Is this literary Veeky Forums: The Game?

games may not be Veeky Forums, but there are many games that are related to literature, or offers a narrative experience comparable to reading book.

I would say that. Some paintings are art. Probably most. But just because you've slapped paint on a canvas doesn't mean you've created art.

>What about, text based games? They surely have the potential.
>Competition is the backbone of all video games

I don't see how your two statments are reconcilable with one another. But I'll help you out by letting you know that single player video game exist and they are not competitive because there is nothing for you to complete against.

>riddleshit
>Veeky Forums

Forgot to quote this guy. Whoops. I guess.

>single player video game exist and they are not competitive because there is nothing for you to complete against.
You compete against the AI, against the environmental hazards, against the puzzles, and everything. The main purpose of video game is to create competition, and you can't change that fact.

Marcel Duchamp:

“The chess pieces are the block alphabet which shapes thoughts; and these thoughts, although making a visual design on the chess-board, express their beauty abstractly, like a poem. … I have come to the personal conclusion that while all artists are not chess players, all chess players are artists”

The Beginner's Guide is the most aesthetically advanced 'game' by a large margin. Its multi-layered narrative is easy to miss, because of the narrator's overwhelming precedence. It shows the potential of mechanics as metaphor.

presence*

>Marcel Duchamp
The unironically trash """""artist"""""? Even Andy Warhol has more artistic talent than him.

>express their beauty abstractly, like a poem
Except poems use poetic logic, unlike chess and it's systematic logic. The abstraction of poems might seem like an unstructured, incoherent mess scientifically, but from an aesthetic standpoint they're astounding. An art must sacrifice such systematic, symbolic thinking (which can be seen as barriers) in order to convey an indefinite meaning. This indefinite meaning is what distinguish art from other medium.

single-point perspective confirmed not a system by this genius art historian

Duchamp was playing chess after he retired from the art world.

slapping paint on a canvas doesn't mean you've created a painting.

No. The Beginners Guide is pretentious trash. Stanley Parable is better by far. Of course both of these are walking simulators which play up the importance of narrative over the other strengths of the artistic medium.

Consider The Elder Scrolls games. Not Oblivion. These are exersices in world building and the world, once built is fully open for the player to navigate and explore.

Or Dwarf Fortress. While it presents narrative elements, it creates a kind of ordered chaos onto which the player can impose and derive meaning.

>Art can't be a form of competition

citation needed

Barriers will always exist, a certain magnitude of symbols and systems are inevitably required in order to create or consume anything, but a great artist will try their best to avoid the barriers and convey their purest artistic spirit.

what nonsense. the frame has been the defining feature of art since before the renaissance and 'artistic spirit' is the most outdated of all ahistorical memes

Art is the most complicated and controversial subject in all of philosophy. However, I find Tarkovsky's books to have the best definition of art, so most of my ideas of the meaning of art is based on his views.

>Basing all your views on that one guy.
user is a hack.

Explain me about the frame.

>'artistic spirit' is the most outdated of all ahistorical memes
So what is it that art conveys? Catharsis?

>I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream

>all
Most, can't you read.

>hack
Of course my ideas can be flawed, so please tell me your idea of what is art.

the frame is the non-area of contention between the work of art and the real world. it can be the frame of a window or the extent of an abstract form, but in either case the art works with this barrier rather than tries to work outside it. only in more contemporary times has art tried to move beyond the frame, but this doesn't make the art more successful if in the past art had systems designed specifically around working within it.

i don't think portraits, still lives, etc. are all particularly cathartic but they are art none the less. from the renaissance until the academies, art was a business. in the academies, artistic beauty was a learned skill.

King of Dragon Pass

awww fuk yeah

I have said that not all the barriers can't be avoided, art still needs to work within barriers such as language and structures, but a good artist will try to remove all the unnecessary barriers without reducing much of the comprehensiveness. For example, in a story, a rigid plot can be a form of barrier of art that is avoided.

do you have an example because i can't tell what you mean by the qualifiers 'good' artists and 'unnecessary' barriers

I have some examples.
>Convoluted story that requires of the audience to keep up with the rigid plot and applaud the "brilliance" of the story instead of fully immersing in the aesthetic values of the work.
>Music in a film that plays at it's own pace, it's own sounds, and it's own tune instead of being an organic, natural part of the audiovisual narrative.
>Poetry that tries too hard to create a detailed, definite image instead of conveying beauty.

i mean actual examples of good artists and the unnecessary barriers they got rid of in the art, because it seems like you don't think there are a lot of good artists

or that the artists seen as good fulfill these requirements (i'm arguing against this position specifically)

Stanley Parable did nothing exceptionally interesting unlike TBG (which maybe be pretentious, but that's not important).
The Elder Scrolls games may have worlds built to explore, but the writing is still bad, and writing still matters.
Dwarf Fortress is interesting, but not focused enough. The Long Dark's sandbox mode is a better 'meaning in a box' type deal.

Why do you like TBG? It's just a walking simulator in which a man tells you that he stole his friends ideas without his consent. A fact which I think was supposed to be a big reveal but which I was onto by about the 3rd area. I also think it was an idea very poorly implimented because while we were supposed to be exploring this mans 'games' that he created for fun what we got for the most part were small enclosed non-interactive areas.

Of course my first choice would be Andrei and Arseny Tarkovsky. They may not be able to remove the barriers of language completely, no one ever does, but they were able to create a powerful artistic image by avoiding the systematic rigidness of writing and film editing.

As for visual artforms, I will give an example. Mona Lisa contains an indefinite meaning in her smile and facial expression, so powerful that people tries to find the symbols and deconstruct this immensely simple panting. Of course they failed to do it.

Yes, I feel that there aren't a lot of good artists. Even most of the literary masterpiece writers don't have a lot of artistic sensibility in my opinion. I respect poetry more than novels, epics, and such. I like the selfless, unpretentious, and short zen haiku, and the minimalist approach of Cormac McCarthy in his novels like The Road.

>The Elder Scrolls games may have worlds built to explore, but the writing is still bad, and writing still matters.
Bad writing doesn't hinder anything from technically being a literature. Also, video games especially open ended games like elder scrolls are designed for exploration. Massive, interesting stuff is more valuable than well written stuff.

The shit that Kojima wrote though, now that is unforgivable.

I like it, because it casts the idea of immersion away, while not really being 'meta' in the sense of Stanley Parable, Borderlands, Deadpool, thouse types of games, while very clearly setting a precedent for mechanics as metaphor (floating out of the space station, and the walking backwards game). That's where most people dismiss it as pretentious, but I disagree. That allows every little effect and design choice to be scrutinized in a way that allows meaning to sort of generate out of the environment.
For example: I am enamored with the level "The Great and Lovely Descent", because of its design forshdowing the emotional narrative so clearly, while the descent having its own meaning in and of itself (you are presented as a Christ-like figure to the green-box headed people).
Things like that are everywhere in the work and are often fairly subtle. Another example of this is how considering Davey planted the lampposts (which is a great metaphor that I could talk about to) that means that he is assuming the ending of each level, but you can see where he fails at this task on the level with the stage, because once you get to the lamp, nothing happens. Instead you have to proceed father down the hallway to bring about the end of the level. This shows Davey's Ineptitude at uncerstanding the narratives at work in Coda's level.

I understand why people call it pretentious, but at least acknowledge how meticulous and focus the work is.
Sorry for inevitable typos here

is this literally Veeky Forums: the clothing brand?

ro3clothing.com

i think the problem is this:
>This indefinite meaning is what distinguish art from other medium.

you'd have to do a huge revision of art history in order to redefine art along the terms of what gives indefinite and definite meaning, and why indefinite meaning makes something art rather than definite.

or at least why a 'powerful artistic image' is exlusive to indefinite meaning.

i used to think offhand that art relied on being enigmatic when i first started thinking about it but the more i learned about art history the more i realised this was an inadequate way of conceptualising what art is. it's ahistorical and not a very consistent way of analysing art, when you're trying to define it by how well it is indefinite.

i can't make sense of what you mean by barriers or systems, or what makes some necessary and others not, if it is at all consistently applied. or how a static image doesn't escape the barriers of language, whatever language means (conventional representation? human speech?)

what makes duchamp's fountain definite and bad art? is it a case of "you just know what art is because it affects you powerfully"? how is that reliable? how does that just not depend entirely on the viewer and his/her expectations rather than the work itself?

>you'd have to do a huge revision of art history in order to redefine art along the terms of what gives indefinite and definite meaning, and why indefinite meaning makes something art rather than definite.
I am not a philosopher or a historian, but what I understand from the definity of art form is this. "The blood symbolizes the depression of the artist", "this fortissimo piece symbolizes the bravery of german people", "this rain symbolizes sadness", such representation by symbolization gives something a definite meaning, a finite imagery. It's gives the art form a certain systematic communication.

Indefinite meaning is like what nature means to us. Color of the leaves don't mean anything beyond the biological functions of the plant, rain doesn't mean anything beyond the clouds turning into water, the river flowing doesn't mean anything beyond the topography of the grounds, darkness is just the lack of light source, yet they give us a certain emotional feeling undictated by symbolism. We sometimes create symbols for ourselves from those natural occurrences, a symbol only us understands, and the symbols are limitless.

And why does it make something art? In my opinion, it's because indefinite meaning lacks intellectual interpretation. We interpret them from our own catharsis, our pure intuition. We don't need to be dictated by the creator to experience the intuition. It is a state of mind in work rather than systematical thinking. I think this is the only thing that can differ art from other embodiment of creativity.

Why does it make a powerful artistic image? I really don't know. I think it's powerful because we can't deconstruct it. We are moved, yet we don't have the capability to logically interpret it. It's like faith, a belief in something without scientific basis that can make someone invincible. It's just a deep declaration of love.

>i used to think offhand that art relied on being enigmatic when i first started thinking about it but the more i learned about art history the more i realised this was an inadequate way of conceptualising what art is. it's ahistorical and not a very consistent way of analysing art, when you're trying to define it by how well it is indefinite.
There is no consistent way of defining and conceptualizing art. Enigma is more like it, maybe an emotionally moving enigma.

>i can't make sense of what you mean by barriers or systems, or what makes some necessary and others not, if it is at all consistently applied
In order to make your creation comprehensible to the audience, we must resort to a certain common knowledge, postulate, that most of the audience understand. It's like a white man trying to understand a poem made by a chinaman. All forms of communications will be off when you don't include the necessary barriers such as language, even though this barrier might hinder your aesthetic values.

>whatever language means
What people speak, read, their culture, anything that is used to communicate.

>what makes duchamp's fountain definite and bad art? is it a case of "you just know what art is because it affects you powerfully"? how is that reliable? how does that just not depend entirely on the viewer and his/her expectations rather than the work itself?
A good art, like any other creations, requires a sacrifice from the artist. A sacrifice in attempt of creation and selflessness. There is no sacrifice in Fountain, all Duchamp did was putting garbage on a stick. The meaning of the art is quite trashy and definite too. "Art is something you piss on" is neither indefinite or aesthetically pleasing. We're not supposed to push our intrinsic value down other people's throat. We're supposed to give something that is valuable for us and for the audience, a charity of intuition. So, selfishness can be a barrier and selflessness gives an art a huge value.

And yes, like faith, it depends on the viewer, but we all share a common ground for what is aesthetically pleasing and not pleasing.

Video games is not art, its escapism. Same with movies. Literature in other hand is a life

lazy thinking

>Veeky Forums the videogamesman.

your model disqualifies so much of what is already established as art. and some works suddenly become art because we lost all the information regarding them and we can't make sense of the works from what we have. the mona lisa becomes more than just a standard renaissance portrait with the skillful application of sfumato because the information doesn't survive. but the information we haven't lost makes art intellectual and if an iconographical analysis can be applied then it's no longer art. religious art and history painting are no longer art because the meaning is definite. those who are trained in reading art and look at it logically are now art-killers. art is only experienced by the individual and is not embodied in a work; the work only prompts a response.

art in this case basically doesn't exist.

>All forms of communications will be off when you don't include the necessary barriers such as language

but what is unnecessary to you may be necessary to another

>A sacrifice in attempt of creation and selflessness.

why? perhaps his reputation is sacrificed?

>meaning of the art is quite trashy and definite too. "Art is something you piss on" is neither indefinite or aesthetically pleasing.

are you sure about that? not even the title is definite

> but we all share a common ground for what is aesthetically pleasing and not pleasing.

dubious

>the mona lisa becomes more than just a standard renaissance portrait with the skillful application of sfumato because the information doesn't survive
Isn't everything a skillful application of something, including art?

>religious art and history painting are no longer art because the meaning is definite
I'm sure they aren't building blueprints.

>those who are trained in reading art and look at it logically are now art-killers.
Only when they try too hard to deconstruct the meaning of the art piece.

>art in this case basically doesn't exist.
I don't disqualify works of art of being not art. I don't even disqualify Duchamp of being not an artist. This is not some kind of idealist qualification method or an academic philosophy. Art itself isn't something of a definite quality and form. This is like saying that everyone on earth goes to hell because everyone has a sin. Art in this case doesn't exist just like a sinless man doesn't exist. Just like christian salvation, art is a mystery and it should be treated as such. I'm just trying to find the difference between art, entertainment, and scientific works. The catharsis we get from art and the catharsis the artist tries to deliver, the intuition, those define the meaning of art.

>but what is unnecessary to you may be necessary to another
Maybe. I don't know. That's why artists should resort to natural objects such as trees, plants, and such, rather than artificial ones. We're all familiar to and fascinated by nature.

>perhaps his reputation is sacrificed?
I'm not talking about such sacrifice, even though that sacrifice may be valid for art. I'm talking about passion and conviction to your creation. Giving everything you can give for your art piece. Effort, thought, emotion, craftsmanship, like parents to their child.

>are you sure about that?
Tarkovsky never explained the meaning of rain, dogs, horses, and such in his films. That's because they have an indefinite meaning, free of symbols. The rain doesn't mean anything beyond it rains a lot in Russia, yet the rain sequences are emotionally moving. Look at the meaning of indefinite itself, it means vague, can't be defined. There is nothing vague about pissing on art.

>dubious
There might be people who say that flowers are ugly, but they're just a minority or contrarians.

>video games

There's a containment thread for manchildren.

>implying hylics isnt the greatest artistic work of our time
literally an embryo tbqh

I would argue that DF, or at least what DF will be when it's done, is the ultimate expression of a videogame as art. It has literally infinite narrative potential, and the complex interplay of mechanics only half understood by their own creator ensures that just about any story can emerge from the game. Hell, even the bugs create stories. Someone wrote up a short story about a fort he'd made centered around a gigantic open shaft with a single artifact spear standing upright at the bottom. Dwarves were cast down the shaft and for those not splattered into a gorey mess on impact or impaled on the spike, the act of survival was blessed by the gods and the dwarf in question granted ludicrous combat abilities. This was a bug, but a story could be weaved around it. DF isn't just a game, it's a window into a slightly less detailed alternate world; it's not a slice of life, it's an entire world consisting of thousands upon thousands of lives, any one of which the player can peek in on and take a slice out of. And that's only a single instance. Infinitely many such instances can be generated at will; an infinity of life, of story, of experience, of narrative.

>Isn't everything a skillful application of something, including art?

not everything is the skillful application of sfumato

>I'm sure they aren't building blueprints.

there are blueprints to creating art

>Only when they try too hard to deconstruct the meaning of the art piece.

who? this is made up

>I don't disqualify works of art of being not art.

by your metric yes you do. if something is not indefinite it is not art. you said this

>I'm talking about passion and conviction to your creation

nonsense

> There is nothing vague about pissing on art.

assuming that is the meaning

>There might be people who say that flowers are ugly

aesthetics are not common or universal

>not everything is the skillful application of sfumato
No, I'm saying that everything needs a skill and framework to make. Including art.

>there are blueprints to creating art
Weren't I clear enough? You were saying that iconography aren't art due to their symbolism, I was saying that they surely aren't building blueprints either. Blueprint isn't the focus here. The focus is they weren't made for technical purposes.

And regarding iconography, they were purposefully made to be "read" as a replacement of written prose. They're designated religious propaganda, the artists didn't intend to create "pure" art. The catharsis for those who see it without understanding the underlying meaning was still intended by the artist however. That's why they're still aesthetically pleasing to look at without searching for a deeper meaning.

>who?
Those who try to decipher art piece like it's a kind of war message communicated in secret codes. Like those who try to unveil the secret connection between Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut and globalist bankers or some shit. There is nothing artistic about that kind of analysis, even though maybe they're right. Kubrick is overrated anyway.

>if something is not indefinite it is not art.
I have said from the beginning that barriers will always exist, I'm not here to disqualify something from being an art (except maybe the game part of video games, that are purposefully not art). All art pieces are definite and indefinite to a certain degree. Pure art doesn't exist, it can't exist. Only nature has a universal appeal, and I'm not even entirely sure about that.

>nonsense
One of the most important factors in a product's quality is nonsense?

>assuming that is the meaning
I assume that the meaning doesn't stray far from it. Maybe you're right, it is vague, but there's still no sign of commitment and selflessness from the artist, so it's still a bad art or anti-art.

>aesthetics are not common or universal
Something you need to understand, there is no objective truth in art. Every person perceives something differently, this is where the need of indefinite meaning comes from. All the artist can do is just hoping that the aesthetic values they convey will also be valuable for the audience, not just for them.