Games Now Legally Considered an Art Form (in the USA)

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

Games Now Legally Considered an Art Form (in the USA)

image

The US National Endowment for the Arts now considers videogames eligible for artistic funding, legally recognizing them as an art form.

The "games as art" debate will likely continue raging for years before videogames reach complete cultural acceptance, but at least one important organization now officially considers games art: The US Federal Government. Or, rather, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) considers games art - which technically amounts to the exact same thing.

For those not familiar with the NEA, it is a US government organization-slash-program which funds artistic projects around the country which will "enhance the public good." If you're an artist who wants to make a beautiful sculpture for a public place, for instance, and you don't want to sell it commercially - but you would like to continue eating - you can apply for a grant of up to $200,000 to make your work of art. There are all sorts of regulations and scrutiny in the application process, but that's the basic idea, anyway.

The NEA opened its application doors this week for 2012, and announced that it would be changing its criteria for what counted as art. Most significantly for our chosen pastime is that the category formerly known as The Arts on Radio and Television will now be known as The Arts in Media. It will include film, television and radio artistic projects, but will also add satellite-based and internet-based media (as opposed to just landline-based broadcasts) and, you guessed it, interactive media:

Projects may include high profile multi-part or single television and radio programs (documentaries and dramatic narratives); media created for theatrical release; performance programs; artistic segments for use within an existing series; multi-part webisodes; installations; and interactive games. Short films, five minutes and under, will be considered in packages of three or more. (Emphasis ours)

Of course, any developer who wants federal funding for his or her next game will be competing with filmmakers, TV producers, radio stars and now internet productions too. Still, it means that an aspiring game-maker with an idea for an artistic game - which would have to be available for free, mind you - might have a shot at making it without being beholden to a larger publisher.

Naturally, this wouldn't just be the AAA-style of game that we're all accustomed to. Not only is $200k laughably small to the sort of money that goes into your average Call of Duty or Portal, the NEA only offers grants to projects which it deems for the public good. It's a safe bet that whatever game projects it approves - if any - will likely be different from what we see on shelves at GameStop.

But really, whether or not this grant will fund the sort of games that you and I would play for fun in our free time is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that the NEA now officially considers videogames worthy of artistic merit, which is pretty damn cool.

(Via Icrontic)

Permalink

This is great news. Its about time

Now we just need this in the UK.

Words cannot describe the awesome. Also, nice pic.

The question now is, how will this effect the Supreme Court case. I mean, if the NEA thinks that games should be considered a valid art-form, what will that say if the Supreme Court decides to side with California? Even more worrisome, if the Supreme Court still does side with California in light of this, what will be the effect on other art forms, like literature and film? It could set a worrying precedent... This could be very good, or very bad.

Damnit Funk, I was hoping that this was a ruling on that Supreme Court case. Still, good news to hear.

PixelKing:
Now we just need this in the UK.

We do because.....

This is not the US where the law is needed to recognise the medium to prevent heavily censorship.

I still don't really get why everyone thinks games have to be art.

Edit: Stop quoting this post. Reading through dozens of quotes all saying roughly the same thing gets old, disregard this post and write something that actually contributes to the discussion.

Double Edit: No seriously, stop it.

It's about damn time! 1 point more for video games!!!

What you forgot to mention is that it's almost impossible to censor art in the US, basically killing that Californian thing.

Can I get a hell yes?

Dango:
I still don't really get why everyone thinks games have to be art.

I don't think it's as much about being considered art as it's about getting some sort of recognition of the value as a serious part of society.

John Funk:
There are all sorts of regulations and scrutiny in the application process

Well, they don't work. I've seen what passes for "art" in outdoor public installations these days. I've seen playground equipment that looks more like a sculpture than some of those things.

this is exciting, it's a shame that this isn't a global recognision but it may well spread to other nations soon.

That's good.
Are we going to get abstract games now? Dadaistic games?

Are we going to see an interactive version of 'My bed'?

Maybe now Brenda Brathwaite can get some funding for her ambitious project.

Weeee are the champions my friends

So, if I were to desire to make a game that simulated in detail the difficulty of being a criminal... I might receive public funding for that, due to it having artistic merit?

The guys at Extra Credit will love to hear this news! Games like all forms of media are finally coming to their own, and finally recognized as a form of art! And as all forms of the media; from design, animation, film, literature, ect, there will always be those whos subjects and content many may not agree with. But in the name of art we have to look past that to the media as a whole, and allow it to function and grow, instead of hindering it.

Games are not just a toy for children, they are a means of artistic expression, a way to inspire. I don't know if they exist in the world, but I would love to see a videogame museum. Literally just a huge museum where people can come to sample the finest from the past, from pong to classic arcade games, and even console systems throughout the ages. As I said, it could already exist, but now that its classified legally as art, I'm sure it could be more of a possibility.

Alright, Now then, where can I find the people protesting this decision? Anyone? I would love to hear all the stupid things their saying.

BTW, this is fantastic news.

Booze Zombie:
So, if I were to desire to make a game that simulated in detail the difficulty of being a criminal... I might receive public funding for that, due to it having artistic merit?

Grand Theft Auto?

Spongebob approves.

Right, now, can we PLEASE stop talking about it?

Now we can always run into the "But were are a art form, bitches!" every single time someone make a fuzz about some game.

binvjoh:

I don't think it's as much about being considered art as it's about getting some sort of recognition of the value as a serious part of society.

What's so serious about games?

BreakfastMan:
The question now is, how will this effect the Supreme Court case. I mean, if the NEA thinks that games should be considered a valid art-form, what will that say if the Supreme Court decides to side with California? Even more worrisome, if the Supreme Court still does side with California in light of this, what will be the effect on other art forms, like literature and film? It could set a worrying precedent... This could be very good, or very bad.

I think that the NEA decision will probably be good for the CA case because of precedent, but I'd have to do some actual research to know for sure. It's highly unlikely that censorship of video games could be used as a precedent for censorship of art in general, however, because there are prior court cases protecting artistic expression.

dragongit:
Grand Theft Auto?

No, a game showing the depressing boredom and fear of criminality, not just treating it as another theme for a TPS in a sandbox.

Lyri:
What's so serious about games?

Think of almost any thread where someone is asked about something in media effecting them, 5/10 times you've got someone taling about Aeris dying, for instance or another moment in a game where a character someone was invested in has effected them for real, made them cry, laugh, etc.

Games can be serious.

Fantastic! What's that Mr. Lee? You don't think games matter? Well the goddamn federal government seems to disagree with you! *proceeds to party*

Oh, great! Now games can steal taxpayers money!

binvjoh:
Can I get a hell yes?

Dango:
I still don't really get why everyone thinks games have to be art.

I don't think it's as much about being considered art as it's about getting some sort of recognition of the value as a serious part of society.

You know that's the first convincing argument I've heard so far.

I just don't think we have to force ourselves into another medium in order to be accepted.

Lyri:

binvjoh:

I don't think it's as much about being considered art as it's about getting some sort of recognition of the value as a serious part of society.

What's so serious about games?

Some games provide very serious and thought provoking experience.

I'm not saying all games need to go this route, nor that not being "serious" diminishes a game's value in any way, the same is true for any artistic medium. What I'm stoked about is that this seems like a step in a direction were said games can be judged and held in the same regard as some movies and books are today and not merely ignored as "just games".

So...does this mean that videogames would also automatically be considered protected speech now?

great this now means that pretentious dicks can now shit up the game industry as if the movie industry wasn't enough for them

Kahunaburger:

BreakfastMan:
The question now is, how will this effect the Supreme Court case. I mean, if the NEA thinks that games should be considered a valid art-form, what will that say if the Supreme Court decides to side with California? Even more worrisome, if the Supreme Court still does side with California in light of this, what will be the effect on other art forms, like literature and film? It could set a worrying precedent... This could be very good, or very bad.

I think that the NEA decision will probably be good for the CA case because of precedent, but I'd have to do some actual research to know for sure. It's highly unlikely that censorship of video games could be used as a precedent for censorship of art in general, however, because there are prior court cases protecting artistic expression.

But if video games are now considered artistic expression, and the court sides with CA, could that not set a precedent for censoring other forms of artistic expression (NOTE: I know very little about the legal system, so I might be wrong)? I agree with you that it will probably be good for the CA case, but I am still concerned... We have not heard anything yet from the SC about the case, so I guess we will just have to wait.

CosmicCommander:
Oh, great! Now games can steal taxpayers money!

It's about time!

Does that mean that games can now be as brutal as we want? All for art's sake, off course.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here