/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19740622]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvKEKD3eo2Y
>thread on videogames with literary merit gets yeeted when the Bataille inspired game gets posted
/lit/ is immanently a Bataille board.

On videogames:
This is a concept I arrived at when reading Homo Ludens: A Study of the Play-Element in Culture by Dutch anthropologist Johan Huizinga. It will seem self evident, but I find it practical in debates about the nature of art.
Games are games. Games are not art.
Take the example of Chess. Chess is other than the chessboard and pieces.
Chess is non-objective and exists in the players: it is something like a non-objective set of rules with chaotic potential (that is not to say that Chess is something like an ideal form).
This is why a Chess Genius can play a game of chess with himself.
That games are non-objective is true of all games: even games that seem objective, like videogames.
A videogame console, game cartridge, tv, controllers, the images on screen, the programming which governs the interaction between the player and the images: those are all like the chessboard and chess pieces, but the "game" itself is the non-objective set of rules with chaotic potential that exists within the player. The Legend of Zelda is your experience with Zelda, not the objects which facilitate it.
This is why games will never be art.
A chessboard and its pieces can be beautiful ornate pieces of artistry.
You can put them in a museum and call them art: but they are not chess.
So it is with the most beautiful games: if you can play them it is because they are non-objective and full of potential. If it is non-objective, it cannot be experienced objectively. How can we call "art" what is not experienced objectively?

[Anonymous No.19740624]

If we establish Art and Games as separate, we can extrapolate this into a definition of art.
Follow me here: what we call "art" (as opposed to "the arts") is the objective results of mans artistry.
A painting is "art". Music: the work of the musician against the instrument, the strings against his fingers, the notes and their composition, the vibrations in the air creating waves which are detected by the ear: is objective, and art. The work of the sculptor is art. Arts may produce non-objective experiences within a man, but it is the object, laden with the intent of the artists, that produces those experiences: the non-objective experiences are not the art itself.

What is not art? Nature, as it was not fashioned by the hands of man. That which is non-objective: like mathematics, which can be beautiful, and whose principles can be used in the creation of art, but as mathematics are beyond objectivity they are not art.
Perhaps a banana taped to a wall is art? Maybe a Jackson Pollock painting?
When we define art as existing in objectivity, yes: those things are art, but in doing so, we may measure them with "the arts", the non-objective disciplines which can be applied to the objective world (such as writing, philosophy, the art of love, and so on).
A banana taped to a wall is the art of a fool: there may be a proper time in which a banana taped to a wall might be the perfect punchline to a joke, but otherwise, there is so little artistry involved that foolishness like that is not worth calling art.
A Jackson Pollock painting is perhaps slightly more complex: it is the work of a con-man. The ability to part fools with their monies over minimal efforts is one of the arts.

When we define art as something like "the objective results of man's application of the arts in the world", we can place art in a spectrum of "bad" to "good"

[Anonymous No.19741465]

>>19740622
Don't care, kill yourself

[Anonymous No.19741494]

>>19741465

[Anonymous No.19742265]

>>19741465
i hate shitposters, they ruined this fucking board

[Anonymous No.19742302]

>>19740622
This is dumb as fuck. There's a craft to rendering a game in code as there is a craft in rendering a painting. There's no reason to believe paintings are art either - "no, they're paintings". And this from an anthropologist who should understand the different economies of significance between cultures! Leave the art discussion to the art historians bozo

[Anonymous No.19742655]

>>19742302
You are incorrect.
Given the state of the arts and culture, there are obviously many like you who are also incorrect.

[Anonymous No.19742678]

>>19742655
Addendum: if art is something like the objective result man’s artistry in the world, a painting is obviously art, but there are other obvious qualifiers. Perhaps the definition excludes things that are not meant to be enjoyed as art: programming is meant to be used, therefore it is other than art. Architecture is meant to be inhabited, therefore it is not art.
It is not only its objectivity and being the result of human artistry that makes something art: its purpose must be that of art, which is probably, as I alluded to, to induce non-objective experience in the beholder.

[Anonymous No.19742712]

>>19740622
How dare you mention you mention your tyronic and autistic inbred "logic" in the same breath as Bataille. Please just leave and go get some air.

[Anonymous No.19742724]

>>19740622
>>19740624
cool word salad. saying games are not art because chess is not art is not even retarded, it's incoherent, you are schizophrenic and need meds. just like fiction some games are merely entertainment. chess or arcade games or online competitive shooters are difficult for difficulty's sake and that's entertaining and feels like an achievement to work at. not art though.

i cant imagine what its like for women that sleep with a guy and then find out he writes senseless masturbatory bullshit like this
>is objective, and art. The work of the sculptor is art. Arts may produce non-objective experiences within a man, but it is the object, laden with the intent of the artists, that produces those experiences: the non-objective experiences are not the art itself.

[Anonymous No.19742774]

>>19742712
>Please just leave and go get some air.
No, I’m experimenting in oxygen deprivation.

>>19742724
You sure are mad that games will never be art.
Journey is one of my favorite games, it’s a beautiful experience, but exactly because it’s meant to be played is what separates it from art.
The experience associated with Journey is also what people refer to when they refer to it: to call it art objectifies it and suggests its value exists outside of being played, and obviously it must be played to be enjoyed. Art on the other hand is enjoyed passively.

You will all seethe, but you know I’m right.

[Anonymous No.19742787]

>>19740622
I refuse to believe that this book is real.

[Anonymous No.19742798]

>>19742787
It’s a very cute and sensitive read.

[Anonymous No.19742922]

>>19740622
This theory falls apart when you realize most video games aren't actually games in the strict sense of the word. They're software that simulates games, there's a big difference. The software object is the art, the game itself is an afterthought in most cases. If you don't believe me, think about how many video games share the exact same set of rules (FPS, RPG, Platformer, etc.) - the thing that actually makes up the game itself. In addition many of them can only be played against simulated opponents, entirely removing the actual element of play. Aside from fighting games and a few other niche competitive genres, the developers of video games care more about the simulation than the game being simulated. Some have even given up on simulating games and started simulating movies and theatre instead.

[Anonymous No.19743062]

>>19742922
You suggest simulated opponents somehow removes the element of play, but Solitare is played with cards, against oneself: or maybe against the rules of Solitare and chance. I'm sure there are other examples, let's say Chess again since one plays chess problems, or Tetris is even better, and it's silly to me to suggest that play requires more than one player: again, from Homo Ludens, observe the case of a child at the ritual of play: no more than he is necessary.
I think what I am getting at, that you seem to have trouble with, is that a videogame only exists if played. Obviously the objects that produce the game exist, but the "game" necessitates play to exist, and it is that non-object that we refer to when we are talking about games. You cannot experience The Legend of Zelda without playing it, and there is potential and ultimately success and fail states that are determined by one's play. Videogames also allow for the development of skilled play: so you have speedrunning, or expert Devil May Cry players doing minimal damage runs, or Halo 2 montages devoted to skillful play. The Halo 2 montage is art, sure, but Halo 2 itself is the game which is played to produce it.
No, you are incorrect, but thanks for effortposting instead of just crying like the rest (^:

have something for your efforts
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tnztj1UlkQs

[Anonymous No.19743127]

>>19740622
My main confusion is where the line is drawn. You claim that because video games can't be experienced 'objectively' then they can't be art. At the same time, anyone can look at a painting, movie, music, or book and extract their own interpretation. The creator of the work might have their own things in mind, but the same would apply to games too. The developer expects you to jump over a pit, to use this weapon in this way, etc. etc. So is the difference the fact that someone is in direct control of the art, rather than just an interpreter? I'm not sure how this means they can't be art though. Video games are created for entertainment and have visual art, musical art, and more within them. The same goes for non-video games too. Where is the line supposed to be drawn?

[Anonymous No.19743178]

>>19743127
Art is experienced passively: film, books, music, paintings, and all the things that we call "art" exist as objects. By my same reasons, architecture, while beautiful and the result of the application of arts, is not art, because it is meant to be inhabited.
>So is the difference the fact that someone is in direct control of the art, rather than just an interpreter?
Yes, exactly, and because of this, you'll notice that in conversation when we refer to a "game", like, say, Super Metroid, we're not referring to the cartridge, the console, the controller, and the images on the screen. Just like how chess exists separate from the chessboard as a non-objective set of rules, videogames exist outside of physicality as non-objective experiences, waiting to happen.
Dungeons and Dragons is not the rulebook, the pieces, the die, and so on: it's what happens when people sit down to play it.

Games can be beautiful, and the artistry in games sometimes deserves to be celebrated, but we naturally treat them as something other than art, because they are other than art.

[Anonymous No.19743186]

>>19742798
I just hate the way he sells himself. A sly, pretentious little fucker.

[Anonymous No.19743287]

>>19743186
I suppose nothing appeals to everybody, but isn't disliking him for perceived sly-nes or pretentiousness petty resentment?
No matter how you spin it, he is quite creative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcuFJXgU6cA

[Anonymous No.19743515]

>>19743287
That's mostly me raging because of how Snake was implemented in Super Smash Bros. God, I hate Snake mains so much.

[Anonymous No.19743661]

>>19743515
I suppose I find it easy to love a man who became world famous for his videogames where the protagonist's name is an erection joke.

[Anonymous No.19743672]

The problem is this is only one conception among endless conceptions. And it seems of little intellectual interest, so why? It seems to exist only to come to the conclusion of dividing videogames and art. Who cares? Only the people invested for or against this empty question. The word is a whore and I'm tired of it being abused. I cannot call myself an artist though I am one.

[Anonymous No.19743687]

>>19742655
>durr you're wrong because I said so
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.19743707]

>>19743687
Plenty of argument in the thread. (You) don't deserve anything special.
>>19743672
Almost exactly your exhaustion with the liberal misuse of the word art is why I decided to put my foot down about it.
There's more in the thread, but to save you from having to read it all
>Art is basically objects created by man for the purpose of being art
>Art cannot be anything created by nature, or anything non-objective like mathematics, philosophy or, in my argument, games (which exist independent of object). Something like Architecture, while potentially beautiful, is also its own field, separate from art, similar to games, because architecture is meant to be inhabited, not enjoyed solely for its static objective qualities, like art.
>once we define art as existing in the world of objects, we can put things which are claimed to be art along a spectrum of "bad" to "good" art. Things requiring high application of skill, artistry, vision, and so on, tend to be "good". Things requiring little artistry or effort are sometimes hardly worth calling art at all

[Anonymous No.19743810]

I should think that different faculties in my brain are in use when I appreciate art and when I play a game then. If I was playing a game while I'm under cognitive stress, statements like
>What a beautiful rule!
or
>In accord with the rules I see the beautiful
would never leave my mouth, would they? The second statement is nonsensical, but I think it fits the point I'm trying to make. Sorry if my post is stupid.

[Anonymous No.19743819]

>>19743810
You are thinking, and I like it.