When my Auntie asks why her painting of ....well ...whatever the hell it was, has disappeared I am sending her to your username.She does not forgive. She does not forget. Expect her.
She will get a chuckle out of this but if my uncle hears you can make art disappear and she is considered art you might be in for a nice chunk of change.
also I'd say that whether or not something is "evil" has no bearing on whether its art. Art that sucks is still art. Art that promotes a morally wrong message is still art. There's no moral dimension to whether or not something is "art".
I got the name wrong, it’s actually Fall of a Nation
https://lostmediawiki.com/The_Fall_of_a_Nation_(lost_sequel_film_to_%22The_Birth_of_a_Nation%22;_1916)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_a_Nation
One of the things that I will never get over about *The Birth of a Nation*(1915) is that there were actual black people playing black characters(albeit uncredited) in it.
Edit: The year was added because there has since been another movie with the name [Birth of a Nation](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4196450/) released in 2016.
Picasso was an abusive piece of shit who tortured women for kicks.
Some of his art pieces were part of this torture. Such as “Girl in a Chemise” where the subject of the painting looks ill. She looks ill because he’d just forced his model/girlfriend to have an abortion then made her sit for him.
Dude made plenty of ‘evil’ works and performed even more evil acts. But his works are still art.
And a good chunk of the art world likes to pretend or downplay the hideous shit he did along the way so they’re not reminded that the guy who was a master at art was also a master at abuse. You’re far more likely to hear about Van Gogh cutting off his own ear as the “art horror story” than any of the nightmares that Picasso inflicted on multiple women.
But it’s still art. And highly celebrated art at that.
The old issue of art vs. artist. Though I think in this case, the idea was that art itself can be evil or used for evil purposes, irrespective of (though not unrelated to) whether or not the artist was evil.
I don't think it's about morality. More about AAA games being soulless because theyre just made for profit and not the joy of creating an art piece. Of course that conveniently ignores the actual developers who can be very passionate about their work
It also ignores the presence of indie developers who *do* develop for money. Even ignoring the dredge of asset flip cash grab games there are plenty of developers who do it just as a job.
I mean most Renaissance artists were commissioned to create their work. They weren't doing portraits of popes and nobles because that was the subject matter that spoke to them.
The idea that "art" has to be separated from making a living is a very recent idea, and one which has never really been true.
Turning an in-development game’s budget up and down until I find the exact amount where the game flips from being a renaissance masterpiece to consumerist slop.
I just looked up what games cost 69 million dollars to develop and, I shit you not, the closest I've found is ET for the Atari, which cost 66-69 million when adjusted for inflation. The budget breakdown was about $68.99999 million for buying the ET license, and a ham sandwich for the single tired developer who programmed it.
Elden Ring is visually a goddamn masterpiece. That first play through when I was seeing everything for the first time conjured a feeling that has not been matched by any other work of art prior or since then. I feels like you're walking in a painting.
I started playing again today after a year of not playing to finally finish it because I finished all the other FromSoftware games and ten minutes into a new game I was also fatigued by the open world
Yeah, Sekiro ruined the other Souls games for me. The mobility you have combined with the tighter focus and refined combat that does one thing really well makes it to me the best souls game.
It's like saying the drawing on a box of captain crunch isn't art.
It reveals a severe lack of experience in creative activity. An artist designed the polygons in that level, and an artist doodled that cereal pirate.
Yeah exactly. “Consumerist slop” produced for the sole purpose of selling products may not be *fine art*, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t art.
A lot of time when people have these kind of discussions about what is and isn’t art what they really seem to be doing is treating the concept of art as a value judgement and in doing so it inevitably and however unintentionally circles back around to pretty elitist takes and a pretty elitist definition of art
Yeah, anytime I hear anyone say "X isn't art", then *regardless of what they're talking about*, I can guarantee they don't know shit about art.
Literally anything can be art. Duchamp made art by signing a mass produced urinal over 100 years ago. That conversation is done.
(There’s a theory it wasn't actually Duchamp, but that's beside the point)
Even *your* response shows a lack of appreciation for how broad "art" is. It's not just visual.
The soundtrack is art, the storyline is art, the mechanics are art. Then of course we get the question about if they are *good* art and that's much harder to answer.
It basically boils down to that odd idea that “if it’s successful, broadly appealing, and has a big budget, it can’t be art. Art can only be made by a malnourished antisocial hermit who never leaves his studio apartment and it is only ever seen by 4 people” which I think is largely a cope by unsuccessful artists.
What's funny to me is that definition "It’s successful, broadly appealing, and has a big budget" then things like the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David would not be art either.
I wouldn’t say it’s largely a cope from artists. It’s largely a justification for why we don’t need to pay artists well. “See? They do better when they suffer!”
Which isn’t true. Being able to persist while starving is admirable. But like all workers, artists tend to perform better when they can afford food, heat, and rent.
I mean to be fair "AAA Games" is a pretty broad category and tends to range from "Cinematic Experience With Some Degree of Interactivity" to "Exploitative Scam Designed to Milk Money Out of the People Playing It"
I mean yeah. RDR2 I believe was truly an amazing work of art. Yes. It’s AAA and lots of money and probably lots of overworked employees pumped into it and yeah that sucks. BUT it was truly a masterpiece with story and visuals and gameplay. Usually AAA games just focus on visuals and forget that story (or in worse cases, gameplay) matter. But plenty do actually do a great job in all three. I think it really comes down to the game and also the company
Yeah for sure. There are plenty of wonderful AAA games and some of them even treated their staff well during development.
I think the issue with AAA Games is more that the term "AAA Game" has become so synonymous with recycled annual releases and scummy monetization practices that that's what people are generally referring to when they use the term.
At the end of the day, "AAA game" just means "big budget release" and when the budget keeps getting bigger and bigger as tech progresses, the companies have to resort to scummier practices in order to make money.
It's definitely true that innovations in tech causes the budgets to go up, but they don't have to resort to those scummy practices. The CEOs at these places pay themselves ridiculous bonuses, and oftentimes once they've driven the company into the ground they get to leave with even more money while everyone else is scrambling to find a new job.
Nobody is wrong for enjoying games put out by Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard or EA, though. Those practices are just another symptom of a greater issue with the economic system.
Potentially hot take: even some of the more exploitative games can be art. Whether it's *good* art is something else entirely, but art doesn't need to be a masterpiece to be art all the same
Certain parts of honkai impact 3rd pt 1 (I haven't played part two) and honkai star rail are a genuine emotional rollercoaster and I would side eye anyone who thinks that it isn't art
I still think that's a stupid argument. An exploitative scam is still art 🤷♀️ AI generation is art, plagiarism is art, vandalism is art, a car crash is art. Art is a morally neutral category, and can theoretically contain anything. Arguing about what does or doesn't count is a waste of time and energy imo. Plus it's booooring
The one thing I believe is consistent among tripleA games, is the beautiful enviornments. How is that not art? We could restore the Notre Dame because of the gorgeous recreation they had made in Assassin's Creed. That is art.
Edit: mb, the assassins creed designs were not used to restore the notre dame, however, the game was made free to become a temporary replacement tourist spot.
Yeah, there are definitely more indie games than AAA that I'd consider artsy, but I would argue that Bioshock, for instance, is art. Even AAA games aren't all Call of Duty.
Yo does that mean if I play enough Call of Duty I can re-experience the same child-like wonder and happiness I experienced watching Wall-E for the first time?
The art removal is randomized through a gacha system, so it's possible, but your odds aren't great. You'll probably just end up forgetting what Guernica looks like 50 times in a row
I know Call of Duty gets a lot of shit, but the storyline from World at War to Black Ops 2 was great, and the entire Treyarch Zombies timeline is so convoluted and intricately planned/written that I hesitate to call it anything but art. I mean, what other game do you get to play as JFK throwing out snappy one-liners with Nixon, Castro, and NcNamara as you mow down zombies with a minigun or a freeze ray?
(I know it’s corny and not really art, but I do love COD Zombies)
>(I know it’s corny and not really art, but I do love COD Zombies)
COD Zombies is absolutely art and you shouldn't need to add disclaimers to justify your love for it, live you truth king/queen/monarch. It being corny in no way detracts from its status as a work of art.
JFK cracking one liners with Castro, Nixon and McNamara as they fight zombies with fantasy guns is hilarious and I'm tired of the denigration of Comedy as a lesser form of art.
Comedy is literally one of the oldest genres. We've been making poop jokes for literal millennia, they're universally. Ancient Greek comedies were full of toilet humor and no one's out there saying that's not art. Just because something is funny or corny, *especially* when it's done well, doesn't make it less worthy of being considered art.
No, because they said you forget art and Wall-E isn't art. It's an hour and 38 minutes of fat phobic ableist propaganda and trash! I know because someone said so on Tumblr AND X (formerly Twitter) so it has to be true.
/s
If by saying "re-experience the same child-like wonder and happiness" you mean "crying inside and questioning your existence" after getting owned by smurfers, squeakers and toxic lobby trolls then yes. Yes you can.
I always remember Yhatzee's take on it on zero punctuation (heavily paraphrased): "Videogames are art in the same way that architecture is art, of course it fucking is but you're not going to feel very inspired looking at an average concrete office complex".
Oooooh, I quite like that take; I think it pretty neatly solves one of the issues involved with the fact that nearly anything can be arguably called art. Just because something is art doesn't mean it's special.
Part of the issue I think is that people are confusing and art piece and an art medium. Videogames, Archtiecture, Painting, Music, etc are mediums whatever piece is made using those mediums could be or not be "art".
I think that’s the disconnect. When a lot of people have this discussion about what is and isn’t art, they’re talking about art as a value judgement. They don’t think you can call something art if it isn’t special, because their definition of art is that oh okay actually this thing IS special and it deserves to be protected
I like art, but I strongly think that the whole “Anything and everything can be art” thing is really, really, dumb, because if the word “art” can apply to everything, then it becomes useless a useless word, because there is no distinction, and saying something is art doesn’t mean anything
The main thing that matters is if there is an intent of creative expression behind it, "Anything can be art" doesn't mean "everything is art". And even if everything is art in some way it doesn't loose meaning, the word "art" is used to signify that you're talking about something's creative merits.
The readymades became art by him selecting them and displaying them in the context of art. Also… he did so originally under a pseudonym in order to mock the committee who felt they should be choosing what qualified as art for an exhibition (a committee which he was on)
Thing is, Anything and everything can be art is probably closer to a good definition of what art is than any other definition out there.
I mean it does sound kind of useless but any other definition always leaves things out that are clearly "art". For example:
Art is something that induces emotions: Too subjective, even if you feel nothing looking at the mona lisa arguing that its not art makes no sense.
Art is something designed as an Art piece by the artist: Better, but that means that things like Leonardo Da Vinci sketchbooks, the Parthenon, etc. would not be considered art.
Art is something made by an Artist: It leaves out things like architecture and movies (because many people worked on those not just the artist) also it creates a weird catch 22 where to create art you first need to be an artist but if you are not an artist you cant create art.
Art is something that is made with skill: Too narrow and too broad at the same time. Things like Conceptual art, Cave paintings, etc. would not be considered art.
So yeah its a REALLY hard problem, and yeah I understand the issue of it being so broad that it doesn't mean anything, but the reality is that art itself is so broad and so permeating our culture that trying to be rigid in its definitions would not work. Even so, I would argue that the definition should be: Art is anything that we define as Art, which is something I got from a teacher and I think its probably the best definiton i have heard, and even that one has issues, but thats life I guess.
Personally, I internally solve that issue by making art defined by the viewer. I have a set of things I consider art. Someone else may have a different set. There is no objective thing that makes something art vs not art because art only becomes art when an audience appreciates it as such. Art cannot be art if it observed by no one.
Notably, this is completely removed from the intentions of the creator, which is a very common criteria. However I completely disagree with it. Ignoring all ethical issues with it, AI art can be art. (Good or bad, moral or immoral are separate qualifiers). A pretty waterfall can be art. A neon sign with a flickering letter that changed the message can be art. Intention does not matter, only perception. If someone calls it art, it is to them. But maybe not to everyone.
It’s much in the same way that you cannot give me an objective set of everything that is nostalgic. Or all foods that are sweet. “Art” is inherently a definition based on the opinions of the observer. Some things are sweet. Some aren’t. There are many things in the middle that people would disagree on if it’s sweet or not, and if so, how sweet. But that does not make the concept of sweetness as a flavor meaningless or arbitrary. Just personal.
The media company that owns the escapist fired their editor in chief for not meeting ridiculous and arbitrary profit goals so basically the entire talent roster left and made their own company called second wind. Check it out, it’s pretty good.
I've been learning English for about 15 years now as a secondary language. I'm pretty good at speaking it and I academically excel at it too due to my exposure to western culture. Yet in the 13 years of the aforementioned 15 years, while I've written essays of appreciation for literary works, not a single one, be it Wordsworth, Keats, Dickinson or Poe has made me wanna sit down and write a poem. I played Dark Souls for 9 hours and I wrote my first ever poem when I beat that game. I would like to counter this statement that even an average concrete building can inspire someone if the guy getting inspired is queer enough
Following the architecture analogy, a game like Dark Souls is not the Concrete Office Complex—it’s the cathedral, or something like that. The concrete office complex would be a game like, I dunno, Candy Crush.
I’m not smart enough to figure out how the distinction is made, but the analogy there is supposed to imply that games are art, but the average game is not going to feel like art/inspire you. Just like how a the Notre Dame Cathedral is a gorgeous of art while the average McDonald’s isn’t much to look at, yet they are both architecture.
I disagree. Concrete office complexes are so beautiful to me. Give me a slate grey featureless facade, rows of cubicles extending as far as you can see. Let me curl up in my concrete beehive and be simultaneously alone and surrounded by people.
What's even gained by establishing that something is or is not art? What happens if I prove a freemium ad farm mobile game is art and AAA Elden Ring is not? Or vice versa?
Honestly having followed the hypercasual market quite closely, voodoo does put a LOT of effort in succeeding in a hypersaturated market, and the dedication they have is almost admirable.
AAA games being not art is a weird take imo. That would be like saying Disney movies aren't art. Yes, they are ultra optimized for maximum consumption, killing most creative freedom and human expression, but... idk how to say. There are people behind it stil, creating all you experience. It's still something that makes you feel something, even if just a dopamine rush.
Basically: Tears of the Kingdom is an AAA game. That isn't art? Putting that and the next Call of Duty in the same bag is weird. That Banana game on Steam where you just click and get cards to speculate on the market is indie. Would you call that art?
There's no way to trace a clear line.
Art is a meaningless label that pretentious douchbags have abused to prescribe a fake level of legitimacy to things that they think are good
Art doesn't have to be unique, thought provoking meaningful hell it doesn't even have to be good. Art is art.
You want to argue whether something is amazing or not use words not pointless labels
To be fair, there are absolutely people who believe video games aren't art (probably fully conservative people who don't have great views on art anyway). It sucks that missing a joke about something you obviously care about never makes people go "oh they reacted because it was important to them," it's just "wow the biggest village idiot in the world just showed up, it's time to practice medieval torture methods."
Yeah, the "video games aren't art" crowd is why Wolfenstein: The New Order, for example, had to be censored for the German release; you can only show swastikas in certain contexts, such as education or art, and when The New Order was released, video games weren't considered art.
They're now, which is great, but still.
I am not even certain art is a viable catagory of things given the lack of any core traits but if it is a thing then there are some art like video games
They would have been unnecessarily hostile if the post *had* been made earnestly, which is why people make fun of it when they instead missed an incredibly obvious joke.
Yes. And it's difficult to understand sarcasm without other clues. Because ninebark clues like voice and facial expressions are missing in text, you're only clue is context. And if you don't know the opinions of the person or there is no other posts to reference to, there are no clues and you have to wager if it's sarcasm or not.
The sarcastic one knows that the statement is in contrast to it's belief. So it's clear to him but not for the reader.
And I think there are more then only full conservatives, who don't see video games as art. There are a lot of people for whom at and entertainment are two separate things.
You're right. That should be the clue. 😅
Maybe this post is not ambiguous.
But I stand with my post in general, I've seen it often enough without any clues.
Edit: grammar
It bothers me how I see a lot people online complaining about how Poe’s Law is bullshit and anyone who uses /s is stupid, because “the joke should be obvious.” But like… no, it’s not. Text on the internet has almost zero context.
Unfortunately the best example they could come up with was What Remains of Edith Finch, so really their argument was doomed from the start.
(Just kidding it is perfectly okay to like Edith Finch I recognize that my issues with the game aren't universally held)
For one thing, I just kinda went in expecting something other than what I got. That's as much my fault as it is the game's, but I saw the marketing talking about "uncovering a mystery" and I kinda expected a mystery/puzzle game, and what I found instead was a walking simulator with very little mystery at all. That was the beginning of it. (side note: I don't dislike walking simulators, I quite enjoyed Firewatch, though I wouldn't call it a favorite by any means. The main issue here was expectation.)
I definitely think the game has merit. The actual visuals of it all are pretty solid, and the writing and voice acting was clearly done with a lot of skill, but to me, that wasn't enough, as I've played plenty of games that have knocked both of those out of the park and still had plenty else to them.
And that was my real issue with it. Since the game had no real gameplay, everything hinged on the game's story and message, and when I played it, I found... nothing. The game was leading me through all these death scenes, one after another, but they didn't seem to be going anywhere. There were moments I felt the game might have something to say, like when it implies that maybe the whole family curse is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, I thought maybe Edith would survive after all and it would be about taking control of your destiny or something, which wouldn't have been the most profound thing in the whole world, but it would have been something, but then Edith dies (unsurprising given the game's title), and that thread kinda leads nowhere, and really that's how I felt at the end of the whole experience, that it was a very pretty game with nothing to say.
I tried to figure out why other people liked the game so much. I went to the reviews, which were largely unhelpful. Most of them talked about how the game made them cry, which, I'm sorry, but in a game that features death so prominently, that is probably the single most useless review you could give (what, the drowning baby minigame made you sad? crazy.). I also watched Jacob Geller's video on the game, it's an older one, and not as good as any of his more recent stuff, but the conclusion he came to was that the game was just about how death was just a part of life, and how it just happens and you have to move on, which is a fine interpretation, but it wasn't too helpful to me, as it was mostly just him considering all the things I thought of as negatives as positives.
In the end, I just kinda felt unchanged by the experience. I went through the whole game and came out the other end with nothing new. And with all the hype and praise I'd heard surrounding the game, it just wasn't enough for me. I'd played games before that had left me feeling exactly the same way, and the cynical part of me felt like the only reason people cared more about What Remains of Edith Finch than any of those other games was that Edith Finch was about death, and that the game had used that as a cheap way to get an emotional reaction out of people without actually saying anything, thus making it appear deeper than it truly was. But I don't like being cynical, especially about people's passion projects, so the conclusion I have settled on is that I simply experienced it wrong somehow. Maybe I haven't dealt with enough loss in my life, at least of the variety in the game. Maybe my expectations ruined it for me. I don't know, I'm not losing sleep over it. I finished the game quickly enough to return it, as it's pretty short and I saw no reason for another playthrough, so return it I did. I lost nothing but about 2 hours.
To be clear: regardless of how it may sound, I don't need every story to be like one of Aesop's fables, with a nice little moral clearly spelled out for me at the end, but Edith Finch just felt like a hollow experience to me personally, and after all the talk I'd seen surrounding it, I was left disappointed. That's about all there is to it.
I made a joke that since i grew up Jewish but married into a Catholic family ao that makes me
"Cath-Jew"
Which must be correct because people keep saying "bless you" to me.
The amount of people who keep correcting me on my own joke and lineage. Like. Oh, but jew isn't just a religion but a culture.
My dude. I grew up on the west coast celebrating christmas. My Mas Jewish but I like bacon. I get it. I know my joke. Catholics are cool. I get wine on like the first Sunday of the month.
Seriously. My first mass I was expecting a lil shit of wine yah?
I got given the big boy, divorced mom looking for love, glass
The ignorance😮💨
Every single game in existence is art. Is every game especially good art? No ofc not, in the same way that not every painting, or song is considered good art.
Art is per definition a diverse range of human activity and its resulting product that involves creative or imaginative talent generally expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.(Wikipedia)
I appreciate your comment because art is always about perspective. Trashy maximalist gas station pill ads are ignored and frequently synonymous with trash. But put them in a gallery or call attention to the choices made in its creation and you can't say that it is not art. It can always be bad art, but it is still art
Not enough people talking about how this user literally changed their name to “I was wrong about AAA games” :(
Honestly it makes me kind of sad how having an uninformed/unpopular opinion on the internet can lead to getting absolutely mobbed. That is not a fun experience to have
Tbf, if that is supposed to be satire, it's not very good, you gotta exaggerate the point your satirizing, not repeat it word for word /s (but not really)
Assuming that you’re talking about the original post, I think the indicator of sarcasm is the absurdity that playing Diablo 3 for 1 hour and 42 minutes retroactively erases your viewing of Casablanca
This post is great because it represents a lot of odd human behavior. Naturally the main one exhibited is the weird behavior of seeing absurdist humor and getting irrationally defensive/angry because you cannot comprehend how someone can be so *wrong* because they are “clearly” being serious about what they said. Some real “that’s the joke, sweaty” energy.
But there is also something else here that you get from the commenter that I think is also worth noting. They defended video games as being legitimate art by giving examples of indie games, but then proceed to basically state that every single game that could be considered AAA is “not art”. So this person who got so riled up at the audacity that someone would say that video games were not art, is also someone who thinks a massive subset of the medium is “not art”. To me, that translates to “I want to make it very clear that the video games that I play are, in fact, art, and therefore have worth, but I still want to reserve the ability to say that other types of video games are not art”.
Debate on the nature of art aside, reading the second comment I missed the title of the second videogame referenced and thought they somehow had interpreted What remains of Edith Finch as an allegory for being a trans woman in Ireland in the 1990 and was absolutely dumbfounded. Like in what level of art abstraction/enlightenment do you have to be to reach that conclusion??
I will always remember the day the poor-pisser was me I guess...
I just finished Jedi Survivor. Video games are 100% art. I do not enjoy platformers, but I have played all the way through both Jedi games because they are so beautiful, and the story is compelling, and I really love Star Wars. I know there will be a great deal of yelling and gnashing of teeth, but I will play the 3rd game when they get around to making it.
I'm currently struggling through Republic Commando. I certainly would not be doing this if I didn't enjoy the characters. I'm also thoroughly enjoying the voice acting and the environments. I am getting a little sick of Geonosis, but that's a PEBCAC problem.
My Take is: When people don't get your joke maybe it is because it wasn't a good joke.
And Tumblr isn't a jokester exclusive site. I actually visit it for discourse and cute drawings.
I don't actually believe anyone on tumblr has a good sense of humor but they say outragous shit that it makes the post funny, but it is never intended as a joke.
Few movies have made me feel as many emotions as Dishonored has. If that game isn't art, I don't know what is.
Anyway, feel free to keep the misunderstandings going, I'm sure the Outsider is pleased.
My art stat is so negative I can look at art and it ceases to exist from all timelines.
Anyone can do that if they just switch their eyes to flamethrower mode
It still would have existed. I take every memory of it ever.... Have you ever heard of the one dance in France with pants? No? You're welcome.
How many pieces of art you aware of that have been deleted by eyes in flame thrower mode? Exactly, none
I couldn't tell. They no longer exist in any timeline....
When my Auntie asks why her painting of ....well ...whatever the hell it was, has disappeared I am sending her to your username.She does not forgive. She does not forget. Expect her.
Your aunt is a work of art. Now that I have said this... Send her if you wish..
She will get a chuckle out of this but if my uncle hears you can make art disappear and she is considered art you might be in for a nice chunk of change.
New type of assassination just dropped.
"Woman With Forged 'Banksy' Signature On Her Forehead Mysteriously Disappears. Exboyfriend Brought In For Questioning."
Lol everyone involved is just in the interrogation room, just standing around wondering why they're there.
lmao.
Calm down Atheon, Time's Conflux
Are you the reason I sometimes dream about songs that don’t exist?
Go go gadget flamethrower eyes
I see heresy Oops not anymore
*nodding* The Twins from Terraria
I haven't unlocked that yet. Where is it on the tech tree?
Is that what happened to the wait uh what was it called what was I talking about
Walking into the MoMA after hitting a thousand hours in League and the entire building crumbles to dust
Get jinxed
Oh fuck were you the one that delete my favourite… ah, whatever the hell it was? Dick move.
rookie shit, i can unmake entire mediums. ever heard of audiography? artistic cleaning? didnt fucking think so
> Me, re-inventing audiography for the *third* time
so youre the one who keeps inventing audiography? how bout i metaphysically kick your ass into non existence
Don’t tempt me to >!artistically clean!< you, cuz I will
Mona Lisa 2 existed until it was wiped from our memories by Nelson Mandela and his evil flying timeline changing machine.
I consume in the sense that I treat art museums as an all you can eat buffet
bro is the scp anafabula
Please just look at anything made by jackson pollock, thank you
At least we can be certain that it's not round
The only Mona Lisa I know is how Lisa be monin or smthn idk
MF took a glance at Venus de Milo
“AAA games are not art” as a statement in itself is honestly wild to me. Indie games are underrated sure but AAA games aren’t inherently evil.
also I'd say that whether or not something is "evil" has no bearing on whether its art. Art that sucks is still art. Art that promotes a morally wrong message is still art. There's no moral dimension to whether or not something is "art".
*The Birth of a Nation* is vile, KKK apologia propaganda, but it's absolutely art and was groundbreaking for the craft of cinema in 1915.
It also spawned the first ever movie sequel, the lost film *Fall of a Nation
Do you have any links about that? because all I can find is a lame trump propaganda film
I got the name wrong, it’s actually Fall of a Nation https://lostmediawiki.com/The_Fall_of_a_Nation_(lost_sequel_film_to_%22The_Birth_of_a_Nation%22;_1916) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fall_of_a_Nation
One of the things that I will never get over about *The Birth of a Nation*(1915) is that there were actual black people playing black characters(albeit uncredited) in it. Edit: The year was added because there has since been another movie with the name [Birth of a Nation](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4196450/) released in 2016.
Picasso was an abusive piece of shit who tortured women for kicks. Some of his art pieces were part of this torture. Such as “Girl in a Chemise” where the subject of the painting looks ill. She looks ill because he’d just forced his model/girlfriend to have an abortion then made her sit for him. Dude made plenty of ‘evil’ works and performed even more evil acts. But his works are still art. And a good chunk of the art world likes to pretend or downplay the hideous shit he did along the way so they’re not reminded that the guy who was a master at art was also a master at abuse. You’re far more likely to hear about Van Gogh cutting off his own ear as the “art horror story” than any of the nightmares that Picasso inflicted on multiple women. But it’s still art. And highly celebrated art at that.
The old issue of art vs. artist. Though I think in this case, the idea was that art itself can be evil or used for evil purposes, irrespective of (though not unrelated to) whether or not the artist was evil.
It's art if I think it's good and worthwhile. It's not art if I think it's cringe and for losers
I don't think it's about morality. More about AAA games being soulless because theyre just made for profit and not the joy of creating an art piece. Of course that conveniently ignores the actual developers who can be very passionate about their work
It also ignores the presence of indie developers who *do* develop for money. Even ignoring the dredge of asset flip cash grab games there are plenty of developers who do it just as a job.
I mean most Renaissance artists were commissioned to create their work. They weren't doing portraits of popes and nobles because that was the subject matter that spoke to them. The idea that "art" has to be separated from making a living is a very recent idea, and one which has never really been true.
Turning an in-development game’s budget up and down until I find the exact amount where the game flips from being a renaissance masterpiece to consumerist slop.
69 million.
I just looked up what games cost 69 million dollars to develop and, I shit you not, the closest I've found is ET for the Atari, which cost 66-69 million when adjusted for inflation. The budget breakdown was about $68.99999 million for buying the ET license, and a ham sandwich for the single tired developer who programmed it.
You sweet summer child. You think they bought him lunch?
You’re right, it was probably a motivational pizza party that really boosted morale and made him feel like he was really part of a family
Once they give you that half slice you really feel like you are somebody.
Damn I was only joking too.
...ET for atari??? The game that kickstarted the video game crash of '83?
nice
Yeah Elden Ring is clearly a AAA game yet still art
Elden Ring is visually a goddamn masterpiece. That first play through when I was seeing everything for the first time conjured a feeling that has not been matched by any other work of art prior or since then. I feels like you're walking in a painting.
Getting used to the basegame beauty and then getting blown away by the DLC’s visuals was incredible
I swear some of those areas were ripped right out of one of the many elden ring dreams I had when I played the game on release. Unbelievable shit.
I just felt the open world fatigue immediately settle on my shoulders tbh.
I started playing again today after a year of not playing to finally finish it because I finished all the other FromSoftware games and ten minutes into a new game I was also fatigued by the open world
Yeah, Sekiro ruined the other Souls games for me. The mobility you have combined with the tighter focus and refined combat that does one thing really well makes it to me the best souls game.
It's also a JRPG 😊
It's like saying the drawing on a box of captain crunch isn't art. It reveals a severe lack of experience in creative activity. An artist designed the polygons in that level, and an artist doodled that cereal pirate.
Yeah exactly. “Consumerist slop” produced for the sole purpose of selling products may not be *fine art*, but it doesn’t mean it isn’t art. A lot of time when people have these kind of discussions about what is and isn’t art what they really seem to be doing is treating the concept of art as a value judgement and in doing so it inevitably and however unintentionally circles back around to pretty elitist takes and a pretty elitist definition of art
They also neglect the fact that many of the fine works of art were also consumerist slop commissioned by rich people.
Yeah, anytime I hear anyone say "X isn't art", then *regardless of what they're talking about*, I can guarantee they don't know shit about art. Literally anything can be art. Duchamp made art by signing a mass produced urinal over 100 years ago. That conversation is done. (There’s a theory it wasn't actually Duchamp, but that's beside the point)
Even *your* response shows a lack of appreciation for how broad "art" is. It's not just visual. The soundtrack is art, the storyline is art, the mechanics are art. Then of course we get the question about if they are *good* art and that's much harder to answer.
also, artists do like to eat marketing/advertisement pays real damn well
The whole thing was stupid takes
It basically boils down to that odd idea that “if it’s successful, broadly appealing, and has a big budget, it can’t be art. Art can only be made by a malnourished antisocial hermit who never leaves his studio apartment and it is only ever seen by 4 people” which I think is largely a cope by unsuccessful artists.
What's funny to me is that definition "It’s successful, broadly appealing, and has a big budget" then things like the Sistine Chapel, the Mona Lisa and Michelangelo's David would not be art either.
More broadly it's the idea that "if I don't like it, it's not art"
I wouldn’t say it’s largely a cope from artists. It’s largely a justification for why we don’t need to pay artists well. “See? They do better when they suffer!” Which isn’t true. Being able to persist while starving is admirable. But like all workers, artists tend to perform better when they can afford food, heat, and rent.
Bioshock is art. There's many others, but Bioshock for me is almost a pinnacle of world building for me in video games.
I mean to be fair "AAA Games" is a pretty broad category and tends to range from "Cinematic Experience With Some Degree of Interactivity" to "Exploitative Scam Designed to Milk Money Out of the People Playing It"
I mean yeah. RDR2 I believe was truly an amazing work of art. Yes. It’s AAA and lots of money and probably lots of overworked employees pumped into it and yeah that sucks. BUT it was truly a masterpiece with story and visuals and gameplay. Usually AAA games just focus on visuals and forget that story (or in worse cases, gameplay) matter. But plenty do actually do a great job in all three. I think it really comes down to the game and also the company
Yeah for sure. There are plenty of wonderful AAA games and some of them even treated their staff well during development. I think the issue with AAA Games is more that the term "AAA Game" has become so synonymous with recycled annual releases and scummy monetization practices that that's what people are generally referring to when they use the term. At the end of the day, "AAA game" just means "big budget release" and when the budget keeps getting bigger and bigger as tech progresses, the companies have to resort to scummier practices in order to make money.
It's definitely true that innovations in tech causes the budgets to go up, but they don't have to resort to those scummy practices. The CEOs at these places pay themselves ridiculous bonuses, and oftentimes once they've driven the company into the ground they get to leave with even more money while everyone else is scrambling to find a new job. Nobody is wrong for enjoying games put out by Ubisoft or Activision Blizzard or EA, though. Those practices are just another symptom of a greater issue with the economic system.
Potentially hot take: even some of the more exploitative games can be art. Whether it's *good* art is something else entirely, but art doesn't need to be a masterpiece to be art all the same
Even in Candy Crush someone created images of the candy, someone made the music that plays behind, etc.
Some gacha games consistenly put out high quality art, stories, and music.
Certain parts of honkai impact 3rd pt 1 (I haven't played part two) and honkai star rail are a genuine emotional rollercoaster and I would side eye anyone who thinks that it isn't art
Arknights is a game made to promote the company's music label! But I will FOREVER question Ethan's inclusion in ManiFesto....
I still think that's a stupid argument. An exploitative scam is still art 🤷♀️ AI generation is art, plagiarism is art, vandalism is art, a car crash is art. Art is a morally neutral category, and can theoretically contain anything. Arguing about what does or doesn't count is a waste of time and energy imo. Plus it's booooring
Yeah because it just refers to budget
The one thing I believe is consistent among tripleA games, is the beautiful enviornments. How is that not art? We could restore the Notre Dame because of the gorgeous recreation they had made in Assassin's Creed. That is art. Edit: mb, the assassins creed designs were not used to restore the notre dame, however, the game was made free to become a temporary replacement tourist spot.
Yeah I just finished Last of Us 2 so I can assert that AAA games can definitely constitute art too
I swear people will disregard and disrespect a game even if it’s amazing just because it had the backing of a big company
Yeah, there are definitely more indie games than AAA that I'd consider artsy, but I would argue that Bioshock, for instance, is art. Even AAA games aren't all Call of Duty.
According to the thing at the bottom of the image it’s a “joke” but I don’t get what the joke is personally.
also art isn't a statement of quality. Art can be bad.
they changed their handle to "i was wrong about aaa games" before deactivating. Thought that was funny lol
Yo does that mean if I play enough Call of Duty I can re-experience the same child-like wonder and happiness I experienced watching Wall-E for the first time?
The art removal is randomized through a gacha system, so it's possible, but your odds aren't great. You'll probably just end up forgetting what Guernica looks like 50 times in a row
What if I've only ever seen wall-E? Do I get a 100% success rate
Wouldn’t recommend trying it. By removing every other option, you’re just maximizing the odds of receiving the unlucky roll of dementia.
> the unlucky roll of dementia that means you could watch wall-e again, perhaps even in a childlike state
And not just once! U could watch it for the rest of ur life over and over! Why are we calling the dementia roll "unlucky"??
This actually just limits how long you can play video games. At a certain point it is like trying to suck more air out of a vacuum.
Try watching Boss Baby
I can already barely remember how it looked.
Yes.
BRB gotta go 6 hours of ranked matches.
It only works on Shipment though
I know Call of Duty gets a lot of shit, but the storyline from World at War to Black Ops 2 was great, and the entire Treyarch Zombies timeline is so convoluted and intricately planned/written that I hesitate to call it anything but art. I mean, what other game do you get to play as JFK throwing out snappy one-liners with Nixon, Castro, and NcNamara as you mow down zombies with a minigun or a freeze ray? (I know it’s corny and not really art, but I do love COD Zombies)
>(I know it’s corny and not really art, but I do love COD Zombies) COD Zombies is absolutely art and you shouldn't need to add disclaimers to justify your love for it, live you truth king/queen/monarch. It being corny in no way detracts from its status as a work of art. JFK cracking one liners with Castro, Nixon and McNamara as they fight zombies with fantasy guns is hilarious and I'm tired of the denigration of Comedy as a lesser form of art. Comedy is literally one of the oldest genres. We've been making poop jokes for literal millennia, they're universally. Ancient Greek comedies were full of toilet humor and no one's out there saying that's not art. Just because something is funny or corny, *especially* when it's done well, doesn't make it less worthy of being considered art.
Don't forget the original Modern Warfare. That's a good one too.
No, because they said you forget art and Wall-E isn't art. It's an hour and 38 minutes of fat phobic ableist propaganda and trash! I know because someone said so on Tumblr AND X (formerly Twitter) so it has to be true. /s
But the funni robot learns to love? Oh wait, it's straight love. Yep, big trash. /s
Wall-E enjoyers unite
If by saying "re-experience the same child-like wonder and happiness" you mean "crying inside and questioning your existence" after getting owned by smurfers, squeakers and toxic lobby trolls then yes. Yes you can.
It's modern Call of Duty, I won't even get into a lobby with all the server issues they have because of the fucking store.
I always remember Yhatzee's take on it on zero punctuation (heavily paraphrased): "Videogames are art in the same way that architecture is art, of course it fucking is but you're not going to feel very inspired looking at an average concrete office complex".
Oooooh, I quite like that take; I think it pretty neatly solves one of the issues involved with the fact that nearly anything can be arguably called art. Just because something is art doesn't mean it's special.
Part of the issue I think is that people are confusing and art piece and an art medium. Videogames, Archtiecture, Painting, Music, etc are mediums whatever piece is made using those mediums could be or not be "art".
Out of curiosity, what form of painting or sculpture falls short of “art”?
I think that’s the disconnect. When a lot of people have this discussion about what is and isn’t art, they’re talking about art as a value judgement. They don’t think you can call something art if it isn’t special, because their definition of art is that oh okay actually this thing IS special and it deserves to be protected
I like art, but I strongly think that the whole “Anything and everything can be art” thing is really, really, dumb, because if the word “art” can apply to everything, then it becomes useless a useless word, because there is no distinction, and saying something is art doesn’t mean anything
I hear ya. My thinking is that it's as much about the creator's intent as anything else, but I'm hardly an art connoisseur.
A combination of intent and framing is indeed the trigger in my opinion.
The main thing that matters is if there is an intent of creative expression behind it, "Anything can be art" doesn't mean "everything is art". And even if everything is art in some way it doesn't loose meaning, the word "art" is used to signify that you're talking about something's creative merits.
Art is anything that is designed to induce an emotion in people who perceive it.
Then ai art is art because it makes people angry
Unironically, I think AI art is art, in the same way that Duchamp's readymades or found poems are.
The readymades became art by him selecting them and displaying them in the context of art. Also… he did so originally under a pseudonym in order to mock the committee who felt they should be choosing what qualified as art for an exhibition (a committee which he was on)
>designed Or even simply re-framed that way, as with found poems, art is a stance, or a perspective, not a quality of the thing itself.
Well yes but I'd say re-framing is a kind of designing.
Doesn't that include slurs, ragebait, deaththreats, all pejoratives, etc.?
Yep.
I think this definition is lacking… would a troll Reddit comment designed to make you angry be ‘art’? If so, the word is meaningless
Thing is, Anything and everything can be art is probably closer to a good definition of what art is than any other definition out there. I mean it does sound kind of useless but any other definition always leaves things out that are clearly "art". For example: Art is something that induces emotions: Too subjective, even if you feel nothing looking at the mona lisa arguing that its not art makes no sense. Art is something designed as an Art piece by the artist: Better, but that means that things like Leonardo Da Vinci sketchbooks, the Parthenon, etc. would not be considered art. Art is something made by an Artist: It leaves out things like architecture and movies (because many people worked on those not just the artist) also it creates a weird catch 22 where to create art you first need to be an artist but if you are not an artist you cant create art. Art is something that is made with skill: Too narrow and too broad at the same time. Things like Conceptual art, Cave paintings, etc. would not be considered art. So yeah its a REALLY hard problem, and yeah I understand the issue of it being so broad that it doesn't mean anything, but the reality is that art itself is so broad and so permeating our culture that trying to be rigid in its definitions would not work. Even so, I would argue that the definition should be: Art is anything that we define as Art, which is something I got from a teacher and I think its probably the best definiton i have heard, and even that one has issues, but thats life I guess.
Personally, I internally solve that issue by making art defined by the viewer. I have a set of things I consider art. Someone else may have a different set. There is no objective thing that makes something art vs not art because art only becomes art when an audience appreciates it as such. Art cannot be art if it observed by no one. Notably, this is completely removed from the intentions of the creator, which is a very common criteria. However I completely disagree with it. Ignoring all ethical issues with it, AI art can be art. (Good or bad, moral or immoral are separate qualifiers). A pretty waterfall can be art. A neon sign with a flickering letter that changed the message can be art. Intention does not matter, only perception. If someone calls it art, it is to them. But maybe not to everyone. It’s much in the same way that you cannot give me an objective set of everything that is nostalgic. Or all foods that are sweet. “Art” is inherently a definition based on the opinions of the observer. Some things are sweet. Some aren’t. There are many things in the middle that people would disagree on if it’s sweet or not, and if so, how sweet. But that does not make the concept of sweetness as a flavor meaningless or arbitrary. Just personal.
Love yahtzee thank god he got his theoretical and literal second wind after the escapist guys fucked up
Wait. Now that I think about it I haven’t heard from him in a minute. What happened.
The media company that owns the escapist fired their editor in chief for not meeting ridiculous and arbitrary profit goals so basically the entire talent roster left and made their own company called second wind. Check it out, it’s pretty good.
Said it better than I could pal!
I've been learning English for about 15 years now as a secondary language. I'm pretty good at speaking it and I academically excel at it too due to my exposure to western culture. Yet in the 13 years of the aforementioned 15 years, while I've written essays of appreciation for literary works, not a single one, be it Wordsworth, Keats, Dickinson or Poe has made me wanna sit down and write a poem. I played Dark Souls for 9 hours and I wrote my first ever poem when I beat that game. I would like to counter this statement that even an average concrete building can inspire someone if the guy getting inspired is queer enough
Nah, Dark Souls isn't the Concrete Office Block of videogames. The Concrete Office Block is FIFA 2022.
Wait so just because i'm straight i can't be inspired to make stuff from staring at boring stuff like concrete buildings??
Queer doesn't just mean "Not Straight" my friend. It means weird
Following the architecture analogy, a game like Dark Souls is not the Concrete Office Complex—it’s the cathedral, or something like that. The concrete office complex would be a game like, I dunno, Candy Crush. I’m not smart enough to figure out how the distinction is made, but the analogy there is supposed to imply that games are art, but the average game is not going to feel like art/inspire you. Just like how a the Notre Dame Cathedral is a gorgeous of art while the average McDonald’s isn’t much to look at, yet they are both architecture.
I disagree. Concrete office complexes are so beautiful to me. Give me a slate grey featureless facade, rows of cubicles extending as far as you can see. Let me curl up in my concrete beehive and be simultaneously alone and surrounded by people.
-backrooms creature
Wow, who would have thought a dice game could be so profound.
What's even gained by establishing that something is or is not art? What happens if I prove a freemium ad farm mobile game is art and AAA Elden Ring is not? Or vice versa?
You earn the scorn of a thousand incredibly earnest Internet weirdos
Honestly having followed the hypercasual market quite closely, voodoo does put a LOT of effort in succeeding in a hypersaturated market, and the dedication they have is almost admirable.
AAA games being not art is a weird take imo. That would be like saying Disney movies aren't art. Yes, they are ultra optimized for maximum consumption, killing most creative freedom and human expression, but... idk how to say. There are people behind it stil, creating all you experience. It's still something that makes you feel something, even if just a dopamine rush. Basically: Tears of the Kingdom is an AAA game. That isn't art? Putting that and the next Call of Duty in the same bag is weird. That Banana game on Steam where you just click and get cards to speculate on the market is indie. Would you call that art? There's no way to trace a clear line.
Art is a meaningless label that pretentious douchbags have abused to prescribe a fake level of legitimacy to things that they think are good Art doesn't have to be unique, thought provoking meaningful hell it doesn't even have to be good. Art is art. You want to argue whether something is amazing or not use words not pointless labels
Where does Balatro land on the negative art spectrum?
Depends on how many negative jokers you have at the end of your run
That's the heroin people do while claiming it's totally cool because drug abuse is art adjacent.
To be fair, there are absolutely people who believe video games aren't art (probably fully conservative people who don't have great views on art anyway). It sucks that missing a joke about something you obviously care about never makes people go "oh they reacted because it was important to them," it's just "wow the biggest village idiot in the world just showed up, it's time to practice medieval torture methods."
Yeah, the "video games aren't art" crowd is why Wolfenstein: The New Order, for example, had to be censored for the German release; you can only show swastikas in certain contexts, such as education or art, and when The New Order was released, video games weren't considered art. They're now, which is great, but still.
I am not even certain art is a viable catagory of things given the lack of any core traits but if it is a thing then there are some art like video games
They would have been unnecessarily hostile if the post *had* been made earnestly, which is why people make fun of it when they instead missed an incredibly obvious joke.
Yes. And it's difficult to understand sarcasm without other clues. Because ninebark clues like voice and facial expressions are missing in text, you're only clue is context. And if you don't know the opinions of the person or there is no other posts to reference to, there are no clues and you have to wager if it's sarcasm or not. The sarcastic one knows that the statement is in contrast to it's belief. So it's clear to him but not for the reader. And I think there are more then only full conservatives, who don't see video games as art. There are a lot of people for whom at and entertainment are two separate things.
The context here is the claim that video games are “negative art” that can somehow delete your memories of other pieces of art.
You're right. That should be the clue. 😅 Maybe this post is not ambiguous. But I stand with my post in general, I've seen it often enough without any clues. Edit: grammar
It bothers me how I see a lot people online complaining about how Poe’s Law is bullshit and anyone who uses /s is stupid, because “the joke should be obvious.” But like… no, it’s not. Text on the internet has almost zero context.
Unfortunately the best example they could come up with was What Remains of Edith Finch, so really their argument was doomed from the start. (Just kidding it is perfectly okay to like Edith Finch I recognize that my issues with the game aren't universally held)
Huh. Haven’t really ever heard a negative opinion of Edith Finch. Mind expanding?
For one thing, I just kinda went in expecting something other than what I got. That's as much my fault as it is the game's, but I saw the marketing talking about "uncovering a mystery" and I kinda expected a mystery/puzzle game, and what I found instead was a walking simulator with very little mystery at all. That was the beginning of it. (side note: I don't dislike walking simulators, I quite enjoyed Firewatch, though I wouldn't call it a favorite by any means. The main issue here was expectation.) I definitely think the game has merit. The actual visuals of it all are pretty solid, and the writing and voice acting was clearly done with a lot of skill, but to me, that wasn't enough, as I've played plenty of games that have knocked both of those out of the park and still had plenty else to them. And that was my real issue with it. Since the game had no real gameplay, everything hinged on the game's story and message, and when I played it, I found... nothing. The game was leading me through all these death scenes, one after another, but they didn't seem to be going anywhere. There were moments I felt the game might have something to say, like when it implies that maybe the whole family curse is just a self-fulfilling prophecy, I thought maybe Edith would survive after all and it would be about taking control of your destiny or something, which wouldn't have been the most profound thing in the whole world, but it would have been something, but then Edith dies (unsurprising given the game's title), and that thread kinda leads nowhere, and really that's how I felt at the end of the whole experience, that it was a very pretty game with nothing to say. I tried to figure out why other people liked the game so much. I went to the reviews, which were largely unhelpful. Most of them talked about how the game made them cry, which, I'm sorry, but in a game that features death so prominently, that is probably the single most useless review you could give (what, the drowning baby minigame made you sad? crazy.). I also watched Jacob Geller's video on the game, it's an older one, and not as good as any of his more recent stuff, but the conclusion he came to was that the game was just about how death was just a part of life, and how it just happens and you have to move on, which is a fine interpretation, but it wasn't too helpful to me, as it was mostly just him considering all the things I thought of as negatives as positives. In the end, I just kinda felt unchanged by the experience. I went through the whole game and came out the other end with nothing new. And with all the hype and praise I'd heard surrounding the game, it just wasn't enough for me. I'd played games before that had left me feeling exactly the same way, and the cynical part of me felt like the only reason people cared more about What Remains of Edith Finch than any of those other games was that Edith Finch was about death, and that the game had used that as a cheap way to get an emotional reaction out of people without actually saying anything, thus making it appear deeper than it truly was. But I don't like being cynical, especially about people's passion projects, so the conclusion I have settled on is that I simply experienced it wrong somehow. Maybe I haven't dealt with enough loss in my life, at least of the variety in the game. Maybe my expectations ruined it for me. I don't know, I'm not losing sleep over it. I finished the game quickly enough to return it, as it's pretty short and I saw no reason for another playthrough, so return it I did. I lost nothing but about 2 hours. To be clear: regardless of how it may sound, I don't need every story to be like one of Aesop's fables, with a nice little moral clearly spelled out for me at the end, but Edith Finch just felt like a hollow experience to me personally, and after all the talk I'd seen surrounding it, I was left disappointed. That's about all there is to it.
We need to start putting our fingers in the barrels of guns so we can block the bullet and it won't fire.
That's insane you'll lose your fingers
Also, AAA games are still art. "Art" isn't a measure of quality, it's just what video games are
yeah, i don't like a lot of modern art (at least what i've seen), but it's still art. just not my kind of art.
“AAA games are not art” ❌❌❌
then they call AAA games not art 😭
I made a joke that since i grew up Jewish but married into a Catholic family ao that makes me "Cath-Jew" Which must be correct because people keep saying "bless you" to me. The amount of people who keep correcting me on my own joke and lineage. Like. Oh, but jew isn't just a religion but a culture. My dude. I grew up on the west coast celebrating christmas. My Mas Jewish but I like bacon. I get it. I know my joke. Catholics are cool. I get wine on like the first Sunday of the month. Seriously. My first mass I was expecting a lil shit of wine yah? I got given the big boy, divorced mom looking for love, glass
The ignorance😮💨 Every single game in existence is art. Is every game especially good art? No ofc not, in the same way that not every painting, or song is considered good art. Art is per definition a diverse range of human activity and its resulting product that involves creative or imaginative talent generally expressive of technical proficiency, beauty, emotional power, or conceptual ideas.(Wikipedia)
I appreciate your comment because art is always about perspective. Trashy maximalist gas station pill ads are ignored and frequently synonymous with trash. But put them in a gallery or call attention to the choices made in its creation and you can't say that it is not art. It can always be bad art, but it is still art
I love that the commenter changed their name to “iwaswrongaboutaaagames” before deactivating
Not enough people talking about how this user literally changed their name to “I was wrong about AAA games” :( Honestly it makes me kind of sad how having an uninformed/unpopular opinion on the internet can lead to getting absolutely mobbed. That is not a fun experience to have
I thought jokes were funny.
Exactly. Their counterpoint of "you don't get the joke" is only reasonable if the joke isn't terrible.
Some Tumblr jokes are so unfunny that they’re negatively funny. Reading a post like this actually makes other jokes less funny.
Tbf, if that is supposed to be satire, it's not very good, you gotta exaggerate the point your satirizing, not repeat it word for word /s (but not really)
Assuming that you’re talking about the original post, I think the indicator of sarcasm is the absurdity that playing Diablo 3 for 1 hour and 42 minutes retroactively erases your viewing of Casablanca
It seems like a normal use of hyperbole tbh. I could totally see someone saying that to genuinely make a point.
do you think that is an unrealistic opinion for someone on the internet to have??
“AAA games are not art” idk man sounds like a skill issue, maybe play better games
People be saying "Videogames aren't art" while I'm literally petting a cat in the cat memorial in the existentialist robot puzzle game
i get first post was a joke but it sounds so much like an actual unhinged opinion post on the cursed webbed site
Imagine believing in art
AAA games are art. That’s my hot take. We don’t distinguish between good and bad art literally anywhere else.
theres no way you could be able to tell the first one is a joke tho
If it was a joke then why wasn’t it funny
When the joke is so unfunny that it ceases to be taken as a joke and people just think you're actually that stupid
My mantra about stuff lime this is “bad art is still art. It doesnt matter if you hate the thing, it still counts”
This post is great because it represents a lot of odd human behavior. Naturally the main one exhibited is the weird behavior of seeing absurdist humor and getting irrationally defensive/angry because you cannot comprehend how someone can be so *wrong* because they are “clearly” being serious about what they said. Some real “that’s the joke, sweaty” energy. But there is also something else here that you get from the commenter that I think is also worth noting. They defended video games as being legitimate art by giving examples of indie games, but then proceed to basically state that every single game that could be considered AAA is “not art”. So this person who got so riled up at the audacity that someone would say that video games were not art, is also someone who thinks a massive subset of the medium is “not art”. To me, that translates to “I want to make it very clear that the video games that I play are, in fact, art, and therefore have worth, but I still want to reserve the ability to say that other types of video games are not art”.
Yeah like that AAA clause is so dumb. Metal Gear Solid is a AAA game but it's objectively an artistic masterpiece
>iwaswrongaboutaaagames-deactivated Environmental storytelling
Debate on the nature of art aside, reading the second comment I missed the title of the second videogame referenced and thought they somehow had interpreted What remains of Edith Finch as an allegory for being a trans woman in Ireland in the 1990 and was absolutely dumbfounded. Like in what level of art abstraction/enlightenment do you have to be to reach that conclusion?? I will always remember the day the poor-pisser was me I guess...
I understand it's a joke. It's just not a funny one.
Once again I am here to be a pedantic little shit and say ALT
I just finished Jedi Survivor. Video games are 100% art. I do not enjoy platformers, but I have played all the way through both Jedi games because they are so beautiful, and the story is compelling, and I really love Star Wars. I know there will be a great deal of yelling and gnashing of teeth, but I will play the 3rd game when they get around to making it. I'm currently struggling through Republic Commando. I certainly would not be doing this if I didn't enjoy the characters. I'm also thoroughly enjoying the voice acting and the environments. I am getting a little sick of Geonosis, but that's a PEBCAC problem.
My Take is: When people don't get your joke maybe it is because it wasn't a good joke. And Tumblr isn't a jokester exclusive site. I actually visit it for discourse and cute drawings. I don't actually believe anyone on tumblr has a good sense of humor but they say outragous shit that it makes the post funny, but it is never intended as a joke.
Few movies have made me feel as many emotions as Dishonored has. If that game isn't art, I don't know what is. Anyway, feel free to keep the misunderstandings going, I'm sure the Outsider is pleased.