Videogames will never be art.
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
Videogames will never be art.
Videogames will never be art.
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
I don't want them to be art, I want them to be government-subsidized so that developers can stop squidging about profit and just make good games
now they must make products that align with the governments beliefs
>He thinks the government produces anything of value
Well gubment took your daddy away to produce what you're currently so I think gubment did good.
they're already goverment subsidized
BlackRock more like LackRock
touche
why did he do it
This is the one of most moronic opinions I've ever seen.
>start paying taxes for vidya gaymes
fricking moron
Who decides which devs get budget gibs?
How much?
Would high budget games still be a thing?
> can stop squidging about profit and just make good games
So art
Ubisoft is heavily government -subsidized
That would essentially mean the government decides what gets made.
good opinion that morons easily get triggered by
>good opinion
You're unironically supporting state propaganda. Do you jack off to Triumph of the Will you homosexual?
Wasn't CP2077 literally funded by the Polish government?
Test
Good
Good. Art is for gays who has nothing meaningful to contribute anyway.
The first isn't necessarily true and the second is simply moronic, and objectively untrue.
Good, art is gay
[citation needed]
>Hating on Dada
Black person.
>liking dada
jew
Those Black folk are why everything is "art" these days
literally up his own ass and baby tier
>I think art should just be...le pretty!
>why? JUST BECAUSE THATS WHY
>I think art should just be... anything
>why? JUST BECAUSE THATS WHY
>anything
Confirmed for not knowing what the dada movement represents. The dada movement wasnt just "everything is art" that makes no sense
ANYTHING. by becoming conceptual and going full-on unaesthetic not matter how much they're seething over WW1, it opens the floodgates for ANYTHING to be considered art.
>opens the floodgates for anything
Except the dadaist movement wasn't about "anything being art". Sure maybe people were inpired by dadaism to let go of strict limitations, but to say dadism opened the floogates to anything isnt attacking dadism, its attacking it successor. Dadaism isn't about "everything" its about what wasn't the established norm during the early 20th century.
In pratice is just lazy people calling their own shit art, in other words, some random smut artist on fantia(or twitter) has more artistic kudos than the entire moviment.
>in practice its just lazy art
>like fetish art
Its lazy to make art about your fetishes now? Don't tell any renaissance artists because their art is full of fetishism and nudity. I hope no one also told you about the greeks or romans either
They are better, because they unironically do a better job at transmitting the desired reaction to the public(lust) than any of dada's meta shit.
>dada is meta
You have no idea what your talking about
>"it-it's not meta shit, ackchyually is about representing things outside of 20th century's strict artistic norms."
>ends up being meta shit at best and meta injokes at worst that don't build onto anything solid, even with actual good concepts.
nah, the moviment is shit.
Meta is a buzzword homosexual. Typical Ganker brainlet.
there's a difference between quickly doodling a penis on canvas and sculping the highly detailed david's penis on marble
And that difference is? They're both penises. A moron like you couldn't tell the difference anyways. So why does it matter?
>And that difference is?
lol
lmao even
>no rebuttal
Here I'll offer one
>the amount of time spent on a piece of art equates to its value
No it doesn't. You have no idea how long or how much effort the marbled penis took. You just assume because its made of marble it was probably done in a long time. How do you know such a penis drawing was doodled and not carefully calculated? You're just assuming these things. Assigning some arbitrary value to art like time spent is meaningless, and you're an idiot for thinking that something like time spent on an art piece equates to its "goodness"
That like a child's understanding of art.
one can spot immediately an abysmal difference in skill, anon. and a moron may take ages painting a face which a skilled artist is able to do in a couple minutes and way better.
So its impossible for a skilled artist to make an """"unskilled""" painting. In your eyes then the ancient greek artists are worthless. They didn't know shit about anatomy
No, it's not, but there is place for everything.
How would you feel if you ask for some fancy expensive dinner and the cook decided it was enough to bring you french fries? He can even say "don't worry, anon, it's still 'french' cuisine".
I think it would be pretty funny.
yes they did, but they also had context for what works best for a medium like the flat depictions in vases.
If they had context for their antomy why didn't they paint their vases with realistic anatomy. According to your words, they are unskilled artists by not doing so.
bc it worked best in that medium while taking production costs and tools available. they were also artisans needing to produce many for a living.
unlike a yellow penis on canvas that a child could do in the same age where fundies, tools and paint are cheap af and accessible.
you're moving goalposts. none argued that only realism can be considered art and that it is absolutely the superior form to all others. but not being able to see the difference between what makes ;icheangelo's David n transcending masterwork unlike Richard "Goma" Gomez Yellow Penis circa israelite-age is simply moronic and leading the discussion into moronic territory.
>In your eyes then the ancient greek artists are worthless. They didn't know shit about anatomy
ofc the contemporary shill wouldnt know shit about art history
>no rebuttal
The greeks were fantastic artists. The point is that art isn't about "how detailed my anatomy is" or "I spent 10 years drawing this nose to be as life like as possible"
Realism is an aesthetic value. An artist didn't spend 10 years on a nose because he was trying to " prove what a skilled artist he is" he spent 10 years on a nose because thats what the aesthetic of realism calls for.
>the ancient greek artists are worthless. They didn't know shit about anatomy
>A moron like you couldn't tell the difference anyways.
nta but anon clearly stated there's a difference which any nonbrainlet can see. you're doubling down on there being none due to idea > execution, which ofc goes against all common sense.
Can you spot the difference between those pics?
but dada is outright conceptual, indivisible of it. how is not opening the floodgates to shit from the get go if anything an artist says will be then art; if aesthetics are null and solely the mind is what makes it such.
>dada is outright conceptual
No? Reacting to a movement can be done through any means what evidence says that dada was done through a conceptual system?
>how is it not opening the floodgates to shit from the get go if anything an artist says will be then art
This is again an inspiration of the later 20th and earlier 21st century, duchamp and the dadaists did not consider "anything" to be art. If you gave them a painting for a pretty flower they wouldn't probably involve the painting in the movement because it conformed to the ideals of beaty laid down by formal institutions in the 1920s and maybe even before its time.
> if aesthetics are null and solely the mind is what makes it
Subjectivity is only possible through the audience. If we agree that there is an objective beauty you need to show evidence of such.
>Confirmed for not knowing what the dada movement represents. The dada movement wasnt just "everything is art" that makes no sense
so now you're contradicting Duchamp's own words because they don't fit the image that was built of him for (you)?
spotted the israelite
Spotted the moron
>le pretty!
No, because more can be potrayed with art than beauty, but if your creation portrays really nothing, and is entirely absurd, disturbing, like a log of your own shit on piece of paper, it is not art, or if you want to call it art, it is degenerate art made by a degenerate mind that only appeals to and is understood by degenerate people or the creator of it exclusively.
>its not art because...
>BECAUSE IT MAKES ME GO EWWW GROSSS STINKY!!!!!
They can be a craft, but not art.
art
/ärt/noun
noun: art; plural noun: arts; plural noun: the arts
1.
the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination
okami is incredibly overrated
>looks nice
>gameplay is fricking boring and shallow as frick
>tutorial lasts 15 hours
>game follows the pattern of WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS-terrible dungeons and combat-awful fetch quests and backtracking-WORDSWORDSWORDSWORDSWORDS-terrible dungeons and combat-awful fetchquests and combat
if okami didn't have that artstyle it would've been trashed and forgotten
God Hand is better
Based. I can say this much:
I have beaten God Hand.
I have not beaten Ōkami
>why yes, I did only watch fifteen minutes of a shitty lets play. how could you tell?
I played it on the Wii back in the day and just didn't care for it. Probably should have played it when it was new. It's probably a game that's aged quite well.
I remember when everyone in the mid 2000s was sucking Okami's dick despite the low sales and saying how it deserved another chance
well it got like 3 of those and still nobody gave a shit
Neither are art
I get that people have to launder dirty money somehow, but can they be less obvious about it?
Duchamp wasnt initially glad about all the success/press his Fountain was getting, but after a while he realized that this piece was propelling him into historical stardom, so he sold what was left of his soul and just went with the flow.
Video games are only art in terms of interactivity.
>VIDEO GAMES ARE ART YOU CAN'T JUST ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHAT IS AND ISN'T ART
>uuuh Duchamp's Fountain isn't art tho haha
cool image
>>uuuh Duchamp's Fountain isn't art tho haha
It isn't.
Okay, neither is Okami.
Duchamp himself called it anti-art m8
Yes. That was the artistic statement. He was displaying something which is categorically not art as an art piece because exploiting loopholes in the uptight art-world red tape allowed him to do it. Postmodernist nonsense like a banana taped to a wall may be played out in the 21st century, but it is art whether you like it or not.
>Postmodernist nonsense like a banana taped to a wall may be played out in the 21st century, but it is art whether you like it or not.
Is it though? Is MUH STATEMENT really art? It feels like its just a way for unskilled, uninspired people to not put in the work and still say they are an artist.
It's art because it's art.
>but even I could draw a few lines on a canvas at random and display it in an exhibition
But you didn't.
most contemporary artists get their pieces displayed due to nepotism, connections or being sponsored for being the in-minority du jour
This is true of all art, not just fringe conceptual stuff.
Its also true if your mom too, everyone who knows her gets to frick her wildly
that's not very nice of you to say
In stark contrast to your mommy-dearest, my personal drugged-up wienersleeve
All of it seems so interchangeable that the real art is the art community. The farce of modern art is the real expression, the actual crap on display doesn't matter
>The farce of art is the real expression, the actual crap on display doesn't matter
ftfy, niggy
that's BS and glorification of what actually happened, usually told by critics who want to sound bigbrained. he didnt care and he himself never viewed it as an
>artistic statement
it was anti art to its very core ie not art in the slightest.
>nd he himself never viewed it as an
statement
I mean, at that time. afterwards he revelled at all the attention he was getting bc of it
the banana against the wall thing wasn't the art piece dipshit. It was the guy who bought and then ate the banana. It was performing art
I don't know how not being intimately familiar with art that doesn't interest me makes me a dipshit.
I just took a shit. Was that performing art? Because by those standards it is.
It is.
Cope
What c.... rapist "bought" this "art"?
Obviously a israelite.
I can shit into my own hand and smear it on the wall in the shape of a penis, technically that's art. People have paid millions for less. But is it good art? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Not all art is equal. A fun video game that's bad at being art is still fun, a fricking toilet bowl with marker on it is bad at being art too but it serves no purpose but to sit there and be ugly.
>OMG I DON'T BELIEVE THEY NOT CONSIDER THE JAPANESE DOGGERINO GAME ART, IT'S JUST LIKE A PAINTING
Shut the frick up, brainlet. You probably think anime is art.
GBraque? more like garbage
abstract art isnt art
>hates dogs
>hates nice drawings
>posts a cave painting graffity
are you black?
Are movies art? If so, then comics (including manga) and cartoons (including anime) are art, yes. And it's not debatable either.
>Are movies art
Of course.
>If so, then comics (including manga) and cartoons (including anime) are art, yes
No. Elaborate on this.
Are you fricking moronic? Genuine question. Art doesn't mean something is good, art means it's art. A fricking crayon drawing by a five year old is art.
do you know what's the difference between this pic and trash?
me neither
why the frick do morons think art has to be deep and profound to qualify
Anime is art dumb murrican.
Are films art? Because games are art with extra layers
>video games will never be art
Said the wiener-gobbling AIDS-riddled homosexual
>good
Said the semen-eating monkeypox infected hypergay
I don't give a FRICK if they are art or not
I fricking hate artists and art snobs
moronic devs trying so hard to prove video games are art has ruined an entire generation of games
True. I miss when video games were just a stupid fun past time. Now they all try to be pretentious, preachy, politicized Hollywood movies disguised as "le thought-provoking art, everything is political!"
This is why video games shouldn't be art. Video games are literally made for morons and this post proves it
Correct.
Roger Ebert's ghost, is that you?
Even Ebert changed his mind when someone showed him that video games had evolved beyond Tetris and Space Invaders.
I thought he doubled down, in some article? Even after seeing recent games.
I wonder how much every old moron opinions about video games would change if they actually sat down and played them.
he digged Cosmology of Kyoto a lot
>blorp
GOOD WE DONT WANT ARTSY BULLSHIT GAMES
WE WANT GAMES THAT LOOK LIKE ART BUT ARE FUN TO PLAY
can't wait for this thread to be filled with brazilians trying to talk about what is and isn't art, when the only painting they've visitted publically is the down syndrome goku on the side of their local sandwich shop
By definition, anything that anyone creates is objectively art.
>Be artist
>See galleries displaying random shit and calling it art
>Send art gallery a urinal as a joke
>They think it's a masterpiece and display it
It was the original shitpost.
It really was. He didnt meant it as art nor for it to take these ridiculous heights. But later in life he changed his tune when everyone kept calling him a genius for it.
'Professional' art is 70% money laundering and 30% a circlejerk for the rich. Trying hard, being talented, and producing things you truly believe are beautiful doesn't get you into the circlejerk, sending a bunch of snobs a toilet does.
But that whole action makes it art.
Shit-posting is the highest form of art.
Does anyone have that pic of a person who dropped a glove in a museum and left people wondering if it was art or not?
I have this one
It's good enough, thanks.
Saved.
have this one
>Bowl of donuts titled 'gluttony', by American artist David McNuggies
Don't forget the part where his sponsors wanted their money back and he refused
>pay for high art
>get high art
I mean what did they expect
You can't play with art, end of story.
>says I, THE anon
Yes.
>He's never painted or drawn
It's literally just playing and making something nice. Singing is an art and it's definitely just playing around
>art lacks interactivity
The very nature of observing a piece of art IS part of the art.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interactive_art
Why nonsensical is praised so much in the art world?
Would vidya still be good if Ebert never said anything?
Ebert is irrelevant, it's all those "the video game industry is more profitable than Hollywood" articles that are the problem or at least certain individuals realizing that that was the case.
>Videogames will never be art.
but they already are?
https://www.moma.org/collection/?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=&classifications=39&date_begin=Pre-1850&date_end=2022&include_uncataloged_works=1&with_images=1
How do modern artists live with themselves. Like how can they look at real art and still go to bed everything calling themselves artists?
Who the frick cares? The art world sucks.
Thank god.
The problem here is you shit brains think just because something is art then it is also valuable and demands respect.
>man makes realistic painting with nothing but time, skill, and colored paint
>man carves a likeness out of stone
You can look at these things and be impressed. They are tangible.
Left looks like something Asians piss into, right is engaging
In the modern venacular, art has gone from meaning a high degree of technical skill (See: artisinal, artisan, etc)
to meaning a money laundering scheme which simultaneously destroys the host society.
>to meaning a money laundering scheme which simultaneously destroys the host society.
He doesn't know.
>to meaning a money laundering scheme
It's been this way for over a century now anon.
Most art isn't fine art and fine art is pretty irrelevant these days in the sense that it's no longer prestigious enough for most artists to even care about aspiring to it.
seeing the current state of art, good
If the majority of people decide something is art that makes it art right? So why bother fighting over it, in 200 years maybe video games will be universally agreed to be art and then 500 years later nothing is art
who cares?
I was going to agree with your argument but then I saw you had an iphone filename and will now instead call you a Black person.
Its okay in 200 years drooling morons like yourself will call me a chad
How ya gonna live that long anon?
Mediterranean Diet
>If the majority of people decide something is art that makes it art right?
even if this statement was true, fact remains that most modern art exhibited in museums across the world is considered garbage by the vast majority of people, and a speculative investment / money laundry scheme by the small minority that trades it
Art for centuries had rules that many artists followed to create some of the greatest works of mankind, then some israelite thought what if I stop following the rules, that'll teach 'em.
if that old pre-israelite art is so great, how come i care less about it then i do a drawing of 2b's ass
>how come i
and who tf are you
I'm actually trying to research this topic currently.
Its not so much that video games don't have any aesthetics or aesthetical value. Its more so that the values present within video games arent inherent to video games by themselves.
In fact the definition of art itself doesn't bode well with video games in a stricter sense. If we decide thqt art is about expression of ideals, then there really isn't anything that the code of a video game is expressing ideally. Take for instance the run and jump state of super mario. These ideals that are being expressed are not ideals that belong to the identity of the code, instead the belong to the idenity of the movement of sprites. The game still works perfectly normal if these sprites are taken away and all idenitity of mario jumping is taken away. So then was there any real ideal expressed with just mere code?????
Its so fricking mind boggling.
genuinely low IQ post
>no rebuttal presented
Sure thing kiddo
There's no need to formally debate your schizoaffective ramblings.
maybe if you decide to write anything cogent, I'll bother with a rebuttal
> duhhh all of it schizo rambling
Sound like you have no rebuttal
>can't even into dialectics
Whaaat a homosexual
"rambling" its literally philo 101 fricking moron
I really recommend watching this GDC video
It's not mind boggling, it's a moron take to somehow pretend a video game is only "code" in the first place, which is why you're having trouble. It's due to a moronic premise.
good bait
Imagine seething about a toilet for more than 100 years, must hurt being a c*ckservative
the toilets just bait..duchamp baited people with it 100 years ago and he STILL baits people with it, cause they seethe about it. Duchamp was a very proficient excellent modernist artist but he moved beyond traditional painting and found it to be a dead end for himself.
>Duchamp was a very proficient excellent modernist artist but he moved beyond traditional painting and found it to be a dead end for himself.
dude gave up on his endeavours to attack something he claimed never existed in the first place (ie art) still in his 30s. To his horror he saw his mocking and destruction of the past's eye-pleasing pieces becoming the art du jour. the rest of his years he almost solely played and wrote about chess. he btfod himself
Video games are art, they're just not high art. Why do we have to do this every time.
>high as an adjective
Anyone who does this can eat their own dick
>people still getting triggered over Duchamp
Even after death my man stays winning
"High art" has been an accepted term for like two centuries dude
>Even after death my man stays winning
why do morons make this man a genius when he himself got a taste of his own medicine?
he was asked a few times by interviewers
>why are you attacking something you say it doesnt exist?
and he never had an answer. then the late-60s came plus all the CIA funding against the realist Soviets and all the homosexuals climbed onto his dick. he was admired by those he hated fervently.
>Got a taste of his own medicine
The dude was highly involved in the art world after he retired and was a close collaborator and admirer of the early postmodernist New York art scene. He still wrote about art prolifically after his heyday. The dude just decided he liked chess more than art, which is king shit.
Also if there's a big misunderstanding about Duchamp, it's the idea he was attacking art: he wasn't. He was attacking museums and critics and idiots whose notions of art are limited and artificial
the "dude"
there's more to that joke than you think.
Just look into it.
The gallery didn't display it because they thought it was a masterpiece, they did because they were forced to. Artists only had to pay a fee and whatever they submitted would be put on display. They also removed The Urinal from display immediately.
The point still stands.
If all yoy had to do was to pay a fee to get featured, what does submitting a literal toilet symbolize? You just hate it because you can't comprehend what a piece if art like this could mean.
I should be clear: I think the urinal kicks ass, but it wasn't like celebrated at all when it first debuted
>The reverence of art still equates the art movement
??
The surrounding art movement is still apart of the art itself. You cannot seperate movements and art. No art was created in a vaccum and every art piece in existence is a result of enviornmental, social and political factors as well as creativity. To say
>attacking the reverence of art =/= attacking art
Is simply not true. If you are attacking the estbalishments or the groups that produce such artworks, you are attacking the art. (Not withstanding legality attacks such as murder, meaning that the art and the artist do go hand in hand, but its entirely possible to attack an art movement not based in personal resentment )
I see what you're trying to say: but you're completely wrong and have even further missed the point of The Urinal and Dada. It's precisely that you can and ought to remove art from its context. The urinal's whole joke is the creation of art by putting it in a museum: and that this is a ridiculous gesture, a ridiculous ritual art for a very very long time had to go through (it wasn't like it is now where anyone can post any art anywhere and find an audience). It's attacking the notion of a club, or a movement, or an institution that gets to say what is and isn't art. Destroy the context: that's the whole point
The ironic shitpost is a better art piece than 99% of modern art. Even by modern art standards it's as meta and commentary as it gets, which puts it in the #1 spot of all modern art.
If the urinal isn't THE greatest work of modern art, then no modern art is art.
>it's the idea he was attacking art: he wasn't. He was attacking museums and critics and idiots whose notions of art are limited and artificial
he attacked everything as a dadaist does, picrel. and then he attacked those that later revered him --
Attacking the reverence of art=/= attacking art. And his critique of Warhol et al is precisely that they were trying to reinvest art with this religious/fetishistic value. My point stands
The reverence of art still equates the art movement. If there is an art movement that no one can see or know about, then it simply doesnt exist. Dipshit
no, anon. It was clear that he was attacking art itself by removing any form of hierarchy from it -- you know, if everything is X then nothing is X.
he's also a self-admited walking contradiction and just kept improvising
see
Then two centuries of dick chompers can go frick themselves
Would you call chess art?
watching plebs argue about what is considered art is hilarious.
Its not their fault. Most people don't think about art in the philosphical higher thought because its not exactly a popular topic. Also you can't expect people who play vidya all day to know what great art is.
Art is a social construct
Le Corbusier has done irreperable damage to art and archetecture
>Toilet says 'mutt' on the side
pottery
What qualifies something as "Art" is very subjective. Films and photographs weren't considered art back in time but they are now. If there was an objective truth this wouldn't happen. Zeitgeist around them changed. Same will happen to video games when all the old fricks who think games are just Pong like Ebert are dead.
ITT everyone calling the readymade porcelain urinal titled Fountain as
>toilet
while still singing praises about something the artist himself disliked lmao
That urinal on the left is looking pretty nice.
Reminder that the reason shit like the toilet seat is considered art was that the CIA funded the promotion of abstract art during the Cold War to counter the USSR going all in on realism and the like.
Like many things in life you can blame the glowies.
aye, they were trying to make russia look old and stuck in the past.
i can't really point out what is wrong with USSR art other than saying it has no soul
almost as if it had been made by robot
impecable flawless technique, but not a single emotion
because you can't divorce it from the irl context. you see it as pretty propaganda devoid of barely any reality at the time. if they were produced by a regime you admired in some way, you'd spot soul.
nah, these actually look nice
they are paintings of someone trying to represent the beauty of life
when i talk USSR art i mean all those statues and reliefs of the proletariat gloriously marching towards prosperity and utopia
technically speaking, they are flawless, so flawless in fact that it's probably the reason why they look made by robots
you mean like picrel. but you're just talking about specific ones -- every piece in
was Soviet art promoted by its gov as the ideal communality
>can't divorce context
You can. The only reason you can't is because you know the context. If all the history of the ussr got erased. Then you would be stuck in mystery as to why this art piece existed.
yes, that was where I was getting at. if a person unaware of its historical context saw the pieces, said person wouldnt find it soulless. post this on nu/misc/ devoid of any context and SOVL will be plastered all over the thread
The shit on the left is a good reason why video games shouldn't be considered art. Worthless label.
people dont understand duchamp.
the point is that the audience had never seen a transexual before. It was part of the whole thing.
Also the games have art in them and there is an art to to making a game, but the experience itself is not something that belongs in a museum like that. It's something about being able to absorb the experience in a single go, i guess there are games that could do this but theyd have to be short.
So most literary works aren't art?
hmm good point.
i would say literature also doesnt belong in a museum, but some kinds of multi-media that feature it could.
thats my idea of art though.
cont'd in reply to
i could see a movie in a museum, but not a television series.
it's the same thing with literature, if the book is short enough it fits into my idea of what people mean when they use the term "art". It's all semantics in a way.
The reason for the video games are art argument was to get around the censors of the 90's and 2k's. Unfortunately video games got taken over by activists and hipsters in 2010's. Now all games have to spread politically correct messages and not offend marginalized people in the name of art.
You are all virgins.
There.
It's an statement and therefore it's art.
I'm an artist.
YOU WILL NEVER BE ART
BEHOLD TRUE ART:
is this the b***h that sticks canned spaghetti up her vag?
I'm playing dishonored 2 and the art in this game is fantastic. It's heartbreaking seeing zoomertards ignoring such a masterpiece and just playing fartnite 24/7
Wrong
Products cannot be art
They can look nice but they will never be art
Damn, guess all those paintings commissioned by the church centuries ago that everyone fellates nowadays aren't art.
there is a confusing meta aspect to the semantics being exploited on both sides of this.
When did "art" become synonymous with "good"?
When "art" stopped being taught formally in american schools.
Dont get me wrong. It is "art" but its not even close to the same level as high art.
Who knows, but it's a persistant problem.
when words stopped having meaning and you get reported for saying something that sounds similar to a word that could offend someone.
If you keep saying this, it will be true one day.
reminder that everything wrong with gaming today started with homosexual trannies wanting games to be considered art because Ebert made them eternally butthurt
i'd like to say it's really hard to make a counter argument to this statement
sadly games like Gone homosexual and LGBTLOU exist and both of them qualify as "art" according to the standards set by the OP jpg
I bet many ITT seething bc of ebert's words will now start to cope when they realized kojima agreed with him
>In a 2006 interview with US Official PlayStation 2 Magazine, game designer Hideo Kojima agreed with Ebert's assessment that video games are not art. Kojima acknowledged that games may contain artwork, but he stressed the intrinsically popular nature of video games in contrast to the niche interests served by art.
Okami is actually not that pretty,
left is definitely shit
bump
the biggest irony of this picture is that Duchamp was literaly shitting on the whole artworld with this piece but the artworld took him seriusly
later in life Duchamp was so disappointed with the world of art that he became a profesional chess player, because he loved the clear rules and fair game mechanics
TLDR: Duchamp was /ourguy/, he hated pretentious "artist" and loved game mechanics
forgot vid related
>TLDR: Duchamp was /ourguy/, he hated pretentious "artist"
He wasn't, seeing as whatwho he was attacking when he created the Fountain were artists this board praises constantly. He created the disease that eventually led to him to go picrel
You would love Hitler, degenerate and pretentious pseud art was rightfully treated as the trash it is under his leadership.
Games are definitely art.
If shit like pic related is art, then any sprite artists is making art.
Exactly.
Alas, I know better to not discuss with people who think otherwise. Let them praise their bananas on wall while I appreciate the hard work of unsung artists.
Products contain art but aren’t art, Hollywood movies aren’t art either
dada is a typical nihilist israelite
>Video games are art because one of them used some textures that resemble old japanese paintings
Hard to blame Ebert for being so stubborn on this when this shit was the best argument people gave him.
FF6's OST is ART.
Stop using the word art as an indicator of quality. Literally any form of expression can be art. Yes: Modern Art is Art. A toilet meant to symbolize some dumb bullshit is undeniably art. A woman shooting colored eggs out of her vegana is art. It's shit art and pretentious, revolting garbage but it is still art. Being art does not make something good or meaningful, it simply needs to be a creative form of expressing ideas, emotions or beliefs.
I don't give a frick about "objective" definitions of art. I choose what feels like art to me, and that stupid urinal on the left is not art by my definition.
I find it funny how journos screech the most about how games are art becuse they failed to get a job at pedowood or become a novelist so they want to feel important and smart for not doing their job and yet it's mostly journos who dont let games become art.
way to miss the point of the fountain
This is not Ganker but at the same time is it not /ic/, not enough crab ""artists"" and pretentious pseudo intellectuals
Does Dada still filter people to this day?
it filters good taste. now go praise an urinal bc muh conceptual
>muh
how to Black personize your post in one buzzword.
>>muh
>Black personize
stfu moronic newbie
>admits to parroting
Black folk literally ape each other, but if it’s the sekrit club lingo it’s fine? Fricking roodeypoo.
>inb4 muh, le, b-but, NOOOO, or some other tourist speak
>muh
>tourist speak
ffs just kys moron
Yes, ‘this literally this, but unironically!’
homosexual psyop victim.
I must be sad being so stupid you can't interpret basic concepts.
>basic contexts.
it's been plastered all over ITT that he shat all over himself --
The value of exploring the meaning of words like "art" isn't as great as fart-sniffing art-majors think it is, and making people angry isn't difficult.
>the meaning of art isn't very important
>but if you call the wrong thing art we're going to fill up a thread with replies in an hour
dumb Black person
based anon with taste triggering all the trannies
if you refer trannies as not-dead-brain ppl, probably yes
haha
what if the nazis burned ugly things that people were trying to pass as art such as images of hairy buttholes
haha
Unironically true, Duchamp mogs your lowbrow videoshit
The inclusion of known art does not make the game itself art.
If I replace the soundtrack of Mario with music of Mozart I definitely wouldn't consider bing bing wahoo to be some work of art.
It is, but it’s not classic. You’re conflating art with class/iconography.
Anon, one is a salty comment on how whack french art critics are, and the other is a video game.
The Dada art on the left filters so many weeaboos. It's the equivalent of people taking One Punch Man at face value and post their butthurt on Ganker.
It's funny that the modern art the urinal represented and created has evolved and moved on to memes.
Making an simple edgy point, Warhols vision, true proletariat art, art without the name of the artist.
It's Okay To Be White is the the new urinal and like then the old guard sneered at it.
>Making an simple edgy point, Warhols vision, true proletariat art, art without the name of the artist.
it's like you homosexuals keep making shit up, like kojitards really. duchamp was anti-aesthetic and was against hierarchy in art and its qualities -- anything could be art to him as long as an artist said its art: it became conceptual to its core. then his work later mutated to a celebrated art form for its asthetics too, due to the moronic warhols of the world, showing that his point was not only misrepresented, him shitting on the past came to bite him fast
>picrel
>art can be everything
>NOOOO NOT THAT
kek
that quote says everything. the guy that tried to destroy the rules of the old art world then tried to establish rules for his movement.
>Sorry Marcel, art and aesthetic sensibility are socially constructed.
that's what he argued and also what he later couldn't understand. what a genius, huh
Modern "art" is a money laundering scam
>NOOO MOM I'M NOT WASTING MY TIME!!1 videogames are LE ART I'M AN ARTIST!1
Biggest loser cope. Videogames aren't art.
>NOOO MOM I'M NOT WASTING MY TIME!!1 videogames are LE ART I'M AN ARTIST!1
Wth is it supposed to mean? Even if vidya was art, vidya consumers wouldn't be artists, they'd be like those pseuds in an art gallery.
>anons getting filtered by a toilet
I thought irony gays were 200 iq lads. Here is a hint: IT IS MAKING FUN OF MODERN
ART
That's the important insight. Ganker isn't full of people drowning in irony. It's full of people who aren't being ironic, just dumb.
you homosexuals keep saying the same shit but skip the fact that everyone is aware what it meant. but for some reason you avoid the fact how it shit the bed
the oldgay who trolled in his young days eventually got trolled himself by newbies. a tale as old as time
The edgy memes find themselves printed on t-shirts in the mall a couple decades later. We saw this play out already. Sorry Marcel, art and aesthetic sensibility are socially constructed.
and then that same oldgay began coping by dedicating the rest of his entire life to chess because, unlike the (art)world he sought to destroy before, the game still has definite rules.
that's because his fans became the same fart-sniffing art critics that they claimed to tear down before. they revel in knowing the surface level stuff but are truly devoid of any real historical context on its events and impact. just read how many ITT are going
>pshaw! he didn't get dada
>got filtered by Dadaism
dada filtered itself by lasting only a few years and then being completely turned upside down by neo-dada
Still got filtered
That doesn't make it good art. It's on the same level as the self-aware self-deprecating humor found in modern American movies/cartoons
>IT IS MAKING FUN OF MODERN ART
and it became the spearhead for contemporary art, praised by the movement like a god. noice, marcel -- you definitely showed them.
Unironically good. I don't give a frick if some old out of touch boomer or degenerate at an art museum views videogame negatively. All I care about is if I'm having fun in this absolute clown world we live in.
>videogames are LE ART
>videogames are LE SPORTS
what causes this inferiority complex?
i love when visualnovelsgays say "games are literature"
Vidya games are art debate never made sense, because it presupposes that there is some way to determine what is and isn't art. Not only that, there is no list of arts and non-arts: the lines between what is art and what isn't art is really blurry
Dancing/choreography/martial arts are art. Photography is art. Painting is an art: be it painting a landscape or a wall.
So what is it about games that makes it not art? It has all the components of art (music, visuals, writing), and if you believe that chess is art like https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/sep/16/truth-beauty-and-the-art-of-success-at-chess than you interactivity itself can be incorporated in an art form.
This also includes the urinal/banana tape and other shit.
The root issue is what is art? It means different things to different people, but I always see it as "self-expression in solving a problem". So what makes it art within something, what agency did you had to do it? Give the same camera to two people, and you'll get different shots: that's where the art comes from
damn marisa fix your shaders
I don't care about the opinion of normalgays, they can keep labelling things however they want just stay the frick away from my vidyers.
It's subjective.