File: Why is Modern Art so Bad.swf-(9.53 MB, 432x240, Other)
[_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:00:41 No.3021377
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:06:56 No.3021378
ho ho troll harder
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:14:35 No.3021381
And this is why we have little hipster kiddies saying things like "Graphics don't make a game
good" "Who care about aesthetics" "Game play and story mean more than how a game looks".
Marketing execs take advantage of this trend now by having developers make games with poor
aesthetic appeal (to save time and money) in order to brainwash the target audience into thinking
the rest of the content (game play, story, music) is good (by contrast).
When in fact those qualities are no better than any other AAA game with great graphics and
stunning aesthetic appeal.
Pulling the wool over the eyes of the general public has been easier than it ever has been.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:15:48 No.3021382
>>3021381
>video games
Are you a literal child?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:15:53 No.3021383
>>3021377
something of quality on /f
@impressed
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:17:31 No.3021384
>>3021381
I can enjoy games that have bad graphics as long as they have good gameplay or story. Don't give
a flying fuck how it looks as long as I enjoy it.
Problem with most games is: both are awful, or ONLY the graphics are good. If I'm playing a
videogame I want to have fun, not stare at a work of art and AMAZING graphics if that's the only
thing it has to offer.
Of course it's advantageous if the game looks pretty AND is fun to play, but that seems to be a
rare occurrence nowadays.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:17:35 No.3021385
>>3021382
Video games are still considered a form of art, whether you like it not.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:22:07 No.3021390
>>3021385
what do you mean still? they never were.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:23:52 No.3021393
>>3021390
It's been a debate for a long time, still is.
It can't be confirmed as not being a form of art, therefore it can be considered a form of art
until proven otherwise.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:27:41 No.3021395
>waaah! waaah! why does art have to change? why can't it stay the same forever? waaah!
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:32:20 No.3021397
>>3021395
>waaah! waaah! I can't do anything without a user interface. Why can't I interact with technology
without visual cues? waaaaah!
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)08:47:38 No.3021400
tl;dw: Jews
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)09:54:34 No.3021421
while I agree scatological modern art is both figuratively and literally shit, his reasoning for
the decline of realistic art can really be attributed to one thing: photography. when it became
possible to capture the real world in perfect detail, the skill to replicate the real world
ubiquitous. anyone can do it, there is no need for advanced techniques or years of training.
if you look at something like Mondrian's paintings you can see why it developed to the abstract.
he was a phenomenally talented painter but explored shape and form and color.
besides the only jobs that classically trained artists can get are as portrait artists for rich
fucks or paintings for magic the gathering cards
>>3021400
also the CIA. funded modern art to fuck with the soviets.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)10:48:23 No.3021434
why do you retards come here jesus christ
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)11:02:59 No.3021437
>>3021434
Because we are faggots, my son.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)11:17:50 No.3021440
He seems to not understand that the problem extends far beyond just art. The whole fucking
country is diseased with modernist, pseudo-relativist, cuckolded, special snowflake faggots. I
almost hope the fucking Islamist barbarians come to the States, at least then the fucking
subhumans would be burned alive
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)11:18:36 No.3021441
modern art is terrible and anyone that think it's good should be called out on it
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)11:29:52 No.3021447
Thank you, OP
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)11:38:03 No.3021453
>>3021440
wew lad
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)11:39:03 No.3021455
>>3021377
This applies to the most modern music too actually.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)11:41:20 No.3021459
>>3021377
>Rosenberg
Every fucking time
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:01:01 No.3021465
>>3021459
"For of all sad words of tongue or pen, The saddest are these: '/pol/ was right again!'"
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:02:32 No.3021466
>>3021465
Sad but true.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:02:36 No.3021467
>starts as essay
>ends as GIBBE MONEY PLZ
Industrial society produces industrial art. Religious/Philosophic society produces their
equivalent. Michelangelo took more than 10 years to do David, he would never get the chance in
modern world, it only happened because the church was paying the bills for him at the time.Not
that hard.
Along with it, many errors, like saying the Impressionists were the ones who invented relativism,
when it was already a thing before Plato
All in all, learn2art fagget
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:03:10 No.3021468
He's mostly right.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:04:52 No.3021472
>>3021455
modern music isn't an art form though. it's a business. art can't self sustain itself as a
business so the artist "community" had to trick people into believing that what they like is
outdated and wrong.
*poof!* abstract art is born! over time our desire for beautiful ornaments and representations of
skill and mastery has dwindled, since we aren't aristocrats. we are merely working class citizens.
we don't need any physical objects of gratification, especially in the digital age. and thus, we
start losing appreciation for tradition, craft, legacy, and culture. the ironic mutation of the
term "art" has been poisoned forever.
over saturation will do that. i believe if we weren't such a consumerist society we would be able
to appreciate the finer things in life. but i don't see any realistic way for the world to go
backwards on technological advancement.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:05:42 No.3021474
>>3021467
>Industrial society produces industrial art
What exactly is "industrial" about a randomly spraying paint on a canvas or putting a crucifix in
a tank of piss (other that it's so simplistic that anyone can do it, and as such it can be mass
produced).
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:10:41 No.3021476
>>3021421
>art is technique
Get a load of this fag
>>3021472
>art is not one of the oldest form of business
And a load of this one
Seriously, were people got the idea that at the past artists used to do everything for free? The
whole "art" thing start being a success exactly because you finally could buy a original piece
with nothing else around. Art stands for "artisan". Something you make with your hands and is
unique. One of the highest values in ancient world. Only latter it would be applied to beauty,
philosophy and aesthetics
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:10:47 No.3021477
>>3021472
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music#As_a_form_of_art_or_entertainment
I know what you're saying and all, but it really does depend on a lot of different factors that
the above link better explains.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:12:17 No.3021479
>>3021474
>It's quick
>It's a fad
>It generates word of mouth
>Controversy makes it more valuable
Same logic of Lady Gaga wearing a meat dress. It sells
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:43:53 No.3021492
>>3021479
So then the quality of art should be gauged by how profitable it is to those peddling it?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:44:10 No.3021493
>>3021393
>>3021390
>>3021385
>>3021382
ICO, Shadow of the Colossus
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:45:24 No.3021495
>>3021479
Also, I think the word you're looking for is consumerist, rather than industrial.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:45:33 No.3021496
>>3021493
They're good games but by no means art
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:51:36 No.3021499
>>3021496
Everything is art.
>> [_] John Moses Browning 02/13/16(Sat)12:52:54 No.3021500
>>3021496
>by no means
Open your mind
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:52:56 No.3021501
>>3021499
If everything is art, nothing is.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:54:07 No.3021502
>>3021496
have you ever played them? the landscapes, the story, looks like art to me.
do you think books are forms of art?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:55:16 No.3021503
>>3021501
This isn't like nobody being special if everyone is.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)12:56:07 No.3021505
>>3021503
How so?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:05:15 No.3021507
But Botacelli's Birth of Venus is kind of ugly, and the pissing cop is funny, and well-executed.
This jackass is ignoring Goya, Bosch, and, most significantly, Lucas Cranach:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/75/The_Papal_Belvedere.jpg
Come on! This guy is full of more shit than those peasants were launching at the pope!
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:06:32 No.3021508
>>3021440
Although you seem a bit hurt in the rear, I am totally with you on that point.
This bullshit individualism "my opinion matters because I am special" thinking has to stop.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:07:09 No.3021509
>>3021502
>free my spirit from collosi to revive your loved one
This cliche story seems like art to you?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:36:07 No.3021520
>>3021509
where have you seen that story before?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:43:26 No.3021523
>>3021390
beautiful and interactive worlds made purely by math. Yeah not art at all you faggot
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:45:31 No.3021526
Is this the Undertale thread?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:49:59 No.3021529
Guys, GUYS! got a crazy one so bear with me:
Dark souls is art
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:51:17 No.3021531
>>3021390
get back in your fucking grave, ebert
you know you're not allowed out unsupervised
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)13:52:38 No.3021533
Goddamn does someone just post dumb bait shit and then immediately links the thread on /pol/?
Where do you fucktards keep coming from?
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)14:00:53 No.3021535
>>3021381
People who say "graphics don't make a game good" actually have a leg to stand on, if they apply
it to the proper game.
There is a growing trend in the gaming world that a game is good just because it is pretty. This
isn't the case. A game, much like a painting, can't just be a mish-mash of colors that is
visually pleasing to the eye if there is no substance behind it. All the classical paintings have
a degree of mastery to them that showcases a deeper meaning behind them, or tell a story, or
simply illustrate a point in time that will be frozen forever.
Video games can be art, if they have some substance behind them. A video game isn't really a
video game if there isn't some level of challenge, or a win/lose cycle. If you made a game where
all you had to do was press a button to win, but gave it the most beautiful graphics known to
man, the community of players would revolt against it. If you made an extremely complex game that
made the player gamble with their decisions, and gave a near infinite possibility of outcomes but
with poor graphical quality, it too would be looked down on.
There's a fine balance between making a game "just look good", and making a game "really fun to
play". In the former, most developers are spending far more time developing textures in 4K
resolutions for insignificant things like a nut or a rock, and less time developing a story or
control mechanic to apply these things to.
Conversely, many of the newer "retro" styled games are using lower quality textures and models to
focus more on a story and gameplay.
Games like Shadow of the Colossus and ICO and even Journey can demonstrate that video games can
be a form of art, because they manage to blend high quality graphics with exciting gameplay
(although Journey is a bit lacking in that department).
Once we find that great graphics and great gameplay line, we will be in a great spot.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)14:01:18 No.3021536
>>3021529
leave
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)14:01:34 No.3021537
>>3021509
he doesn't say a word, and with the very few cut scenes in the game it becomes very clear that he
loves her so incredibly much, I think telling such a 'simple' story in such an incredible way is
worthy to be labeled art.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)14:13:49 No.3021543
>>3021377
>pragerU youtube channel
>people who are not paid by conservative republicans for beeing pseudo-intelligent
choose only one
ps.: pragerU would most likely crucify U because you are on this website and not on disney1984
dot com
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)14:32:06 No.3021548
>>3021535
You missed the point entirely.
I didn't say video games with high res textures, high poly models, and many FOV levels to immerse
the player in the graphics only had to have a couple of crappy game play mechanics and dynamics
to make a good game.
I'm simply stating that there are A LOT of games that provide everything all round (AAA games)
that are no worse than games with less aesthetic appeal.
The reason why games with less aesthetic appeal are hyped up so much is because it gives the
player the illusion that everything else must be very well done if the graphics are "meh".
In regards to 2d retro games, it is less time spent compared to typical 3d games where modelling,
uv mapping, texturing and animating is concerned.
But 2d retro graphics still need a great artist and a lot of time to create the sprites and
animate them. Which means fine-detailing every pixel.
You see retro games out there with no effort put into their aesthetics i.e. the pixels don't
really differ in colour and it literally looks like a child drew it in MS paint.
Then you have the hipster kiddies praising it saying "Oh who cares the game play, story line and
music more than makes up for it", when it's really not that great and no better than AAA games
that poured a lot of their effort into the aesthetics but still pumped out great game mechanics
and dynamics.
>> [_] Anonymous 02/13/16(Sat)14:49:00 No.3021559
Graphics is a technical term. Art direction is the term for how the game looks. A game can have
art direction, even if the game itself is not art.
Okami, Shadow of the Colossus, and other pretty games like it have terrible graphics. Low poly
counts, etc. But they look pretty, and that's because of their art direction. Cod: Blops has
better graphics than either, but still looks "less pretty".
An engineer can create a model with a disgustingly high poly count that looks like shit. An
artist can create one with a lower poly count that looks beautiful.
