Literature and music are the most elevated forms of art, film the least.
>>69810974
Where does theater rank
Stage plays, not musicals
not OP fag but
Books > music > film > comics/graphic novels > video games
>music
>elevated form of art
L M A O
Visual novels are the deepest art form though, because it utilizes all forms of art as well as serving as a novel.
They make every other artform outdated.
It's time to move on and get with the times, gramps.
>>69810974
wat about wood whittlin
>>69810974
nah m8, video games are the lowest of entertainment
>>69811064
>visual novel
>two pages of actual story stretched over 30 pages
>"deep"
do you get called "special" a lot?
>>69811064
The fact that movies and videogames and newer media make use of so many elements to produce such vulgar works gives credence to the idea that limitations aren't an obstacle to quality, but an incentive.
>>69811103
its up there
>>69811110
wrong
video games are interactive. for films all you do is sit still for 3 hours
>>69810974
Video Games are the lowest
Literature>Music>>>Cinema>Films>Movies>Flicks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>comics>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Literal dog shit>video Games
>>69810974
Films incorporate writing in the script/screenplay, music in the score, physical art in creating sets and costumes, digital art in effects, and performance art through actors. It's all forms of art in one.
Comics and videogames aren't even forms of art, just toys for little boys (including those who never grew up).
>>69810974
Artforms that require the least amount of collaboration are the highest forms of art.
Once more people begin bringing in different ideas and begin working on something, the original vision becomes blurred.
>>69810974
Musicians: Hypocritical things I really don't believe in but that I know are hard to disagree with when accompanied by backing vocals and melodies.
Writers: Please recognise me for all the concepts I know.
Directors: If we can't improve them we can at least we can entertain them and hope they want to become like us.
>>69811254
And for all their potential, their products are mediocre.
Sculpture is objectively lower
>>69811208
i can understand that spergy manchilds like you fail to sit still for a while.
video games are like playing with shit while someone reads you out a story of a kids book. though kids stories are still much deeper than anything vidya has shat out.
inb4 nerd rage about muh silent hill 2 and muh bioshock
>>69811279
Exactly. All great achievements in art and science were made by individual geniuses working alone.
Film requires massive sums of money and large-scale collaboration, it will never be more than mostly entertainment.
>>69811256
this. hearing someone calling his comics "visual novels" always makes me smile or cringe..
>every time these "art comparison/ranking" threads show up, comic books always end up last because hamburgetistanese action comics give the whole medium a bad name
It's not fair.
>>69811425
a teacher once told us that comics are just books for stupid people.
>>69811374
whatever you say chump, keep believing that sitting there motionless for hours being hypnotized by the screen makes you superior
>>69810974
>film the least.
no, that would be fashion. then perhaps theater, which is dead and pointless thanks to film
architecture is #1
>>69811425
>Schuiten
My Nigga !
literature > painting > music > theatre > architecture/sculpting etc >>> powergap >>>> film > video games > graphic "novels" > experimental art ie: "pranks, social experiments, screaming inside a train, cosplay"
>>69811019
>Books > music
>>69811469
And for a large part, it's true.
Just like theater was once confined to shitty slapstick played on the marketplace, just like a lot of music is a oud beat for people to get drunk to, just like a lot of movies are flashy colours to spend one hour and a half not thinking about how shitty your life is.
But there is more to all of these. You just have to dig a little.
>Music
>Superior to film
ayyyyy lmao
>>69811424
>"visual novels"
It's graphic novels. But yes it's pretty pathetic.
>people unironically think pic related is art and doesn't belong to the garbage
>>69811019
>>69811110
>>69811218
>>69811256
>>69811424
>>69811374
ITT: People who suck at all video games
>>69811604
Television is on the same level as comics, incidentally.
>>69811629
>I am more competent at pressing buttons than you, loser!!
I feel truly sorry for you.
I'm just glad that even /tv/ understands that literature is the superior art.
>>69811019
Movies and games isn't art. It's just entertainment.
90% of the people on this board actually believe that 2001, The Godfather or Citizen Kane are the perfect examples of film
How are these people fit to discuss the artistic merit of cinema?
>>69811702
Paintings and sculpture aren't art, they're just for decoration.
poetry, painting, and photography are the most elevated forms. music and film are the least
>>69811254
where's sculpture and architecture faggot
the fuck is "physical art"
jesus christ
>>69811279
not true. workshops and orchestras produce great art. art has nothing to do with 'original vision'
>>69811526
music belongs down the bottom with the other immersive arts, film and video games
>>69811877
>implying orchestras aren't basically tools for the conductor with little to no room for personnal expression aside from the solistthat said, I agree. the idea that "only original vision matters" is dumb
>>69811655
>look how good I am at playing with toys!
Did your dad already hang himself?
>>69811917
personal expression is an art meme
>>69811917
>tools for the conductor
The conductor, like the rest of the performers, is just a tool for the composer. The vision belongs entirely to the latter.
>>69811655
go to bed grampa
>>69811917
>he thinks the conductor is writing music when he waves his hands
>>69811955
Expression itself is a meme. Art is vain by its very nature and is nothing but a distraction from our lives.
Pascal was right all along.
>>69811004
If it's under literature, it's not by much. More movie directors should be closely associated with the theater world.
There's a big issue in seeing the two as separate as they currently are seen. In the same way that Picasso is an excellent realistic painter, jj Abrams should know how to actually convey human emotion. I think the reason theater and film didn't evolve like classical art and modern art (where the former is in many ways a prerequisite for the latter) is that film was initially a highly technical art. It was just as much experimentation and engineering as it was art, frankly. For instance, consider un chien andalou. Regarded as a seminal film, it was just a series a special effects intended to cause shock in the viewer. The effects weren't particularly artistic. Much of its worth lies in the impressive feat of making the scenes seem realistic. HOWEVER, this paradigm simply hasn't held up. Sure, sometimes people stick to it; for instance, the TARS robot in interstellar is a good example of very interesting practical effects, but generally, today, the director just hands all that shit off to the FX / CGI guys.
Since what was a humongous part of film initially is now in many ways obsolete, the medium needs to return to its roots - expression - to remain above the sewage. As previously mentioned, getting more theater directors to work on film projects would really help this cause. That way, they can work with effects people and cinematographers to give the honest emotion of theater the realistic props and sets it deserves.
What is impressive about good theater? Your attention is held despite the fact that the 'building' from which Juliet is calling out to Romeo is only actually 10 feet tall and is made mostly of cardboard. Film should enhance those aspects of theater, but it does not have to sacrifice acting quality.
>>69811970
Go smoke a joint and play with your manchild toys, loser.
>>69812035
have you been living under a rock for 15 years? vidyas have taken it's place as an art form. only contrarians think otherwise
Literature > Music > Painting > Architecture/Sculpting > Movies > Video Games > Comics
I love all of these a lot though
>>69812086
/v/ pls go
>>69812086
Nobody outside of the Internet thinks videogames are anything more than entertainment.
>>69812086
lol no. Only virgins think games is art. It's by it's very definition a game. Entertainment. And it always will be.
>lowest form of art
>not pseudo-philosophical performance art
>>69812179
'video' games are just as much about presentation as they are about gameplay
>>69812179
>always will be
Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Some type of interactive medium could absolutely prove very artistic in the future. As of now, though, they're obviously shit tier.
>>69812179
Your small-mindedness is honestly embarassing.
Video games are experienced with the same senses that films are, and in addition have the interactive element so its obvious that they have artistic potential.
Film is the least autonomous of the media. You're literally mandated what to hear and see—your eye is forced into all the holes the directors cram it into.
It's a lot of power, if you think about it. No wonder Speilberg is crying about losing that control.
Literature>high cinema>music>films>flicks >vidya
>>69813220
Man, you gamefags are so fucking pretentious.
>>69811046
>Le contrarian post
>>69812031
>give the honest emotion of theater the realistic props and sets it deserves.
>What is impressive about good theater? Your attention is held despite the fact that the 'building' from which Juliet is calling out to Romeo is only actually 10 feet tall and is made mostly of cardboard.
Theatre forcibly activates the viewer's double perception. An audience member is always aware they are watching a 10 foot tall cardboard tower, but their imagination is engaged, so they are constantly making the link between the cardboard representation and the huge building that is being represented. (Compare this to film, that would more often try to show you the building in an internally consistent 'real' space. As a side note, this is to trick your brain. If theatre plays pretend, then film lies.) Theatre has something ever so slightly in common with literature in this way: the spectator has to do some of the work.
That expectation of the theatre audience frees up all kinds of expression for the director, writer, designer, performer. If I want film to take influence from theatre, it's not simply in honest emotion from the actors. I want to see more film that is first unashamed of its constructed nature, and then uses it as a springboard for different realms of expression. For some radical examples, give me a film with no set or props at all, and see how differently actors, camera and edit behave when all they have are bodies. Or, say, actors who transform to play multiple different roles in one film, for no other reason but to cheekily suggest thematic parallels or the fluidness of identity. Give me a delicate blend of expressive visual staginess with absolute actor commitment, or break reality altogether. Alternatively, if you're trying to frame reality? Carefully disrupt my immersion in the fiction and wake up my critical faculties; there are whole genres of theatre based on doing that.
Nothing against realism, but film's reliance on it has landed us in CGI hell.
>>69813719
I haven't thought about non-traditional approaches to film (or art in general really) enough to have an in-depth discussion about what honestly genuine/unique kinds of things I'd like to see. I was mostly speaking to how the bigger budget projects that have to remain somewhat safe in their approach could be improved.
That said, all of what you mention sounds interesting, and what should be happening is people should be experimenting with the kinds of things you mention as if they're throwing objects at a wall: just see what sticks. What works well, what doesn't, etc. and I'm sure to an extent people are experimenting in interesting ways all over the place. It's just a shame those projects are nearly as accessible as major motion pictures. Even just typing this response makes me wish there were a website the OPPOSITE of something like popcorn time or viooz, where instead it's devoted to collecting all sorts of art works that don't have any kind of release. I guess a lot of people use Vimeo, but I would guess less than half of its archive a artistic film, with most of it being pretty similar to average YouTube videos.
>>69810974
Literature is, but I don't know why you are including music in that category. It's on the same level as movies; not good for communicating ideas.
>>69814264
I thought your earlier post was great, take the reply as a compliment rather than a rebuke. I just fucking love theatre.
You're absolutely right of course. The mainstream industry can't start doing any of this shit, after all, the passive immersion is part of why movies have so much mass popularity, it's quick and easy escapism. So if we're talking about trying to elevate film as an art form, it's going to fall to the smaller budget and experimental projects.
One film I have a kind of soft spot for, in terms of theatrical influence, is Titus (1999). It's very goofy and I'd never call it high art, but it's a theatre director (Julie Taymor) taking her interpretation of a Shakespeare play (one of his more ridiculous) into cinema form. And it does a whole host of crazy things with design, editing and structure. The story is put in a kind of timeless zone where clothing, technology and architecture from different eras blend together. It's visually oversignified to the point of madness, full of interesting costumes and playful style choices. Some of the scenes are framed in a very theatrical way, with actors spaced out in a huge flat area.
Part of what it does is satirise and question the extreme violence in the play and ask why we even enjoy watching this kind of thing, and to that end, Shakespeare's climactic bloodbath scene becomes this hilariously over the top edgy brawl complete with cheesy special effects. Then in a cut, the room vanishes, revealing a huge Roman colosseum around them. It's all wonderfully mad. I've seen the criticism that it's too much like theatre and not enough like film, but that only ever struck me as working in its favour. (This is all anchored by great performances from Anthony Hopkins, Jessica Lange and Alan Cumming.)
>>69814974
indistinguishable from bot behaviour
how is literature even an art? it's just stories written on paper
>>69815119
The art of using language to express anything.
>>69814891
I'll definitely check out Titus. Here's to hoping for the best for the film industry and also the best for people involved in film outside of the industry.
>>69811702
>Movies and games isn't art. It's just entertainment.
games i could understand (even though some interesting games have been released recently) but movies? pleb get out
