Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Video Games & Weeaboo Shit' started by AmbrJones Wickenshire, Dec 17, 2016.
For anyone out their that thinks Nintendo doesn't suck a blob fish's ass yet.
Hideo Kojima already said video games aren't art 10 years ago.
The only people who think otherwise are oblivious westerners who have no concept of what artistic intentions/purposes are.
"To me games are the ultimate art form." - Phil Fish
“I’m a designer. I don’t think of myself as creating works, I really think of myself as creating products for people to enjoy. That’s why I’ve always called my games products rather than works of art.” -Shigeru Miyamoto
I'm gonna have to side with the guy who's not Phil Fish.
Were Gone Home and Depression Quest not art?
Is Pez not as important as Mona Lisa? Ok, now it is not, but one century from now you'll only see that shit in museums.
The people who say "Games are art DAD!" simply want to justify them wasting time and money on meaningless shit. If a vidya makes you cry that doesn't elevate it to the same place as Beethoven, Da Vinci or St. Peter's Basilica, it means you're a faggot.
... so if a vidya has those songs you're going to cry as a wuss?
I agree with the fact that games are not art. They are games. But I will concede that game designers will incorporate artistic elements into their creations. That doesn't make the game a work of art though. It's still a game.
If games like Bioshock, Zelda and Metal Gear are to be considered "works of art", then one must also accept that games like Madden, Call of Duty and movie-based games are also "works of art".
same goes for Justin Bieber songs and Lil Wayne... And caveman paintings...
It's shit, but by definition it's art.
I would say you sorta have a point. If art can be defined as a part of culture then yes, madden would be considered "art". Keep in mind that someone else's art is another's shit.
It's not quite that simple.
For something to be considered art in the philosophical sense, there has to be an artistic intent in it's creation. With Lil Wayne & Bieber, the intention with the creation of their music is to make money, not to produce art. Cavemen created drawings to guide other cavemen to places where wild animals resided in order to hunt or to warn them from other predators, they didn't intend to produce art (Or have even a concept of art).
I can't just draw a swastika on a piece of paper and call that art. I mean.., I can, yes. But that doesn't make what I am drawing art.
Madden, Call of Duty and movie-based games are the very antithesis of what society constitutes as art. They are conceived to make money, and not intended to be appreciated as art. The artistic intention behind the conception of a work is what decides whether or not it is art.
Your argument is flawed. Based on this alone, Mona Lisa is not art. Da Vinci wasn't doing it for art's sake, he was getting paid for it.
Well, yes. If someone is hired is to create pieces of art, then they should be paid for it. It still doesn't take away from what I said. The Mona Lisa was specifically created to be a work of art.
It wasn't created to be a game.
That... and the fact that Mona Lisa is the oldest known fursona/transona known... http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/leonardo-da-vincis-mona-lisa-self-portrait/story?id=9662394
The big effect of the eye following you may as well have been an accident...
No shit it wasn't created to be a game. Video games were not something one could think about at the time.
Besides, if art can be described as something made with an intended purpose than Maddin would definitely fit it's niche, the difference is that the artists decide to capitalize on it.
Spoiler: TL;DR on art.
For me there's two kinds of art: the kind that's made with a purpose in mind, and those meant to be interpreted.
A game like GTA is art because it knows what it is, what it's audience wants. The amount of dedication I've seen being put into GTA V still stuns me, and the way it subtly satirizes some of the aspects of american culture makes you think. Bioshock knew what it wanted to be, shadow of the colossus as well.
The second kind is the kind of abstract art that has no purpose but to make you interpret the meaning. There's a game I know that does this well called Naissance that knows how to build atmosphere and environment, but has no story to it. You have to make up your own ideas of what's happening.
This whole debate is retarded. Both music and cinema are art forms, yet I think a lot of music and movies done today really don't qualify as art.
Likewise most games are products and not genuine art, but that doesn't mean no video game can be art. And almost no game can be created without art so....
So, do you believe video games are art? If you didn't originally, you are now contradicting yourself.
It goes right back to intent. Art cannot be considered art unless there's artistic intent behind it. An iPhone also has artistic elements about it as well; but it's conceived as a mass-produced, consumer electronic intended to be discarded after a single year. GTA (although I'm not a fan of it) also has artistic elements involved in it's creation too, that I don't deny. It's not a work of art though. Bottomline, GTA is a game. A toy. Philosophically, no different than a Mr. Potatohead doll. It's designed to be something amusing, not to be something appreciated simply for it's existence.
Moving on, I don't personally consider an abstract game to be a form of art. Atari's Pong and Pac-Man also don't have stories. Should I interpret some deeper meaning from pixelated dots? I'm sure that that Naissance's game director had the artistic intention not to put a story in his game for creative purposes. But to call a game with an interpretative story "a work of art" just based on that alone shows a poor understanding of what constitutes art in the first place.
So what is artistic intent then?
For me art is something that can be interpreted, it doesn't need an intent, at least one that is made known. Interpreted art is a thing, it doesn't convay a message, but gives a mirror into yourself based on what you think it convays.
Irony of the Negro Policeman.
The figure has a skull for a face. Perhaps he feels dead inside after his family disowned him for joining the popo. And I see what looks like an outline of a grasping appendage. Perhaps it's a nod to how he feels about being looked down uppon by a society that views him as a primate. Perhaps he feels a biy of self hatred because of this and decides to prove to the rest of the world (but really himself) that he is a civilized member of his society. He is in turmoil because he struggles for purpose in his bleak, hard life.
That's what I see after looking at it for a few minutes.
Hm, pretty good interpretation.
This is one of the main differences between true art and video games.
The interpretation of true art isn't restricted by the by the limitations of artist's capability for self-expression. If you were white, you would have probably interpreted this work totally differently. Hell, you might have even just dismissed it entirely as meaningless scribble-scrabble like it seemingly resembles.
Gamers are art critics?
Guilty as charged. Sorry, but if the technical execution sucks I'm quite the philistine.
If you've ever read Donald Trump's book "Trump: The Art of the Deal," you'd have come across the story of an artist friend of his (who remained nameless for obvious reasons) who once said to him "Hey Donald, do you want to see me make $25,000 in three minutes?" Three cans of paint thrown at a blank canvas later, and they both went out to lunch. As they walked off he told Trump that most people wouldn't be able to tell the difference between that and something that he actually gave a crap about anyway.
Trust me, bro. I know what you mean.
Modern Art is one of the biggest scams of this century and people keep throwing thousands upon thousands of dollars at shitty modern art exhibits & pieces every year.
Very little modern art is good, most of it is unskilled crap given loads of attention & cash by gullible, naive yuppies.
The unfortunate, inevitable result that occurs when the definition of a particular word is continually broadened to point of illogical retardation. "Art" is now anything created by another person and "Rape" is now asking someone in an elevator to accompany you for coffee
Videogames are mosaics of many different artists' talents. The graphics designer's work can stand alone as art. The soundtrack can stand alone as art. The engine the game runs on is like the camera in a film.
The process isn't standardized or simple enough to consistently make blockbuster products with any merit or over arching design unless they're small shops. It's a relatively new medium. The possibility is there for all sorts of works that engage deeply with consumers like traditional media; books, films or paintings.