Low Desert Punk posted:

lol if u think art is art

Grand Prize Winner posted:

only kincade is art

Grand Prize Winner posted:

only kincade is art

Crow_Rodeo posted:

Huge Lady Pleaser posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B97yNsKoE

Crow_Rodeo posted:

Not_Rainbow_Horse posted:

An error occurred during validation.

Blurry Gray Thing posted:

Yeah says that doesn't exist.

OP is this a real game or a dream you had?

You should have better dreams then, I don't dream of videogames I dream of saving the president's wife from aliens and then getting to gently caress the president (he's really thankful).

Huge Lady Pleaser posted:

Like drat if you don't think games are art after playing this game you must be retarded.

Your Dead Gay Son posted:

Glad xboners finally have a Journey of their own

a medical mystery posted:

please compare this game to dark souls i only play citizen kanes of games

Waltzing Along posted:

One is for autists, the other is Ori and came out this week.

a medical mystery posted:

thank you for confirming that ori is the citizen kane, of games

JebanyPedal posted:

Ah yeah, the time honored "The artwork in the game is pretty so the game is art." argument from mentally damaged retards everywhere.

JebanyPedal posted:

Wonder when gaming journalists will realise that Citizen Kane is held in its high standard because of technical innovation and visual metaphor in filmic storytelling so the fact that Last of Us is generic in its gameplay and storytelling technique but has a good story is in fact totally missing the point and is more like Casablanca in just having a good script and performances and not changing the face of how stories in games are told like an actual Citizen Kane would be Oh well the story sucks cock in TLoU anyway so lick my drat anus.

A Wizard of Goatse posted:

Possibly when a games journalist has seen one or both movies instead of just hearing they're some artsy poo poo grownups like, like hamlet and stuff

Since you wouldn't be a games journalist if you did that kind of thing what I'm saying here is never

LP0 ON FIRE posted:

What is art anyway? Always seemed pretty vague to me.

David Graeber posted:

This reluctance to question old-fashioned theoretical assumptions has real consequences on the resulting analysis. Consider Negri’s contribution to the conference. He begins by arguing that each change in the development of the productive forces since the 1840s corresponds to a change in the dominant style of high art: the realism of the period 1848-1870 corresponds to one of the concentration of industry and the working class, impressionism, from 1871-1914, marks the period of the “professional worker”, that sees the world as to be dissolved and reconstructed, after 1917, abstract art reflects the new abstraction of labor-power with the introduction of scientific management, and so on. The changes in the material infrastructure—of industry—are thus reflected in the ideological superstructure. The resulting analysis is revealing no doubt, even fun if one is into that sort of thing, but it sidesteps the obvious fact that the production of art is an industry, and one connected to capital, marketing, and design in any number of (historically shifting) ways. One need not ask who is buying these things, who is funding the institutions, where do artists live, how else are their techniques being employed. By defining art as belonging to the immaterial domain, it’s materialities, or even its entanglement in other abstractions (like money) need not be addressed.

This is not perhaps the place for a prolonged analysis, but a few notes on what’s called “the art world” might seem to be in order. It is a common perception, not untrue, that at least since the ‘20s the art world has been in a kind of permanent institutionalized crisis. One could even say that what we call “the art world” has become the ongoing management of this crisis. The crisis of course is about the nature of art. The entire apparatus of the art world—critics, journals, curators, gallery owners, dealers, flashy magazines and the people who leaf through them and argue about them in factories-turned-chichi-cafes in gentrifying neighborhoods...— could be said to exist to come up with an answer to one single question: what is art? Or, to be more precise, to come up with some answer other than the obvious one, which is “whatever we can convince very rich people to buy.”

I am really not trying to be cynical. Actually I think the dilemma to some degree flows from the very nature of politics. One thing the explosion of the avant garde did accomplish was to destroy the boundaries between art and politics, to make clear in fact that art was always, really, a form of politics (or at least that this was always one thing that it was.) As a result the art world has been faced with the same fundamental dilemma as any form of politics: the impossibility of establishing its own legitimacy.

LP0 ON FIRE posted:

What is art anyway? Always seemed pretty vague to me.

extra stout posted:

i almost bought this game on steam, i like the art style but i didn't see much exciting gameplay in the videos of it

also if you like that kind of game you'd love shelter 2

Ocean Book posted:

LP0 ON FIRE posted:

What are with all these games for sad brains coming out? It almost seems a new market has been discovered for emo kids/adults.

Badlands
Limbo
World of Goo

I know there's way better examples, and it's not they are bad, but just have this certain depressing attitude about them.

JebanyPedal posted:

Ah yeah, the time honored "The artwork in the game is pretty so the game is art." argument from mentally damaged retards everywhere.

Ocean Book posted: