Why do autists argue for this medium as an art-form?

There's nothing stopping a video game being art, but the vast majority of video games don't try to be art, they're focused on gameplay. Just like there's nothing stopping a board game from being a piece of art, but most of them aren't since that's not even what they're aiming for.

does not thinking about "art" ruin the experience? lol

Can't play, a mode of being, be artful? Cognitive art is more disconnected in my opinion

*fare
Have either of you read a book before or do you just get a kick out of mocking manchildren on the literature section of an anime imageboard?

Smart anons have spoken. Thread can be closed.

Enveloping elements of art doesn't make something art.

See

You don't sound very smart with all that urgency to define things. IS / IS NOT is not a good way to think about things.

Any medium can be home to art. Television is an art medium, despite many television shows not being art.

I saw a well-choreographed sex-scene in a porn once. Was that art?

>I don't want to include these NERDS in my art definition!!!! It would soil my patricianhood!! Movies are fine, but not games! nuh uh

Nobody with a half a brain in today's world is concerned with what art is or isn't. You should simply focus on what is worthy. Are games aesthetic experiences that don't provide any deep and valuable reflection? Well good, then they are poor artworks.

BLACKED is art.

...

By that logic a receipt from the gas station is poor art.

>is art
>is not art

Literature > visual art > music > video games > television and film

Hold up.

Your IQ must be below 70

Arrogance is essence of a noble mind. I'm purging impurities by calling "bad art" non-art.

Saying that counter strike is art, but just a low form of it is an insult

You're not providing any argument at all, retard. Every user in this thread has tried to give their opinion on videogames, except you. You're only able to babble things like "muh art not art is and isn't"

You might as well say that humans with IQs below 85 or 100 or 115 aren't really people. Or that criminals and degenerates aren't people.
Which I'd be hard pressed to argue with in some of those cases, but I doubt you'll take that stance.

>Arrogance is essence of a noble mind.

cringe

autism

*the essence.

>it is an insult
to whom, the art God?

The issue here is that playing games is like kissing a mirror: You like what you see, but there's not much depth, and kind of cold. It's a shaggy ghost story, an exercise in style, an activity made with a certain lazy contempt for whom its meant for. I've played a few, hoping to glean something of value. There is nothing to be gained. To think that it's somehow improving your(and thus the human) condition is to miss the point. What you see is all you get.

>I played a few shit video games
>That means all video games are shit

Most games have music, art (graphics), and story.

Any one of these things alone is commonly accepted as art.

But when you add interactivity (thus making a game), suddenly people like you come out of the woodwork and say it's not art.

I think what's happening is that you're trying to pull some wanna-be chad shit, because by discounting the art, you are also discounting the people, therefore placing your (arbitrarily) above them on the social totem pole.

Games have all the elements of art but when you add interactivity suddenly for some reason it stops becoming art. With the addition of graphics to graphics, sound and, story, why shouldn't it be art even more so than the sum of its parts?

As far as I understand what is art and what isn't, the only difference between art and non art is that art was put there to be viewed as art. The protagonist wants it to be seen as art and it therefore is art. If the protagonist never wanted it to be art, he wouldn't have put it in a frame, put it to show in a museum or a public place, he wouldn't categorize it as an artform. Otherwise the definition of art can be used for everything that was ever put to existence or happend in the entire universe. Ofcourse this is a modern take on the definition, because back in the time where you could dedicate your whole life to art (no gov schools/ mostly private schools[e.g.humanitarian]) you created the most marvelous things and only these were called art back then.

Because it's basically all art forms put into one thing. It provides the greatest potential and variability.

Neither are most games. "action" is just usually a simple part of the game to engage the player and move the game along anyway. There is little difference between killing enemies within the combat system, and solving some puzzles. They both function the same.

>art in 2018
get a load of this pseud

literature, visual art, music, television and film are all subsets of video games. just like mathematics is a subset of computer science.

...

Is this kino?

youtube.com/watch?v=HWr9ABQcS5s

>5 years ago he was just a normal guy
how, I honestly cant wrap my head around why you would just throw everything to the wind for ''pleasure''

So if gameplay distracts from a would-be videogames "art", what would add to it? Great music and a story? Graphics?

No! The gameplay itself is the art. Now if you said major game studios focus on bland, repetitive, and shitty gameplay I would agree wholeheartedly.

As an example: Breath of the Wild is artful. Horizon Zero Dawn is not. I can and will defend this conceit.

Similarly, Super Smash Brothers Melee for the Nintendo Gamecube is arguably the greatest piece of art to come from the last twenty years.

because art is a meaningless word

Oy vey.

That is pretty sad. They are trying to experience bad programming practices / hardware limitations.

Video games cannot be art by definition since they're GAMES. Football is not art. Soccer is not art. Chess is not art.
>but look at this beautiful soundtrack and model and writing and
I can also point you to a beautifully crafted, ornate chessboard. Chess still isn't art.

>I'm a pathethic manchild loser who still obsesses over videogames despite being in my late twenties and I'm not even a man enough to say "Yeah I have some childish hobbies, so what? Fuck off." so I need to waste my time trying to convince strangers on the internet that video games are art because maybe then people will stop thinking I'm a pathethic manchild loser for still playing video games

Go back to /soc/.

>pathetic manchild
>childish hobbies
>manchild loser
who hurt you user?

it's obviously (visual) art though

Are you /v/ or /r9k/? Oh well, not like there's a difference. Please do us all a favor and kill yourself.
Nothing I said was incorrect. There is not a single "games are art" person in the world whose parents are not ashamed of him.

Why should they be art? As far as I can see, vidya is doing better than art ever did, giving people the ability to explore new perspectives, making a difference on people's stories while also making absurds amount of bank.

>Why do autists argue for this medium as an art-form?
As Father Peterson explained in one of his videos about skateboarding, playing video games stimulates particular neurotransmitters. As you set micro goals and successfully accomplish them, you are rewarded with the same chemicals involved with the creation or appreciation of an aesthetic work.

Because it gives us something to do using all the otherwise pointless philosophical and artistic theory we've all been taught.

Run cs_tire in 1.x without players and tell me it doesn't make you feel for thousands of abandoned user generated virtual locations created for CS and other games.
— Evidence of someone's work to build the map around some story in readme.
— Exhausting long routes with little action.
— Generic textures and boring low resolution static lighting inside buildings.
— The title, Retirement Home.
— Map itself has an artifact from the years past, the inaccessible balcony behind the door that won't open.
— Unlike random users' creations, these halls were once crowded, as it was included in beta releases.

Is chess art?

Unironically read icycalm. That nigga knows what's up when it comes to vidya.

Bet you can't even tell me what can change the nature of a man

What does this have to do with books?

They're okay

Gratification is not tantamount to appreciation. Also
>Jordan Peterson
kys

Video games are fun but I wouldn't want to base my life around them

I get kind of an uneasy feeling playing them now, knowing that they are simulacrums of actual lived experiences

t. icycalm

>he doesn't understand that vidya is a medium like any other
I know this is a bait thread or maybe you're just a simpleton OP but individual works vary WIDELY in any medium. Just because Serious Sam is the equivalent of Hong Kong Phooey doesn't mean there isn't or cannot be a vidya equivalent of Nabokov or Borges. Step up your IQ game brainlet.

There is literally no argument you can come up with to refute this. Why is a video game not an art-form?

I take it you haven't actually PLAYED serious sam

>Neither are most games.

Yes they are you fucking idiot

Because pic related.

youtube.com/watch?v=I5AunfmI8bs

>Video games cannot be art by definition since they're GAMES. Football is not art. Soccer is not art. Chess is not art.
woah I mean I'd say smart play of sports/games could be considered art. Like those crazy chess setups that fuck people unexpectedly

>You might as well say that humans with IQs below 85 or 100 or 115 aren't really people
Not the guy you were responding to but I consider mentally handicapped people non-human. Killing them would fix a lot of things and help keep the population down which would be good.
I promise I'm not a utilitarian.