Censored Video Game Content Stifles Artistry 289
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?"
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.
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: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.
Re:artistic maturity ? (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 don't have a real understanding of what much of art is about.
Art that encompasses violence and sexual imagery usually(not always) has an ontological nature about it, it raises questions about humanity, it raises questions about honesty, and it raises questions about our moral compass (where is it? why is it? should it be there?)...violent and sexual themes aren't necessary in all works (and much of what is available is and always will be "junk" in many people's eyes as you yourself are observing)...but it isn't for you to judge for the rest of us what is and isn't...and most likely, many of the things you consider to be "Art" were considered just as extreme as the works you are criticizing today.
If something doesn't appeal to you, don't play it, watch it, listen to it, etc... but your argument is ignorant.
Much art throughout history was designed simply to provoke, Art is often spectacle.
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.
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?).
Re:I think the real problem is... (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 sensibility or theme through the creator's perspective, and passes it on to the viewer to judge. If "Shadow of the Colossus" is art (and it sure as hell is), than "Pac-Man" is art. Much less ambitious art, but fundamentally it falls in the same category.