/lit/ - Literature

>>17704467
I think there's an interesting duality between games and 'art'. One can be artful in the sense of high skill/tallent/etc at an activity, but this sense of the word is inherently different than the sense of 'this painting is art or 'this has artistic merit''. A game can be just as moving as art. We have all seen basketball fans go rabid during the play offs. But I still don't think it's 'art' in the sense that we are trying to describe it. For a long while I thought of art as something without a tangible use. As in anything that is a tool isn't art. How could it be if a tool is used for something and art is for art sake? Games are structured to have goals and actions within them, a test of skill or smarts or what have you. The aspects of games we see as 'artistic' seem to never be the gameplay itself, it's always the surrounding assets. The graphics, the writing, the visuals, etc. The aspects of a game, that when deconstructed, are each traditional notions of art themselves, e.g. music, sculpture, painting, etc. Like, Dark Souls is lauded as an artistic game, but this isn't because of it's controls or difficulty, it's because of the atmosphere the graphics and writing create. It's a simple postmodernist writing tool of spreading out bits of information that make the reader put things together themselves.

I'm not really sure what the conclusion to such an esoteric definitional quandary is, but I guess it's neat to think about.

>>16473335
Studying for the bar, but I'll try to knock out 1k words at some point in the next 6-8 hours.

What are you working on, anon?

>>14990481
I think within the construct of your defining it's complication you are probably right. But there are some stupid mtg cards out there.