AnInkle writes "The question of whether modern video games represent art and the persistent attempts to censor controversial content in games have been discussed here at length. Now, a blogger at The Tech Report makes the case that censorship of violent and sexual images and themes in video games is precisely what inhibits video games from maturing artistically beyond a nascent form. He cites a historical comparison between video game and film production, as well as geo-cultural comparisons of film production in the US vs. Europe and of video game development in the US vs. Japan. Are these comparisons apt and the assertions valid, or might the embrace of video games as a legitimate art form be limited for entirely different reasons?"
that most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists. I think that the few people who overlap creativity in the story telling or avaunt guard space, rarely overlap with coders or the middle management corporate structure that herds them. So you get Doom->Quake->Wolfenstien->Doom->Quake games that are just excuses to kill shit with rocket launchers as a development platform.
There are games that tell stories, Halo, Half-life, Morrowind, & et al. and they're blockbusters. He's what we need to do, hire writers, pay them starvation wages and provide them with shitloads of high quality hallucinogens.
Or go educational, Immune Attack is really impressive and just needs a little bit of play polishing and graphics massage to be awesome.
Or just remake really good games, Ultima Underworld, Marathon, Starcontrol, and on and on on new engines to bring real games to the starving masses.
most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists
Perhaps "most" as you say, but I think there are plenty who don't. In fact, many studios are preferring a model where there is a larger dichotomy between engineering and art. For instance, Mistwalker offloads their engineering work to other firms so they can focus purely on music, story, and visual design. I suppose that their artistic accomplishments using this method are subjective, but I don't think it helped all that much personally. There's almost certainly a larger problem here, and this article m
However the question stands whether trying to stop the symptoms helps. Is the change in morality a cause or a symptom of this downfall? We seem to have data on correlation but do we also have data on causation?
What about the increase in "morally despicable" content in movies in the late 60's [filmratings.com]? Did that contribute to the downfall of civilization? Maybe comic book violence [loti.com] and salacious, "morally despicable" stories in the 1950's? How about the increase of "morally despicable" content in books in the 1800's? Seriously... read a damn history book. Video games are nothing more and nothing less than a new form of media, and there is always a knee-jerk reaction from society against any new media. The parent is FAR from "Insightful".
that most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists. I think that the few people who overlap creativity in the story telling or avaunt guard space, rarely overlap with coders or the middle management corporate structure that herds them. So you get Doom->Quake->Wolfenstien->Doom->Quake games that are just excuses to kill shit with rocket launchers as a development platform.
Well said. Games most often contain things of high artistic value (tell any 3d modeler that what he's doing isn't art, and then duck!) but seldom is the game itself art. Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Can't the Louvre or the Uffizi be thought of as works of art in themselves? I agree that games are mostly thought to be mere entertainment, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that sometimes (if seldom) games are art.
Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Can't the Louvre or the Uffizi be thought of as works of art in themselves? I agree that games are mostly thought to be mere entertainment, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that sometimes (if seldom) games are art.
I agree - my generalization is for "most but not all".
I disagree. I think, pretty much, games are ALL art. Just like, pretty much, paintings are ALL art. They're crappy, poorly done art, granted. But QUALITY doesn't determine whether something is art or not. A beautiful painting is no more art than a painting done by a moody eleven year old girl. It just is better art.
I know a proper definition of art is hard to come by, but 'well done' certainly shouldn't be part of it. A piece of art is a creation (or recreaction) that filters some sort of sensibil
Sorry to be all McLuhanistic on you, but there is the medium, and the message.
The medium, or dev platform, enables differing kinds of user interaction.
The content (story line, user interactions, group play, value and weighting of scoring dynamics) is something else entirely.
Is it art? Sure. There's a dizzying variety of it, too. Some appealing, some clearly un-evolved, some realistic and staggeringly so. To believe that these have no artistic value is a slap in the face of designers everywhere.
That said: some designers make their livings appealing to a very violent nature based on highly animalistic behavior. But then the movies/cinema does this, too. Is this bad, this ultra-violent trend in some areas of gaming? There's no doubt that whacked people use violent entertainment sources to legitimtize their own behavior. Are we obligated to stop them from doing that by censorship? It's a good question. We're not responsible for them, but we are responsible within the constraints of a civil society to prevent others from reasonable harm. Should there be a sanity-ID card offered to buy these things? Clearly, that's not possible. Sanity is transient. The conundrum of what to do, remains.
That may depend - some games may be art, others not. I suspect as the medium develops, some will truly be considered art, and some may be already. The tale told by Doom the video game may be trivially simplistic and all about blowing things up, but was the tale told by Doom the movie any better? Why should Doom the movie be considered art and not Doom the game?
Some people consider literature art, others not. Is Alice in Wonderland the book art? How about the pictures in the book in the book or on the cover (most versions are illustrated)? Is a trashy romance novel art? How about the cover? How about the D&D manual? It certainly isn't literature, but it contains art.
You will always have the argument of it being interactive vs passive, so the story changes depending on the viewer, but theater is considered art, and improv theater is interactive, so it is possible.
Also if art is something you have to have some emotional attachment to, I'd say at least some video games are art - who doesn't have at least some emotional reaction to Dogmeat (Fallout), Gwen (Guild Wars), April (The Longest Journey), or even Samus (Metroid, though more so in later games)? I'd even go back to 1984 with the mostly forgotten Below the Root [wikipedia.org] as any of the three protagonists (and how many other action games [it is essentially a platformer] become unwinnable if you kill ANYONE?).
Not only are most video games made by technicians, but most content is likely driven by marketing.
Let us look at an analogy. In a street festival with arts and crafts, there is some art, but most of the people there have paid significant amounts of money for a booth, and they need to recoup the costs plus a profit. So there may be a few serious artists there, but mostly what you will see are cat motifs, some regurgitated western prints, and variations on naked ladies. Now all this can be art, but it is
It's a well known fact that every new media form is plagued by censorship and "not art!" protest as it has not had a chance to establish itself past the resistance of the other art forms not being willing to let the new guy in town into their club. I'm pretty sure that cave people protested that hunting scribbles on cave walls were deemed "too violent to let the young ones see".
I don't know about that. To me art is - or ought to be - something one or two steps up from routine artisanship, sonething that is somehow above and beyond the ordinary. In most cases a video game doesn't qualify as art any more than the latest album by any of the trivial boy-bands, however well-crafted it may be.
The problem I see with modern games is not that they are too radical, but that they are too trivial and that they trivialise subjects like war, violence and suffering. A lot of games are in that re
Film isn't the only prior form of new media to experience this. Comics went through a similar period of censorship in the US, with Fredric Wertham's "Seduction of the Innocent" as its bible. This led to Congressional hearings in the 1950s and resulted in the creation of the Comics Code Authority, an industry self-censorship board that effectively killed off most genres of comic books (e.g. crime, horror, even romance and westerns), leaving only superhero and funny-animal books that were suitable for young
He cites a historical comparison between video game and film production
Censorship forces you to either:
think hard and cleverly about how to transmit your message while staying within parameters, or,
"create" generic pablum.
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
Yeah, maybe art needs some guidelines. I'm not saying art should be controlled and stifled, but if it can't take the easy "tits n' blood" way out, maybe it forces the artists to be more creative.
What I think we need is censorship on crass commercialism, not necessarily nudity or violence. Don't sell tits and gore, sell your story. Too often, tits, gore, or both are added gratuitously simply to get that R rating to entice (adult, presumably) viewers. Or just gore to get a 14A/M rating to entice teens. Or whatever. Usually, it's not needed, and the story could be told just as effectively without it.
There are exceptions, of course, and here comes the fine line. To me, it's gratuitous unless the
With a bit more imagination, I think the story of tempation and rejection/falling could have been told in other ways without resorting to the base sexual lusts that they did.
They? What's this about "they?" Criticize Stanley Kubrick if you must, but ascribing artistic decisions to an anonymous Hollywood cabal is wrong.
Personally, I felt that the American cut missed the voyeuristic point, but then, I also like titties.
On some level I guess it's kind of sad that violence and sex seem to be the only two themes that will allow games to mature as an art form. That being said, why shouldn't videogames be protected as freedom of speech just like other forms of media? Ultimately it should be up to the consumer (or the consumer's parents) what they choose to purchase and use.
Because human life is always sex and violence. For better or worse, these are the tools by which the human race defined, refined, and propagated itself throughout history.
As a side note, I don't think that the article is talking about sex and violence in the GTA sense; "Let's run over a hooker with our cars." It's in a much deeper sense - how can something be decent art while not dealing with the most central and passionate areas of our lives?
Since GTAIV added in drunk driving, and using hookers has always been a part of the series..... why do you still have to park to use the hooker? Why can't you drive while using the hooker? I'm sure the developers could use the drunk driving engine to make that work....
Also, I've never picked up a hooker in GTAIV, mostly because I don't think I've ever seen one.
Art is always sex and violence?, Paintings and drawing hardly ever are sex or violence. Movies are often sex and violence, but there plenty of biopics and storytelling movies which aren't. Games are often violence and rarely sexual, (could be due to interface, you need that mouse hand). Sex, Violence and Death, are of course the strongest emotions a human can feel, so naturally are the most common themes as jaded emotion lead to ever stronger content. Movies, aren't protected as free speech in most countrie
I like using this word to describe it and I agree with this piece for the most part. Although I would like to point out some differences with photography and video.
8-bit games are the cavemen drawings of what games will become. At the time of their inception they were probably revered above many other things by those who viewed them. Today they are crude and easily reproduced by a two year old. This will not be the case with games. And why not?
I can sit down with pen and paper and make a caveman drawing but I cannot sit down at my computer and make a Contra clone for an NES emulator? Why? Because the tools that represent pen and paper in this analogy are not open to me. They are closed and guarded by law and by obfuscation. I can look at a Picasso and begin to imitate the colors and angles and feel. I can play a Playstation One game but not imitate. I am not arguing that these methods should be open and available to all, I am just pointing out that this inhibits the everyone-can-do-what-they-want factor of most art mediums. It's difficult for me to acquire oils and pastels but it is near impossible for me to acquire a Neo Geo developer's license and kit.
In part this is due simply to complexity. Which brings me to my next point: games require a team.
Painting, drawing, photographing do not necessarily require a team. Films do but it is often to create a vision of a director or writer. I believe that games require much more teamwork and collaboration. Your texture folks have to be on board for the feel, your 3D engine has to be tuned to work with your feel, your dialogue has to match the feel, the coordination seems endless to me for modern games. This prevents the explosion of games and relegates us to a set number right now. I am not sure this will ever change.
In short, I feel that the difficulty in anyone picking up something to create a game inhibits the artistic expression. No one can arise by their own will in this field like you could in art or film. Furthermore, the idea of a lone genius revolutionizing or creating a movement is far more rare due to these inhibiting factors whereas that may more often happen in other arts.
I argue that games are art but they do hold different complexities and properties from other traditional arts. It may be a long time before they are recognized in the general public as such since the general public may always be removed from being able to create their own games with open tools.
I can sit down with pen and paper and make a caveman drawing but I cannot sit down at my computer and make a Contra clone for an NES emulator? Why? Because the tools that represent pen and paper in this analogy are not open to me. They are closed and guarded by law and by obfuscation. I can look at a Picasso and begin to imitate the colors and angles and feel. I can play a Playstation One game but not imitate.
While it does not invalidate your point, perhaps you're just looking at the wrong era. I remember during the '80s when PC magazines would have a "software of the day" thing where they'd give you the entire source-code (all of two pages!) for a cool app or game so not only was it possible for you to reproduce it and, perhaps, improve on it, it was *expected* from you to do so. The sheer awesomeness of it was one of the factors that drove me into programming, in fact.
I'm not advocating censorship, but really, can't you make games that represent any political or artistic notion that comes into your head? What viewpoints cannot be expressed because of this repressive censorship we now have?
And it's hard to swallow the idea that video games aren't allowed to be violent enough. You can already kill prostitutes for fun and torture people to death and make people explode in gore - what else do you want? Are there ANY rules right now, other than a rating system that gives people fair warning?
Since the prime definition for art is "the products of human creativity" games definatly are art, as is the way I have the my desk decorated.
However the author of the article just talk how you cannot have art with have nudity. So based on his thinking bioshock would of been a better game if the females wore no clothing or if the zombie could gang rape Zoey in Left 4 dead.
Does anyone remember(presuming you were born) when the big debate was not if video games were art but if anything that was done on a computer could be called art? Let's stop having these debates and giving the morons who will never understand a voice. They are the same people who claimed that expressionism wasn't art, surrealism wasn't art, pop art wasn't art. They are a pox on humanity.
"not being able to create art they will not understand art they will consider their failure as creators only as a failure of the world" http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-genius-of-the-crowd/ [poemhunter.com] The Genius of the Crowd - Charles Bukowski
I admit I haven't read the article yet, and perhaps it's got a very nuanced discussion on this subject that will persuade me otherwise...
but I doubt it.
Look, it's a new thing, really. I don't know why we haven't had 'art' in VG yet, but the simple fact is that it isn't because we don't have explicit sex. (Explicit violence has been censored from VG? Uh...)
I just drew a simple classic off the top of my head. Citizen Kane has nothing approaching violence and sex, and yet it's well regarded. And although Shakespeare had violence (and bawdy puns) it's nothing that you couldn't do without being a MA game.
I could probably list a 100 movies that affected me greatly, that are well regarded, and at least half of them I'd put forth as art, and of those, at least half again would be lacking in violence and sex. Sometimes, lacking colors in your palette can ENHANCE the experience.
We're getting there. Things like Braid are a step forward. Quite honestly, though, the real problem is the lack of a broad audience. When the 40 year old gamers of today hit 60, they'll have different tastes and requirements.
Yes, the censorship can be annoying and ridiculous (eg, GTA series: its OK to murder hundreds in a random crime spree, but god forbid there be hidden, unaccessable content of still-underwear-clad figures bumpin-boots).
But I think it has very LITTLE effect on art in games. EG, what effect did censorship have on something like Braid?
The game developers which are actually serious about doing ART are not interested in building "Sex-laden-splatter-fest-3000".
I mean, imagine Citizen Kane without violence and breasts... it wouldn't be the masterpiece compared to House of 1000 corpses. I agree more boobies and dismemberment should be in every film to bring it to a mature stage. OH! I get it, he's saying Botticelli boobies == art... and those Medieval frescos of battle. Got it.
Something is Art because it expresses some emotion rooted in the human experience that causes a cathartic reaction in the observer, or some reaction (yeah, I suppose confusion counts)
When you regulate it, people feel stifled and like they have to share important things in private. When you leave it open, there are bound to be some offensive people and some lunatics. There is no "win" state, there's always a trade-off. However, you can always choose to ignore these things as they are not forced on you any more than any other thing. We all have to deal with things we don't like, and something you may like might be something someone else will find offensive. There is no please-them-al
A few months back I was playing the Fallout 3 expansion, The Pitt. The game pretty much assumed that you were going to take the nice guy role and not harm a child and have a sense of guilt when that action results in a city of people being enslaved because you pussed out. I played it, went the route the developers wanted me to take and it had the desired effect. The next day I played through it again and played as a bad guy, only it didn't follow the gravity of the good guy route because they couldn't kill
Art is anything that conveys emotion from the artist to the audience.
-The artist can also serve as the audience. (a diary) -If there is no emotion from the artist, it's not art. (a police log may generate emotion in a reader, but it's not art) -If the emotion does not penetrate the audience, it's not art. (elevator music)
In other words, art is anything that passes these three tests: 1) Did the creator intend to convey an emotion? 2) Did the medium capture that emotion? 3) Did the audience receive that emotion?
Some video games pass this test. Some do not.
Asking whether video games are art is like asking whether furniture is art.
What a coincidence, I just post a journal pointing out that some mods are idiots, [slashdot.org] and an anonymous troll gets modded "insightful". OK, troll, I'll bite (I have to). [kuro5hin.org]
Yes, art is for homos. It's for heteros, too. I pity anyone who is so culturally deprived that they can't appreciate art.
What's funny is about ten years ago, I was in an online discussion with Charles Broussard, who was of the opinion that videogames were NOT art. I think in the end we agreed to disagree, I wonder if he ever changed his mind? I certainly haven't changed mine, games ARE art. Some are good art and some are bad art, but all are art.
And I do think that censorship may be keeping the art from advancing, but what is a bigger factor is the fact that the folks who make games don't see them as art.
My daughter Leila, still an avid gamer, mentioned to me that in the last GTA she got, there's a dope dealer named "Osama". It seems to me that the designers are censoring themselves, and pushing politically correct themes (like dope dealers being terrorists) and their snideness is hurting both their art and the quality of the games themselves.
It's a long way from Duke Nukem 1, where shooting the Energizer Bunny resulted in points. I remeber when games were a lot more primitive, but a lot more fun. And a lot more artistic.
Graphic Violence and exploitive sexual images represent artistic maturity?
They certainly can. Ever seen "Apocalypse Now?" "Eyes Wide Shut?" "Psycho?" Picasso's "Guernica?"
Dismissing something as an art form simply because it's violent or erotic is just silly. Do I think that Quake's a masterpiece because you can blow heads off? Of course not. Do I play through the Half-Life cycle once or twice a year because it has a compelling story and it's like revisiting a favorite book? Absolutely. And I'll defend that game as art to my last breath.
I would say that violent and sexual imagery are the primary reason for the degeneration of art in the modern world. Just because people will pay money to see a carnival full of freaks, gladiators and strippers doesn't make it art. Art is not simply spectacle.
Oedipus isn't art then? the works of Shakespeare? The Barber of Seville? The Rite of Spring? The Song of Solomon? These works by and large are not much more than spectacle, particularly to those who lived in the time period they were written.
I know you said "modern" art, but there has always been an extreme violent and sexual side to art throughout western civilization...it's not new...and people have always expressed the opinion you've expressed now...one which clearly shows you d
You are wrong. Art is not simply spectacle. Art is a communicative effort. Art is about drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconcieved by the artist. That is where it's merit lies. Violence and sexuality are important parts of the human experience, and they have a place in art, but only in art that is actually trying to comment on those aspects of the human experience. Art is supposed to provoke thought and open the mind, not close thought and rouse the base
You know fuck all about art...you think it has a concrete definition.
Don't try throwing credentials at me, I'm a (successful) professional artist as well, as is my partner...it's what we do for a living...I am a working composer, performer, and dramatist, my partner is a working visual artist.
I would tell you immediately the one thing in life you're not going to see agreement on is the definition of "Art." The fact that you try to present one shows your complete ig
Psycho features graphic violence and sexual images? I'm going through the movie in my mind, and nothing about it stands out as sexual or graphically violent. Maybe you're talking about a remake that I haven't seen, but those descriptors do not match the Hitchcock film I know.
I think the real problem is... (Score:5, Insightful)
that most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists. I think that the few people who overlap creativity in the story telling or avaunt guard space, rarely overlap with coders or the middle management corporate structure that herds them. So you get Doom->Quake->Wolfenstien->Doom->Quake games that are just excuses to kill shit with rocket launchers as a development platform.
There are games that tell stories, Halo, Half-life, Morrowind, & et al. and they're blockbusters. He's what we need to do, hire writers, pay them starvation wages and provide them with shitloads of high quality hallucinogens.
Or go educational, Immune Attack is really impressive and just needs a little bit of play polishing and graphics massage to be awesome.
Or just remake really good games, Ultima Underworld, Marathon, Starcontrol, and on and on on new engines to bring real games to the starving masses.
Re: (Score:2)
most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists
Perhaps "most" as you say, but I think there are plenty who don't. In fact, many studios are preferring a model where there is a larger dichotomy between engineering and art. For instance, Mistwalker offloads their engineering work to other firms so they can focus purely on music, story, and visual design. I suppose that their artistic accomplishments using this method are subjective, but I don't think it helped all that much personally. There's almost certainly a larger problem here, and this article m
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I think the real problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
that most people who make video games are technicians rather than artists. I think that the few people who overlap creativity in the story telling or avaunt guard space, rarely overlap with coders or the middle management corporate structure that herds them. So you get Doom->Quake->Wolfenstien->Doom->Quake games that are just excuses to kill shit with rocket launchers as a development platform.
Well said. Games most often contain things of high artistic value (tell any 3d modeler that what he's doing isn't art, and then duck!) but seldom is the game itself art. Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Re:I think the real problem is... (Score:4, Insightful)
Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Can't the Louvre or the Uffizi be thought of as works of art in themselves? I agree that games are mostly thought to be mere entertainment, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that sometimes (if seldom) games are art.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the game as a gallery -- no artistic value, but it puts on display things of [subjective] beauty and wonder.
Can't the Louvre or the Uffizi be thought of as works of art in themselves? I agree that games are mostly thought to be mere entertainment, but I think it's not unreasonable to say that sometimes (if seldom) games are art.
I agree - my generalization is for "most but not all".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I know a proper definition of art is hard to come by, but 'well done' certainly shouldn't be part of it. A piece of art is a creation (or recreaction) that filters some sort of sensibil
Re:I think the real problem is... (Score:4, Interesting)
Sorry to be all McLuhanistic on you, but there is the medium, and the message.
The medium, or dev platform, enables differing kinds of user interaction.
The content (story line, user interactions, group play, value and weighting of scoring dynamics) is something else entirely.
Is it art? Sure. There's a dizzying variety of it, too. Some appealing, some clearly un-evolved, some realistic and staggeringly so. To believe that these have no artistic value is a slap in the face of designers everywhere.
That said: some designers make their livings appealing to a very violent nature based on highly animalistic behavior. But then the movies/cinema does this, too. Is this bad, this ultra-violent trend in some areas of gaming? There's no doubt that whacked people use violent entertainment sources to legitimtize their own behavior. Are we obligated to stop them from doing that by censorship? It's a good question. We're not responsible for them, but we are responsible within the constraints of a civil society to prevent others from reasonable harm. Should there be a sanity-ID card offered to buy these things? Clearly, that's not possible. Sanity is transient. The conundrum of what to do, remains.
Parent
Re:I think the real problem is... (Score:4, Interesting)
That may depend - some games may be art, others not. I suspect as the medium develops, some will truly be considered art, and some may be already. The tale told by Doom the video game may be trivially simplistic and all about blowing things up, but was the tale told by Doom the movie any better? Why should Doom the movie be considered art and not Doom the game?
Some people consider literature art, others not. Is Alice in Wonderland the book art? How about the pictures in the book in the book or on the cover (most versions are illustrated)? Is a trashy romance novel art? How about the cover? How about the D&D manual? It certainly isn't literature, but it contains art.
You will always have the argument of it being interactive vs passive, so the story changes depending on the viewer, but theater is considered art, and improv theater is interactive, so it is possible.
Also if art is something you have to have some emotional attachment to, I'd say at least some video games are art - who doesn't have at least some emotional reaction to Dogmeat (Fallout), Gwen (Guild Wars), April (The Longest Journey), or even Samus (Metroid, though more so in later games)? I'd even go back to 1984 with the mostly forgotten Below the Root [wikipedia.org] as any of the three protagonists (and how many other action games [it is essentially a platformer] become unwinnable if you kill ANYONE?).
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Let us look at an analogy. In a street festival with arts and crafts, there is some art, but most of the people there have paid significant amounts of money for a booth, and they need to recoup the costs plus a profit. So there may be a few serious artists there, but mostly what you will see are cat motifs, some regurgitated western prints, and variations on naked ladies. Now all this can be art, but it is
New medium (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Not to mention the "secret room" in the back of the cave where other activities might have been drawn.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know about that. To me art is - or ought to be - something one or two steps up from routine artisanship, sonething that is somehow above and beyond the ordinary. In most cases a video game doesn't qualify as art any more than the latest album by any of the trivial boy-bands, however well-crafted it may be.
The problem I see with modern games is not that they are too radical, but that they are too trivial and that they trivialise subjects like war, violence and suffering. A lot of games are in that re
Re: (Score:2)
Bunk (Score:3, Interesting)
He cites a historical comparison between video game and film production
Censorship forces you to either:
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
Re:Bunk (Score:4, Insightful)
Hollywood made a lot of great movies in the Hayes Code era, thus demonstrating that it is possible to create Great Art while refraining from constantly spewing foul language, women hanging out their breasts, constantly showing blood and gore, or hopping into someone else's bed every other moment.
Yeah, maybe art needs some guidelines. I'm not saying art should be controlled and stifled, but if it can't take the easy "tits n' blood" way out, maybe it forces the artists to be more creative.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
What I think we need is censorship on crass commercialism, not necessarily nudity or violence. Don't sell tits and gore, sell your story. Too often, tits, gore, or both are added gratuitously simply to get that R rating to entice (adult, presumably) viewers. Or just gore to get a 14A/M rating to entice teens. Or whatever. Usually, it's not needed, and the story could be told just as effectively without it.
There are exceptions, of course, and here comes the fine line. To me, it's gratuitous unless the
Re: (Score:2)
With a bit more imagination, I think the story of tempation and rejection/falling could have been told in other ways without resorting to the base sexual lusts that they did.
They? What's this about "they?" Criticize Stanley Kubrick if you must, but ascribing artistic decisions to an anonymous Hollywood cabal is wrong.
Personally, I felt that the American cut missed the voyeuristic point, but then, I also like titties.
Why is "art" always sex and violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As a side note, I don't think that the article is talking about sex and violence in the GTA sense; "Let's run over a hooker with our cars." It's in a much deeper sense - how can something be decent art while not dealing with the most central and passionate areas of our lives?
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm that gives me an idea.
Since GTAIV added in drunk driving, and using hookers has always been a part of the series..... why do you still have to park to use the hooker? Why can't you drive while using the hooker? I'm sure the developers could use the drunk driving engine to make that work....
Also, I've never picked up a hooker in GTAIV, mostly because I don't think I've ever seen one.
Re: (Score:2)
But won't somebody (Score:2)
Nascence (Score:5, Insightful)
8-bit games are the cavemen drawings of what games will become. At the time of their inception they were probably revered above many other things by those who viewed them. Today they are crude and easily reproduced by a two year old. This will not be the case with games. And why not?
I can sit down with pen and paper and make a caveman drawing but I cannot sit down at my computer and make a Contra clone for an NES emulator? Why? Because the tools that represent pen and paper in this analogy are not open to me. They are closed and guarded by law and by obfuscation. I can look at a Picasso and begin to imitate the colors and angles and feel. I can play a Playstation One game but not imitate. I am not arguing that these methods should be open and available to all, I am just pointing out that this inhibits the everyone-can-do-what-they-want factor of most art mediums. It's difficult for me to acquire oils and pastels but it is near impossible for me to acquire a Neo Geo developer's license and kit.
In part this is due simply to complexity. Which brings me to my next point: games require a team.
Painting, drawing, photographing do not necessarily require a team. Films do but it is often to create a vision of a director or writer. I believe that games require much more teamwork and collaboration. Your texture folks have to be on board for the feel, your 3D engine has to be tuned to work with your feel, your dialogue has to match the feel, the coordination seems endless to me for modern games. This prevents the explosion of games and relegates us to a set number right now. I am not sure this will ever change.
In short, I feel that the difficulty in anyone picking up something to create a game inhibits the artistic expression. No one can arise by their own will in this field like you could in art or film. Furthermore, the idea of a lone genius revolutionizing or creating a movement is far more rare due to these inhibiting factors whereas that may more often happen in other arts.
I argue that games are art but they do hold different complexities and properties from other traditional arts. It may be a long time before they are recognized in the general public as such since the general public may always be removed from being able to create their own games with open tools.
Re: (Score:2)
I can sit down with pen and paper and make a caveman drawing but I cannot sit down at my computer and make a Contra clone for an NES emulator? Why? Because the tools that represent pen and paper in this analogy are not open to me. They are closed and guarded by law and by obfuscation. I can look at a Picasso and begin to imitate the colors and angles and feel. I can play a Playstation One game but not imitate.
While it does not invalidate your point, perhaps you're just looking at the wrong era. I remember during the '80s when PC magazines would have a "software of the day" thing where they'd give you the entire source-code (all of two pages!) for a cool app or game so not only was it possible for you to reproduce it and, perhaps, improve on it, it was *expected* from you to do so. The sheer awesomeness of it was one of the factors that drove me into programming, in fact.
Really? You can't express yourself? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not advocating censorship, but really, can't you make games that represent any political or artistic notion that comes into your head? What viewpoints cannot be expressed because of this repressive censorship we now have?
And it's hard to swallow the idea that video games aren't allowed to be violent enough. You can already kill prostitutes for fun and torture people to death and make people explode in gore - what else do you want? Are there ANY rules right now, other than a rating system that gives people fair warning?
Re: (Score:2)
Author not looking for art but for porn. (Score:3, Interesting)
However the author of the article just talk how you cannot have art with have nudity. So based on his thinking bioshock would of been a better game if the females wore no clothing or if the zombie could gang rape Zoey in Left 4 dead.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe such art already exists involving Zoey and the Witch.
Tired of these stupid debates (Score:3, Insightful)
Does anyone remember(presuming you were born) when the big debate was not if video games were art but if anything that was done on a computer could be called art?
Let's stop having these debates and giving the morons who will never understand a voice.
They are the same people who claimed that expressionism wasn't art, surrealism wasn't art, pop art wasn't art. They are a pox on humanity.
"not being able to create art
they will not understand art
they will consider their failure as creators
only as a failure of the world"
http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-genius-of-the-crowd/ [poemhunter.com]
The Genius of the Crowd - Charles Bukowski
Re: (Score:2)
I don't consider Charles Bukowski art.
Yes, Citizen Kane needed those sex scenes... (Score:3, Insightful)
I admit I haven't read the article yet, and perhaps it's got a very nuanced discussion on this subject that will persuade me otherwise...
but I doubt it.
Look, it's a new thing, really. I don't know why we haven't had 'art' in VG yet, but the simple fact is that it isn't because we don't have explicit sex. (Explicit violence has been censored from VG? Uh...)
I just drew a simple classic off the top of my head. Citizen Kane has nothing approaching violence and sex, and yet it's well regarded. And although Shakespeare had violence (and bawdy puns) it's nothing that you couldn't do without being a MA game.
I could probably list a 100 movies that affected me greatly, that are well regarded, and at least half of them I'd put forth as art, and of those, at least half again would be lacking in violence and sex. Sometimes, lacking colors in your palette can ENHANCE the experience.
We're getting there. Things like Braid are a step forward. Quite honestly, though, the real problem is the lack of a broad audience. When the 40 year old gamers of today hit 60, they'll have different tastes and requirements.
Very little effect on real ART in games... (Score:2)
Yes, the censorship can be annoying and ridiculous (eg, GTA series: its OK to murder hundreds in a random crime spree, but god forbid there be hidden, unaccessable content of still-underwear-clad figures bumpin-boots).
But I think it has very LITTLE effect on art in games. EG, what effect did censorship have on something like Braid?
The game developers which are actually serious about doing ART are not interested in building "Sex-laden-splatter-fest-3000".
Absolutely.. (Score:2)
Something is Art because it expresses some emotion rooted in the human experience that causes a cathartic reaction in the observer, or some reaction (yeah, I suppose confusion counts)
It's like speech (Score:2)
Possible spoilers below: (Score:2)
A few months back I was playing the Fallout 3 expansion, The Pitt. The game pretty much assumed that you were going to take the nice guy role and not harm a child and have a sense of guilt when that action results in a city of people being enslaved because you pussed out. I played it, went the route the developers wanted me to take and it had the desired effect. The next day I played through it again and played as a bad guy, only it didn't follow the gravity of the good guy route because they couldn't kill
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
art is for homos.
Says the guy displaying ASCII art :).
Re:8==U=N=C=E=NS=O=R=E=D==D ~~-_ (Score:4, Interesting)
Art is anything that conveys emotion from the artist to the audience.
-The artist can also serve as the audience. (a diary)
-If there is no emotion from the artist, it's not art. (a police log may generate emotion in a reader, but it's not art)
-If the emotion does not penetrate the audience, it's not art. (elevator music)
In other words, art is anything that passes these three tests:
1) Did the creator intend to convey an emotion?
2) Did the medium capture that emotion?
3) Did the audience receive that emotion?
Some video games pass this test. Some do not.
Asking whether video games are art is like asking whether furniture is art.
Parent
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
8==C=O=C=K=S=L=A=P==D
Brilliant! Exquisite! Darling, you simply must let me exhibit this in my gallery!
Re:8==U=N=C=E=NS=O=R=E=D==D ~~-_ (Score:5, Insightful)
What a coincidence, I just post a journal pointing out that some mods are idiots, [slashdot.org] and an anonymous troll gets modded "insightful". OK, troll, I'll bite (I have to). [kuro5hin.org]
Yes, art is for homos. It's for heteros, too. I pity anyone who is so culturally deprived that they can't appreciate art.
What's funny is about ten years ago, I was in an online discussion with Charles Broussard, who was of the opinion that videogames were NOT art. I think in the end we agreed to disagree, I wonder if he ever changed his mind? I certainly haven't changed mine, games ARE art. Some are good art and some are bad art, but all are art.
And I do think that censorship may be keeping the art from advancing, but what is a bigger factor is the fact that the folks who make games don't see them as art.
My daughter Leila, still an avid gamer, mentioned to me that in the last GTA she got, there's a dope dealer named "Osama". It seems to me that the designers are censoring themselves, and pushing politically correct themes (like dope dealers being terrorists) and their snideness is hurting both their art and the quality of the games themselves.
It's a long way from Duke Nukem 1, where shooting the Energizer Bunny resulted in points. I remeber when games were a lot more primitive, but a lot more fun. And a lot more artistic.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Welcome to Slashdot, the only place where a comment that focuses on "cockslap" gets modded Insightful.
Re:artistic maturity ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Graphic Violence and exploitive sexual images represent artistic maturity?
They certainly can. Ever seen "Apocalypse Now?" "Eyes Wide Shut?" "Psycho?" Picasso's "Guernica?"
Dismissing something as an art form simply because it's violent or erotic is just silly. Do I think that Quake's a masterpiece because you can blow heads off? Of course not. Do I play through the Half-Life cycle once or twice a year because it has a compelling story and it's like revisiting a favorite book? Absolutely. And I'll defend that game as art to my last breath.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Oedipus isn't art then? the works of Shakespeare? The Barber of Seville? The Rite of Spring? The Song of Solomon? These works by and large are not much more than spectacle, particularly to those who lived in the time period they were written.
I know you said "modern" art, but there has always been an extreme violent and sexual side to art throughout western civilization...it's not new...and people have always expressed the opinion you've expressed now...one which clearly shows you d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You are wrong. Art is not simply spectacle. Art is a communicative effort. Art is about drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconcieved by the artist. That is where it's merit lies. Violence and sexuality are important parts of the human experience, and they have a place in art, but only in art that is actually trying to comment on those aspects of the human experience. Art is supposed to provoke thought and open the mind, not close thought and rouse the base
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Spectacle is often a communicative effort.
You know fuck all about art...you think it has a concrete definition.
Don't try throwing credentials at me, I'm a (successful) professional artist as well, as is my partner...it's what we do for a living...I am a working composer, performer, and dramatist, my partner is a working visual artist.
I would tell you immediately the one thing in life you're not going to see agreement on is the definition of "Art." The fact that you try to present one shows your complete ig
Re: (Score:2)
Psycho features graphic violence and sexual images? I'm going through the movie in my mind, and nothing about it stands out as sexual or graphically violent. Maybe you're talking about a remake that I haven't seen, but those descriptors do not match the Hitchcock film I know.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm going through the movie in my mind, and nothing about it stands out as sexual or graphically violent.
In fact, Hitchcock made the movie B/W because the the Shower Scene in color would be too exploitative.
Maybe you're talking about a remake that I haven't seen,
1998 remake by Gus Van Sant. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0155975/ [imdb.com]