If video games are art, what kind of art are they? What is unique and particular to them? And, perhaps most important...

This bitch is so dumb she managed to misspell the letter D.

Toys are objects. Consoles are toys. Video games themselves are not.

Attached: soy1.png (644x800, 14.63K)

Art is just a buzzword and always was. The definition of art is so lose that my cum stains could be art.

>Why not?
A better question is why hasn't it happened yet? Games never come close to their concept art in terms of evoking emotion.
>Do you think the musicians who create music for video games are just suddenly not musicians anymore because what they made was put into a video game?
Please point to where I said that.
They're doing it as a job, and not as a passion. They're not saying anything of value. They're not experimenting. They're not following through with their vision.

I want to kiss Clementine and hold hands with her while she rests her head on my chest and I stroke her hair.

Oh my Darling...

Attached: moaning.jpg (927x1024, 87.71K)

>They're doing it as a job, and not as a passion. They're not saying anything of value. They're not experimenting. They're not following through with their vision
Right, well this song was made by a guy who was just out of prison and is on record for saying he will never be able to make music like this anymore because he's no longer in that mental state.
youtube.com/watch?v=Ff1DjBe3LOM

>Art is about the pure vision of its creator while the creator of a video game willingly and necessarily gives away the control to the player of the game.
What is Relational Aesthetics
What is Experiential Art
What is Immersive Art
What is Interactive Instillational Art

the only art is one slugcat cuddling up to a based blasian

Attached: 896991911_preview_Hunter.png (580x841, 245.74K)

Ive never seen games as art.
Because every texture, character model, sprite sheet, music track, title screen, voice clip, etc. Could be a piece of unique art.
So video games are not art, there more art galleries or virtual museums.
And they all have this interactive quality.
Big surprise right.

we aren't playing "degenerate post modern shit" for $500, alex

If you're going to put the word "art" on a pedestal like that you have to put the whole thing up there, not just the parts you like.

Nope. Take another art history class friend

clementine cunny sexy

Ever heard of interactive art?

Giving the control to the viewer doesn't make anything any less artful

>Something has to be good in order to fall under the art category

Google search cubism

Destroyed

I don't think art is a thing. Art is a feeling. Music, paintings, movies, shows, cartoons, etc. All these give people feeling; whether it is shallow or deep, it doesn't really matter. It's up to you to decide even if that feeling comes from the popularity of the art, it is still apart of the art, it's all one. The art of CS:GO is not only in its color and geometry; not only in it's design, meta, and balance. It is also in its social phenomenon that gives us meaning. What gives the art of CS feeling is literally humanity's greatest treasure: each other. You cannot really quantify or objective anything as or as not art. I heard someone say that when some westerner visited Japan and tried to show off some art the japanese guy was puzzled because to him everything in his life required the same study and mastery, from cooking to cleaning, sleeping and fucking, it's all a kind of art to the guy. Not to say anything about east versus west but it goes to show that art is a really shallow concept and it draws unnecessary boundaries. What art can express words fail. Games can really express things about ourselves and each other that we cannot find elsewhere. It's definitely something and there's nothing wrong with using the word art.

And? It's some basic repetitive arpeggios over basic drums with some midi strings. Sounds nice, but it's nothing special and the sort of thing you can hear at a post rock show at your local dive.
If you want a better example, use music made for opera.

Video game creators curate a specific experience even if some control is given away to the player. The level design, the set pieces are controlled by the creator so are the tools you have to interact with the world. You don't have full control it's parameterized.

Ever since this "video games are art" bullshit started like ten years ago, every goddamn new release is a game called "Finn's Voyage" and it's a 2D sidescroller where you play as some ghost kid who must traverse some kind of spirit realm full of quirky demons in order to reunite with your ghost gf

Please feel free to link where I said, "Something has to be good in order to fall under the art category."

Games ain't shit.

Interactivity is what videogames do that no other medium does, that's where the discussion of videogames as art should be had. In BotW for example the gameplay elements and especially movement controls give the player a great sense of freedom, while RDR2 grounds the player in the real world through heavy controls and an emphasis on detail. You control a character in an open world in both games, but the gameplay tells two totally different stories.
Or look at Katamari Damacy, that game has both unmistakable visuals and sound, but the gameplay is what ties it all together. You can make a Katamari Damacy movie or music album but a huge part of its identity and tone is lost if the gameplay isn't present, if the player isn't able to explore the world by rolling stuff up, while listening to the music and looking at the visuals.
In games, music, visuals and story are all set dressing that can occur in music and movies/tv shows, videogames as art should be all about how the player interacts with the game.

>like ten years ago

Attached: serveimage.jpg (1200x796, 206.24K)

Why do people want games to be art?

Art isn't real. None of these things are art and there is no true definition of art. What do you get out of calling a film or a painting or a game art instead of just calling them what the already are?

You're really not understanding what the point of art is, bud. Just because opera is more complex doesn't make everything else not art.

Attached: 1538339154469.jpg (417x600, 80.25K)

Well, you guys laws that protect it.

protect what?

Games don't have any artistic visionaries who realize the potential of the medium, and with that I mean geniuses of the likes of Bergman or Picasso. Maybe one day.

Games can be considered art, just like most other things can. I think anyone saying that they don't count as art doesn't understand what art is.

But we have Peter Molyneux and Hideo Kojima!

Games are simply factually art regardless of what I or anyone else wants. Now, why do people desperately want them not to be?

You don't understand and completely missed the point. I mentioned opera because the creator of the opera often hired the composer to write the music. If you wanted an example with more merit, that was both technically complex, thrilling, and experimental while still being a "job product," you look at opera, or something like Caravaggio. A big part of that however is they were masters and the guy you linked is middling af

God this whole debate fucking sucks, it all is centered around the semantics of the word art.

Again, your point boils down to "It's less technically impressive, so it's not art" which is fucking dumb

No, I'm saying it's hard to take your example seriously and I'm providing you better ones.
Furthermore, I never said videogames weren't art, I just said they were generic and basically lacked in originality. To no one's surprise, you showed a very generic example of videogame music.

everything is art. shitposting is art

>Now, why do people desperately want them not to be?
because people use the term like a weapon and you know it

How the hell is "art" used as a weapon? By itself it's such a vague term that it barely means anything.

You didn't provide any example, retard, you just said "durr opera gooder".
Furthermore, i could make the same fucking dumbass argument and say "opera is generic and lacks originality, it all sounds the same and is very boring". But of course, that would be retarded, just like your complaints are.

tell that the countless hack writers who use it as an excuse to get away from "fun" and "gameplay" in games

Based Yiikhead

That doesn't mean its weaponized. That just mean hack writers are fucking garbage, which everyone already knows. Fun games can be art. The most interesting artistic part of a game would be the gameplay anyway.

How many shitposts are in the louvre?

>not jacking off to art

Attached: 1573221570280.jpg (664x824, 86.97K)

?
The mention of opera was simply to provide you with a better example of subcontracted art when trying to get the point across in the future to other idiots that entertain your aggressively stupid insistence.
Videogames are art; but they're an amalgam and they're corporate, and they're on-par with movies and music videos. My point stands, now control yourself and act like an adult.

Damn, what a killer weapon. Look at Sephiroth, there's a new Masamune in town

Why does the fact that they're an amalgam matter? And the corporate argument doesn't hold up too well with the indie scene growing as big as it has. You literally don't have an actual point. Other than corporatism.

Everyone makes the mistake that art entails quality. If we are going to define art it has to be descriptive.

Spot the nintendie.

I think this is a misconception as to how art is specified. Video games, as a category, are neither art nor not art - they are an interactive entertainment product.

Whether or not a game is art is quite separate from it being a game; its specificity as a video game is not the metric by which we categorise art.

In the same vein, photography is not art due to its format; the picture I take for an ebay listing is not art, for example.

Art is a descriptive term, not a seal of quality. Also, art and monetary interest aren't mutually exclusive

Well, all throughout history until the 17th century, art referred to any skill or mastery and was not differentiated from crafts or sciences. It's only recently that art became less expected to be of high quality, hence modern art.

That classification can be made about anything though. It's not due to the fact that it's a video game, it's art because it attempts to get viewers/players to feel some kind of emotional connection to it. What it is specified as doesn't really matter.

Amalgam matters because it lacks unifying vision and further plays into corporatism and cynical and shameless mercantilism. The bigger a project is, the less likely the individual pieces will be solid even from a basic quality standpoint.
We can go back and forth all day on it, but the proof is in the pudding: none of the individual pieces from a videogame have really seen critical praise in their respective fields. This isn't going to change any time soon. I'm sure you can come back and say, "Well that doesn't matter," which is fine if you hold that opinion, but stop bothering me.

I never said art had anything to do with quality in that statement, you're literally seeing things that aren't there.
Secondly, yes, there are plenty of artistic monetary endeavors that have great merit, but it's the exception and not the rule.

>pleb reads Adorno once

They have art they are not art. Art is a meaningless term unless you're literally just meaning something drawn/made.

Only self important retards think art is some high compliment.

post yfw games like Nier and DoA are more art than Gone Homo because you can also fap to them

Attached: 1563397488561.png (500x750, 614.32K)

What "critical praise" would you be referring to that any particular part of a game hasn't received? That is the most asinine comment you've come up with yet.

What about when you started rambling about how these musicians suddenly aren't "real" ones because you assume they lack passion, or that their works have been used in varying different forms of media? This entire time, your argument has been nothing more than a display of your own childish, shortsighted mentality, because you immediately assume that people who have dedicated their entire lives to composing music are "lesser" than their contemporaries for no real reason.
Your argument doesn't even begin to hold up, user, they're still composers and musicians no matter how much you seem to want to deny that.

The kind relative to each individual field. You'll never find praise for videogame writing by writers and avid readers for example.

This is it. Asking whether or not a medium is art is completely the wrong question.

Video games are made, therefore by your definition, can apply the term 'art' meaningfully to them.

Feel free to link where I said that. I never once said they weren't musicians. On the contrary, working musicians are musicians.

What do you consider relative? Your arguments are trash. The music for Journey won a grammy, does that make it art, now that it has a corporate award attached to it?

These are the same people who proudly spread "geek culture" they are seeking acceptance. They think they are cool now because "geek is chic" now.

The medium in this case should be "computer programme" rather than "video game," I think. A picture for ebay is utilitarian. So is a computer programme. UNLESS it's a video game.

They have art in them, but they're not art themselves.

Why would you take art history on trash art. When I took art history we looked at naked bitches and old babies.

Why are you lying right to my face, user? You should be able to make an argument without having to do that.
>the music will never be on-par with musicians
This right here at least implies pretty heavily that you don't believe they're real musicians.

You keep saying I'm classifying videogames as not art, but I've never once done that. I don't know why you're so upset, but if you can't read or think within the context of the conversation, then stop replying.

Anything that the human creates outside of strictly practical use is art.
Some things that are created for practical use are called practical art. This applies to skills somewhat. "The art of woodworking".
Things that are strictly for aesthetic beauty and decor (statues, paintings) are "fine art" which video games is not. When artfags discuss "art" they mean "fine art".

Saying their music isn't up to snuff isn't saying there aren't musicians. If you can't read, don't reply.

Opera isn't art by your earlier definition because it's a commercial product. Practically every opera written was done so by commission or to get cash.

In your mind, is a grammy critical recognition for music? If so, your whole argument falls apart.

Your opinion isn't up to snuff, m80.

Thing is, you can possess a skill and still not be very good at it. The word actually underwent amelioration before it underwent depreciation, when people started comparing different levels of skill and saying "well, this is MORE skilful, and therefore MORE art" (because the two were held to be synonymous). This led to a high society concept of art to which only the best were admitted, and due to their cultural influence, their standards became synonymous with "art" in general. So really, the pushback against elitist notions of art is a reversal of this appropriation.

>If you can't read, don't reply.
If you can't make an argument without acting like a child, don't even bother. You just said "musicians" not "other musicians", which does paint them as not being real musicians in your post.
If that's what you were trying to say, maybe you should try getting a better grasp of the English language.

Please indicate where I said anything wasn't art. Go on, I'll wait.