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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 NEXT
 

I'll post the same thing I said when I heard this last night
WOOO HOOOO!

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

I agree 100%. I'm very excited about what the future of gaming may look like and it is steps like these that can start to provide the foothold for this medium to start/keep growing in it's own unique way.

BreakfastMan:

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.

Basically, we already have laws and judicial precedent protecting artistic expression that the court can't overrule. If they did rule in favor of CA, they'd do so by arguing that games are not art despite the NEA's opinion vs. arguing that all art is possible to censor.

Seems only to be a natural step.

It would be pretty strange to not assign interactive multimedia artistic merit, especially since it's largely composed of multiple other forms of recognized artwork (images, animation, music, script), also adding the factor of interactivity - arguably a venue of/for artistic expression in itself - to them.

still think people give to much thought to the whole "games are art" although they can be, it sure as hell shouldnt mean they are have to be some thought provoking narrative. but its good to see that its recognised as a possibility.

also why is there a picture of edger?

Kahunaburger:

BreakfastMan:

Kahunaburger:

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.

Basically, we already have laws and judicial precedent protecting artistic expression that the court can't overrule. If they did rule in favor of CA, they'd do so by arguing that games are not art despite the NEA's opinion vs. arguing that all art is possible to censor.

Oh, okay. I did not know that. Thanks for the info! That makes me feel less nervous about this whole business. I am still nervous about the ruling from the SC, but at least there is no risk of the government invading and censoring other art forms...

Eat our collective shorts, Ebert!

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

Not that games have to be art. More that they can be art.
And I don't believe it's forcing into another medium if practically all other forms of big budget entertainment are already accepted into the possibility of being art.

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

Yeah does this even matter
does anybody get more enjoyment from games now compared to before this?

HG131:
What you forgot to mention is that it's almost impossible to censor art in the US, basically killing that Californian thing.

Boobies! :D

And also this is great news in the world of gaming, just need it in old Blighty now.

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

I'd much rather my taxes fund the arts than go towards laying waste to some third world nation.

mad825:

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.

Exactly, we don't really have the stigma against games over here, so it's a non issue. Also, when I was studying for my Fine Art degree, games were included in the "applied arts" section, alongside film and literature. So they are already considered art here

IMO, the pic should be that 350-hour Duke Nukem one. :p

Also, I'm sure somebody already called you out on this, but the forums beat you to it. I still think it's great news.

Nice. Also, who is in that picture?

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

There are all sorts of values arguments I can make about this, but on the practical side, this means that (hopefully) the pending supreme court case is dead in the water.

Okay, some people do not know how censorship works in the U.S.. First of all, this isn't some government recognition that videogames are art -- it's one source of grants extending to a new medium. Second, the Miller test, which is where that "artistic merit" line comes from, looks for artistic merit in the individual item that is under the gun for censorship, not the medium as a whole. Here's what the Miller test actually looks for:


    Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,

    Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,

    Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

As you can see, very few videogames are capable of failing this test; the only one I can think of that does off hand is Rapelay, and even gamers were up in arms over that one. Some people really should have paid more attention to their government classes in highschool.

Edit: Also, this will not have any impact whatsoever on the Supreme Court case. There hasn't been any change in federal law, just a slight alteration in who is eligible for a specific grant. Besides, they've probably already made their decision, for better or worse.

Awesome, now lets see What Jack Thompson has to say about this.

Palademon:

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

Not that games have to be art. More that they can be art.
And I don't believe it's forcing into another medium if practically all other forms of big budget entertainment are already accepted into the possibility of being art.

Other big budget entertainment took decades to be considered forms of art, video games will get the same privilege in time, we should just need to stop yelling about it for a bit and be patient.

I couldn't care less if my game was being associated with the crap passed off as art these days. I just want to play fun video games, and somehow developers get the idea that if a game is artsy and dramatic, it has to leave any creative idea of "fun" behind.

Yay! I'm so happy! This is a big step for games as a medium!

Dango:

Palademon:

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

Not that games have to be art. More that they can be art.
And I don't believe it's forcing into another medium if practically all other forms of big budget entertainment are already accepted into the possibility of being art.

Other big budget entertainment took decades to be considered forms of art, video games will get the same privilege in time, we should just need to stop yelling about it for a bit and be patient.

I couldn't care less if my game was being associated with the crap passed off as art these days. I just want to play fun video games, and somehow developers get the idea that if a game is artsy and dramatic, it has to leave any creative idea of "fun" behind.

Who started this ridiculous notion that "artistic" and "fun" are opposing forces? They should be smacked upside the head.

Damn hipsters, ruining everything with their exclusivism and messed-up visions of what is and is not "good"...

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

Mostly for the legal protection against censorship that it provides.

2xDouble:

Dango:

Palademon:

Not that games have to be art. More that they can be art.
And I don't believe it's forcing into another medium if practically all other forms of big budget entertainment are already accepted into the possibility of being art.

Other big budget entertainment took decades to be considered forms of art, video games will get the same privilege in time, we should just need to stop yelling about it for a bit and be patient.

I couldn't care less if my game was being associated with the crap passed off as art these days. I just want to play fun video games, and somehow developers get the idea that if a game is artsy and dramatic, it has to leave any creative idea of "fun" behind.

Who started this ridiculous notion that "artistic" and "fun" are opposing forces? They should be smacked upside the head.

I said that in my post. Right next the only part you read, apparently.

I'll be honest...i never bought that games would be considered art BUT if it is now recognised as art well....that's good. Maybe it will help the gaming world (not the industry, art is NOT an industry) maybe some kind of "Boom" of artistic games will appear that would be interesting.

RedEyesBlackGamer:

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

Mostly for the legal protection against censorship that it provides.

What censorship? Outside of Australia (save for a few very rare cases) I haven't seen content in video games having any kind of limit.

I would normally say "So fucking what? This doesn't change anything.", but I will acknowledge that even a token tribute to a fact that I've known for years is worthwhile.

In short; yay. Now if only the industry that produces said games would recognize this fact a little more rather than relying so heavily on creating marketable stereotypes.

I prefer the term 'art-ertainment' for most modern 'art'(hollywood movies, handmade quilts, etc..)

Dango:

RedEyesBlackGamer:

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

Mostly for the legal protection against censorship that it provides.

What censorship? Outside of Australia (save for a few very rare cases) I haven't seen content in video games having any kind of limit.

More to avoid the kiss of death that is the AO rating. That and California is trying to restrict sales of MA games. So, less directly censoring games and more indirectly censoring them because of a fear of lost sales. Being recognized as an "official" art form would prevent this MA sales nonsense.

Imagine having a mad man making a shittastic game and everyone says its ''art'' like whith the paintings.Doubt it will happen but it would be funny :P

Verlander:
Exactly, we don't really have the stigma against games over here, so it's a non issue. Also, when I was studying for my Fine Art degree, games were included in the "applied arts" section, alongside film and literature. So they are already considered art here

mad825:

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.

The UK can censor art and speech, movies, games, books etc. regardless if they know the mediums or not if they deem it too "offensive". Manhunt 2 was banned by the British Board of Film Classification. Other parts of Western Europe do it too; Germany turned Team Fortress 2 characters into robots that leak oil, and Command and Conquer armies were visually edited to make them all cyborgs. Australia does it all the time as Yahtzee laments.

No game has ever been banned in the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm

Also, my 3D animation degree is a fine arts degree, same as yours.

I thought "dumb fat Americans" were the only ones to have a superiority complex and short, selective memories who don't bother to learn about other countries before speaking.

what these tasteless pretentious smug pricks consider artistic or for the public good can be anyones guess, but it will probably just pump out pretentious crap the way most other arts forms have been left doing

I can see only the legal value here, as in art is a slightly different category, but still nothing too important.

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

To avoid censorship in the USA.

That's all.

I can't wait for the inevitable rebuttal from Roger Ebert. That ought to be a fun read.

America's really on the roll this week..say, this calls for a song

So wait.

Is the argument now going to be whether the game is beneficial and enhances society? cause I foresee many traps to be set around that argument.

 Pages PREV 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