend tarkovski cites cinema as an art form which means vidya must also be art to him since a video game is just a movie with a certain amount of interactivity which in the opinion of most non-retards makes it better at communicating ideas and letting you live in someone else's shoes than any other medium.
Now excuse me, mommy is bringing me a plate of tendies and if I eat them while I'm mad I'll have indigestion.
>Have to create everything for a videogame
>Music, world, assets, characters, story, tone and atmosphere
>All extremely deliberate and planned
How is that not art?
>>335021185
Yeah I'd argue that videogames are a 100% creative process, how could you define them any other way? What is arts most basic purpose other than entertainment?
>>335020524
>VG are too x to be y
Look, gameplay is the core element of video game. While not purely empirical like science, gameplay is very empirical in nature. Empirical means "to be learned", "originating in or based on observation or experience". You need to observe the mechanics of a video game to enjoy it.
Morrowind, Dark Souls, Deus Ex, there is a lot of empiricism in form of RPG mechanics, enemy behaviors, item management, and so many other things. Intuition comes from discovery, the moment when you have understood the behaviors of the application. Sure, there are other sources of intuition in the game such as the environment and atmosphere, but let's not lie that it will nearly be as good when you remove the empiricism. It worked for both Stalker and Solaris because motion picture can be a form of art.
You know, let's try to remove the empirical aspect from gameplay. Let's try to make the intuition not based on discovery. Let's give the player a lot of "exciting" handholding, or in fact lets just not let the player lose at all, because losing is selfish, it's not art. Won't it be a walking simulator?
>You apply these principles like they were a formula
It's more about the nature of the element rather than a formula. Removing this nature is like removing the engine of a car. It just doesn't work.
>but they are not mathematic
Sure, but still very close to it, compared to the artistic capability of motion picture and literature.
>they are more of a philosophy.
No, they have to be like a poetry. Art can be aligned with philosophy, and philosophy can contain some art, but philosophy itself isn't art.
>>335019180
Your comparisons are flimsy at best 2bh family
>>335021185
>Have to create everything for a videogame
Kubrick had to create everything for 2001: A Space Odyssey, but Tarkovsky said that it was materialistic, it wasn't a good art.
>>335021350
Edward Lorenz's chaos theory can be creative too.
>>335020512
Because it's a movie.
>>335021350
>art
>entertainment
not all art is entertaining. some art is
challenging to experience. if you disagree, you haven't encountered enough art.
>>335021185
Because my dear anon, the old fuck didn't like video games so he tried to isolate them as much as possible.
No one, and I mean no one can say for sure why video games can never be art.
Truth is, video games could very well ALL be considered forms of art.
>>335022714
>movie
Didn't you mean flick, f4m.
http://www.comicbookmovie.com/captain_america/captain_america_civil_war/hideo-kojima-calls-captain-america-a139789
>>335018716
>"Art only has the capacity, through shock and catharsis, to make the human soul receptive to good."
failed at the very first sentence. Jesus christ stop with the eceleb worshiping you piece of human trash.
>>335022690
>Other peoples opinions on art
That's so fucked that you'd just blindly accept that.
>>335022834
Okay a semantics argument that doesn't go anywhere. My point if you didn't understand is that deliberate creation is art. Well built furniture is an art for the process involved in creating it. Whether or not it challenges something or insults nothing is beside the point because that blanket spectrum of art applies to any creative human endeavour. Chaos Theory is art in its own way too, or fractals or any strange natural law when we can theorize about it. You people have such narrow categories for what art has to do to be considered art, as if there's not millions of genres and categories that any painting could apply to. The creation of a videogame is born of various art departments, musicians and writers. Its as much art as any movie, and like movies a lot of them won't be considered a highbrow masterpiece
>>335022549
The intuition in discovery vs intuition in faith thing is pretty solid lad.
holy shit i want artfags to die.
biggest fucking meme in history.
>>335023189
Adding onto this, every counter argument in this thread is making massive assumptions about how people experience videogames, I wouldn't accept that as a proven statement
>>335023189
I was expanding the definition of art to include that which is not entertaining, and you accuse me of having a narrow view? I didn't make any claims that what you specified was not art, only called out your assumption that art is only entertainment.
I don't assume I'll be entertained by every film, album, game, book or whatever I consume. Sometimes it's a difficult endeavor because the creator's intent was for the audience to be challenged, not entertained.
We good, senpai. I'm not attacking you.
>>335018716
>>335018809
I never wanted games to be art to begin with, so I don't see it as a problem. Games are just there for me to have fun whilst playing. Even games like Pathologic or Planescape Torment are just fun for me, not some 2deep5u art.
>>335018716
>Lets play vids is a art
>>335018716
You're making the assumption that only game play is what a game is. There are games where their are barely any game play at all? What about all the social games, mmorpgs, and storytelling games in general that let you build a character to associate with in order to impart information about the player?
What about endings that leave the player thinking because of how cryptic it is, like a good poem?
OP just wants drama inside his little scope of his/her shitty excuse for a life.
>>335023485
Okay gotcha. Sorry dude I jumped the gun there and I'll admit it. We indeed good brudda
>>335023189
>That's so fucked that you'd just blindly accept that.
It's not blind. I think Tarkovsky's argument about what is art really makes sense. It's a very metaphysical argument. It really distances itself from the popular ambiguous interpretation of art that is "expression of creativity that evokes emotion".
>>335023383
>about how people experience videogames
No, it's more about where the intuition comes from, not what intuition does a person feel from a material.
>>335023650
On the contrary, I want video games to stay away from art. I don't want video game devs to boast their creation as"art". It's flick, it's focus is entertainment.
>>335023859
>You're making the assumption that only game play is what a game is.
No, but gameplay is the core element of video game. Gameplay is the mover of video game.
>What about all the social games, mmorpgs, and storytelling games in general that let you build a character to associate with in order to impart information about the player?
Empiricism, like science.
>>335018716
>game
>gameplay
>gameplay
That would be right if only a video game consisted purely of gameplay. That isn't the case though.
Vidya shares a lot with theater: after all, it's a play, except there's little art in your own acting effort, but quite a lot in the scenery, lighting, music, sound effects and writing.
Of course it is art. Whether it is an art form or not is an entirely different debate, but clearly vidya is art.
>>335018716
>>"Art only has the capacity, through shock and catharsis, to make the human soul receptive to good.
Vidya is cathartic and because the player is also the actant it can even convey a feeling of guilt. Not only makes it receptive to good, it also makes you reflect on your actions and make you want to do good.
">“Art is a meta-language, with the help of which people try to communicate with one another; to impart information about themselves and assimilate the experience of others."
There is meta language in gameplay. There was this indie game where your goal is to go to the right, but as you proceed your character grows older and eventually dies. Metalanguage conveyed only by the means of gameplay.
>"I find poetic links, the logic of poetry in cinema, extraordinarily pleasing. They seem to me perfectly appropriate to the potential of cinema as the most truthful and poetic of art forms."
See the above example. Gameplay can be poetic. Another example is the microwave passage in mgs4. I'm sure there are many more.
>Defining the undefinable
How arrogant must one be to even attempt this?
>>335024430
You don't get shit if you don't do shit. Enjoy lingering in mediocrity because you're too scared to be called pretentious or arrogant.
>>335024430
He meant in the way that you must strive to do it without ever really managing to. It's an unattainable goal.
Last week I played Firewatch a highly praised game for it's story and I also watched Monalisa. And holy shit, what a world of difference in terms of story, an introspection into human emotion, and creativity found in the movie over the videogame. I couldn't even finish the game, and Monalisa is not even a great movie per se nor is even Kauffman's best work. In the end though, I don't want games to be art, I play games for the game aspect of it not the stories.
>>335024516
You cannot define art, it's an impossible undertaking as art means seven billion different things to seven billion different people, and none of them are more correct than the other, for how could they be?
Games aren't art. Why do you want games to be art? Do you want more pretentious crap? Games and Modern Art are on the same intellectual wavelength
>>335018716
S.T.A.L.K.E.R. > Stalker
I never understood the argument that books and movies are more emotionally involving. How much more connected can you get to an experience than to actually act it out yourself, like you do in videogames? How does reading/watching someone else do something even compare to that?
Granted, most videogame stories do not take advantage of this unique viewpoint.
I agree. I wish games would stop trying to be art, if people accepted it as art you would just end up with more games like Gone Home, noone wants that. I like my games fast and awesome with a focus on gameplay, not slow and boring with a focus on narrative. Fuck off with this shit.
If it maks you feel better, go with the American Beauty approach, trash bags blowing in the wind arent just rubbish being blown in the wind, interprit it as art yourself because EVERYTHING is art.
>>335019180
>No, I'm just comparing the elements of video games to Tarkovsky's definition and standards of art.
Except the statements about video games you make are arbitrary and hold absolutely no value. YOU (not Tarkovsky) are making the decision that "all games are too fast paced to be enjoyed spiritually", or that all games lack poetry. So essentially, you are a cunt trying to make your own and completely groundless opinions sound like Tarkovsky has condoned them.
Wow. What a fucking cunt. I bet you like IcyCalm too.
>>335024569
>video games were a hobby for nerds
>over time they attracted hipsters with pink hair
Yeah, I really fucking wonder why most video games have shitty stories.
Video games are a young medium that's mostly developed by old nerdy guys for young nerdy guys.
Those are not the kind of people who write a fucking Faust
>>335024569
>Monalisa
Once might have been an accident, but twice? (Unless you mean the Bob Hoskins Film.)
>>335018716
Good. Academia literally fucking killed video games. Big business had already given it severe disease and academia is the secondary infection that is dealing the lethal blow.
>>335018716
>>335018809
This guys comments make sense, but you're pulling the arguments out of your ass.
>>335024871
But there is more than enough room for games like Gone Home and more purely gameplay driven ones. There's no reason to only have 1.
>>335024682
>Games aren't art. Why do you want games to be art?
Because art is a merit of value.
>>335024618
Defining art is far easier than you idiots think.
>>335024871
Why should anyone give a fuck about what you want. It's not like anyone is taking your toys away. Different games aiming at different user bases and providing different types of experiences and values can and will coexist.
>>335018716
Andrei has clearly never played pokemon crystal
>>335025004
>Defining art is far easier than you idiots think.
Anyone who thinks defining art is easy (or even possible) is in no position to call others idiots. It's like claiming there are objective morals.
>>335024956
Academia has not even TOUCHED video games yet. Political activists are not the same as academia.
>>335024956
This comic has like 150 edits
I'm impressed I find new every week
>>335024871
And who is to say that being art implies being boring?
In my opinion Doom is more art than gone home, because every single aspect of the game fits perfectly together to form a whole that's better than the sum of its parts
>>335024848
Gameplay and storytelling do not have a good marriage. For example in Tomb Raider when I'm in control of Lara she's intrepid, fearless, she can gun down hordes of enemies, etc.. when I'm not in control i.e. during cutscenes/story Lara is emotionally scarred, she's timid, easily overpowered, scared, etc... A lot of games suffer from this, either you make a fun game with fun gameplay mechanics or you make something heavy on story which end up being walking simulators.
>>335018716
After Roger Ebert the next fools comes around kek
>>335024939
Yeah I fucked up, meant Anomalisa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalisa
>>335025123
That's why you eschew cutscenes in favor of storytelling through gameplay.
>>335025073
>political activists are not the same as academia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHyvRHrYYBA
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-theory/
OH lawd do I have bad news for you...
>>335018809
hey man i come up with pretty weird theories when i play certain kinds of vidyer gaems
discovery comes from experience, like discovering new ways of playing a game better than you did before
it's like a microcosm of progress
>>335025067
Or maybe he simply knows MORE than you do. Defining art is easy, functionally speaking. Just as it's pretty damn easy to provide a functional definition of moral systems. You people are complete idiots: seriously, most of you have barely high school level of understanding of social and cultural institutions and models.
Just because there is a large degree of variety does not mean there are not internal and functional aspects of the institution (both morals and art, which are in fact two sides of one fucking coin) that tie all of them together.
Art, like morals, is a normative institution. Art, like morals, exist to weight products of human behavior one a normative (good-to-bad, valuable-to-mundane) scale.
Art is a merit of value, projected onto display skill or products of displays of skill. What confuses you and absolute idiots like you is the plurality of existing VALUE systems (and the fact that value itself is both normative and dynamic, emergent property - neither subjective nor objective).
Art itself, as a functional institution, is universal to all cultures at all points of history.
>Someone who doesn't understand the medium because they're not interested in it nor use it claim how things are
I mean, I'm not arguing that video games would be art. But he's just being plain arrogant and retarded
just because he considers himself to create true art via films he thinks he's somehow the god of all art and qualified to define art, especially in something he knows nothing about? He's just full of himself and I won't suck his cock when it comes to his opinion just because he creates great films. I wouldn't ask him fitness advice either or his opinion about music
>>335018716
People who argue about video games not being art are the most autist bait posters on here.
Video games are or (at least can be) art. With albeit varying artistic quality (some are purely for entertainment).
I couldn't give a fuck what some beret wearing hipster thinks qualifies as art.
AIGHT SEEING AS YOU KEKS ARE TOO BLIND TO READ. HERE IT IS:
OP HAS THIS OPINION, NOT TARKOVSKY. STOP DISSING TARKOVSKY.
>>335025457
>I couldn't give a fuck what some beret wearing hipster thinks qualifies as art.
But all the hipsters these days WANT games to be "art" so they can be inscrutable mystifying bullshit.
Games were way better off as "not art", although it is probably too late now to go back...
>>335018716
fuck off to r/films
>>335025291
Critical theory is an ideology, not an academic theory. It's neither philosophically nor academically sound. To listen about what critical theory thinks about academic subject matters is exactly the same as to listen what an Islamic fundamentalist or a radical Marxist think. They define themselves as POLITICAL, NOT ACADEMIC workers, and as long as they continue to do so, they are actually academically irrelevant.
I know that Americans and French are still actually undergoing a Marxist transformation, which renders their social studies largely nonexistent and replaced by political activism cells, but not the entire word is America and France.
>>335024354
>Vidya is cathartic and because the player is also the actant it can even convey a feeling of guilt. Not only makes it receptive to good, it also makes you reflect on your actions and make you want to do good.
The statement "good" here isn't limited to behavior.
>There is meta language in gameplay.
Well there is, video game certainly isn't math, but meta language isn't the point of gameplay.
>See the above example. Gameplay can be poetic
>poetic
Are you sure that isn't more like symbolism?
>Another example is the microwave passage in mgs4. I'm sure there are many more.
I'm sure MGS4 wasn't a good video game.
>>335024874
>YOU (not Tarkovsky)
No, it was me based on Tarkovsky's statements. It's like saying that you can't say that heliocentrism is true because galileo is dead.
>>335025457
And I didn't mean Andrei tarkovsky was a beret wearing hipster
>>335025532
I hate those guys as well to be fair. They desperately want video games to be "high art"
>>335025641
>No, it was me based on Tarkovsky's statements. It's like saying that you can't say that heliocentrism is true because galileo is dead.
Dude, you are the one who makes judgements about games. Tarkovsky talks about spiritual value of art.
YOU CLAIM that games don't have spiritual value. That is not a substantiated claim. And it has nothing to do with Tarkovsky: Tarkovsky is not the one who judges whenever games have or don't have spiritual dimension. YOU make that call. And YOU have literally no authority what so ever. In fact you are a desperate trolling cunt. You have literally less authority than any random homeless person in the street - you are quite literally subhuman creature.
So... no. Tarkovsky does not actually make your argument any stronger.
>>335025376
I don't know what to say. It's like discussing with a brick wall.
Let's try a simpler approach. Why is Tarkovsky's art more art than other definitions of art? Why does his word have more weight than, say, Dostoyevsky for example?
You can argue that art is a merit of value all day, but if you cannot provide a solid reasoning as to what constitutes as deserving of that merit, that argument means nothing.
>>335025457
>Video games are or (at least can be) art.
Well I said that video games can barely be art, not can't be art. It's intrinsically a kitsch art.
>>335025468
Tark a shit
Shitposting and memes aside, this is about the only game that I've ever played that felt even remotely close to art, there's a couple others but overall games are shit when it comes to high artistic integrity.
>>335018716
>>335018809
Farcry 2 fits everything
>>335025817
>YOU CLAIM that games don't have spiritual value.
No, but let me ask this. Do you want spiritual value to be the focus of video game?
I swear that every fucking debate or thread about vidya being an art is always fucking same. Seriously why bother.
>>335025831
>Why is Tarkovsky's art more art than other definitions of art?
Actually, it isn't and it doesn't. Individual definitions of individual people - even authorities such as Tarkovksy or Dostojevsky are only parts of a discourse: the discourse is what defines the value systems. Because, while he does not realize it, Takrovksy himself here is talking about value and value systems, not art itself. He talks about how he think art should be like: in other words which values should art (according to him) represent.
>you cannot provide a solid reasoning as to what constitutes as deserving of that merit,
I already did. Value. Values are socially constructed, normative systems. Usually emergent, stemming from a discourse. Value systems change: from culture to culture, from era to era. We all participate on constant defining and re-defining of value systems, some people, people with authority (such as Tarkovsky) more than others.
But none of this matters to what ART IS. Because art is what happen when your values are already defined, and then projected as a selection criteria on human skill display or products of skill display.
50's America had different values tan 90's Russia, hence they will define different objects as art. But they both seek art because they have a tendency to project their value schemes into creative processes.
>>335026126
>Do you want spiritual value to be the focus of video game?
Sure. Why not? The Void did that and it was quite an amazing experience.
>>335025998
Closest thing that integrates gameplay into its approach to art, rather than focusing on narrative and story. I maintain that alot of games people consider art would work miles better as a movie of some sort, but Journey probably wouldnt have the same impact, because the gameplay was integral to the experience.
>>335025905
Shit you did sorry. I completely missed your second post.
The fact that you at least presented a reasonable argument has gave me hope today anon.
I thought you were just another baitposter.
>>335018809
>>“The film [Stalker] needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.”
this happens EXACTLY in the video game stalker. Half the people quit the second they reach Bar, people who weren't ready for the rest of the game anyways
>>335026260
So ,with all of that in mind, what stops video games from being art?
>>335026708
>what stops video games from being art?
Theoretically nothing. Our current problem is that within the context of western civilization, value systems are all over the fucking place, in fact we are facing a very real and very serious problem in that we don't have much of any, and those few solid ones are in fact ideologies.
So it's extremely difficult to judge what is art for our contemporary society. We are basically socially falling apart.
But in theory, games can be art. I do believe there are few (not many) who actually qualify even under conservative perception. Even playing games, as it's an display as skill, could be theoretically considered art, much like dancing can be. Whenever there is any value system that would justify glorifying pushing buttons very fast is another thing.
>>335026153
I like you.
>>335026260
>Individual definitions of individual people
Art is like faith. As demonstrated by Protestanism, it's easy to say that it should be liberated and free to be interpreted by anyone, but once it's liberated, it will lose all it's value. Why? Because both are metaphysical, but for most people metaphysics means it doesn't hold an absolute meaning just because it's not tangible.
>But none of this matters to what ART IS. Because art is what happen when your values are already defined, and then projected as a selection criteria on human skill display or products of skill display.
That mindset gives birth to modern art.
The common classification of art is broken. A category or a form of media cannot be an art as a whole
Music is not an art. Because not every single piece of music is an art. Otherwise all music, including Justin Bieber, would be an art.
Not every painting is art. But the most beautiful of them could be
Same goes for movies, same goes for videogames videogames
>>335018716
If he knows so much about art then why is he dead?
Example: Shadow of the Colossus
SotC communicates loss and stubornness to loss. The game conditions you to hold on, but in the climax of the game, you are forced to let go. It gives a sense of moving on, and dealing with grief and loss, entirely through gameplay mechanics.
It communicates to the human soul in a way most movies don't.
>>335027021
>Art is like faith. As demonstrated by Protestanism, it's easy to say that it should be liberated and free to be interpreted by anyone, but once it's liberated, it will lose all it's value. Why? Because both are metaphysical, but for most people metaphysics means it doesn't hold an absolute meaning just because it's not tangible.
This actually means nothing. Seriously, there is literally NOTHING said in that paragraph. It does not relate to anything I or anybody else here had said, Protestantism has nothing to do with "liberating faith", and metaphysics are not an argument in themselves. In fact, the very concept of metaphysics being a relevant term is highly questionable.
>That mindset gives birth to modern art.
The mindset that gives birth to all art. Modern art was born out of the idea that VALUE does not exist, or can be reduced to subjective. Which is a really stupid idea, but one most of you share anyway.
With a less relativistic approach to value systems, you'll get classical art out of the same fucking mindset.
>>335027026
>A post literally became a piece of art
What is wrong with this world?
>>335027559
>A post literally became a piece of art
what's wrong with that.
>>335027801
Post it on the internet and its shitposting.
Put it in a picture frame and its art.
>>335027943
shitposting on the internet is art as well.
>>335028018
Theres definatley a skill to it at least, Ill give you that.
>>335028058
>>335028018
stop producing art please
>>335028202
you first.
>>335018716
>games can't have shock and catharsis
>games can't have meta-language
>games can't go beyond logic
>games can't start slow
>games can't be intuitive
>games rely heavily on empiricism
I demand proof for all of these absurd claims, OP
>>335018716
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUbRWUDe1FI
someone favorably comparing the medium of video games to the slowness tarkovsky was famous for. The real meat starts about 10 minutes in where another filmmaker talks about being inspired by early tomb raider but it goes into Tarkovsky pretty quickly.
No offense, but i think the guy in the video makes a much better arguement than your twisting the direct words of someone long since dead who never really made a proper statement on the subject
>>335026260
a legitimately smart not horrendously biased post on /v/!? Holy shit guys i think its a sign of the apocalypse
>"Art only has the capacity, through shock and catharsis, to make the human soul receptive to good."
Check
>“Art is a meta-language, with the help of which people try to communicate with one another; to impart information about themselves and assimilate the experience of others."
Check
>"I find poetic links, the logic of poetry in cinema, extraordinarily pleasing. They seem to me perfectly appropriate to the potential of cinema as the most truthful and poetic of art forms."
>"He(artist) is capable of going beyond the limitations of coherent logic, and conveying the deep complexity and truth of the impalpable connections and hidden phenomena of Ufe."
Art doesn't even fucking do that. That may be how you interpret a situation because you've allowed your mind to be released from
reality while you concern yourself with the unfamiliar phenomena of art, but that's just because you're a dumb evolved ape that has mental
limits. Yes, you can escape logic, and tell truths, and communicate in this way. When coupled with a context, games are obviously art, and games
like SotC, and Dark Souls have succeeded in doing this.
>“The film [Stalker] needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts.”
So you think a game that uses proper game design and enemy placement keeps it from being art, when this faggot was all like "oh, I have to keep
people from getting upset at my movie"
>"In science, at the moment of discovery, logic is replaced by intuition. In art, as in religion, intuition is tantamount to conviction, to faith. It is a state of mind, not a way of thinking."
Game design is an art. Intuition is required.
>"Science is empirical, whereas the conception of images is governed by the dynamic of revelation."
How you enjoy a game, or what you think of a game is completely up to your subjective experience.
tl;dr This dude would have thought you were a faggot.
>>335027281
>Seriously, there is literally NOTHING said in that paragraph. It does not relate to anything I or anybody else here had said.
By saying "Individual definitions of individual people", you're saying that the definition of art itself isn't absolute and tangible. You're basically saying that value is simply the artist's vision, and you're right on that regard, but then you're saying that value is constructed by the society.
But if value was constructed by the society and change from time to time, then what makes art timeless? People regardless of era has emotions, and the way the express it from time to time might change, and the impact might change from people to people, but nothing change the fact that he was trying to express his emotion. This is what makes a piece of art, an art.
Just a note, I DIDN'T SAY THAT VIDEO GAME ISN'T ART. I was just saying that video game isn't a good form of art.
>Protestantism has nothing to do with "liberating faith"
Oh, yes it does. It's a form of anarchy, it makes faith subjective. Just look at my pic.
>Modern art was born out of the idea that VALUE does not exist, or can be reduced to subjective.
Exactly, it's the point where value means nothing, because it's socially constructed so there's nothing wrong with making it subjective anyway.
VIDEO GAMES ARE AN INTERACTIVE MEDIUM
THE AESTETIC GOALS CAN BE CONSODERED ART; EITHER THROUGH PARTIAL OR COMPLETE APPRECIATION OF A SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE
Just stop debating it already
>>335026260
>art is what happen when your values are already defined, and then projected as a selection criteria on human skill display or products of skill display.
You could also just cut the bullshit and not be a retard and keep shit simple for the sheep.
fx. "Anything can be art as long as you believe it to be art."
that wasn't so hard was it you daft cunt. it's good that people like you who think a case is better made if it's written with an annoying amount of arbritrary words are weeded out from proper academics thanks to a little thing called a word limit.
>>335029848
>By saying "Individual definitions of individual people", you're saying that the definition of art itself isn't absolute and tangible.
No, actually. Because despite it sounding like he does, Tarkovsky isn't defining art. Definition of art is solid and pretty much absolute. Definition of what we want to find in current art in current era is actually not a definition of art, but proposition of VALUES that art should reflect and contain. And values are non-absolute, they are, as stated, defined through a discourse.
"Value" is not necessarily the artist vision, but value is what gives are delimination to everything else. We call something "art" because for one reason or another, we believe that work has exceptional value. That is all. Where value comes from: sheer craft, rarity, shock, "spiritual dimension" (which essentially means reference to valuable metaphysical or mystical cannon), symmetry, political or moral appeal... that depends on how we, as a specific culture define what matters to us more, and what matters to us less.
And then seek for the things that matter to us, when we find works of skill that reflect or represent things that matter to us most, we label those "art".
It really is a very simple process when you think about it, and it applies to EVERY culture at every point of history.
>But if value was constructed by the society and change from time to time, then what makes art timeless?
That is a fun question. My answer would be: there are certain values that are more universal than others. Which makes some art hold a more long-lasting value. Values regulate human behavior, human behavior is dictated by biology and evolution: it's not surprising that some patterns of behavior (encoded by values) will converge across time and space.
No art is "truly" timeless though, as all extreme totalitarian ideologies had proven time and time again.
>Oh, yes it does.
What do you actually think the word "protestantism" mean for fuck sake?!
>>335029462
>Game design is an art. Intuition is required.
Intuition in video game comes mostly from moments of discovery though, sooo...;
>>335029462
>>335030009
It's kitsch. Art, but barely art.
>>335030197
>"Anything can be art as long as you believe it to be art."
Science still can't be art. Someone has to make a distinction.
These idiot hipsters are overthinking it. if the creator claims it's art. then it's art. the end.
YOU don't decide if something is art. the person who made it does. it doesn't matter if you don't like the thing in question, if you think it's stupid or offensive, that's the whole point of art. The creator doesn't care what you think.
EA and Activision to do not make art. they make products. they care what you think, they want you to buy their product. But plenty of developers DO make art.
>>335018716
there is meta language in video games, though; it's the reason indie games are popular at all
>>335029848
>Exactly, it's the point where value means nothing, because it's socially constructed so there's nothing wrong with making it subjective anyway.
Except value does not mean nothing. Thing being socially constructed does not mean it's nothing. Social constructs are exactly as real and as important as biology, evolutionary speaking. Who the fuck taught you that being "socially constructed" means they are nothing, and why the FUCK did you believe him?
>>335030197
>You could also just cut the bullshit and not be a retard and keep shit simple for the sheep.
If this is giving you problems to understand, then maybe the problem is on your side. Also:
>fx. "Anything can be art as long as you believe it to be art."
Has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. In fact, it's quite literally the opposite in some sense.
Read what I fucking wrote (it's not that hard), don't try to reinterpret because you just fuck the point up entirely.
>>335025641
Videogame is more Art than any Movie or Book is, because you as User interact with the art.
Videogames are a Symbiosis of Creator and Consumer, both are needed in this medium and are essential for it to be a good one.
>>335022378
>like pottery
Stop posting, George
>>335027000
In theory.
You have no clue what you talk about, because all you practise is words. I bet you don't draw, or do sports, dance or actually dive cars.
It's about Audiovisual perception, and that exist in all of them, which makes them art.
Games can't be art because art can't be fun. When was the last time you had fun staring at a piece of art?
>>335031042
>You have no clue what you talk about, because all you practise is words.
That is actually not true, but here is the thing:
Words represent concepts. They are the most fundamental units of comprehension, and the basic principles of discourse are still the most reliable way to formulate and improve our judgments.
>It's about Audiovisual perception, and that exist in all of them, which makes them art.
How? This is not an argument. It does not in any way reflect anything that has been said to this point either. What do you think you are proving here?
>>335018716
Who gives a shit, videogames don't need to be art they are there for entertainment.
>>335018716
> human soul receptive to good."
Define 'good'
>"I find poetic links, the logic of poetry in cinema, extraordinarily pleasing.
'art is what i like, and only what i like, because i like it' -t. fascist
>hidden phenomena of Ufe."
wat
>by the dynamic of revelation."
And science leads to discovery, which itself is a form of revelation.
2/10 philosophy, would not entertain this sophist. Good thing he's dead.
>>335031275
Are you 12?
What actually drives you to post something this asinine?
>>335018716
Games are not art, period.
Football is not art. Chess is not art. Graphics, 3d models may be art, but ultimately the game is not comprised of them and can be replaced easily as a means of conveyance.
Games are not, and do not need to be art. You only WANT them to be because in this modern era pleasure is the main authority, and millennials will anything to make that pleasure/leisure valid in the eyes of authority.
I will repeat, Games are perfectly valid and important on their own. They do not need to be art.
>>335031402
People who believe in 'good' (as in good vs. evil) are 12.
I'm sorry your idol doesn't understand operationalization, one of the basic tenets of academic thought. No one knows what the fuck 'good' means, and the moment he starts to define it I guarantee you his argument would fall apart like the sophist paper it is.
>>335018716
>Watch Solaris
>Pretty good, besides like a ten minutes driving scene in Japanese Russia
>Thought it was strange and didn't add anything to the film
>Read that Tarkovsky added it only to get all the "dumb" people to stop watching
Man I like his films but some times... That's a stupid thing to do to your own film
>>335031443
Agreed. They're just toys for fun. Have been since Papa Baer and always will be
>>335018774
this tbqh famalam
>it's a namedropfag thread
>>335031443
You do not have an argument, so your conclusion is rather pointless. You do not have a definition of art to start with, you don't have a strict logic (words in a book can also be replaced, as props in a theatrical play, yet we do not rejected as art forms. In fact, in between two theatrical plays, NOTHING may be preserved: the words change with direction or translations, actors obviously differ, stage differs...
Do you claim theatre is has no potential to be art?
>>335019180
So you're talking out your ass and just baiting.
>>335018716
Let's be honest. Games can be art. But they can't be all art, they need to be an ACTUAL FUCKING VIDEO GAME.
>>335018716
Look faggot, I did my undergrad/masters in fields that require copious amounts of bullshit just like you.
I could turn your entire argument around and use the exact same quotes to contradict everything you say.
Everything is subjective, everything can be twisted.
>>335031815
What in the fuck are you on about, you fucking rube?
>>335031815
Not him but I would argue that sports and art have two different goals. Sports promote competition, teamwork and scoring. Art only wants to either make you feel an emotion or think about something. Video games only used to be the first but are trying more in modern day to become the second.
>>335018716
>>335018716
Don't use Tarkovski's theories to back up your unfunded criticism of anything.
>>335031587
>People who believe in 'good' (as in good vs. evil) are 12.
Such a powerful argument. Except it is wrong. And you really have to be complete idiot if you have not realized that operationalization is on a tenet of considerable part of academia, including ethics, art theory and many others. And again: a twelve years old retard with a hard on for hard sciences (but without any actual knowledge of those) will scream about how those don't count, like early Wittgenstein or Popper raging importantly that the empirical reality isn't as simple and elegant as they would like to be.
Concepts of good and bad, as many other models that do not fall under operational principles (yet they do get commonly used in empiric and experimental fields, see valency in neurocognitive sciences) still hold pragmatic value in human life. Considerable one too. Smart people consider all aspects of life with pragmatic impact valuable and worth academic interests. Kids and retards demand that half of the pragmatic experience should be disregarded, because they don't allow them to delegate responcibility to a naive metaphysical idea of quantification.
>>335030474
>Definition of what we want to find in current art in current era is actually not a definition of art, but proposition of VALUES that art should reflect and contain.
Um yeah, and read this.
>Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual, for the ideal: that longing which draws people to art. Modern art has taken a wrong turn in abandoning the search for the meaning of existence in order to affirm the value of the individual for its own sake. What purports to be art begins to look like an eccentric occupation for suspect characters who maintain that any personalized action is of intrinsic value simply as a display of self-will.
The value comes from the search of the spiritual value itself. This dynamic is what creates art, and it's timeless.
>And then seek for the things that matter to us, when we find works of skill that reflect or represent things that matter to us most, we label those "art".
Yeah, but it should be considered where the meaning came from, like in his intuition argument.
>Where value comes from:...that depends on how we, as a specific culture define what matters to us more, and what matters to us less.
No, it's more of a logic vs poetry thing, read the intuition argument again. I don't know how to exactly call this thing, self referential?? Logic imitates life, while poetry makes life.
>there are certain values that are more universal than others
No. The artist makes the value. Bach's music doesn't make paleolithic wood banging not a form of art, if the caveman music was made in search of a spiritual ideal.
>No art is "truly" timeless though, as all extreme totalitarian ideologies had proven time and time again.
Godless ideology isn't art.
>What do you actually think the word "protestantism" mean for fuck sake?!
Protestantism as in christianity, because reason, faith, and tradition used to be absolute in the catholic Church. Just for an analogy.
>>335018716
>>335032330
Also, Chris Marker would like to have a word with you about the creation of images, moods and concrete emotions through gameplay.
>>335032094
>What in the fuck are you on about, you fucking rube?
Can you not read, shitstain.
You claimed:
>Graphics, 3d models may be art, but ultimately the game is not comprised of them and can be replaced easily as a means of conveyance.
The same could be said about theatre. How are games any different than theatre in this respect?
>>335032207
>Not him but I would argue that sports and art have two different goals
Not necessarily, in fact sports used to be considered art - an extremely important one for significant portions of our history. Teamwork, competitiveness, skill are just values, as is empathy, attentiveness, or patience.
Art, as it's just projection of values, can favor ones or the others, or both, depending of the value system of a society in question.
>/v/ hates it when people call games art because that means they are not games but rather cinematic experiences
>/v/ tries defending vidya when someone criticizes that vidya can't be art
You people are hopless
>>335031979
No don't you understand, every thing is objective and clearly there has always only been one definition of art.
t. a 2-time college dropout
>>335031815
I'm not going to define art, because for one, I can't concisely, and secondly, absolutely no matter what I define it as, you will disagree so as to fit you beliefs and agenda. I will also state, that I do have an argument, as per the definition of the argument, since you have something to disagree and remark on, and have even stated I have a conclusion. Please educate yourself.
I never said art forms can't evolve. But art as a whole is defined by limits, context, and meta-elements. It's easy to confuse videogames with art as a reaction, but they are complex marriages of disciplines, including but not limited to art.
Is navigating the dvd menu of a movie apart of the movie, and therefore art?
Are the pictures of a monopoly board required for the game to played, therefore making it art?
Do the drawings on pokemon cards used to play the game, make the Pokemon tcg art?
If you answered no to any of these questions, Video games are resoundingly not art, no matter how much it upsets you.
>>335019180
Maybe you're just playing the wrong games then.
>this is art, that is art
baka.
pic related.
People here can't even define what art is, but are experts on what is art, and what is not. You all deserve a shotgun blast to the face.
>>335025376
>take a screenshot of FF13
>put it on my wall
>wow its beautiful! what a great piece of art
>have the ability to move and see said piece in different angles and lighting
>this is suddenly not art
>rachet & clank movie is art while the game isnt
????
>>335033020
Just because something is ugly/you think something is ugly doesn't mean it's art.
>>335033030
No one can. It's a stupid word for stupid people.
>>335018716
>games contain movies, which are art
>games contain pictures, which are art
>games contain music, which is art
>games contain models, which are art
>games contain writing, which is art
>games contain a composition of the above, which is art
>but games can never, EVER be art EVER
hrupa durpa doodle dooo :DDD
>>335032645
>>Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual, for the ideal: that longing which draws people to art.
Those are words of someone who strongly believes that values he promotes are highly universal. Which makes sense. But says nothing about art.
>This dynamic is what creates art, and it's timeless.
The dynamics that create art are far more simple. This is a convoluted way of saying "we should think more, be more patient, our moral judgement should refer to mystical experiences as well as pure reasoning": which is a list of values that Tarkovsky held dear. And I'm not without sympathies.
Except if you'd ask some of his close colleagues, who were mostly devoted Marxist, they would tell you that art exists to promote cooperation and spread the ideal of Communist society across nations. And they would be equally as sincere as Tarkovsky was. To them, art isn't timeless: in fact, it's INHERENTLY TIED TO TIME, SPECIFICALLY TO COMMUNIST REVOLUTION.
So "timelessness" of art is more complicated than you think. Some values are indeed very universal. But not absolutely so, and they constitute only a portion of the full value set of each culture. History and context-sensitive values exist as well and are equally as important.
>like in his intuition argument.
Intuition isn't argument. And explaining semiosis isn't hard.
>No, it's more of a logic vs poetry thing, read the intuition argument again.
Those words have no meaning. "Poetry makes life" is a meaningless statement. Metabolic processes make life. Poetry is fifth level cultural construct existing for functional reasons, such as easier info preservation and again, value reflection system.
>The artist makes the value.
No, as value is a group-behavior-moderation institution, an individual usually does not have any means to actually control that. Artist does not decide what is valuable and what isn't anymore than every other member of the social circle.
>>335031814
It's like 'name dropping' kubrick. Anyone in the hobby has heard of Tarkovsky.
>>335033293
You can take a piece of cake and add it to a pot of soup, no one is going to consider that cake anymore. Art has always been about the sum product than the individual parts.
>A deceleration of a subjective idea
I am art.
>>335032809
>I can't concisely,
Then DO NOT MAKE STATEMENTS ABOUT WHAT IS OR ISN'T ART YOU SHITSTAIN.
You LITERALLY JUST ADMITED you have no clue what you are talking about. Yet somehow, you have the insane arrogance of coming and making judgements about it?
What the FUCK is actually wrong with you?
>Please educate yourself.
Oh the irony.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument
Notice that argument is a statement provided to support and justify conclusion. You have conclusion, but no argument to support or justify that conclusion with.
JESUS what a fucking idiot. This is beyond pathetic: you have the fucking nerve to tell anyone to "educate themselves" when you don't fucking know the difference between a conclusion and argument?
What the fuck are you doing here, seriously?
>>335032809
>Is navigating the dvd menu of a movie apart of the movie, and therefore art?
>Are the pictures of a monopoly board required for the game to played, therefore making it art?
>Do the drawings on pokemon cards used to play the game, make the Pokemon tcg art?
NONE OF THESE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!
HOW CAN YOU FUCKING EVEN SPEAK ABOUT THOSE IF YOU CAN'T DEFINE ART FOR FUCK SAKE?!
What does any of this bullshit actually have to do with anything else? If you have not defined art, how can you make the statement that a marriage of disciplines is not art?
>>335033149
It's like the shortbus had arrived... Literally, the deeper into the discussion we get, the more absolute NONSENSE is being posted.
WORDS motherfucker: can you use them properly?
>>335033149
Not every movie is considered art, mang.
>>335018716
>Art only has the capacity, through shock and catharsis
Stopped reading there. It's complete bullshit.
>>335033495
Drink bleach, frog.
>>335020524
Whoa... it's like Op, like.. you know, took the definition of art from this guy and like applied it mathematically to judge whether or not another thing is art... This is like poetry or something?
>>335024712
Roadside picnic>S.T.A.L.K.E.R.>Stalker
>>335034438
Are you implying I'm french? Neither Director is french. Why am I french?
>>335034641
France is the country of biggest cinephiles and weeaboos alike, I imagine.
>>335018716
>Video game doesn't make men receptive to good.
Baseless, meaningless statement. Discarded.
>There is no meta-language in gameplay. Everything is very mechanic to the core, it is meant to to be understood practically and give your brain jolts of excitement rather than spiritual experience.
Incorrect. While the actual mechanic of playing a game is more of a primal experience, to imply that there isn't some level of communication shared via mechanics both between game and player, and player to player when speaking about the piece.
>There is no logic of poetry in gameplay. Again, they're all very straightforward, mechanic, and symbolic. From level design, enemy placement, character behaviors that affect the gameplay, they're all engineered that way to be logically coherent to be understood (not in an emotional way) by the player rather than poetic. Otherwise it won't be a good game.
Incorrect. A well designed game does have an emotional coherency as well as a logical one. It's not simply that things are structured in a way that presents, The emotions of the game are communicated by level design, visual assets, enemy placement, and what you can and can not do.
>People need calmness in order to turn on the frontal lobe part of their brains and appreciate the spiritual experience of art. Video games are way too fast paced and autistic to be enjoyed spiritually.
Bullshit statement Your frontal lobe is active while playing video game.
>Video game is closer to science than art, because intuition only comes after you win a move set by the computer.
Nonsense. Dismissed.
>Empiricism plays a very large part in the enjoyment of video games. "You have to git gud", some /v/irgin said. There is no dynamic of revelation, there is no infinite metaphor to be found in gameplay.
The idea of there being an infinite metaphor is pure pretension. But to imply that there can be no metaphor within mechanics means you have not thought very hard.
>>335034508
>>335024712
Roadside Picnic > STALKER >>> S.T.A.L.K.E.R.
This is great news for everyone. Hipsters idolize this guy, now they'll finally fuck off from videogames.
>>335033996
>NONE OF THESE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ANYTHING?!
>HOW CAN YOU FUCKING EVEN SPEAK ABOUT THOSE IF YOU CAN'T DEFINE ART FOR FUCK SAKE?!
Right on time. You're an anti-intellectual reactionary teen.
>calls people stupid constantly
>incessantly ask for definitions
>only remark are "you basically didn't say anything" or varients
>refuses to understand surface level contrast
>ect
Are you a sophisticated bot developed by the NSA to derail any form of discussion? If you so concerned with definitions, look it up on wikipedia or whatever and argue around those axioms.
If I'm such an idiot it should child's play for a ranting yelling sophist such as yourself to dismantle my statements, fag lord.
Just please admit you have an emotional preference to video games being art, and will yell at any disagreement to your bias.
>>335034769
Another one.
Anything can be art, you just have to say it is.
This pile of crusty tissues spilling out of my trash can? That's art. I call it "A broken dream"
>>335033259
that post is so amusing. i hope that guy got a shit grade.
>>335034641
Am I wrong?
>>335018716
>>335034769
In short, OP. You're an idiot. You're parroting an opinion as an authority, and then delivering a half-baked analysis of why a new medium is not "true art."
Besides, his definition has always been garbage. Art is, above all else, a means of human expression. Strip away all the pretensions and posturing that surrounds art and this is what you find. You can make arguments about the quality of the artistry of games (which is still rather low due partially), but to pretend that no one has ever used a game as a means of expression is preposterous.
>>335035183
Yes.
>>335035001
>Right on time. You're an anti-intellectual reactionary teen.
Yeah, a kid who literally tells others to "educate themselves" after proving that he does not know the difference between argument and conclusion, who makes extreme swooping judgements about how games aren't art but then refused to actually explain how he defines art (and as a result, not art), and who entirely failed to address other counterarguments, or actually explain how any of what he says relate to anything, will not tell others they are "anti-intellectual".
Provide a single argument, single actual statement that supports your conclusions. Or fuck off and admit that you simply don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about.
>>335035304
lol
Liar.
>>335035376
Okay.
>>335034876
>a completely twisted view of videogames using what Tarkovski said about art leading to the absolute as a dogma is going to change anything about Tarkovski
Great reasoning there, bud
>>335035001
Your arguments are absolutely invalid since you're not actually seeing what videogames can convey through mechanics or how different stimulation can lead to different feelings, ending up in a biased view of videogames as pure competition that leads nowhere.
You're an idiot, man, and the second quote you listed is far far from anti-intellectual. In fact, it challenges your ideas in quite a formal way. Isn't outright denying contrary arguments as false the basis of anti-intelectualism and the beginning of childishness?
>>335023090
Andrei Tarkovsky died before the Internet was even a thing. Not exactly an e-celeb.
best tarkovsky
>>335024229
>He thinks "flick" and "film" have different meanings.
Confirmed for 1st year film student.
>>335033405
>Those are words of someone who strongly believes that values he promotes are highly universal.
Well, there is a universal value, which is man's yearning for infinite harmony. This has always been a theme of Tarkovsky's work. Kurosawa and Bergman, even though they were atheist, were trying to search for infinite harmony in their art.
>The dynamics that create art are far more simple.
But art creates the dynamic as well. Art creates life not imitates life, remember? It's called self referential, or whatever.
>"we should think more, be more patient, our moral judgement should refer to mystical experiences as well as pure reasoning"
That sounds more convoluted, and doesn't sound Tarkovsky at all. Art creates life, that's all he meant to say.
>Except if you'd ask some of his close colleagues, who were mostly devoted Marxist, they would tell you that art exists to promote cooperation and spread the ideal of Communist society across nations. And they would be equally as sincere as Tarkovsky was. To them, art isn't timeless: in fact, it's INHERENTLY TIED TO TIME, SPECIFICALLY TO COMMUNIST REVOLUTION.
Why ask his colleagues? Have they even read Sculpting in Time?
>So "timelessness" of art is more complicated than you think. Some values are indeed very universal. But not absolutely so, and they constitute only a portion of the full value set of each culture. History and context-sensitive values exist as well and are equally as important.
Uh no, timelessness of art works like how faith works in Catholic Church. Scripture might not be made with scientific accuracy, some interpretations might have flaws, but faith is still absolute. Faith is the spirit of art that was given by the artist, and it's always there.
>Poetry is fifth level cultural construct existing for functional reasons, such as easier info preservation and again, value reflection system.
Barriers of culture and language doesn't make the essence of the poetry disappear.
>>335035346
>>335035545
I said I have a conclusion. Not that an argument is a conclusion. I am not going to go so far as to define art. That is an overly complex meta-philosophical discussion I'm not getting into, and have hardly a reason to. It can't be stated in a single sentence, nor neatly, nor concisely. I'm not going to define art. I'm telling you what art, absolutely is not. Dvd menus, football, trading cards, and chess are interfaces, competitions, collectables and games without artistic merit, but may have artistic components, which is what videogames are, are not art (argument), therefore videogames are not art. See the difference? Art is not objective based. Video games at there core are objective based, and are absolutely not art. (conclusion)
Keeps making fools of yourselves and using caps to show the world how incompetent you are. Video games are not and never will be art no matter how much you want them to be.
>>335025831
>Why is Tarkovsky's opinion more valuable than others?
Because OP probably just saw a Tarkovsky movie for the first time, liked it, and then heard that Tarkovsky was a big time arthouse director. This gave OP the impression that he has refined taste for liking a Tarkovsky movie and he is under the impression that babbies first arthouse director is the end-all, be-all for what is and isn't art.
>>335036039
>Well, there is a universal value, which is man's yearning for infinite harmony
What? No. Actually provide me with any kind of systematic psychological research to support that kind of statement. Yeah, tranquility is a concept that will be in some way present in just about every basal value system, but you can't make generalizations like that. Also, Kurosawa's movies show a lot of very different themes. I live in Fear sure as FUCK does not talk about longing for "infinite harmony". I'm going to refrain from talking about Bergman since I have nothing positive to say on his note.
>Art creates life not imitates life, remember?
Actually, no. I don't remember that being actually established scientific, or at least academic fact.
>Art creates life, that's all he meant to say.
LITERALLY A MEANINGLESS STATEMENT AT IT'S OWN for fuck sake. We can interpret it and contextualize it, but eventually you will find out that translated from pretentious to common, it states what I stated.
>Why ask his colleagues?
Because it's worth understanding a perspective of MULTIPLE FUCKING PEOPLE if we want to talk about something being universal.
>, but faith is still absolute.
I am usually the first one to defend faith, since I do know quite lot about it and consider it actually a very useful tool to humanity when used correctly, but this is mystical bullshit that again has no place in a rational debate. No, it isn't. That is a non-statement.
>Barriers of culture and language doesn't make the essence of the poetry disappear.
What the fuck is "essence of poetry"? Again: this is not your blog. We don't operate with terms that can't be actually raised at an academic level.
How does what you say in any way relate to empirical process playing role in formation of poetry as an institution?
I don't need this philosophical shit on my vidya games. I got that enough already from my "agnostic-atheist" friend. Why are you guys keep overcomplicating stuff like this I will never know.
>>335018716
>>335018809
If this was the 1930s you'd be saying talkies aren't art, because they don't compare to highbrow literature.
>>335036381
>I said I have a conclusion.
No. You have literally stated that you have an argument. Let me quote you:
>I will also state, that I do have an argument, as per the definition of the argument, since you have something to disagree and remark on,
>I do have an argument
See?
>I am not going to go so far as to define art.
Then how can you claim what is or isn't art? Without a definition, how can you state such thing? And if the discussion is too difficult, then why do you assert yourself into it?
So you see people debating art, and you think: "Well, I can't tell you what is art, I can't keep up with this kind of discussion: LET ME TELL YOU ALL HOW YOU ARE WRONG AND WHAT IS OR ISN'T ART!"
>>335036381
>Dvd menus, football, trading cards, and chess are interfaces, competitions, collectables and games without artistic merit
Absolute majority of chess masters and plenty of art theoreticians actually consider chess an art.
Also: on what basis have you concluded none of those are art, IF YOU CAN'T TELL US WHAT IS OR ISN'T ART.
You cannot judge something as art or not art without making a definition of what is art. It's really that fucking simple. And the way you call things that has historically been considered apex of arts (such as sports) for thousands of years just show how completely unwarranted this is.
Claiming that chess or sport is not art is A CONCLUSION YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
FIRST, YOU NEED AN ARGUMENT, THEN YOU CAN ARRIVE AT CONCLUSIONS.
>Art is not objective based.
Based on what argument?
>Video games at there core are objective based, and are absolutely not art.
Based on WHAT ARGUMENT?!
>are not art (argument),
THAT IS A CONCLUSION YOU PIECE OF SHIT.
>>335036381
You're reductionist at best. Several people have already told you how stimulation by correlation articulated in an order clearly defined by an author is art, even if it's objective based. You're missing the point on what we say when we say videogames are not entirely objective based.
Also, if you go ahead and don't say "what art is", please stop clinging on Tarkovski's words simply because you can make sophistry out of it.
You people are all fucking faggots.
I'm gonna go play videogames and you can't stop me.
>>335037454
Just to clear some confusion:
This >>335036381 sorry piece of shit is not OP. OP is clearly the religious nut job from >>335036039
and he claims that games are art, just very weak one.
The fuck you are arguing with right now is a completely different fucker who is actually, believe it or not, trolling us all by simply repeating the same old fucking Ebert thesis that was laughed out of the window the very first time he brought it up.
So I would not bother with the sorry soul.
>>335037782
Oh shit, didn't even see that. Thanks, man. The OP actually seems more in synth with what Tarkovski actually though, really, so I'm glad.
>>335018716
>>335018809
>relic of the old world scared of new mediums he cant have free ticket in
nothing new here, next
>>335018716
Seriously not fucking around here, but Journey is art. There really isn't any "gameplay." There's what seems like gameplay, but in reality it's just a series of "come here's" to pull you along a beautiful path with amazing music, and just enough interaction with another person. You end up experiencing this literal journey with another soul, one you can't communicate to, but you know must be feeling the same awe looking at these sandscapes and ruins and all of this snow. And then after you've experienced all of this together, you get to see this person die before you make it to the end. I still don't know if the other player sees the reverse and is just instanced from the rest of the online players, but that isn't the point. You can't experience this last little bit with another person, it's isolating and private.
Then the credits roll, and you realize you didn't experience this journey with just one person. People were flitting in and out of your game without you having a single clue, without noticing any changes. It was just you and another, but you really shared the experience in little bits and pieces with a wide number of people you'll never be able to identify. Individuality blurred away for two hours of your life, giving you just enough time to experience unbiased and unfiltered connection to others.
That shit was just a really magical moment for me. I know it sounds ridiculous, and I know I'm really reading into it, but that's what I took from it. I only played it once, I'll never play it again. There's no point to. I had my journey, it was amazing, and I'll always remember it. It didn't feel pretentious, wanting so hard to be art like Gone Home or Life is Strange. It was just a beautiful trip.
>>335018716
we've been there already, every time a new art form pops up all the people that made it big in the old ones try to shit on it fearing it will make them less relevant
it happened with photography, it happened for movies, now it's vidya time, in few decades we'll just laught at their short sightedness
>>335038150
>relic of the old world
>cinema
>old world
What the fuck, his career was built around legitimizing film as art. He isn't even talking about videogames, it's the anon who's interpreting it.
>>335018716
>Autistic Ruski fabricates a pretentious definition for an intentionally vague term to boast about how great he is and how film is trying the best medium.
Not taking sides on this argument but someone's personal definition of something holds little weight.
>>335018716
Art is defined as the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination
Every part of a video game is art from the assets to the design to the code itself, and the whole has emergent properties which also fall under that definition.
Almost everything made by man could be classified as art. The distinctions people make are irrelevant.
>>335036673
>What? No. Actually provide me with any kind of systematic psychological research to support that kind of statement.
Just use your logic. Man has always been searching for clues, a meaning behind everything, especially their own life. Only by connecting all the dots of reason, there will appear a harmony. Sadly, not all the dots are observable, so man creates art to make an ideal world of his own where the dots are visible.
If a man believes that nothing will happen to them beyond a few decades of their life regardless what he does, what gives him a reason to withstand suffering? Whatever reason he uses, it came from the faith that by doing it he will create a certain harmony.
>tranquility is a concept that will be in some way present in just about every basal value system
And isn't infinite tranquility what everyone wants?
>Kurosawa's movies show a lot of very different themes
Ikiru, Yojimbo, Seven Samurai, Rashomon, they can all be stemmed down to the story of a man or multiple people who are trying to find a meaning for their existence by doing good stuff to redeem themselves. That is harmony that I'm talking about, the reason to live, according to Kurosawa.
>the definition of life
Jeez. Self sustaining process, okay. In context of this, it triggers something psychologically.
>I don't remember that being actually established scientific, or at least academic fact.
>http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/art-definition/#Con
Science is not art and it's incapable of comprehending anything beyond observable truth. Academia recognizes the universality of art, but failed to identify where it comes from. So there indeed is universality, unlike what you're thinking.
>it's worth understanding a perspective of MULTIPLE FUCKING PEOPLE if we want to talk about something being universal.
Pick multiple people who actually understand what they're talking about.
>but this is mystical bullshit that again has no place in a rational debate
Is art rational?
>>335018774
TRUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
>>335019309
>Never been a big fan of pop culture. Could you rephrase that in Paradjanov or Tarkovski?
The most pretentious tweet of all time
>>335036673
>What the fuck is "essence of poetry"?
The hills of Georgia are covered by the night;
Ahead Aragva runs through stone,
My feeling's sad and light; my sorrow is bright;
My sorrow is full of you alone,
Of you, of only you... My everlasting gloom
Meets neither troubles nor resistance.
Again inflames and loves my poor heart, for whom
Without love, 'tis no existence.
Does this poetry makes you feel something? Does watching the rain inside the room in Stalker or the burning cow in Andrei Rublev mean something to you?
Essence: The intrinsic nature or indispensable quality of something, especially something abstract, that determines its character.
>>335019180
Pathologic, there you go faggot, that game is art by your standars
if art can't truly be judged objectively and anything can be art then nothing can be judged objectively
this is why real intellectuals have no care for art
