Are games art or not?

why jews exist?

The same reason the chinese, gypsies, abos and niggers exist. Satan is testing us

no more questions, thanks desu.

testing us to face the superior cock once and for all and accept your sissy nature, yes i get that, next question

single player games are art in the way they can convay a feeling or story to one person er a community, they're more personal. while on the other hand most all multiplayer games are just group entertainment like a sports exbo

Attached: im_stupid.png (287x175, 5.92K)

I'm no philosophy student but I think what matters is the message(?) behind the game itself. If some movies can be considered art then we've already accepted technology into this medium.

>single player games are art in the way they can convay a feeling or story to one person er a community, they're more personal. while on the other hand most all multiplayer games are just group entertainment like a sports exbo

Attached: file.png (680x598, 196.98K)

They should be beyond censorship though

Yes, but not all are art
Just like no one is gonna show fast and furious at a film festival Rainbow 6 Siege is for fun and nothing else.

potentially they could be, but there are very few games that could actually be considered artistic masterpieces or anything close to that, since most gamers and game developers are more concerned with making and playing entertainment products than "art".

>Are games art
How and when did this faggotry shit start? Seriously, who was the first faggot that started spouting "video games are art?"

I'll play devil's advocate, yeah some people have decent points when it comes to them being "art," but deep down we all know this is some bullshit crusade to elevate video games and put them on some weird pedestal. I fucking hate this shit.

Anyone who tells you "no" is a psued who confuses art with high art.

I think around the time shit like Gone Homo came out and game jornos finally felt like they could validate themselves.

are videogames high art?

That's the other word I was looking for. "Validation." After years and years, this shit came out of nowhere and became a huge topic, and we all know it's just so people can try to validate video games for whatever fucking reason. It's literally one of the dumbest things I've ever heard of.

Sometimes they are sonetines they are not. Marvel movies aren't but Andrei tarkovsky is. Get the idea?

No not censorship, people here have argued that since games are artistic we should be allowed to criticize the propaganda within them. These are the kinds of people you have crawling onto Yas Forums after gamergate was censored to such an extent.

youtube.com/watch?v=J1CuW8xWj7M

>we shouldn't be allowed to criticize the propaganda within them*

>conflicting facts
>about fucking "is it art" debate
People call those "opinions". Yes, even the ones people parrot or try to back up with "data". You can't find objective truth in a debate on ever-shifting subjective points of view on an inherently subjective idea.

I've always wondered why a movie can be considered art but a video games does not. What is intrinsically present in a movie, that is not in a video game? Both contain manufactured set pieces, scripts, characters, acting, and are an expression designed by the people who make them. Each time you watch a movie or play a game, you are liable to get something different out of it.

You seem to advocate that because the viewer has an amount of direct interaction with a video game, while they do not have any interaction with a movie, this disqualifies the medium as art? I really don't see how this makes sense.

I'd love for someone to express in clear terms what a movie has that qualifies it as art, that a video game is intrinsically unable to.

sports can be art, especially combat sports. 'art' on its own is a very vague term. you can apply it to anything, my drive to work becomes my art of driving. its fucking retarded and works anywhere. the art of making myself a sandwich

Because the main thing with video games and reason they are created are to play them. Are you going to start calling Tic-Tac-Toe art? Arcade machines art? Yo-yos art? Where something like a painting or movie is meant to be observed, video games are and always will be, games first. Just because it contains shit movies do, doesn't mean it's fucking art.

>What is intrinsically present in a movie, that is not in a video game?
Movies aren't created to be manipulated by the viewer.
>this disqualifies the medium as art?
Correct, because videogames are a simulation built around the player, movies are a self contained story to be viewed fro mthe outside. As moviegames continue to push the boundary with 20-30 hours of cutscenes the line will become blurred.

But movies are art because instead of playing them (aka interacting with them) you just sit in front of them and just wait till they're over?
I mean, I'm not arguing cinematography is art (nobody does), but I still can't see your point.
Actually, consider this: what did people think of very early cinema, when it was basically mute funny clumsy videos?

Attached: 1579165188177.png (540x482, 190.04K)

Games are an art, but gamers aren't respected so society will never accept the strudies of video game design as an artform.

You're right, the goyim exist to suck on Chosen Cut Cock

Not him. Take Fahrenheit/Indigo Prophecy for example. It's literally classified as an interactive movie. Would I consider it art? I would consider it "art", like all those movies that win all those awards every year that you've never heard of. Like that one about a woman having sex with the fishman from the first hellboy film. Yes, that won awards.

Hasn't this been argued to death already?

Yes and the answer is still not a unanimous "yes" so we must continue to argue.

Just like with cinema, just like with sculpture and just like with books (among many other examples), some are and some don't.

Would you consider Citizen Kane art? Hell yeah.
Would you consider Marvel movies art? Fuck no.

Well, the same shit here. Art would be something like Arcanum, and fun-little-game-that's-actually-rather-(very)-mediocre would be something like... I dunno, Uncharted? That's a horrible game with stupid cliche story and characters.

Attached: 1580136234735.jpg (450x293, 31.16K)

Art is meaningless, you can have a turd on a wall and it'll be art because someone with a bit too much expendable income is willing to pay a small fortune for it.
It's not like anybody has a strict definition of what is considered art anyway.

Attached: 1480886515158.png (493x379, 19.38K)

I wouldn't. Even though it's an interactive movie, just like Heavy Rain and other David Cage games, it still a game first, movie second. Football is art now too? And baseball? Come on now

the difference is there are tons of movies which can genuinely be called artistic masterpieces, there are very few games you could say that about.

>facts
>on whether something is art
I don't think you know what facts are

Attached: boulder.png (638x420, 254.15K)

>Football is art now too? And baseball?
Nope. But a man using a chainsaaw to carve a bear out of a stump? yes that's art.

there isnt a strict definition of what music is, there isnt a strict definition of what a movie is, that doesnt just make those terms meaningless. pretending that anything can be whatever is post modernist bullshit.

Games are a product. Like any product, they can become art through interpretation and craftsmanship. But AAA games are designed for mass consumption and will inherently lack in nuance. Also this: Individual constituent elements of vidya could be art.

It's like - when is a chair considered art, and not just a fucking chair? How fancy a chair does it have to be? Surely we can see something well crafted and consider it art to some degree, as it exists as an expression of the creators desire to display beauty or skill?

In this instance it could be considered art. However, Yas Forums uniformly hates all games considered art, because they are not made for consumption but expression.

So to answer your question: GOOD videogames cannot be art.

Attached: 1460773148422.jpg (1920x1080, 328.23K)

The main thing with movies and the reason they are created are to watch them. Are you going to start calling a TV art? A stop light art? Plastic banana art?

Of course I won't call every game "art" but it's not like every movie that exists qualifies as art either. I mean, who would call the latest superhero movie art? How about that dime a dozen romantic comedy? Do you see how this works? That calling something art based on how it is consumed is silly?

In my opinion, what qualifies something as art has less to do with how it's consumed but rather that it's existence is an expression of the people who created it, rather than anything else. Journey is an excellent example of a game that, by all appearances, doesn't exist beyond being a creative outlet for the people who made it.

In this way, I believe that games absolutely CAN be art, just that not many of them ARE art.

Yes, and "David" by Michelangelo is stone first, but nobody is arguing about whether it's art or not, it fucking is.
Your point makes little to no sense.
The way I see it, something is considerd "art" when it's just damn good at what it does, but also does it with finesse and in a clever way. After all, isn't it true that for centuries now, some people have considered war and killing "art". When a swordsman completely outmasters another swordsman of the same level with clean and gracious movements, that's something many people considered art.

You know what user? I think you just feel bitter for how mainstream media has ruined practically everything, and honestly, I can't blame you. There's just so much crap being produced and forced down our throats...

Attached: 1576259063537.png (796x878, 1.38M)

these are always some of the worst threads on Yas Forums without fail

Art isn't real. There's absolutely no such thing. It's an undefinable term used loosely as a term to show you think something is "legit".

Fucking based user, best answer so far.

Attached: 1582572214238.gif (200x254, 1.37M)

Fuck artfags, art should be two things;

1) Pleasing to the eye or objectively well crafted
2) Created by someone

If a game fulfills those two categories, then it is art. If it does not, then it does not.

Attached: 1418004147998.jpg (600x600, 98.55K)

>Expecting any quality from Yas Forums

Attached: 1584365157779.png (848x897, 360.39K)

I think there are two distinct groups of people who play games, and two different groups of games. There are people who consider them artistic experiences and people who consider them something closer to a board game or a sport, an activity designed to compete with others. The games made for the first group are art and the second aren't.

Too bad there are no games created exclusively for either group anymore

I'm convinced the only people who ask this shit are insecure normalfags.

The definition of "art" has changed throughout history. Merriam-Webster has one of the definitions as works produced using "the conscious use of skill and creative imagination especially in the production of aesthetic objects". I would say that the vast majority of video games fit this description. There is nothing about how any level of interaction stops it from being art.

Legally, video games are also considered art in the US and and they qualify for artistic funding. So at least somewhere, someone qualified to deal with art has looked at video games as a whole and said "yeah, that's art".

Whether you think a particular video game is good art or not is a different story.

Attached: 1541897480831.png (488x267, 274.3K)

>videogames CONTAIN art

Attached: 1581178203677.jpg (1000x563, 341.73K)

I know, I wish games, like film or other art forms, had smaller games that tailor to very specific audiences. I guess the issue is that because of how high video game creation costs are and how many different skills are required, the only games aimed at niches are indie games, which are often unpolished and cant hold a candle to the quality of AAA games