"Books will never be considered art" - Brian Wilson

>"Having once made the statement above, I have declined all opportunities to enlarge upon it or defend it. That seemed to be a fool's errand, especially given the volume of messages I receive urging me to read this book or that and recant the error of my ways. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that in principle, books cannot be art. Perhaps it is foolish of me to say "never," because never, as I've once said, is a long, long time. Let me just say that no bookreader now living will survive long enough to experience the medium as an art form."

Did he have a legitimate point?

dubs and he dies tonight

im sure he is correct in the way that he has defined it. in terms of how the word art is used colloquially he is objectively incorrect. i assume he's trying to make a point about language and it's relationship to expression, and how art relates to all of it, so i'd hear him out. it's also just whatever; the hot-take quote is like the title of a buzzfeed article

re-roll

Wew. Close one.

>a musician
i mean what do you expect, for him to be literate?

Is this a parody based on Roger Ebert shitting on video games?

well, in the sense that books are more fore story telling (essentialy like comic books but more verbally and less accessilbe), you can't have books as deep as art
on the other hand, art is basically art

But storytelling predates visual art. Or, at the very least, they both arose at the same time, since I'm sure early humans were telling stories around the fire back when they were painting in caves. Storytelling is one of the original arts.

what about the art of the deal does that mean we have the first artist president right now

yawn.

>he thinks Trump is the first President to have written a book

more like the exact quote except "books" instead of "games"

it's a stupid thing to say about either books or games.

I absolutely have no idea what he means in this quote. Is he talking about literature or actual physical books?

Why should I care about the opinion of a pop musician on art?

No, video games are not art.

Is Veeky Forums really this ignorant of other boards?

t. /v/irgin

I knew this wasnt a brian wilson quote because it didnt sound like it was written by a 3 year old

that is pure speculation

dumbass he's the first president to reference art in his book title

Veeky Forums btfo

>he thinks Trump actually wrote Art Of The Deal

why not?

I'd disagree with Brian Wilson, but somehow he managed to survive Christmas despite /mu/'s best efforts. That took courage (and maybe quads?) and meme magic and luck. So I'm just going to say he's right, and then maybe roll to see if he dies on New Year's Eve?

no, video games are art

They certainly contain art, but as a whole they are nothing but children's toys made for a quick buck

You seem to be confusing the motive of creation with the quality of the product

While video games certainly have artistic elements in them, these are incidental to, but not inherent in, the game. In order for video games to be considered a distinct art form, the game mechanics would have to be responsible for conveying meaning and manipulating emotional responses, which I don't see them doing.

I think people want to think of video games as art in order to justify what they are doing and to lift video games onto a pedestal higher than what they are now.

But just because something is not art doesn't mean that it is dumb and I think trying to appreciate video games like art is the wrong way to go about it. Video games are most interesting when you look at them through the lens of physics, economics, game theory, etc.

what do you mean

>I think people want to think of video games as art in order to justify what they are doing and to lift video games onto a pedestal higher than what they are now
This always bugs me, although it's most annoying when people use the word 'literature'. At least 'art' has a fairly broad range of application.

>Are comics literature?
No, they're comics.
>What about this album?
No, it's an album. Stop being insecure, ya dips.

>faggot pop musician trying to suggest that books aren't art

Nothing much to see here. There's more artistry in a fucking organic chemistry textbook than his entire repertoire of "music"

>While video games certainly have artistic elements in them, these are incidental to, but not inherent in, the game
Why incidental?
>In order for video games to be considered a distinct art form, the game mechanics would have to be responsible for conveying meaning and manipulating emotional responses, which I don't see them doing
For example to get through games like Ikaruga, or any shmups you must get really good and work hard, as much as any hegel or kant will make you work. After all this struggle if you get to next level this act itself is full of meaning, and elicit emotional responces from the player. Also i think "gameplay" in itself may be considered art , as making high score or completing some highly technical game on hard difficulty

in order for a video game to work it has to be entertaining, art does not have to entertain.

like another user said, VG can contain elements of art but is not itself a piece of art, unless you're i includingshit like 'super mario clouds' by Arcangel or something

>as much as any hegel or kant will make you work
What does that have to do with it? Hegel and Kant's writings are obviously not art.

No lol. He's just a neurotic druggie who crafted a few catchy tunes.

Yes, actually. All of the best ones were (cf. Beethoven, Liszt, Schubert, Mahler; and Horowitz, Brendel, Fischer-Dieskau for a couple of very great and very literate modern performers). And if you want a pop musician, how about Jim Morrison? Sure his poetry isn't the best, but he at least had some appreciation for it.

>caring about digits on Veeky Forums
Don't be silly, user, it's ridiculously easy to game the system on this board. For example, check my dubs.

I see you're triggered

>I think people want to think of video games as art in order to justify what they are doing and to lift video games onto a pedestal higher than what they are now.
You are correct. This is why so many games nowadays are collections of "high art" clichés (as they are in the mind of the average gamer; which means melodrama and confusing "mindfuck" structures, apparently). There is a section of the video game world right now very desperately wanting to be seen as deep and artistic, ironically often missing the point of "high art" in doing so.

Oh goddammit. There must be an influx of Christmasposters.

Can you give an example of conveyance of meaning in art?
As for elicting an emotional response video games have surely done that in the medium. Look at a game like silent hill 2, many of the games mechanics are centered around the idea of manipulating the emotions of the player or subverting their expectations of a traditional horror game (atleast for the time). What medium of expression doesnt at some point manipulate the emotions of the participant

Isn't that what happens with most people who want their work to be regarded as high art though? True next level artists autistically commit to their own vision, and that is what fosters a great work. Not "look at me! Heyyyy, look at me! I'm artsy and amazing!"

>Why incidental?
Because the game mechanics and the artistic elements are not connected. Imagine you remade Citizen Kane, but in order to watch the next scene, you had to complete some puzzle or win a game of checkers against a computer. The game aspect and the artistic don't have anything to do with one another. So for me, how changing the game aspect works would need to also change the meaning of the piece.

>Also i think "gameplay" in itself may be considered art

I think the problem is now that art is defined too broadly and becomes meaningless. I work hard and get a feeling of satisfaction from raking my leaves, but I don't think the pile of leaves is art.

A better analogy is asking if sports are art. I think you can view some of the aspects around sports, like the stories of players throughout the season, as a type of found art or art through transformation. But changing the rules of football, say by having 3 downs instead of 4, doesn't have any kind of emotional impact or meaning.

>Can you give an example of conveyance of meaning in art?

We think of film as a distinct medium from novels or plays or paintings because each has its own distinct techniques. In movies you can do things manipulating with manipulating time and space that you can't do in plays or novels.

While video games can have emotional responses, these don't come from the game aspect, but the story aspect, and these two elements are not connected.

A similar question to ask is if sports are art. In order for sports to be considered art, I think you would have to show how changing the rules of the game, say letting goalkeepers use their hands outside the penalty box, would have an impact on any kind of meaning or emotional responses from the game.

dubs and everyone who posted in this thread(except for me) mom will die tonight

>nothing but children's toys made for a quick buck

the why are the majority of people who play them aged 16-25?

why do the developers spend literally MILLIONS of dollars to attempt to make the best game possible? a million-dollar investment in a single product isn't really a "quick buck"

it sounds like you don't really understand what video games even are

how come the mechanics have to convey the emotion for the game to be art? what's the basis for that? also there are games that do that btw

it sounds like you simply have a strict, old-fashioned view of what art is. how would you define art, exactly?

>in order for a video game to work it has to be entertaining

not true, many games seek to challenge players mechanically and intellectually

...

He literally made no point.

Is the opinion of one man who I've never heard of supposed to ruin the fun of reading good books?

>all these people replying as if this quote is real
You're all pretending to be stupid, right?

I'm not pretending to have no idea who this is. So ... I guess I'm not pretending to be ignorant.

>reading for fun

too bad there wasn't a norbit videogame

>brainlet 15

Look, I don’t agree with him, but I get the feeling this is taken out of context. Why would Brian Wilson bother recruiting Van Dyke Parks for lyrics if he doesn’t think literature has aesthetic value?

Brian Wilson survived an attempt at his life on Christmas day. Lurk /mu/ for details. I disagree with his premise in the above quote, but was having a piss about his recent run of luck.

lol. Damn Christmas Veeky Forumsposters.

So we should reject video games as art because we don't have the critical vocabulary by which to assess them? That strikes me more as a critical problem than an artistic or aesthetic one. Video games affect players on more levels than just the story. The visuals and sounds convey meanings. Heck, even certain structural pieces in the game play itself have merit.

Go and read or listen to Murakami discuss the decisions that he made in order to create Level 1-1 on Super Mario Bros. He designed the first screen to serve as an in-game tutorial in which players could learn almost everything that they would need to know about the entire game. That's art if you ask me.

LOL. Not Murakami: Miyamoto. So embarrassed.