Prosper Are video games contemporary art? DISCUSS!!

[Job Creator]

ban all teenagers

 

[ThisNameIsFree]

Dude, have you ever seen a history of art book. It's not something "you know then you see it" (original spelling), and you would know that if you read more. Also, there's the whole discipline called aesthetics and they wrote a fuckload of theories what art is and how we can know when we experience art and these theories are far more complicated than "you know then you see it".

So yeah, in a way art tests your mental capabilities. Embrace it.

Books again. Art books at top of that. Some dude imprint you with his own subjective opinions. It's like forcing yourself love some food (which you may not like at all) just because some dudes called it good in book.
Traveling thousands of miles is better than reading thousands of books.

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

Yes, art is subjective. But ............................................................................................................ guess what ............................................................................................................ artists refer to facts from history or to other artists works, for example, and this constitutes relatively lasting discourse.

I'm not telling you to LIKE so-and-so or such-and-such. I'm making sure if you have ANY competence in the matter.

No, randomly liking some works just like you randomly like some food is not a competence. It's just not.

 

[DosBuster]

US supreme court ruled games as art a few years ago now retardo this thread.

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

Because US supreme court verdicts apply to Germany, Japan, Mexico, Poland, and the rest of the world. Not only it's fake, but you don't even try.

 

[DosBuster]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Entertainment_Merchants_Ass'n the court case in question

also who cares about what europe thinks

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

Cool, but term "art" is used on this page only once and it's under "Reactions" article, so it seems suspicious. The case doesn't seem relevant in the slightest.

There're further problems, like the one I mentioned briefly: the verdict holds extremely locally, what competence does the court have in the matter, and (I don't know US law) but law changes over time and is depended on things like acts of parliament etc.

I would say your example is worthless in the discussion.

 

[DosBuster]

no it was declaring that games were protected under the constitution's free speech for all forms of art section

 

[Burning Bridges]

Everyone defines for himself what art is. In that respect computer games can be art but so can a turd (Beuys) or a white sheet of paper. Some doctors are fascinated with bizarre deformations of the human body and consider it art, or a nuclear scientist might see art in mushrooms clouds.
The whole games discussion is only detracting strategy by some hipsters who are not willing to work harder. They only do what pleases them, release the resulting incomplete, non interactive shit as "games" like Dear Esther or Firewatch and then call it art, because it has decent graphics. All the while ignoring that games are meant to be played, not to be looked at.

 

[WhatAreYou?ACasul?]

Aw, sorry I read "ruled OUT" instead of "ruled" as in "pronounced authoritatively and legally to be the case". My bad.

 

[Harold]

This alt isn't remotely entertaining. Bring back 1eyedking

 

[Kontra]

Well what is art..? I thought about it and the best definition i could get is: art is something thats not really needed but is cool in some way...


Like if youre in a museum and theres two bowls on show from the Bronze Age or whatever. Theyre just the plainest looking bowls you can imagine but one of them has a painting on it liek of a dragon or whatever.

And everyone even a little kid immediately knows that the second bowl, the painted one is somekinda "art". But the first one isnt. Its just something you put food in... A tool but not art.

So you see it really is "i know it when i see it" kinda thing... Maybe the kid cant tell you why exactly its art but he knows it is.

So the first one is, the second one isnt , how come? Well clearly art is something thats not really needed... Like the dragon wasnt needed for you to eat from the bowl but they put it there anyway because its nice to have it there or look at it or whatever the reason is they put it there.

In games this would be like for example, Hitman Contracts mission transitions when 47 is about to dream. It wasnt necessary to do them like that at all, like; 47 is on the floor but as the camera turns its actually a wall. Wow... nice. Or 47 hears whiskey being poured over his wound and remembers walking over rain drenched Beldingford Manor.

It wasnt necessary, but it was cool hence >>> art.

They couldve just used that fuzzy screen effect when people are about to dream on TV and that harp sound

and cut straight to Beldingford Manor.
You know how lame that would be. Its like the most plainest way to inform you that 47 is actually dreaming. Its like that first bowl, it does its job and nothing more.

But no instead, they wanted to be more "artistic" about it; or if you like, they wanted to put a "dragon" on it.


So there you have it kids, no need to read books about art cause, its a really simple and kinda stupid thing...

Can games be art? Thats like saying can games be cool, or can they be good. They can or, they used to... But, so what?

 

[Space Insect]

cool hence >>> art.

 

[Kontra]

Well you missed the first part - unnecessary... But yeah thats about it. Think about it like this; Michelangelos sistine chapel.

Was that really necessary? Shit, i just paint my room white or sometimes blue... But i admit, thats kinda cool. So i guess you can call it art.

 

[CthuluIsSpy]

Technically it was necessary, as it was intended to show off the Church's wealth and power, and fill the average plebeian with awe.
Also note that it shows passage from the bible; back then not many people knew how to read, so pictures filled that void.

 

[Kontra]

Well if thats the case then it isnt art... If it was like a technical necessity and he just had to do it that way then really its not art. Dont get me wrong im not some Michelangelo fanboy... I dont even like the thing, i just picked it at random. But if it fulfills the definition then its art whether i like it or not. And if it doesnt, then its not... I dont care either way.

 

[Space Insect]

In my opinion, your definition of art is shit. The technically necessary argument could be made for practically everything. Technically, according to your definition, there is no art.

 

[Kontra]

Okay but how so? I dont see a problem... It was definitely not a technical necessity to make the Hitman mission transitions the way they did. Definitely. So i guess its art. But like i said so what... Theres nothing to it. Can people do some stuff in a cool way? Yeah i guess they can. Michalengelo sure painted that wall in a cool way. Well good for him. But theres nothing else to it.

 

[Space Insect]

But the Hitman mission transitions had to help sell the game and get good reviews in order to sell more of the game. If the devs felt that those transitons could help make the needed money, then it is technically necessary in their eyes.

 

[mondblut]

Is porn contemporary art?

 

[Beautiful Clown Painting]

Video games are the art form of the XXIth century, as cinema was for the XXth or the novel for the XIXth. Though 99% of the production so long is crap.

 

[Burning Bridges]

Computer games can be art, but whole movies replicated in 3D and bare of any gameplay claiming to be art, are not even computer games.

 

[Kontra]

But the Hitman mission transitions had to help sell the game and get good reviews in order to sell more of the game. If the devs felt that those transitons could help make the needed money, then it is technically necessary in their eyes.

Im not convinced... They still have to "make" art. So it doesnt matter whats it for. And how does it help sell the game anyway. Isnt it the opposite? You have to streamline it to the maximum so that everyone gets it. What if some kid or some game reviewer gets confused and doesnt understand whats going on? Like he expects a regular "story", he doesnt get it and he slams the game. So better not to risk it.

 

[Kontra]

Okay an example from movies when they go for maximum streamline.


The new Star Wars movie.

This i read in a review that i cant find right now where the reviewer says how none of the jokes work. He gives an example when the two characters (i forgot their names) are in a hallway running from some monsters and one of them says:

"How do these monsters look like?"

And when they run into the monsters eating a crewmember, the other one says:

"They look like that!"

And then they run away.

That was the joke, they see the monsters and they run away. But the director wasnt sure if someone will miss the joke, so he added that line "they look like that" just so that everyone gets it. But by doing that he ruins it.

An example where this kind of joke works is in The Fifth Element when Ruby Rhod finds a bomb and asks Korben if he knows how to disarm it. And Korben thinks for awhile, then they look each other and the next shot is: theyre running down the hallway. Thats the joke, and it works.

But i bet that if the SW director did that scene, he would add a line where Korben says "no" to Ruby or maybe they look each other and say no at the same time and THEN they run away. That way, everyone would get that he doesnt know how to disarm it. Otherwise someone might get confused, why are they running down the hallway now, did he disarm the bomb or what etc.


So he wants everyone to get it, and the movie to make money but he clearly has to forego doing it "artistically" for that... He has to make just a regular looking bowl. You cant accuse the Hitman mission transitions of being in that vein.

 

[Mr. Pink]

no.


a Lamborghini is not art
a board game with a pretty board is not art
an engraved revolver is not art
a warhammer figurine is not art

video games, like all of the above, are usually not judged primarily based on their aesthetic qualities. They are judged based on how entertaining they are.

Art is not judged based on how entertaining it is. If it was, the 'dogs playing poker' painting would be in that glass chamber in the lourve where the Mona Lisa is.

the argument that games are art is stupid, because art is only art when people judge it by its aesthetic quality.