Film prof claims video games can never be art

Critics deserve the rope

That just mean his argument can't work for any works in those 2 mediums that are made for a mature audience
Makes it sounds like he think that's not a thing, which is obviously false.

>working theory
There you have it

Based.

cope harder

Attached: anime.png (1353x2008, 692.58K)

To me, the reason video games can never be art is the interactivity. Let's say an artist makes a game called Super Mario Bros. Then two people play it. Player A breezes through it and has only a few problems along the way. He thinks it was a solid platformer but probably targeted at newer players because it was fairly easy.
Player B struggles like no tomorrow and when he finally overcomes the challenges, he says the game was a fantastic representation of the struggles of daily life and how to persevere in the face of adversity.
It's not like these two players' experiences are invalid, but they are the product of their own video game playing skills. This has nothing to do with the creator of the game.
Regular art is not like this. Sculptures, paintings, poetry, etc. are all static pieces which are experienced and then processed. The audience/observer has zero input or control. Add to that that video games are games first and foremost, and I don't think they should ever be considered art. It's not even like it matters if they are. What is the big deal if video games aren't art? Do people think their hobby won't be "taken seriously"? Who gives a shit?

Attached: JAYAYA.png (1578x1080, 818.58K)

What is art, though? Is there an empirical definition, or is it just a subject that we inherently know but cannot put into words?

Art is not meant to be consumed, it is meant to be created. A product created for others is a service; a product created for expression is art. People that can’t create art discuss art, and by proxy have no opinion on the matter.

wrong

Attached: R (58).jpg (890x1280, 251.7K)

I would love to see him seethe and cope when he's exposed to something like outer wilds or revue starlight

Art has lost all meaning. Plenty of it is created but only those in higher places can declare it art. There are pieces churned out in absurd amounts each day that we can not even comprehend. An astronomical percentage of those will be forgotten and written off as not good enough. The definition of art has not evolved with the world, and the secret club remains.

Art is always experienced differently by different people depending on personal interpretation and other factors. I don't see how videogames differ in this regard.

Two people can look at the exact same work of art and arrive to a different interpretation, and two people can play a game and have differing experiences.

Why is something being "art" such a prestigious thing? A 5 year old's poor drawing of her parents and siblings is art. I don't get why it has this air of mystique around it when literal children make art every day and none of it is particularly good.

Attached: 1647272393662.jpg (828x765, 64.55K)

video games can contain art, even their story line or gameplay can be art, but as a whole cant be art

Something STEMfags will never understand.

Whatever makes you feel is art. Simple as

Why do you guys care so much about video games being art? Really, who cares. Last time who got one of these pretencious pricks into the industry we got David Cage and his shit games.

That’s because art is not meant to be interpreted

>anime and video games tend to appeal exclusively to kids under 18
If this was true, both industries would have gone bankrupt a long time ago.
It's not though, because both industries know that appealing to multiple age groups is in fact very possible and very profitable.

Good. Now go away and leave vidya gaems alone. We don't need the "arts" community "approval".

Attached: 2dc93d3705f838ddb8c3b9b5e3c23172.png (784x942, 536.66K)

>Two people can look at the exact same work of art and arrive to a different interpretation, and two people can play a game and have differing experiences.
Yeah, but how you experience the two pieces is VASTLY different. Two people looking at a piece of work, say a painting, are experiencing it in the exact same manner. They are just looking at it and taking it in visually.
Two people playing a video game introduces their own physical capabilities into the mix. This can drastically change how their experience goes when playing the game. That is not at all comparable to simply looking at a piece.

Retarded bait thread, he doesnt say video games arent art he says the qualities that define "great art" are limited in games

>some art snob doesn't like what I do so somehow this doesn't make my enjoyment valid?
I'll be over here enjoying the time I spend on anime and video games, which is easily 20x the amount I spend on film. Nothing this retard say can erase my enjoyment, he can kill himself for all I care.

Attached: 1632188454246.gif (498x498, 383.07K)

The experience is at the heart of art, the delivery of said experience does not really matter. If anything, it could be argued that the interactive layer of videogames offers for a broader spectrum of experiences for different people than "regular" visual art.

I don't give a fuck

Attached: games aren't art.png (396x1200, 468.2K)

Just because a creator can be identified through his creation, does not make it art. There is no intent. No one signs my name like I do, but that doesn’t make it art

I recently took a dive into criticism of fairy tales. One critic suggested that they are an artistic expression of something profoundly important to humanity. What exactly wasn't clear, but you can't dismiss them as just childish things.
See Roger Ebert's appreciation for My Neighbor Totoro because of the way it portrays childhood. Compare that to his "video games can't be art" statement. I don't think there's a critic that has dismissed an artform that hasn't lost prominence or later regretted it and reversed their statement.

>a broader spectrum of experiences
That the players themselves are instrumental in creating. At that point, you cannot attribute the art to the artist any longer, which is why I would not consider it art. Just because video games can evoke emotion and be experiences does not make them art, because every single thing in the world can do that.

Because if video games are considered art then I won't feel like I wasted my youth playing them.

>art is not meant to be interpreted
Take your postmodernism and get out. If you remove interpretation then art no longer exists.

If they were going to be art, it would have already happened. It wasn't even 20 years that film was born and it already produced picrel. By the 1920s you already had memorable films to this day like Metropolis, and stars like Charlie Chaplin and Lon Cheney. By the 30s, you had Wizard of Oz, war epics, and gangster flicks that still hold up.
Games are just games. No different than Go or Chess or Hopscotch or basketball. And that's OK. It's awesome actually. The quicker this is accepted, the better. Developers (especially in the West) will get back to real fun again.

Attached: Le_Voyage_dans_la_lune.jpg (257x264, 17.7K)

Because they're pretentious artfags that cant admit their degree is fucking worthless and their lives dont fucking matter.

It already happened, with pathologic and the void.
So far only russians created video game art

what if you make a red frame representing anger but I'm colorblind and think it looks like a comfy sunset?