Classical Sculpting > Classical Music (even modern classical) > Classical Paintings > Classical Poetry > Classical Drama > Modern Music > Modern Paintings > Modern Sculpting > Modern Poetry > Modern Drama >> Modern Cinema >>>>> Television >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Video Games
Debate this art tier list.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
eurogamer.net
twitter.com
Video games are games and not art
agree with everything but vidya before modern television. Games are still fun af, while I don't watch any television whatsoever.
*some video games aren't art.
Well, they contain all elements of art, but all of them is done in very shitty way (in comparison to actual art).
I am talking about games as an art, not as games at this point.
Arbitrary and stupid.
There is no need to debate because we can agree that your list is shit.
nice arguments m8s
Just like your original argument, buddy.
My original argument wasn't an argument, it was just pointing a list, for you to attack it or defend it.
Oh, so then you are actually just shitposting. Procede I guess.
Maybe come back when you have some kind of coherent philosophy of aesthetics instead of words connected by mathematical operators.
Comparing different art forms to each other is just plain dumb.
And it isn't really fair to put "classical" pieces that have been quality time-tested for centuries next to everything modern. The best pieces of today will survive and be classical in a century, and then considered masterpieces.
Also, seeing how more humans are alive now than ever before it makes no sense to claim there should be less masterpieces from out era than the eras of the past. More people mean more geniuses (but also more amateurs). There's no reason whatsoever to claim the percentage of talented people should be lower in our times. There's just more shit to dig through because more people = more works of art = more amateur shit which hasn't been discarded yet with time.
>tl;dr This is moronic.
A tier list for fine arts seems pointless.
Art and beauty have no place in stasis.
No, the main purpose of a videogame is to be a game. Your shitty visuals and retarded plotlines are not art.
Why are they not art? What qualifies as art?
>Classical Sculpting/Paintings/Poetry/Drama
>500–300 BC
>Classical Music
>1750–1820 AD
Were the Greeks just shit at music?
==== The Real Tier List ===
Classical Painting (iconic even today)
Classical Music (still used everywhere)
Classical Drama (rehashed again and again)
Modern Cinema (movies have huge impact)
Video Games (huge part of cultural experience)
Modern Painting (many painters are known)
Classical Sculpting (david, venus and it's over)
Television (at least this shit is relevant one)
Modern Sculpting (can you name even one?)
Modern Poetry (interesting if you deep enough)
Classical Poetry (bunch of literally who, forgotten)
Modern Drama (who even goes to the theaters)
Architecture>>>>>Everything
/thread/
>huge part of cultural experience
>it's popular so it's good
opinion disregarded
That obviously is a question no one has an answer for, but video games in essence are done with the idea that they are games for children and young and not as art. It is a medium and you can express, political, philosophical and emotional shit through it, but that is not the main reason why you buy or play a game. If you want to do an interactive movie or whatever then it is an interactive movie, but that is not a video game in the same way that an interactive novel isn't a roll playing game.
>it's popular so it's good
If art can't move the hearts of people then it is shit. Lasting impact on culture is everything.
>Comparing different kinds of art.
If it has an impact on culture it doesn't mean it is art.
Some video games are marketed at adults and some are clearly meant to be art. If it is intent that qualifies art for you then saying "video games are never art" is obviously incorrect.
"Art" is relative
What is Antichamber considered?
Intent is the main qualifier? Does that mean films that were intended as education or propaganda, such Suss the Jew and Let There Be Light, can't have artistic merit?
What do you mean? Greece has a rich musical tradition.
...
I going by what OP decided counts as art. Impact is more important than skill or beauty. Both in the end meaningless without result.
Video games by definition and name are GAMES, which are not art.
Artistic merti could be found in anything humans have built.
>video games
>art
>everything classical is better
This is just sad. You're obviously basing your views on what makes you look more 'sophisticated' rather than what you actually appreciate the most.
Only a deluded idiot would deny that, regardless of what does or doesn't fall under the meaningless definition of 'art', the modern world is endlessly more creative than the pre-modern in almost every way. Film, animation, even video games and comics are among the most expressive and creative mediums ever devised. More great painters, sculptors and musicians are alive now than there were at any point in Greek or Roman history, most completely unknown. Classical arts never declined; they just aren't appreciated anymore because they're so common that they've lost all value. The only reason anyone cares about pre-modern art anymore is because it's old and exotic.
The only form of art that has truly declined is architecture.
Gondolas are the greatest art form.
Totally arbitrary. Why can't games be art? You're just asserting that with no justification.
Good art >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bad art
All the other distinctions are more or less meaningless.
Well because a game is usually done for joy itself with no intent to immortalize a human feeling. Even in an evolutionary perspective, games are much more primitive and appear as a form to avoid stress and form societal bonds.
You could argue about professional players in sports or video games itself, but that would amount more to work rather than art.
Though my main point is that many game developers have intentions to make games and art and besides some egocentrical assholes, most of them like to make a distinction. So the intent of the creator is still to make a game.
youtube.com
Not every game is Space Invaders and Quake.
Please get the fuck back to
Fuck, I read it in his voice.
That is barley a game and many didn't even call it that. I never said that you couldn't do an interactive movie or whatnot.
>Debate this art tier list.
It's shit.
>video games
Hey! My favorite artforms are chess, boxing, sprinting and football!
>are done with the idea that they are games for children
Objectively false. Do you think all hobbies outside of art are for children?
Not my point, though young people are the norm.
I can understand why Video games might be lower on the list, but that doesn't them terrible or irrelevant as art.
For every CoD, Angry Birds, or Ubisoft game, there are plenty of fantastic RPGs, Sims, Grand Strategy games, and even some FPSes.
I suppose what I'm trying to say is don't discard video games entirely, but rather look for the games that really have something to offer.
Pic related.
>dear esther
You're not giving games a very good name are you?
Video games have a broad appeal, but the largest consumer group is adults within the 20 - 35 range
> game is usually done for joy itself with no intent to immortalize a human feeling.
It is a very weak argument because it is relying on a speculation about nature of author intent.
This is why people tend to look down on video games, when the best examples of literary merit are still edgy genre fiction.
Personally I think games can be art in the same way stylish movies are. A game like Jet Set Radio has no themes it's trying to analyze or anything but as a total experience, the music, visuals, and most importantly how it actually feels to play. Can be considered 'art'.
Maybe not particularly high art but worthy nonetheless.
Define art.
Shallow and pedantic
Games generally don't have an author and are created collectively.
Now I understand that there's a difference whith video game but the experience is generated by the input of the player which gives free will to do as the author intended or fuck around.
Also eurogamer.net
This criticism of games as being tools merely used to ilicit joy could be said of folk music in the past or popular music today. You would be consistent if you said those aren't art but that's a radical, elitist definition. That quite frankly even most artists wouldn't agree with.
No, I part from the idea that a game is not art and it has a completely different prupose, development and even history.
They do generally have a lead designer in the same way a film has a director. Kojima's definition always struck me as especially narrow though, in particular because MGS is unmistakably his.
> experience is generated by the input of the player
How that is different from literature, for example? When you a reading a book you are free to read text against author intent, to construct your own understanding. In fact every medium give viewer some kind of freedom.
Are we talking about games in general or electronic games specifically? I would agree that kickball really isn't art but a video game differs in that it's a crafted experience made with the vision of a creative mind. In that sense it has an author who has an intended experience in mind. Not just communally agreed upon rules that developed over time.
That's some real mental gymnastics bruh. A book may have interpretations but you have no input freedom to change the actual course of the story.
> change the actual course of the story
You can read chapters in random order if you want to do that and of course you can't really change an ending of a game if it defined to be the certain way.
You don't have any real way to change the story of a game either.
The western art music tradition started with musical notation, which started to develop around the Renaissance. If a good musical notation system had been developed by the Greeks, then music would probably be more "advanced" today.
If you want me to be pedantic, most videogames would be puzzles by crawfords criteria which seems sensible enoguh and, only the multiplayer aspects are indeed a game. They may have a beautiful design, a remarkable soundtrack and emotional and heartbreaking plot, but those aspects are all complimentary to the main purpose of the puzzle/game whatever. In my books it stops being a video game when the gameplay isn't the main focus of the thing you are creating. It sounds pedantic but I consider that it is better to try and force shit into some elitist classification and understand why do we love games so much.
Well OK then, do that.
The story of a game is not THE game itself.
*better than to
There is nothing to debate unless you give a reason for each of your points.
Why don't you go write top 10 list or something?
So chess or go can't be art?
No, why would they be? They are beautiful games that require intellect and have some interesting philosophy behind it, but it's as far from art than any sport.
>They are beautiful games that require intellect and have some interesting philosophy behind it
>interesting philosophy
>chess
>life is a zero sum fight to the death
I was talking more about go, but you are retarded. Even angry birds has a philosophy behind it.
Damn right you were talking more about go.
That's not really true at all, plenty of games have been made to immortalize human feelings. Hell the entire horror genre hinges on it.
What?
>weeb detected
>weeb detected
>implying chess has a philosophy beyond muh kill or be killed
'Only a slave avenges himself at once; and only a coward never.' - Grettir's Saga 1325, Iceland
Behold the european mindset.
Metal Gear Solid 2 is a far more impressive piece of art than most genres have come up with in the past few decades. You ever wonder why a lot of art seems trash these days? You're looking in the same old tired places.
Kojima said videogames aren't art. Also mgs2 is a pretty popular game you fagget.
You forgot to put Baneposting at the top.
I agree with him here. People seems to throw whatever big names of the past they could remember because they are too afraid to made a personal choice or be too criticized. Basically pseudo intellectual trying to play safe with their opinions. Why are they afraid to be honest at the anonymous Armenian speed chess forum is beyond me.
> Kojima said videogames aren't art
Guy who sold his post on ebay said that his post was an art. :^)
Buyed probably by a redditor
Where do comics go?
ITT: Everyone argues without defining "art", at least subjectively. Also, who gives a fuck? Be it a video game or classical painting it doesnt fucking matter as long as you derive some pleasure or meaning from it. Art is for insufferable, pretentious edgy teenagers anyway.
B8
> defining "art"
Why would you do that if list is fucking here and you can just roll with it.
> defining "art"
Art is short from artificial experience, games today mostly are forced fun so they are art by definitions.
Arguments about what does or doesn't constitute art annoy me because they usually involve someone attempting to exclude a particular kind of creative endeavour from the definition based on some arbitrary categorical criteria.
Which would be fine if people didn't often assume that art is somehow automatically more valuable or profound than non-art, which obviously can't be true if the definition is based on shit like author intent and not actual quality.