/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12505890]

Is a man not entitled to the sweat of his brow? "No," says the man in Washington, "it belongs to the poor." "No," says the man in the Vatican, "it belongs to God." "No," says the man in Moscow, "it belongs to everyone." I rejected those answers; instead, I chose something different. I chose the impossible. I chose... Rapture. A city where the artist would not fear the censor; where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality; where the great would not be constrained by the small! And with the sweat of your brow, Rapture can become your city as well.

[Anonymous No.12505912]

Unironically a based game

[Anonymous No.12505925]

Playing Bioshock stoned is like I am watching a dream inside a dream.

[Anonymous No.12505999]

>>12505890
psssht... bioshock infinite was infinitely times better.

[Anonymous No.12506015]

>>12505890
>>12505912
>>12505925
>>12505999
I can't handle the edge...it's too sharp

[Anonymous No.12506019]

This isn't /v/. This isn't a book or high art. Stop trying to make /lit/ a new /tv/ board

[Anonymous No.12506020]

Woah, was bioshock Nietzsche-pilled?

[Anonymous No.12506061]

>>12506019
>high art
Ha

Hahhaha

Hahhahahhaahhahahahahahahhahahahah

[Anonymous No.12506072]

>>12505890

i do wonder if Ebert would have conceded anything to Bioshock. At the same time, if Bioshock is art, does that make the Willy Wonka themed slot machines also art?

[Anonymous No.12506082]

>>12505890
I'm halfway through the Bioshock book by John Shirley. You might want to start the thread about the book instead. This is /lit/ after all.

[Anonymous No.12506087]

>>12506020
It's a criticism of Nietzsche if anything

[Anonymous No.12506138]

>>12506072
life is an inherently creative process. every gesture is a manifestation to sculpt into being the gift of interaction/thoughtfulness

[Anonymous No.12506227]

>>12506015
>liking a video game is edgy
>>12505999
bioshock infinite was crap

[Anonymous No.12506234]

GAMERS

[Anonymous No.12506240]

RISE

[Anonymous No.12506242]

DICKS

[Anonymous No.12506243]

UP

[Anonymous No.12506300]

>>12506227
Wait, do you unironically call things edgy? Boomer cringe.

[Anonymous No.12506312]

>>12506138

interaction and thoughtfulness are about as compelling as maybe winning a $0.25 on a slot machine

[Anonymous No.12506319]

>>12506087
more like a criticism of ayn rand

[Anonymous No.12506335]

>>12506072
>>12506138

https://www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/video-games-can-never-be-art

[Anonymous No.12506340]

>>12506312
Yeah, while I've enjoyed video games, interactivity is an inherent barrier to artistry. It is the specificity of a film or song or poem or novel or painting or what have you that creates the art of it. The very elements which make the game a game are precisely what prevent it from being art.

[Anonymous No.12506356]

>>12505890
Great literature thread. Just, thought I would ask: have you even read a book in your life, that you weren't cajoled into reading? One that wasn't assigned by an instructor?

[Anonymous No.12506359]

>>12505999
Oh, but of course!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDFyHuQarg8

[Anonymous No.12506402]

>>12506061
Yes, exactly.

[Anonymous No.12506442]

>>12506312
>>12506340
but that film/song/poem/novel/painting needs your input to continue its motions. i hate video games btw but as long as they can be experienced they should be regarded as artistry. "nothing you can see that isn't shown"

[Anonymous No.12506466]

>>12506442
Craft and artistry aren't the same.

[Anonymous No.12506480]

>>12505890
How is the philosophy in this game? is it just attacking strawman libertarian/randian stuff?

[Anonymous No.12506499]

>>12506480
There isn't any. It's just the setting.

[Anonymous No.12506509]

>>12505890
It’s still fucking retarded to make an entire city on the bottom of the ocean. Completely ruins the immersion because I can’t get over how stupid of a setting it is

[Anonymous No.12506525]

>>12505890
SS1>SS2>BS2>BS1>video games>>>>>BSI

[Anonymous No.12506536]

>>12506509
10/10

[Anonymous No.12506646]

>>12506509
Is it, though?
The only real issue is building the dome.

[Anonymous No.12506713]

>>12506340
The interactive element, the gameplay, is the art. That's the point. Just by playing a game you can tell the difference between Kojima and Carmack. At it's core games are about movement and the challenges set up to move around. This makes the design of the movement and challenges an expression of intent by the designer. "What do I want the audience to take away from playing the game?" Is the same question as "What do I want the audience to take away from the painting?"
All art is interactive. All art is participatory.

[Anonymous No.12506716]

>>12506340

>interactivity is an inherent barrier to artistry. It is the specificity of a film or song or poem or novel or painting or what have you that creates the art of it

this is a highly retarded claim that is actually killing a young medium still in it's crib. there are instances of interactivity in other mediums. anybody that has been to a concert before has participated in a call and response with the musicians on stage. there are plenty of plays/theatre productions that rely on audience participation. the only people who say this shit are those people who can't play games in the first place, due to being bad at them. ebert would say that, because he was a decrepit old man with no jaw by the time he realized that he needed to play games

[Anonymous No.12506764]

>>12506713
You can't just say things and have them be true. Your ignorance of art and art history doesn't suddenly make the craftsmanship of video games suddenly more meaningful. Art is only interactive in the sense all things, from the perspective of a conscious being, can be called interactive in an almost metaphoric sense. Video games have an aesthetic component, like cars and chairs and literally all created objects. But that doesn't make them art. Art is pure aesthetic; it has no function outside its aesthetic value. Video games are games. Games are not art. The video component of video games does not make them any less of games. The closer video games come to art, the less they are games.

[Anonymous No.12506810]

>>12506716
That a concert includes a call and response or a play has audience participation doesn't make that act inherently artistic. It is not the setting which confers artistry. And, if you actually thought critically, you'd realize that these examples of "interaction" are illusory. The song is not changed, nor does it go somewhere else based on the audiences participation. The audience's role has no effect; it's purpose is only to draw attention to itself as a statement of meaning (in the most favorable interpretation.) It is not the same for a game. The player's interaction is the primary purpose. What you are calling the art of a video game is in reality just the frame of the game, which is just the decision matrix.

[Anonymous No.12506924]

>>12506810

>...doesn't make that act inherently artistic

its still art, whether or not it is good art or bad art, or a product to be sold is entirely up to different factors

>"interaction" are illusory. The song is not changed, nor does it go somewhere else based on the audiences participation. The audience's role has no effect....

this is just wrong, go outside

>What you are calling the art of a video game is in reality just the frame of the game, which is just the decision matrix

again, no. the art of the game is everything that it entails. the cutscenes, soundtrack, character models, landscapes. you can't have something be made up completely of things that are art and then have the final product not be art, sorry doesn't work like that. the interactivity of the game is actually irrelevant. if a single video game and a movie were indistinguishable, the movie would be art because you remain passive through it, while the video game version wouldn't be art because you have to press buttons to move it forward? it's a load of shit

[Anonymous No.12507067]

>>12506924

and to further add to this, art often has the function of transmitting historical, cultural, moral, religious, and even scientific knowledge to the one who consumes the art. so that argument that you made that art is inherently useless disgusts me even further

[Anonymous No.12507161]

>>12506810
>>12507067
>>12506924
you boyos need to understand there is no one consensus for the definition of art
learn about the differences between the "honorary", "classifactory", "institutional" etc definitions of art and move on, arguing about 'what is and isn't art' is fucking pedestrian

[Anonymous No.12507212]

>>12506764
By your definition of art films, fiction, and lyrical music are no longer art. All of these things have function outside their aesthetic value. Apparently you started and stopped with the Greeks. You also seem to have a personal definition of what higher value is, when higher value is not what makes art art. Art can be fucking garbage. It often is but that doesn't remove artistic intent. Art is not a classification of quality.

[Anonymous No.12507277]

>>12507161
>there is not consesus
As though consensus is what makes it true. What's the point of having an opinion except to discuss it with others? I should not have an opinion because someone might disagree? How rotten. What an insidious and vile belief. If anything can truly and universally be considered degenerate it is that consensus arrived at by fear. Whatever is true, that certainly cannot be.

[Anonymous No.12507329]

>>12507277
Im just saying there are some relatively canonized definitions that are well worth familiarizing yourself with before you try to invalidate other peoples definitions. You are both 'right', but you both seem a little close minded.

[Anonymous No.12507332]

>>12507212
I am not defining art by Quality (in the sense you mean, of value, or skill, or goodness, or rightness, or however else it can be specified). I'm defining art by certain qualities, mainly being its function and functioning. As part of this definition, art must, in its main function and out of its functioning, communicate directly about values or the ideal. As a corrollary, it cannot have any non-aesthetic function. For a video game to be art, it would have to cease being a game. The act of choosing offered to the player would need to cease being meaningful in and of itself, to cease being functional to any other end except the aesthetic of choice as some higher order communication about some kind of value or values or the ideal. But such a system of choosing could not be considered a game, since the value comes not in any particular decision tree, nor in the deciding, but rather in the abstract potentiality as an object itself. To play a video game as art would be to witness oneself playing the game as though the playing were itself a play composed by someone else. As soon as one engaged a video game in this manner, the game element would be destroyed. Video games are not art.

[Anonymous No.12507338]

>>12507329
And I'm saying you should nut up and actually pick a stance. Your pic related is stupid. Both people might be wrong, but to the extent they disagree, they cannot both be right. While context can change meaning, interpretations can still be wrong.

[Anonymous No.12507368]

>>12507161
>>12507329

will do

[Anonymous No.12507441]

>>12507332
In this context how would you define aesthetic?

[Anonymous No.12507468]

>>12507338
Ok heres my stance, its pretty boring though:

Art = anything posited as "art" 'made' by someone who considers them self an "artist"

Where that "art" is exhibited / received determines whether it is "fine art" (think galleries, paintings, tracey emins bed etc).

Doesn't mean the work is any good, or will be taken seriously though

This definition is necessarily somewhat circular, its a good one to accept in order to move onto more interesting types of discussion around how good art functions

The honorary definition of art = "wow that cake is a real work of art!" or "graphic novels are so complex they are art", this is fine for casual use but beware of conflating what art 'is' and would you think art 'should' be if you want to be taken seriously

[Anonymous No.12507484]

>>12507468
>This definition is necessarily somewhat circular, and necessarily reductive***

[Anonymous No.12507503]

>>12507329
it's clearly a fucking o with a squiggly coming out of it from the right. fucking retards.

[Anonymous No.12507508]

>>12507441
Unfortunately, I mean it in the now very difficult to define sense as used in general descriptions of philosophic areas, in which it once means questions or arguments related to beauty, but now, with a general disbelief in beauty has now been broadened to mean form or structure or shape or relationship in itself and not considering any particular or useful end. So, to try and clarify, the way in which DeKooning, or Warhol, or Venturi can be said to be making aesthetic statements, without necessarily making arguments for or about Beauty, at least as it's classically/traditionally understood.

[Anonymous No.12507510]

>>12507468
Arguing about what defines "Art" in the 21st century is about as interesting as arguing about what defines "Literature". There are much more interesting discussions around art you can get into!

[Anonymous No.12507513]

>>12505890
I didn't like 1 and 2 (I didn't even finish it) yet I really enjoyed Infinite.

[Anonymous No.12507517]

>>12507468
So then, according to this, cave paintings are not art, indigenous works are not art, some video games are art, but others are not, etc. Is that really the definition you want to put forward? It seems strange to go with a relative definition that ignores both interpretation and context.

[Anonymous No.12507525]

>>12506509
>>12506646
How could they build a city underwater with 1940s/1950s tech?

[Anonymous No.12507528]

>>12507329
lol retards it's a တ

[Anonymous No.12507533]

>>12507508
I haven't read much about art and aesthetics before and you bring up some very interesting points. Can you recommend me some books that you've read on the subject?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !mxvabIoSIE No.12507542]

>>12507528
It's a padlock

[Anonymous No.12507552]

>>12506319
Rand was a devout Nietzschean

[Anonymous No.12507554]

>>12507528
>>12507503
shit i spent too long looking for that unicode

[Anonymous No.12507561]

>>12507517
Good point

My definition mainly applies to 20th, 21st century creatives

Defining the older shit gets more complicated, but its still not a particular interesting discussion

[Anonymous No.12507565]

>>12505999
Bioshock Infinite was great until the end when you realize they had no clue what they were talking about.

It seemed like they were building up to some crazy transcendental Four Quartets + General Relativity shit but it ended up just being DUDE MULTIVERSES LMAO.

[Anonymous No.12507581]

>>12507561
Also because "art" meant different things in different cultures, and that meaning changed for them over time, its somewhat pointless trying to come up with a blanket definition for everything

[Anonymous No.12507596]

>>12507533
Not really. As an artist, I get most of it simply by looking at and thinking about art, and by my conversations with other artists, especially when I disagree. But, it is good to read even small writings from influential figures like Duchamp, Dali, Picasso, etc. Reading Art History is useful. Essentially, look at art and try and find the most forgiving position for it, then keep turning it over until you see what you agree with and what you disagree with. The only full books I've read about art from a criticism stand point are Sculpting in Time by Tarkovsky, Crisis of the Real by Andy Grundberg, and What is Cinema Vol 1 by Andre Bazin.

[Anonymous No.12507605]

>>12507561
I disagree with that last part. I think this is hardly anything more interesting than trying to understand what exactly ancient art is and why it was made. To fully understand and see the ancient relationship to what we would now call art would be world changing.

[Anonymous No.12507607]

>>12507596
post your work if you want critique