|
It's true I can play video games much better than read when I'm really stoned
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
Vic posted:objectively higher form of art than literature youre thinking of visual novels
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:22
|
|
|
In decreasing levels of artness you have: paintings >= sculptures > poems > books > music > movies > videogames > graphics novels > comics > performance art That's just the way it is, no use arguing about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:29
|
|
|
no videogames are on top because you need a computer for them to manifest
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:34
|
|
|
shakespeare getting ranked lower than harry potter asscreed huh
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:35
|
|
|
George posted:lol at the idea that games are a technical achievement of any sort, they're an art form and that's that Art can be a technical achievement. Those giant rear end statues, the pyramids, the ceiling of the sitting chapel, and yes, a collection of code so efficient that it wildly outpaces other projects on the same hardware are all impressive not just for the work itself, but all the work behind making it that enabled it to be done in the first place. E: Nice Van My Man posted:In decreasing levels of artness you have: Nah, paintings, sculptures, and poetry go beneath a good symphony or novel anyway. Also, movies are performance art you dingus. A play is literally just a movie with worse special effects and a fixed camera. FoolyCharged fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:37
|
|
|
So long as men can breathe or eyes can see, So long lives this, and this gives life to thee. It's a clear a reference to 1up
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:38
|
|
|
Kurosawa did Shakespeare better than Shakespeare. Film > Plays
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 01:45
|
|
|
We're living in the gutenberg times of videogames. That's why people have a hard time realizing how amazing they are.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:03
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:Art can be a technical achievement. Those giant rear end statues, the pyramids, the ceiling of the sitting chapel, and yes, a collection of code so efficient that it wildly outpaces other projects on the same hardware are all impressive not just for the work itself, but all the work behind making it that enabled it to be done in the first place. Performative art is different than performance art! You've convinced me about novels, so we can throw them on top, but you're totally out to lunch on symphonies. They're way too easy to enjoy without creating pretentious over analysis (this is also why Dark Souls is the most successful videogame as art).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:11
|
|
|
Nice Van My Man posted:In decreasing levels of artness you have: I don't know if paintings can even really be considered to have "fine artness" anymore, because if you look at any famous painter throughout history the thing that made fame gravitate toward them is that the artist's life story was preserved in emotive detail through things like letters or journals, something which didn't apply to the vast majority of people living at the time whose entire lives turned to ash and dust the moment their funeral ended. These days every single painter's life story is chronicled thanks to the internet and modern technology and what we're realizing is that wow every single person's life is as sad and emotive as these famous painters were including our own. The only thing that really made most famous historical painters stay relevant is that it was rare for so much information to be known about an ancient person's life and these days it's rare for no information to be known about a modern person. The famous painters who were famous for something else were almost exclusively famous for understanding physical properties of the paint that others didn't and working out new techniques with it, and these days with most paint being commercialized heavily-studied products that's not really possible anymore either. e: I mean I'm not saying famous paintings have no aesthetic value or aren't nice to look at or think about, or lack craftsmanship, or whatever, but the thing that made them as famous and written-about and "artistic" as they are is the knowledge we have of their artist's life, not some kind of magical "artfulness" score. deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 02:43 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:38
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:I don't know if paintings can even really be considered to have "artness" anymore, because if you look at any famous painter throughout history the thing that made fame gravitate toward them is that the artist's life story was preserved in emotive detail through things like letters or journals, something which didn't apply to the vast majority of people living at the time whose entire lives turned to ash and dust the moment their funeral ended. These days every single painter's life story is chronicled thanks to the internet and modern technology and what we're realizing is that wow every single person's life is as sad and emotive as these famous painters were including our own. I mean, they're still pretty and looking at them makes the people that are into them feel stuff. That feels like it's still art and purpose enough  e: And it's not like we still don't have super famous celebrities that people obsessively follow. They just aren't painters anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:42
|
|
|
But that's true of comic books and everything else on the list too
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:43
|
|
|
Art is dumb as hell that's why I like video games
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:45
|
|
|
That post on paintings is insane. Caravaggio isn't a great artist because he was a mad lad, it's because he understood light and shadow and could paint a hell of a portrait. I do not understand what is with moderns and their ability to not only deny aesthetic beauty but outright reject the very concept
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:54
|
|
|
Video games often (nowadays almost always) contain art, but they aren't art pieces themselves
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 02:58
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:That post on paintings is insane. Caravaggio isn't a great artist because he was a mad lad, it's because he understood light and shadow and could paint a hell of a portrait. Artists who understand light and shadow are a dime a dozen today, just like they would have been back then if everyone had as much access to art supplies + as much documented history as they do today. It's not the talent or artistry itself that makes famous painters famous.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:06
|
|
|
It's similar today if you try to "make it" as an artist - the quality of your artwork is far less important than the story of your journey. Galleries will not exhibit you unless you can show them where you've been in the past and they feel strongly about where you'll go in the future, the most incredible art in the world would not be enough alone to get a gallery show or to go down in history - no one cares unless you're also providing some kind of personal attachment (generally to your journey or to an ideal meaningful to the audience). The same is true of poetry and everything else creative. The number of people out there who can write a stellar poem is astronomical. The number of people who are famous for writing stellar poems is incredibly slim - they stand out from the crowd by giving you a personal journey along with the poems, or otherwise are arbitrarily picked by rich influential people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:Artists who understand light and shadow are a dime a dozen today, just like they would have been back then if everyone had as much access to art supplies + as much documented history as they do today. It's not the talent or artistry itself that makes famous painters famous. You can really see this with the spread of English, not a day goes by where I don't think of how equal to Faulkner the average person's writing is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:24
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:Artists who understand light and shadow are a dime a dozen today, just like they would have been back then if everyone had as much access to art supplies + as much documented history as they do today. It's not the talent or artistry itself that makes famous painters famous. Nah, people legit didn't understand those techniques back then. Look at all the medieval art and earlier where even the concept of perspective didn't exist. This is like saying Hipparchus was no big deal because modern day high schoolers can do trig.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:You can really see this with the spread of English, not a day goes by where I don't think of how equal to Faulkner the average person's writing is. You mean the writer who became famous because an influential lawyer from the time took interest in him and mentored him on how to become famous, and whose life story takes up more than half of his wikipedia page?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
My point isn't that these people aren't talented but that their talent isn't the reason you know their names. You know their names and not the names of other equally-talented people generally because of either the influence of wealth, or because they (e: not their art) swayed the emotions of the wealthy. "If you're talented, you can make it too!" is the same exact myth as the american dream. deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 03:38 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
So you think that the point of being an artist is to be famous, not to express something or create a work of beauty? Even using the phrase "make it" is disgusting.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:40
|
|
|
deep dish peat moss posted:My point isn't that these people aren't talented but that their talent isn't the reason you know their names. You know their names and not the names of other equally-talented people generally because of either the influence of wealth, or because they (e: not their art) swayed the emotions of the wealthy. If you're talking about talent in terms of a person's ability to execute, then yeah, you can only go so far with that. The second part of your argument might have some truth to it but pushing it to an absolutist stance seems overly cynical. The greats are primarily known for the novelty of their ideas, not how well those ideas were executed. Elon Musk could funnel billions into promoting some dogshit artist who sways his emotions but they won't be remembered by history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:42
|
|
|
Gaius Marius posted:So you think that the point of being an artist is to be famous, not to express something or create a work of beauty? Even using the phrase "make it" is disgusting. I referenced fame because your entire argument has been "Here's a bunch of famous artists and you're saying they're not great!!" but my point isn't that they're not great, it's just that you're upholding the pop culture celebrities of a medium as if they're the definition of fine art within that medium. My original post was that "the greats" of painting are only considered "the greats" because of what was known about their personal lives, not because their art was "the best", and that we are oversaturated in knowing about artists' lives in modern times and that the concept of being one of "the greats" is gone, and that painting is a very widespread talent that hundreds of thousands of people have mastered and that it is therefore not #1 on the ranking of what art is the most "arty" Case in point: Who is the most recent world-famous painter you can name? I guess Banksy probably for most people, but that's more performative art than painting, and Banksy pieces are famous for the personal message that goes along with their existence rather than the artwork itself, and whose fame was very... famously exhibited as something the rich could easily manipulate in a rather well-known documentary. Then you have, idk, Basquiat? Who was famous primarily for, well, him and his force of personality and his ideals, not for his art. And because he's repeatedly referenced throughout famous modern music. Then... what, like, Warhol? Who, again, was not famous for his artwork itself but for who he knew and for his ability to sell garbage to anyone. Keith Haring is in there too and he fuckin' owns but like, the art itself? Simple. He became as influential as he was because of himself, his activism, and who he knew. deep dish peat moss fucked around with this message at 04:10 on Mar 11, 2023 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 03:58
|
|
|
playing parasite steve on the boner gaystation
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:00
|
|
|
video games aren't art but their code is
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
there is no such thing as art
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
video games are art and that's why they're bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:36
|
|
|
its not that hard to be art, just make something creative and its probably art, its not like its some level of quality you need to aspire to or pull off, little kids do it all the time
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
George posted:video games are art and that's why they're bad
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:47
|
|
|
Caesar Saladin posted:its not that hard to be art, just make something creative and its probably art, its not like its some level of quality you need to aspire to or pull off, little kids do it all the time if Banksy can be art by putting his picture in a shredder, then, vidja games are art
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:49
|
|
|
If video games aren't art then why does the code get a copyright instead of instead of one of the other ip protections. Checkmate movie critic man from the 90s.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
But don't you see? Having to know all these backstories and historical reasons why a thing should be appreciated just makes it more art. The more immediately you can appreciate something the less art it is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 04:57
|
|
|
I will miss the whole hearted but still terrible attempts at replacing box cover art with a hand drawing when buying a used game from GameStop. Like tears in the rain.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 05:03
|
|
|
Its crazy how cheap used games used to be during the 360 era. I used to go and take a look in the used section and find some good B-level game like Wolverine Origins for 16 bucks. They barely even mark down used games anymore.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 05:06
|
|
|
Caesar Saladin posted:Its crazy how cheap used games used to be during the 360 era. I used to go and take a look in the used section and find some good B-level game like Wolverine Origins for 16 bucks. They barely even mark down used games anymore. I feel like I have to wait for games to go on sale new before the used ones get cheap at all anymore
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 05:13
|
|
|
FoolyCharged posted:If video games aren't art then why does the code get a copyright instead of instead of one of the other ip protections. Checkmate movie critic man from the 90s. "It stinks!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 05:17
|
|
|
If it can give you a boner then it's art, qed
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 06:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 17:04 |
|
|
QuarkJets posted:If it can give you a boner then it's art, qed https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8MO7fkZc5o
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2023 06:18
|
|