Games are not art

[Kruyurk]

Some stills may look like art until you hear the story or like people talk in the game. "DuR wE HaVE tO Kill teh DraGUn"

Saying that something is art does not mean that it is good art.

I just made some big pieces of art in the toilet, does that count?

If you poop in this, it does count as an installation.

 

[Kev Inkline]

Some stills may look like art until you hear the story or like people talk in the game. "DuR wE HaVE tO Kill teh DraGUn"

Saying that something is art does not mean that it is good art.

I just made some big pieces of art in the toilet, does that count?

https://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/manzoni-artists-shit-t07667

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artist's_Shit

Artist's Shit (Italian: Merda d'artista) is a 1961 anti-artwork by the Italian artist Piero Manzoni. The work consists of 90 tin cans, each reportedly filled with 30 grams (1.1 oz) of feces, and measuring 4.8 by 6.5 centimetres (1.9 in × 2.6 in), with a label in Italian, English, French, and German stating:

Artist's Shit
Contents 30 gr net
Freshly preserved
Produced and tinned
in May 1961

Inspiration and interpretations​

At the time the piece was created, Manzoni was producing works that explored the relationship between art production and human production, Artist's Breath (Fiato d'artista), a series of balloons filled with his own breath, being an example.

In December 1961, Manzoni wrote in a letter to his friend Ben Vautier:

I should like all artists to sell their fingerprints, or else stage competitions to see who can draw the longest line or sell their shit in tins. The fingerprint is the only sign of the personality that can be accepted: if collectors want something intimate, really personal to the artist, there's the artist's own shit, that is really his.[1]

Another friend, Enrico Baj, has said that the cans were meant as "an act of defiant mockery of the art world, artists, and art criticism".[2]

 

[Jvegi]

The medium is capable of artistic expression if it can evoke deep emotions in the recipient using the means that are unique to this medium. If the game only makes you feel using music or pretty graphics alone, it's not art. It has to use gameplay (which of course can utilize and be enhanced by music, graphics, writing etc.).

There is this one game about everyday working life from 2010 or something, which has annoying minigames to simulate chores and work, with tooltips and recepies conteined in books you have to read while the clock is ticking and you hunger meter goes down. Can't find it, but I think it was art.

Edit: Cart Life.

 

[Blutwurstritter]

Some stills may look like art until you hear the story or like people talk in the game. "DuR wE HaVE tO Kill teh DraGUn"

Saying that something is art does not mean that it is good art.

I just made some big pieces of art in the toilet, does that count?

Another man of the clog, like myself. Although my most impressive works were of collaborative nature, with dozens of participants working in tandem to transform those Dixi's into an unforgettable experience for any visitor.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Do people say games aren't art anymore?

https://x.com/duns_sc0tus/status/1830067485317439960

Okami (2006), based on Japanese sumi-e art, turned 3D, best appreciated in motion.

Muramasa: The Demon Blade (2009), based on Japanese ukiyo-e art.

Dragon's Crown (2013) has numerous homages to classic Western artwork.

Apotheon (2015) based on Greek "black figure" pottery.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

Cool thread bro, but first we have to ask ourselves: What is art?

Seriously though, art apparently just means "highbrow entertainment" at best, and many moderns would even classify some melodramatic pornography as such. Today the concept is meaningless.

 

[luj1]

but first we have to ask ourselves: What is art?

No we don't. That's a massive cope.

We don't need to ask ourselves what is art, what is gender, etc. Miss me with that post-modernist, over-analytical, nihilistic stupidity.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

but first we have to ask ourselves: What is art?

No we don't.

We don't need to ask ourselves what is art, what is gender, what is whatever. Miss me with that post-modernist, nihilistic stupidity.

Sorry but you're so deep into post-modern crap that you can't even recognize it for what it is. Art used to mean something, but then someone changed that, and this happened long before the ninethies, bruh.

 

[Alex]

but first we have to ask ourselves: What is art?

No we don't. That's a massive cope.

We don't need to ask ourselves what is art, what is gender, etc. Miss me with that post-modernist, over-analytical, nihilistic stupidity.

It is a simple, basic question. Give me a definition of A, give me a definition of B and show that A belongs in B. This is not modernism, this is basic logic. Trying to argue something without resorting to this, on the other hand, does feel like a modernist project.

 

[Lemming42]

You'd need a pretty tortured definition of art in order to arbitrarily not include videogames while simultaneously including every other medium, including the mediums which games themselves are made up of.

It's all pretty irrelevant in the end though because the only use for art is to express something on the part of the creator and/or inspire an emotional reaction in the viewer/player/reader/whatever. Do videogames do that? Pretty clearly yeah.

 

[DemonKing]

Videogames can definitely be art in the same way the literature, cinema etc can be art.

They are probably the hardest form of art to preserve though, given the many, many different platforms they appear on and the inherent anti-piracy measures taken to try and prevent them being easily copied and disseminated.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

Is pornography art though? Is it art if it's about a couple having sex in a museum while listening to the ninth symphony?

Why it is not?

 

[luj1]

Is pornography art though?

Today most porn may not be art. But take a look at some older directors such as Mario Salieri of the 90s wave of Italian porn. Those movies had serious costumography, lighting, composition, acting, etc. They were art.

 

[luj1]

Art used to mean something, but then someone changed that

It's changed only for soy-infused cretins such as yourself

 

[luj1]

but first we have to ask ourselves: What is art?

No we don't. That's a massive cope.

We don't need to ask ourselves what is art, what is gender, etc. Miss me with that post-modernist, over-analytical, nihilistic stupidity.

It is a simple, basic question. Give me a definition of A, give me a definition of B and show that A belongs in B. This is not modernism, this is basic logic. Trying to argue something without resorting to this [snip]

I'm not gonna argue axioms lol. I suggest you contact Josh Sawyer on Twitter, he will need company in the asylum anyway

 

[Alex]

Art used to mean something, but then someone changed that

It's changed only for soy-infused cretins such as yourself

Is there any particular reason you are so butthurt about this topic?

 

[luj1]

I just don't like when people deconstruct norms and challenge the traditional, it's usually a mental cope. Post-modernism is a disease.

 

[Bruma Hobo]

I just don't like when people deconstruct norms and challenge the traditional

Enjoy your artistic porn, bro.

 

[octavius]

Games can contain art. But that doesn't make the game itself art.

 

[Eirinjas]

Cool thread bro, but first we have to ask ourselves: What is art?

Seriously though, art apparently just means "highbrow entertainment" at best, and many moderns would even classify some melodramatic pornography as such. Today the concept is meaningless.

Art is something skillfully done and beautiful to the senses. Art inspires awe in those who see it and hear it. How many people can paint like Rembrandt? Or compose like Beethoven? Or sculpt like Michelangelo? I've seen high-minded, fart-sniffing professionals who characterize it as "whatever causes you to feel an emotion." They will tell you an empty white canvas is art, a banana duct-taped to a wall is art, and the Madonna, painted with elephant dung, is art, but this is nonsense. The diarrhea I had in the toilet a half hour ago elicited several emotions, but I didn't come away from it thinking, "Wow, what art!"

Anyone can pluck the strings on a guitar, but only an artist can create something as wonderful as Time In A Bottle. Anyone can pick up a paintbrush, but only an artist can paint The Birth of Aphrodite. Never mind the genius necessary for creating something like the Pietà or the painting on the Sistine Chapel's ceiling. These things require education, countless hours of practice, skill, obsession, and an aptitude that can be best described as "talent." The works created by artists have a timeless quality. And any game that stands the test of time is undoubtedly a work of art. Great artists such as Schubert and Van Gogh died as unknown paupers in their time, but the works that they left were so transcendent that their names are now universally recognized and associated with beauty. Of course, those were men from an age when beauty was appreciated and elevated. They have since been replaced with the lovers of ugly - the sort of people who place Pollock and Warhol in the pantheon of great artists. The sort of people who think WAP is a song and Kanye a philosopher. The same sort of people would undoubtedly fawn over a game as hideous to the senses as Concord. If Roger Ebert were alive, I would bet money that that fat sack of crap would look at Concord and exclaim with unironic profundity, "Finally, video games have become art!"

 

[bionicman]

if you need to hire artists to make something, then it's probably art

 

[Jvegi]

if you need to hire artists to make something, then it's probably art

The images can be art, doesn't mean the display itself is art.

The game I was talking about is Cart Life from 2010.

Op is afraid of thinking, lest it destroyes his natural, ape-like view of things.

 

[luj1]

>thinking

This is what your kind of "thinking" brought, cretin

You should be clubbed by Cossacks and dumped in a gulag for month to calm down Jvegi

 

[Jvegi]

I could post photos of what your kind of thinking has brought. Let's keep the thread pretty though.

I assume your definition of what art is comes from some other source than thinking. Did you find it in a ditch somewhere? I know it's not in the bible.

You do realize my definition of what medium can be art doesn't contradict your "feelz definition"?

 

[luj1]

Cheap shock value isn't art and never will be art. It is so prevalent in conceptual art circles because it doesn't require talent. You can now duct-tape a banana to a wall or smear shit across it and call it art. Thanks to idiots such as Marina Abramovic. Art = talent or skill.