The "are videogames art" debate was lost from the very beginning since anything and everything humanity does or creates...

The "are videogames art" debate was lost from the very beginning since anything and everything humanity does or creates has the potential to be art.
"Art" is not some prestigious title or standard to hold things up to, it's a way to classify products of human expression.
Whether something is "good" art or "bad" art is an entirely different and subjective issue.

Attached: 1643599063702.jpg (1127x2000, 981.04K)

C

I'm gonna cry...

I wanna lick those toes

certified midwit take

Attached: 1643599565409.png (1080x689, 52.89K)

shut the fuck up souless golems
this is art, not degenerate shit

>using machines instead of your personal opinion
5 IQ

my opinion is that you're a retard and your thread is shit

UOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH

U

Attached: Heisenberg.png (917x642, 878.03K)

>we only like 2d bro

the entire debate was a bid for attention on roger ebert's part, a man who also very shortly after released a follow-up statement that he didn't expect any kind of rebuttal, he didn't care how many examples to the contrary he got, and he wasn't going to address any criticisms with his viewpoint, he expected to float his opinion out into the aether and not be challenged on it whatsoever

while based, it also didn't save him from jaw problems that i can only assume were related to sucking cock in a wal-mart bathroom

>man makes a career out of endlessly criticizing things
>universe takes away his mouth
how did he not take a hint

So can we agree that cunnyposters are pedophiles?

it's not like that's particularly a secret, the man that first posted UUUUOHHHHHH searches for and masturbates to things that would have you bent over your table in handcuffs by men in suits

why not that's not a bad thing is it

Video games are unable to be high art yet because they don't get even close to exploit what interactivity can bring, and right now the artists are shying away from it, preferring to try to copy other forms of media.

Some dude from the last thread convinced me of something. The idea of "art" has been so deconstructed in recent decades so to become meaningless. The traditional definition of "art" was not just any form of personal expression, but specifically that which evokes the transcendent, i.e., that which glorifies God. The modern confusion over what should constitute "art" is a direct result of the profound confusion innate to any truly secular society. We cannot define "art" if we cannot define meaning itself, and a society cannot precisely define "meaning" if we have discarded the transcendent itself. Defining "art" in a secular society is a pointless exercise, and emblematic of the destructive influence of the postmodern movement.

most of the people that made the art that we consider "classic" or "high" art today were poorfags that were looked down on the same way we look down on preppy college art fags today

>cunnyposters are one person

the church and the filthy rich paid a pretty penny for art, but it came at the cost of having to put up with their bullshit

Attached: 1643602049388.jpg (1800x1200, 516.67K)