[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 136 KB, 1280x853, 1320242002945.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR] No.2178433 [Reply] [Original]

What is the most superior art?

>> No.2178436

Oh good it's freckley horse face again.

>> No.2178438

i am not gonna repeat myself

>> No.2178439

Well, considering this is a literature board the answer will be literature.

But seriously...LITERATURE. This isn't /arts/ this is /lit/

>> No.2178443
File: 74 KB, 920x727, freckles-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

The most superior form of art is music, followed closely by literature.

>> No.2178444

>>2178433

id bang that horse face neigh infinitum

>> No.2178446
File: 139 KB, 600x450, Bauhaus.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.2178448
File: 105 KB, 920x611, freckles-8.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2178444

>> No.2178454

art is other people

>> No.2178459

>>2178454

Wrong. Art is in avoiding other people.

>> No.2178465

>>2178459
that's not art that's masturbation

>> No.2178468

Literature -> Cinema -> Music -> paintings/drawings -> architecture -> dogshit ->>>>>>>>Jackson Pollock bullshit

>> No.2178472

Sexing is the most superior art.

>> No.2178474

>>2178468
Jackson pollocks (no9 I think) is the most expensive painting in the world.

If only you could paint that badly eh.

>> No.2178479

>>2178474
>monetary value = artistic value
I think you and Abatap would get along fine.

>> No.2178480

>>2178474
It's No. 5, and it's the most expensive painting ever sold. There's a distinction to be made, there.

>> No.2178481

eating pussy

>> No.2178489

>>2178481
good boy

>> No.2178492

Literature > Plays > Film = Music > Painting = Sculpture

>> No.2178495

watching grass grow

>> No.2178501

>>2178436
I like freckly horseface and
>>2178468
that Jackson Pollock bullshit and
>>2178459
>>2178454
I thought art was what you could get away with?
Anyway, I don't think any art form is superior, you can just do different shit with what you're dealing with. Lit works better between abstract, idea-connecting shit, movies are better with plot and imagery, &c.

>> No.2178506

film
it combines all other arts

>> No.2178509 [DELETED] 

the term 'art form' is probably quite misleading because it implies there is a form of art. There are not 'forms' of art, there are media of expression, or forms, or ways or what have, in which there are exceptional products that are properly works of art.

>> No.2178511 [DELETED] 

>>2178509
You're such a dumbfuck.

>> No.2178513

the term 'art form' is probably quite misleading because it implies there is a form of art. There are not 'forms' of art, there are media of expression, or forms, or ways or what have, in which there are exceptional products that are properly works of art.

>> No.2178519

my money goes to film and literature. the first one because it envolves the other (see something like the tulse luper suitcases) and literature cos i like words.

this was fun.

>> No.2178521

>>2178513
You're such a dumbfuck.

>> No.2178524

the art of trolling

>> No.2178537

>>2178513

I wanna suck yor dik

>> No.2178547

God what a stupid topic.
Why do you people always try to rate art in tiers and shit?
There is nothign like that, you can't simply say 'herp derp film is better than books' and stuff like that.
These are fucking different medias and forms of art. If they weren't they wouldn't be called music, film, books etc.

>> No.2178566

suicide

>> No.2178569

>>2178513
"Forms" like we're talking about them are just patterns that works of art conform to, with the media that are chosen and used as a way to move within those patterns. Once you get away from mainstream stuff, things get blurry and there's a lot of overlap between patterns and things can get real interesting if they're done right.

>> No.2178572

dance

>> No.2178573

>>2178572
because it's the only one that keeps you physically fit

>> No.2178578

It's a shame that nearly all good film is incredibly unpopular making it difficult to find screenings(how was it even possible to be a cinephile before the internet?). Most cinephiles are fat shitholes too unfortunately.

>> No.2178582

>>2178566
Wow. I think we have a winner

>> No.2178586

seppuku OP

>> No.2178594

>>2178468

>mad because he doesn't understand abstract expressionism

>> No.2178595

>>2178578
You have to go to the obscure indie theaters located only in big cities. All the cool cinephiles know about them

>> No.2178598

Music.
No art is closer to the injection of a drug than music. No painting has ever come close to affecting me like serious music has.

>> No.2178623

>>2178598
That's just you, though. What about those people with that weird condition where they find themselves overcome by violent emotion in the presence of great art? In Chicago, the Lyric Opera runs ads comparing opera to different artforms - one of them features a headline along the lines of "Because nobody was ever moved to tears by a cubism exhibition," and I'm like, I dunno about that, guys!

>> No.2178628
File: 77 KB, 920x611, freckles-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2178598
Could you please provide a song example then.

>> No.2178631

>>2178628
>song

Heh, pleb.

>> No.2178632

>>2178578

it was a lot easier because you could go to a cinema in the morning, buy a single ticket, and then sit there all day watching whatever they showed, and this was back when the quality of hollywood was considerably better

>> No.2178634

Fun fact jackson pollock's blue poles was made with such shit quality materials that it is now peeling from the canvas.

>> No.2178635

>>2178623
When I read catcher in the rye I had an overwhelming urge to murder Ringo Star.

>> No.2178636

>>2178632
Like when, the '40s? Lol

>> No.2178644

and in my experience cinephiles aren't fat shitholes so much as arrogant, irritating pricks with a complete disconnect from reality. kinda like literature students but less well spoken

I had a lot of fun at uni being the film student who progressively watched fewer and fewer films until bizzarely i was getting the highest marks in the year for essays i'd start the night before on films i could only half-remember because it had been literally months since i'd watched any moving image

>> No.2178646
File: 120 KB, 920x613, freckles-25.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2178631
song/track/piece I just wanted a small experience of what caused you to write this:

>No painting has ever come close to affecting me like serious music has

>> No.2178649

>>2178636

c.f. Henri Langlois' cinema in Paris

>> No.2178655

Science

>> No.2178658

>>2178655
I'm glad you're smart enough to recognize science as an art..

>> No.2178666

The best lit students are cinephiles. You've no right to an opinion on any of art until you recognise what geatness is in each of them.

>> No.2178679

>>2178658
Not sure about that, you could certainly use science to create art. For example: Splicing embryos together, colliding sub atomic particles together, forcing more electrons on to atoms. But in the end your only using science as a tool, an elaborate paintbrush if you will, to get your end result.

>> No.2178685

>>2178658
And waking wide eyed and clammy from a nightmare anon realizes that anything can be considered artistic and can be performed artistically.

The most superior art form? Cooking or politics

>> No.2178689

Who's the girl in the pictures?

>> No.2178699

WHO'S THE BITCH IN THE PICTURES I WANNA FUCKEN JACKOFF

>> No.2178701

The art i like is the best art.

>> No.2178710

WHO IS SHE, I NEED TO CUM

>> No.2178711

>>2178679

he's not expressing himself though. the idea of colliding sub atomic particles doesn't express an idea other than the collision of sub atomic particles. that's the important art about paintings, literature and music, it's "make-believe"

>> No.2178713
File: 170 KB, 920x919, freckles-2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2178699
>>2178689
This is one of my favorite pics of her.

>> No.2178715

>>2178711

i need to know the source on those pics so i can spank. please provide info.

>> No.2178729

>>2178711
Maybe so, but a scientist hell-bent on smashing sulfur into lead just to see what happens has a deeper representation for me: I can See his life long struggle to reach a point where he is able to manipulate matter, the resulting green chaotic cloud being, for me, a manifestation of all the years he spent reading textbooks adamant he would prove something to someone, that someone might care. The beautiful microscopic green cloud is his social failure, a beautiful attempt at winning his father approval.

>> No.2178739
File: 149 KB, 1024x768, 1301596103236.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

Okay, I'm going to make a lot of enemies with this, but here I go:

Videogames.

Or let me put it more correctly; Videogames have more POTENTIAL to be the greatest art medium. They are currently not, obviously, save for maybe two or three games.

Literature is text; the purest, simplest form of artistic expression. Individuals read the text, and picture the events in their minds. It speaks directly to the mind.

Cinema is words, pictures, sounds, music, colors; it has everything literature offers, plus more.

Video games have the potential to be everything cinema already is, plus the newest form of expression: interaction.

I'll understand if people think I'm deluded and videogames are just shit to entertain children. However, please pay attention and think critically. People probably ridiculed text when it first came out too. As human beings we like to hate on the new stuff, we all know that. I try to keep an open mind; I think, again, that videogames aren't currently that great, but have the potential to be the greatest art form so far.

>> No.2178740

www.tineye.com

Now, fuck the fuck off.

>> No.2178742

chessboxin

>> No.2178748

>>2178739

> People probably ridiculed text when it first came out

Nah. The problem is, you've wasted years on the vidja and now you want to pretend vidja fandom is a form of literary. It isn't, fag.

>> No.2178752

>>2178748
I expected pretty much this exact reply. Something along the lines of; "you just want to feel like your pathetic hobby is actually something worthwhile so you rationalize it".

Well, thank you for sharing your opinion, I guess.

>> No.2178757

Video games, specifically heavily narrative but still open-ended video games like Metal Gear Solid 2 and Shadow of the Colossus.

>>2178748
You're crazy and can't into reading comprehension.

>> No.2178758

Am I the only one who thinks most superior sounds funny?

>> No.2178762

>>2178752

You notice how I can say my opinion and you're a passive-aggressive faggot who thinks there's something honorable about victimhood?

That's what you get from suckling on the teat of merchandise. Get a better hobby, ask a better question.

>> No.2178763

>>2178739
>Literature is text; the purest, simplest form of artistic expression

>purest
>simplest

Pick one.


Your Opinion is your own but your ignorance is abusive

>> No.2178764

The most superior form of art is badger tickling.

>> No.2178768

>>2178739
the art contained within vidya is cinematic. the act of gaming itself is more akin to sport than art. actually, it's neither sport nor art, it's just gaming; a distinct activity unto itself.

>> No.2178771

>>2178763

heh not the videogame poster but often simple things are seen as pure. Take children, they lack the complexity that comes for years of life and are thus seen as pure. I think his statement works.

>> No.2178774

>>2178768

create a model, apply texture. place it in a room. allow the player to move around it in that virtual space. how is that not a statue?

>> No.2178777
File: 20 KB, 752x340, word filter.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>>2178739
made my response in the pic related because what the fuck is up with the word filter

>> No.2178783

>>2178768
Reading isn't an art either, bro. It's an activity. So is playing a game. It's the game itself that can be appreciated, not the activity. Who plays video games for the activity of playing video games, and not to see what the video game will offer you? You don't go to a museum to walk around in a building, do you? You go to see what you can see or do.

>> No.2178787

>>2178768
Disagreed. While most developers use the cinematic means to put "art" in their creations, those are not what I consider successful examples of video games as art.

It is possible to use the unique "interaction" aspect of video games to deliver a message that would be otherwise impossible to deliver.

For instance, by having a situation where the player chooses if a character will live or die. By putting THEM directly into a situation, you are able to tell things to them that are directly about THEMSELVES. You can make the game act like a self-discovery tool. Taking people, putting them in a specific environment that the artist intelligently designed, and giving them certain choices that would make them think in specific ways.

>> No.2178797

>>2178777
lol, you really are a cock, bud.

>> No.2178800

>>2178777
Your argument is also invalid. The main part of it I've already explained in here: >>2178787
But also, saying "look at all the interactive movies, those are all shit, so all interactive movies are DESTINED to be lower in cinematography" is simply false.

Why? Does adding in interaction HAVE to take away from some other aspect of the work? Definitely not, not in well made work.

I agree about your observations, keep in mind that I too think that most videogames so far have proven to be shit as art.

But I think, that when we analyze their nature, it is clear that they have a great POTENTIAL to be great.

>> No.2178806

>>2178771
>children
>simple
Pick one. Just because you don't understand children does not make them simple. The first 5 years of a persons life are noted as the time when the brain is in highest gear. After them learning capacity decreases steadily until 20's when people tend to collapse into ignorant puddles of drool.

The original statement and your rationalization are completly absurd.

>> No.2178807

>>2178774
where is the art contained in, say, sneaking around killing enemies in metal gear solid? or guiding the blocks together in tetris? that what makes a game a game, the objective you are tasked to complete. the environment building is absolutely art, but isn't it subsidiary to the actual gaming element? if you removed the skill-based activity, it would cease to be a video *game* and would just be an interactive film or something.

>> No.2178813

>>2178807
Not the guy you're replying to, but I think maybe we're using the wrong words here.

I think saying "simulations" rather than games is better. All videogames (that have a plot) are simulations, but not all simulations are games.

The competitive gameplay is not what makes it art. Don't sound like Roger Ebert. What makes it art, and gives the area the potential to be the greatest art medium, is, again, the interaction.

Just answer me this: is it not true that, theoretically, a video game (simulation, whatever you call it), could accomplish everything a movie did, plus more, via incorporating the one aspect the movie does not have, the interaction?

Is it not true that video games can achieve EVERYTHING that movies can achieve, plus more?

Also I feel like I should point out that I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion gentlemen, so thank you for wasting your time on discussing this pointless stuff with strangers like me.

>> No.2178814

>Your argument is also invalid.
How is it invalid?

>saying "look at all the interactive movies, those are all shit, so all interactive movies are DESTINED to be lower in cinematography" is simply false.
I never said that.

>Why? Does adding in interaction HAVE to take away from some other aspect of the work? Definitely not, not in well made work.
Interaction as a quality in itself has absolutely no formative influence on the quality of a work of art. I'd like you to demonstrate how this is false.

>>2178787
>by putting THEM directly into a situation, you are able to tell things to them that are directly about THEMSELVES. You can make the game act like a self-discovery tool. Taking people, putting them in a specific environment that the artist intelligently designed, and giving them certain choices that would make them think in specific ways.

Again, I'm not seeing in this example anything that tells you about the quality of a game or any work in general. Take your example; one person finds such a choice incredibly important, another person couldn't give a shit for whatever reason. Who's to say whether it's a particularly "deep" aspect of the game? Suppose, further, you've got two games that give you the same choice. How do you know which is a better game than the other? None of this really has anything whatsoever to do with video-games, any more than it has to do with books or paintings or music. A painting or music isn't art, or one or the other in either media isn't better or worse, because it makes you think about yourself, most of which occurs unconsciously for these media. This is simply because the capacity to make you think about yourself has nothing to do with art.

>> No.2178815

>>2178807
The art in sneaking around killing enemies is that it's the player's choice on whether or not to do it. It elicits a response of wanting or not wanting to do something, and sometimes even an emotional response. Games like Call of Duty use cinematic stuff to show that they can be art too (in a rather apish way), but games like Metal Gear really just use cinematics to advance the plot. The game itself can be interpreted many different ways by the player.

>> No.2178816

>>2178814
>This is simply because the capacity to make you think about yourself has nothing to do with art.
well, maybe to put it better would be to say that it's superfluous or redundant.

>> No.2178817

>>2178813
You interact with everything always. Exercising your thumbs does not transform anything into a new existance

>> No.2178824

how did i know before reading this thread that it will devolve into video games.

>> No.2178826

I mean, for those concerned in this thread, the video-games guy's argument is basically this:

"Being able to do one thing or/over another in video-games is art, especially the things that really affect me."

>> No.2178836

>>2178814
>Interaction as a quality in itself has absolutely no formative influence on the quality of a work of art. I'd like you to demonstrate how this is false.
By setting up the proper means to have the story instill a value into, say, a character, or an event, and then having the player influence those things, you are able to introduce a new means of expression.

Isn't art all about the artist creating a means of expressing his thoughts and feelings?

By generating, in stories, situations that are specifically designed to deliver those thoughts and feelings, we make art. We can serve that art's function in an even more complex and effective way through utilizing also interaction, means that is not possible in other mediums.

>Again, I'm not seeing in this example anything that tells you about the quality of a game or any work in general. Take your example; one person finds such a choice incredibly important, another person couldn't give a shit for whatever reason. Who's to say whether it's a particularly "deep" aspect of the game? Suppose, further, you've got two games that give you the same choice. How do you know which is a better game than the other? None of this really has anything whatsoever to do with video-games, any more than it has to do with books or paintings or music. A painting or music isn't art, or one or the other in either media isn't better or worse, because it makes you think about yourself, most of which occurs unconsciously for these media. This is simply because the capacity to make you think about yourself has nothing to do with art.

I see your point, but how so? I think that art is about expression. If you can use a person's own self to show them something you wanted to show them, how is that not art?

I'm not saying self-discovery in itself is art. Of course it isn't. But it can be made to serve art.

Besides, that is only but one way how video games are superior to other forms. I've discussed the other means briefly.

>> No.2178840

Suicide -> (Science*) -> Music = Art = Lit -> Dance -> Cinema -> Abstract -> (Video Games**)

* I wouldn't call science an 'art' but oh well.
** Video games are not art and ever the ones that teeter on the scale are not even close to any other form of art.

>> No.2178841

>>2178824
because school's out tomorrow

>> No.2178842

>>2178817
Don't be funny. You interact with everything, sure, but are you able to influence the ending of a movie, a novel? Are you able to influence the characters in a story in any medium other than video games?

In video games, you can interact with things. You see a vase, you can pick it up and look at it. That adds depth to the art: You are now INSIDE a world the artist created; not just looking at it, not just observing it, you are now surrounded by it, a part of it.

What affects you deeper; being told a story of betrayal, or having been betrayed?

See what I mean?

>> No.2178843

http://www.zero-books.net/index.php?id=99&p=1614

Can games be art? When film critic Roger Ebert claimed in 2010 that videogames could never be art it was seen as a snub by many gamers. But from the perspective of philosophy of art this question was topsy turvey, since according to one of the most influential theories of representation all art is a game. Kendall Waltons make-believe theory explains how we interact with paintings, novels, movies and other artworks in terms of imaginary games, like a childs game of make-believe, wherein the artwork acts as a prop prescribing specific imaginings. In this view there can be no question that videogames - in fact, all games - are indeed a strange and wonderful form of art. In Imaginary Games, game designer and philosopher Chris Bateman expands Waltons theory to videogames, board games, collectible card games such as Pokémon and Magic: the Gathering, and role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons. The book explores the diverse fictional worlds that influence the modern world, the ethics of games, and the curious role imagination plays in everything from religion to science and mathematics.

>> No.2178844

>>2178840
Normally I hate to be dismissive in my arguments, but since you did exactly that, I'll respond in kind:

Oh well, you keep telling yourself that, meanwhile I'll be enjoying crafting complex and rich experiences via video games that players can come, enjoy, and analyze and learn from.

If you think video games can not express thoughts and feelings, I feel bad for you, you are missing out.

>> No.2178846

Art is entirely subjective.

>> No.2178848

Why should the artistic potential of a 'medium' be related to interactivity? Art has never been interactive. Sure, you read the book and pick it up when you want, but it doesn't change for you, you don't get the characters saying 'hey, where have you been'. Painting, sculpture, cinema, theatre, dance, opera - none of them are interactive. Sports are interactive - in fact, they're forms of interaction, but why should the presense of interaction make a candidate for consideration as an artistic medium 'potentially the greatest'? It's been a long time since fidelity-as-simulacrum was the criterion of a work of art, let alone an entire medium.

>> No.2178850

>>2178836
>By setting up the proper means to have the story instill a value into, say, a character, or an event, and then having the player influence those things, you are able to introduce a new means of expression.
Okay maybe we are now getting somewhere. I'd like you to focus on PROPER MEANS here. What is 'proper means'? Can some games have better or worse PROPER MEANS than others?

>Isn't art all about the artist creating a means of expressing his thoughts and feelings?
Oh sure, and some artists are much more capable and adept at expressing their thoughts and feelings than others. Some, in fact, are so incredible that they can express simple thoughts or none at all wonderfully.

>By generating, in stories, situations that are specifically designed to deliver those thoughts and feelings, we make art
So 'I got up this morning, I went goldmining, I came home empty-handed' is art? This seems to me a very broad definition of making art.

>I think that art is about expression
All art is expression, but not all expression is art.

>If you can use a person's own self to show them something you wanted to show them, how is that not art?
Because it's often, among many other things, psychology.

I mean basically you are just badly misconstruing art here.

>> No.2178852

VISIONARY

>> No.2178856

>>2178813
you know, it reminds me of a cracked.com article i read a while back in which the writer posits that "interactive films" and "video games" are not just seperate genres but seperate mediums of entertainment altogether, and that both being lumped under the same umbrella is a case of gross mismarketing. i think maybe within that lack of distinction lies our disagreement here: in my mind games and art are two separate entities which serve two separate functions. strip the music, environment and narrative from a game and you can still have a game -- but you can't have art.

also, i don't agree that the presence of interactivity is definitively an improvement on a linear plot. a story's specific direction and its every preordained twist and turn have meanings intended by the author, and offer a whole world of interpretive possibilites rather than simply being arbitrary decisions made by yourself which have no extrospective value whatsoever.

>> No.2178857

Take Deus Ex.

It allows you to ENTER a world. A world designed, set in a specific time, with it's own politics, culture, everything.

You start the game, and you are now INSIDE this world. You can find out more about it, explore it, talk to people, and so on.

You are literally IN the world that is being shown to you. You are partaking in the events that the artist has designed for you to be in. The events are specific- set by the artist. They can include messages for you to pick up on. And by being inside them, you have a greater potential to be affected by them.

>> No.2178859

>>2178848
>the previous forms of art haven't been interactive
>therefore, art cannot be interactive

>> No.2178862

>>2178842

> You see a vase, you can pick it up and look at it. That adds depth to the art

No it doesn't. It gives you less to imagine. Art makes demands of your capacity for empathy and imaginative sympathy, in order to expand them. Art that makes no such demands isn't art.

> If you think video games can not express thoughts and feelings, I feel bad for you, you are missing out.

If you think video games can express thoughts and feelings that DESERVE TO BE EXPRESSED, I feel bad for you, you're a mere toy, a consumer.

>> No.2178864

I'm going to have to side with the vidya guy on this deep. You're losing your coherence a bit.

>> No.2178866

>>2178862
You're just trolling now.

>> No.2178872

>>2178856
Your last point made sense to me. I agree that linear storytelling can sometimes be more efficient. I will hereby stop considering interactive art as "superior", rather I will consider it just "different", another form, not better or worse. Thank you for making me aware of this.

>> No.2178873

>>2178864
I'm being rather lenient, actually. And I'd like you to point out anything you think there is a lack of coherence in.

>> No.2178878

>'I got up this morning, I went goldmining, I came home empty-handed'

this is actually quite beautiful D&E

>> No.2178881

>>2178859

No, I didn't say that.

>> No.2178885

>>2178866

No, I'm not.

>> No.2178887

>>2178881
I've re-read your post, and no, you didn't. I apologize.

>> No.2178891

The idea that the art which most successfully imitates the superficial aspects of lived experience is 'superior' art is about two hundred years out-of-date.

I wonder why vidja fans want it called 'art'. What do they think they'd gain from that label?

>> No.2178892

Let's try this another way:
Answer me these questions, please.

1) Is it not true that video games could do everything a movie could do?

2) Is it not true that they could add to that, do things that movies COULDN'T do?

>> No.2178895

>>2178887

Thank you.

>> No.2178900

>>2178807

>if you removed the skill-based activity

reading is skill-based, watching movies is skill-based, listening to music is skill-based. it depends on what kind of skill we're talking about.

it's absolutely possible to add elements to a game that requires "movie-skills" and "literature-skills" but people seem to have different opinions on what game-skills are. I think this has to do with how widely different games are. minecraft has little to do with starcraft but both are called games. minecraft requires creativity and building to even be fun, one might say that is bad/lazy design and not what games should be about, someone else might have built middle-earth in it.

personally, I think game-skills should be that a person can recognize the machine and what it is capable of. what kinds of calculations are done and how do they affect the game. for example, when I play mario I recognize the machine. I recognize the finely tuned mechanics and mario's perfect reaction to my input. I also realize that mario wont ever move into existential star-zone because mario's interactivity doesn't lend itself to those themes, mario is more about the joys to be had when jumping and running.

I don't enjoy difficult games. this might be cheap of me but often feel games can't give me more than a shallow satisfaction so why play something really hard when I already know the outcome; I will either win or lose. that is why I prefer slower games where you can explore the visuals or the written material. or when it doesn't matter if you win or lose, what's important is the interactivity itself and how the game unfolds and evolves in terms of mechanics, like a discussion almost. so maybe I don't like "games" at all

>> No.2178901

>>2178872
well i'm glad at least a section of my rambling in this thread makes sense. it's a tricky subject tbh, and i think it's obfuscated a bit by semantics (mainly of the word "game".)

>> No.2178903

>>2178892

1: No, it isn't. If we think of cinema the way my piano teacher once described music - 'a way of organizing time' - we soon recognize the difference. The nature of duration in cinema is fundementally different from its nature in the vidja. That difference is the decisive factor, before we even get to the fact that a 'deep' vidja gaem will generally have characterization on par with a Steven Seagal straight-to-DVD movie, or that the stuff that the mainstream of gaming writers hail as artistic breakthroughs tends to aim for glum photorealism or 'noir' onanism.

2: See above.

>> No.2178906

Games are games. Now, riddle me this, /lit/ - why are there so many gamers who want gaming to be considered art, but so few who want them to be considered sport?

>> No.2178911

>>2178903
I'm glad you at least put "generally" in your stab at video games there, because you obviously have about as much exposure to them as someone who still thinks video games are bad for children because you kill people to get points.

>>2178906
Sport isn't protected by the first amendment, but games are now so everything is pretty much irrelevant.

>> No.2178913

>>2178906
Because they're mutually exclusive.

The point is moot though. Some video games are played for sport. Some are played as art, and they could be the same ones played for sport. For example, Star Craft. If the single player campaign was played through as the creators intended, it would show a beautiful and tragic story. But if you go to South Korea and turn on the TV, you'll see people playing the same game for competition.

>> No.2178920

>>2178911
Different Anon here, but I think you're missing his point.

The main difference between a movie and a game is that a movie tightly controls what the viewer sees when. The director of a movie decides:"You're going to see THIS happen NOW, and THAT happen THEN and there's NOTHING you do can about it."

Where as a video game is all about the player deciding what happens next. The level of control varies from one game to another, but it's always there.

>> No.2178921

>>2178911

That won't work. I'm one of the people whose benediction you're here to beg for. Most of my friends are gamers, and I've played in a casual way, on and off. Calling me a non-specialist is no insult when we're talking about this merchandise, and you have no argument in defence of your position.

Everything is pretty much irrelevant? Is that your way of begging to be left alone? You started it, petal.

>> No.2178928

>>2178920

This was my point, yes, but as always, they leap on the little insult, and lose.

>> No.2178931

>>2178921
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that I was here to get something from you. I'm just responding to your ignorant stabs at video games because being wrong is being wrong no matter what.

>> No.2178934

>>2178931

Of course you're here to get something from me, and no, I'm not wrong. Being a failure is being a failure no matter what. Enjoy your slide out of the target demographic.

>> No.2178938

>>2178928
All right then, so now that we've got that out of the way, I'm going to take issue with your response to number 2.

The statement is: "can games do things beyond what movies can"

The answer is: absolutely. It is the static nature of movies that makes the experience feel "foreign". When you watch a movie and the protagonist does something that no sane person would do in their circumstance, it makes the whole experience feel fake.

But compare that to an RPG with an excellent story (Witcher 2, for instance). The game lets you experience the story in your own way. You choose the path you believe is morally correct. You control the movements and words of the player. The story unfolds through your interactions, rather than being tube-fed to you. It is a much more intriguing and enjoyable art form than a movie.

>> No.2178952

>>2178900
but you're replacing a protagonist -- a work of creation -- with yourself. are you familiar with nabokov's quote that identifying with a character in a book is the lowest form of reading? well, that extends to all fiction, and thus literally inserting yourself into a narrative is actually the bottommost way of consuming fiction.

>> No.2178953

>>2178938

> The answer is: absolutely. It is the static nature of movies that makes the experience feel "foreign". When you watch a movie and the protagonist does something that no sane person would do in their circumstance, it makes the whole experience feel fake.

1. It wasn't a statement, it was a question.

2. You've misunderstood your own question.

>> No.2178955

>>2178952
sorry, quoted the wrong post, meant to address this guy --
>>2178938

>> No.2178957

>>2178952

This is the problem, the 'gaems can be art too' people HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF ART OR MEANS TO DISCERN SHIT FROM CLAY. In 100% of cases.

>> No.2178966

The only interactive art worthwhile is sex.

Even if it can be ugly sometime. Now if rapists said sex was an art form and that they are expressing their rights... Hmmm.

>> No.2178970

>>2178952

not necessarily. if the creator is aware of this and allows the player to critically examine all the elements and characters (player-controlled or not) it can be avoided. it should be adressed and it should be reflected in the interaction. I never said I was a proponent of "it's really like you're in game" games, that's cheap escapism

>> No.2178971

If we could develop a system whereby anyone who wants to claim the vidja as art has to first provide a list of the their top one-hundred books, their top one-hundred paintings and their top one-hundred films, I think the results would be amusing. No thread would last more than ten posts.

>> No.2178977

games are avant-garde art, that's why plebs don't even acknowledge it as art.

remember when le sacres du printemps was just a bunch of noise

also roger ebert is not a gamer, so he doesn't even know what he's talking about

>> No.2178981

Video games
>choose your own path
Hahahahahahahahaha... Really now. Most games are just do this do this beat boss get through level. The interactivity with computer players is usually a three choice system anyway. Gamers pretend there are a lot of choices. Maybe in the future. But not now.

Also. Music wins.

>> No.2179028

1. Literature
2. Music
3. Visual Art

>> No.2179038

>video games as art

Video games are as much art as film.

>most superior kind of art

Life as art.

>> No.2179041

>>2179038
They are not, because there is only budget for one type of story in video games: the story of heroism and victory.
That is my opinion on that.

>> No.2179042
File: 9 KB, 247x248, 1257869832622.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>video games
>art

>> No.2179044

>>2179041

You die and fail all the time in video games.

Then you restart and try again. You only 'succeed heroically' if you're good enough to succeed heroically. During the average play through, there is far more tragedy than victory, you win once, dying several times on your way there.

Have you never played a video game?

>> No.2179045

>>2179041

I keep waiting for a photorealistic video game about a guy who spends his time playing video games and masturbating over pics he got from Facebook of a girl he never got up the courage to talk to.

But they don't do games about that, do they.

>> No.2179048

>>2179042


FOR THOSE CLAIMING VIDEO GAMES ARE NOT ART

See this thread:
>>>2179001

>>2179001

DEFINE ART.

I dare you.

>> No.2179051

>>2179048

do you ever find yourself tempted to post something interesting just as a change of pace

>> No.2179057

>>2179044

Don't you get it, moron? Seriousness in art is largely a question of its attitude to death. If you think treating death like losing a tennis match is valid in a work of art, you haven't begun to understand what art means.

>> No.2179062

>>2179048

Art is the thing you, Deist, resent other people for understanding better than you do.

>> No.2179064

>>2179044
I must assume that the two of us look at videogames differently.

Where you see the hardships of repeat confrontation and ultimately overcoming these hardships by way of not dying, I see an endless amount of tries to meet the challenges of a game.
Where I consider the story in a video game to be fluff, you see the possibility of changing the story according to the player's perspective within the confines of the game.

We do not need to see eye to eye, we don't even have to respect each other back-handedly.
I will skin my sausage now and then proceed with my NaNoWriMo plot and characters.
Just wanted to see what /lit/ is up to at the moment.

To answer the question in the OP: art is when there is no agreement.

>> No.2179073

>>2179057

>what art means
>art means

what is art? What does art mean?

Oh wait, you have no idea.

There is no definition for art. 'Art' ascribed to something just means 'an activity, area of study, or form of entertainment that I see value in'

Thats it. Once enough people see value in an area its culturally accepted as art. Video games are not considered art (on this board) because not enough of you see value in them. I hope you realize thats largely going to change as higher and higher percentages of the population play vidya, and the artform ages.

>>2179051
What about you?

>> No.2179081

>>2179073

No, imbecile, your ranting will avail you nothing. You earn contempt. Video games will never be accepted as art by the people whose approval you're so desperate for, and trying to shout down your own insecurity by claiming that art = popular entertainment will never work.

>> No.2179090

>>2179073
And yet you can take a crippling walk down memory lane and look at the age of video games and correlate that with the ages of people in politics, for example.
Certainly you will come to the conclusion, that it gets more unlikely to meet a politician as time progresses who hasn't played a video game.

And yet three generations of people consider video games to be child's play.

>> No.2179092

>>2179081

>the people whose approval you're so desperate for

>approval

No. I think almost everyone on lit is a community college dropout that wants to convince themselves they are intelligent by reading the largest most poorly written 'classics' they can as if that will make up for their lack of degree.

>> No.2179096

>>2179092

Yes. You'd say anything in the attempt to make them care what you think as much as you, clearly, care what they think. But nobody cares. They can see the food stains on your clothes. They can see your lips move while you read these words. They do not give one quintillionth of a fuck.

>> No.2179097

Who the fuck is this new tripfag deist.

>> No.2179100

The greatest art form.

Advertising.

>> No.2179126

Advertising is the great perversion of art. It has successfully kept millions of people from achieving happiness and integrity.

>> No.2179130

>>2179126
>>2179100

thats just like, your opinion man

>> No.2179236

>>2179126
Lol. The mcdonnalds m sign is one of the greatest pieces of art ever created. Just saying.

>> No.2179248
File: 66 KB, 280x280, 9842574.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
[ERROR]

>> No.2179276

>>2178952
Never heard of him. I can see his reasoning though, by "becoming" X character you're basically using the book as a way to make your life feel less shitty. I disagree with him when it comes to games, however.
First of all, players aren't required to insert themselves into the plot to play a game. You control the player, choose what he says, but you don't become him. This would apply to VN's or simple FPS's (Call of Duty, etc).
Secondly, allowing players to insert themselves into the game allows a story to be told that no other medium can tell. This applies to RPG's with lots of dialogue choices.

>>2178957
You remind me of a philosophy major, claiming that the only way to practice philosophy is to know what X, Y, and Z old dead guys said about it, and then make some vague comments about who you agree with more. Your definition of "art" isn't your own. Sounds more like something you read in a textbook that was written before the microchip was invented.

>> No.2179280

Trick question, it's not the art it's the artist that makes his/her artform great.
Simply stated; "The artist did not fall into a genre, the genre fell out of him."

>> No.2179290

>>2179092
Trip fag is an obvious hypocritical hipster.
When will this dumb fad of only likeing fads end?! I mean it's been a few years, it's a trend now...can it please die?!

>> No.2179314

>>2179280
This. I like that statement a lot.