Are video games art?
>>345123002
Everything that doesn't come directly from nature is art.
Yes.
/thread
>>345123002
No, they are toys.
A video game is a game.
A game is a set of rules.
A set of rules is not art.
Therefore, games are not art.
Therefore, video games are not art.
>>345123095
Or you can just say this and completely nullify the reason for the word "art" to exist.
no, otherwise it wouldnt be censored.
Sometimes yes.
>>345123305
>A game is a set of rules.
Sounds like you're really selling it short.
Yes. We've had the same discussion millions of times. It always ends with yes.
AND HOW DARE YOU START A DISCUSSION WITHOUT DEFINING "ART" IN WHICH THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION IS SOLVED BY FIRST DEFINING ART.
And inb4 the retard who says "it made of pieces of art but is not art itself." Fucking stupid.
>>345123350
speech can be censored
>>345123305
>and completely nullify the reason for the word "art" to exist.
Because art is subjective and definitions are objective. Six blind men describing an elephant and all that.
>>345123305
A video game is the expression of multiple people conveying a message/feeling/object through a medium. Art is conveying messages/feelings/objects through a medium.
A video game is art.
>>345123305
Nice definition of art faggot (note: you don't define it).
>>345123481
FUCK YOUUUUUUU GIVE ME THE SOURCE TO THOSE FAT TITTIES.
>>345123490
Take all the art away from a painting and you're left with a blank canvas.
Take all the art away from a novel and you're left with a blank manuscript.
Take all the art away from a song and you're left with silence.
Take all the art away from a game and you're left with the game's rules. This is what a game is.
I keep it this simple in order to minimize dissent and have the point be understood.
>>345123968
Some MLP fag in deviantart, search for the image in the archive and barneyfag will direct you towards your fap.
Why would interactivity discredit something as being art? That makes no sense.
>>345123862
>Art is conveying messages/feelings/objects through a medium.
I do not agree.
The mere conveyance of an idea through a medium does not make that conveyance art.
I do not believe that a dictionary is art.
I do not believe that the United States Tax Code is art.
I do not believe Roulette is art.
I do not believe video game Roulette is art.
>Nice definition of art faggot (note: you don't define it).
Yet you do? OK.
>>345124464
I do define it. You literally rejected my definition.
Now it's your turn to give a definition. Not a "I know it when I see it" definition.
>games have drawings/models/art
>drawings/models/art is art
>games have music
>music is art
>games are used as a competive event
>competetive events like sports are sometimes seen as art
(^:
Ok but seriously who cares honestly? I could give two shits about games being "art". The only reason some people want games to be seen as "art" is so the hobby doesn't have as childish of a stigma as it has. Today games are mire commonly accepted honestly, just look at pokemon go.
>>345124002
Video games aren't sold or given to consumers as a text document containing a set of rules. Video games are sold or given as a complete product containing music, textures, models, etc.
Even then, if you were to argue that the 'set of rules' are all that's left when removing the textures and models and music that go into the final product, would you not consider the code art as well? Plenty of my colleagues consider code art.
>>345124582
Art is a fabrication of which its intent or purpose is not subject to any rules of any kind, and of which can be experienced by any person without any restraints on that person's perceptive abilities.
Art is not a game.
Art cannot be won or lost.
Art does not have a fail state.
Art does not have a single correct way to be understood.
Art does not require its audience to have any ability to perceive its quality for it to exist as art.
Art does not limit the exposure of its content to its audience on the basis of how they perceive it.
Art is something that is.
A game is something you play.
>>345125474
>Art does not limit the exposure of its content to its audience on the basis of how they perceive it.
yes it does
a blind person cant enjoy a painting
>>345125191
No, because that code is not subject to artistic interpretation or alteration.
The code either functions or does not.
>>345125474
What about games that just are? There's playing but no winning, losing, or failing. There are multiple interpretations of the visuals given to you.
>Art does not limit the exposure of its content to its audience on the basis of how they perceive it.
A lot of films are deep enough to be perceived differently by different people.
>>345125834
But function is an interpretation of the user
>>345123305
>>345124002
>>345124464
>>345125474
These arguments are quite solid.
These arguments might be satisfactory.
These arguments might provoke a discussion.
But can you stop typing like this.
>>345125474
>Art does not have a fail state
It's almost like games are a new and different art form that has different standards than every other form of art, like movies, music, books etc.
I'd argue the rest of yours, but games actually qualify most of the statements you make, which are totally baseless in the first place.
>>345125834
>No, because that code is not subject to artistic interpretation or alteration.
Anon, there's literally thousands of ways to say 'Hello World'. Pic related is one.
>>345126114
this what the fuck. I can read statements without them
being
spaced
like
this
Like doing that doesn't make what you're saying seem more intimidating or official so why the fuck do people keep typing like that holy shit
>>345126352
Anon, you don't understand.
This is not meant to be intimidating.
It's not meant to be official.
It's not even meant to be pretentious.
This is me implying you're too slow to read something that isn't spaced out.
>>345126537
Who the fuck is incapable of reading something that isn't spaced out? It doesn't even make a difference
>>345125474
>Art is not a game.
Putting jelly on a car is serious business
>Art cannot be won or lost.
>Art does not have a fail state.
If you fail at that video game you are unable to get the whole experience, one could argue that failing to understand a piece of art is a comparable thing.
>>345123002
Like any other artform, some of it is good and some of it is bad, and some of it is soulless trash made for profit and nothing else.
All art is subject to those sorts of efforts.
Gaming is the same. Some games are indeed true art. A game like Silent Hill 2 for example, or Okami. These games are clearly art, made by artists, with love and respect for the medium through which their artistic intentions are displayed.
But there are also soulless cash grabs, and games that had no passion or artistic value in their creation. Same shit happens with paintings and modern art and film and books and every artform ever
>>345125697
The difference is in the freedom of will for the participants.
A blind person cannot choose to fail to see a painting.
A game requires its players to choose how the game is played.
They are an art form but not all videogames are artistic. Games I enjoyed that I consider art are stuff like Killer 7, Mother 3, Moon and MGS2.
>>345123002
Yes, and just like art 90% of it is shit
>>345126537
>>345126759
>>345126782
wow
dude
that's
pretty
cool
>>345125474
>Art is a fabrication of which its intent or purpose is not subject to any rules of any kind
So far you're saying that games are art
>and of which can be experienced by any person without any restraints on that person's perceptive abilities.
And now you're saying that nothing is art. Every single piece or art or installation is impossible to perceive by at least one person, as all senses have the capability to be defective or missing. This extends to both games and what you probably consider art.
>Art does not have a fail state
Yes it does. Not perceiving the art is a fail state.
>Art cannot be won or lost
Games are art, but they are also a competition, be it against AI or other players. The two states are not mutualy exclusive.
>Art does not have a single correct way to be understood
Neither does a game.
>Art does not require its audience to have any ability to perceive its quality to exist as art
Neither do games. All games are art, regardless of quality, in the same way that all paintings are art, regardless of quality.
>Art does not limit the exposure of its content to its audience on the basis of how they perceive it.
Yes it does. How do the blind enjoy a paiting? How do the deaf enjoy music?
Are you suggesting that art cannot be interactive? Because plenty of interactive art installations exist.
I would have said no a long time ago but now I'm not even sure considering pic related
>>345126782
Thats ridiculous
>Painting is not an art because the artist expects you to watch the painting and won't let you taste it instead.
They are now
>>345123002
YES
/thread already you fuckwit i swear to god i will beat your mother senseless with my bum leg
>it's a "the word 'art' can only ever refer to fine art" episode
>>345127184
I know you are joking but a game that is almost completely devoid of gameplay is hardly a good example.
>>345126919
t
h
a
n
k
s
>>345123002
"the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power." - Google
I'd like to say no but I guess some games can be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power. So sure, why not.
>>345127035
is that just a gradients gallery?
>>345125474
>Art does not limit the exposure of its content to its audience on the basis of how they perceive it.
That's the whole point of art. We all take something away with it. If you think two people experience anything the same you're wrong.
Are French New Wave films not art because I didn't take a class to understand them? Are Italian neorealism films not art if I did not grow up in that era? Are video games not art if I can't "Complete it." Are films not art if I only watch half of it?
>>345123305
A painting is just a collection of paints
paints are just pigment and binder
pigment is just minerals and compounds
minerals are not art
therefore, paintings are not art.
>>345123002
Does it matter?
few games qualify but generally anything IPL makes is art
>>345127770
Ice Pick Lodge are a bunch of very creative Slavs.
>>345127035
is that loss
>>345127971
i want to know what they know
Out of time. Thank you all for the responses. I'll remember to keep my posts more contracted in the future.
>>345126990
Thank you for the response in particular.
>Are you suggesting that art cannot be interactive?
I'm suggesting that art cannot be a game, therefore, I don't feel that a game can be art.
>>345127570
>Are French New Wave films not art because I didn't take a class to understand them?
The point is that you do not need to attend any class in order to see those films.
>>345127616
A painting is not a game.
>>345123002
Also, to answer OP
Yes, they are.
Art is defined as: "the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination"
Games are made to entertain, or to evoke some sort of emotional state. This is exactly what art does
>>345128192
Listen to the colors.
>>345128520
A painting is also not art, by OP logic. (which is faggots)
>>345123002
I'd say yes because nowadays seems like anything open to interpretation is art.
http://www.moma.org/collection/works/164920
>>345123002
Yes. You guys are 15 years late.
https://youtu.be/fCmAD0TwGcQ
>>345123862
this guy got it. everybody go home.
>>345125474
>Art is a fabrication of which its intent or purpose is not subject to any rules of any kind
>and of which can be experienced by any person without any restraints on that person's perceptive abilities.
Where did you get that definition? It sounds like you pulled that right out of your ass just to shove games out of its categorization.
Ask anyone on the street to define art without mentioning words like painting and music and they will say 'something created with the purpose of communicating an idea or sentiment.'
