Slashdot Mirror
Censored Video Game Content Stifles Artistry
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.
art is for homos.
Says the guy displaying ASCII art :).
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
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".
8==C=O=C=K=S=L=A=P==D
Brilliant! Exquisite! Darling, you simply must let me exhibit this in my gallery!
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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.
think of the children? ;)
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.
My work here is dung.
Let me get this straight? If an artist has to limit the amount of sex and violence then his/her creativity is compromised? I always thought creativity was the ability to expand and open new and unexplored realms. I never realized that creativity was so limited in a confined box that removing the box would kill it.
in the home. The government however should stay out of it. I do appreciate them having little warnings on boxes to help me decide if the children I'm responsible for should have access to that material or not. What I don't understand is how does classifying something as art give it a special dispensation to show material that wouldn't be deemed appropriate in other media.
There is no intrinsic quality of the medium that prevents it from being art. There will probably be games developed in the future that will be considered art and there are probably games already out there that qualify. Whether there will be games that achieve any significant level of artistic quality is a totally different matter. To use a simplistic argument, let's look at the time and concentration involved. The average game has (conseratively) over ten hours of gameplay, at over 20 frames a second. Compare that to the amount of time it takes a painter to complete one frame or how long a sculptor spends on one model.
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'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?
If we're going to emulate film's success in video games, we need more daring, out-there, no-holds-barred visionary kind of stuff like Birth of a Nation (a.k.a. bizarre violent paranoid racist fantasy) ?
Sorry mates, I think I'll stick to Minesweeper myself...
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.
There's a small company called precor games that makes multiple versions of each of their games depending on the level of censorship, their corporate site is http://www.precor-incorporated.com/
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.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
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/
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.
stored on computers from birth to the grave
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".
Test your net with Netalyzr
Well duh...
Any type of limit, censor and/or law henders advancement in any field; resulting in the best situation a slowing of the initial desired effect/outcome.
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.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
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)... kind of like a very convoluted form of conversation between an artist and an observer.
Boobies are just boobies, death is death, violence is violence and has no relevency to whether something is art or not. But the absense of Boobies != absense of Art.
meh
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-all solution, but we all have to be happy together. That's where respect comes in, but there's always disrespectful shit disturbers as well. As a society, we have to grow up and accept and tolerate and respect and understand. The sooner we accept that, the better.
Twinstiq, game news
I would compliment the blog post as it's well written and obviously passionately about the topic. The premise of the argument is a bit misunderstood however. It goes like this:
Games are censored. Games often lack artistic value. However, once upon a time movies were also censored and lacked artistic value. When this censorship was removed, the artistic value of movies increased. Therefore, if games are no longer censored, the artistic value of games should also increase, becaues games are similar to movies
The flaw is this: games are NOT 'censored'. They have their sales restricted by law to exclude minors if the content is deemed to be adult, however, this is not the same as being prohibited. "Manhunt" and "Postal" were both released - and can be released in the future as well. They simply cannot be shown to minors. Unless there is something I miss, the same age restrictions apply to movies as apply to games.
The major difference is that it's a lot easier to make an appealing low-budget film (which can, due to its low budget, be any of: risky, risque, driven by a single individual, provocative, produced with few professionals involved) than it is to make an appealing low-budget game. This means that whereas films can have sexual content and be appealing, games have to choose between having sexual content and being appealing just in order to get the budget in (and to the naysayers: yes, there might be a single counterexample in the history of computer gaming, and no, a game that doesn't make it to store shelves will never sell millions at retail prices).
Actually, fuck all of that. In Japan they make 'hentai dating games' sold for chips - which are clearly very sexual. The author seems to be grinding a fairly narrow point.
An alternate explanation could be that, with a few exceptions, the films deemed to have 'artistic value' are also produced on a relatively limited budget, perhaps implying a link between willingness to take risk and artistic value. Similarly, there's a few games with artistic value and produced at a high budget, however the mass of 'low budget, recognised artistic value' games seems to be lacking. I'll leave to others to speculate why.
The majority of my video game 'art' comes from Japan.
that any form of censorship will stifle creativity.
Please don't dominate the rap, Jack, if you got nothin' new to say.
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/
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
You missed it. How is it possible that there are people saying "Author not looking for art but for porn." or "What I don't understand is how does classifying something as art give it a special dispensation to show material that wouldn't be deemed appropriate in other media." when even TFS let alone TFA say nothing of the sort?
It's a fairly ranty article against censorship that highlights the absurdity in the difference between what can be shown in an 18 rated movie or described in some other art form e.g. literature, and what cannot currently be shown in video games regardless of their rating.
I tend to agree, although there are problems with movie ratings too IMHO.
Why shouldn't a game developer be able to make a story driven game with all the gritty reality of some of the more shocking hollywood movies, while presenting a story that, if it were in movie form, would win huge numbers of writing/cinematography awards showing it's acceptance as a work of art.
It's ridiculous, and I think that's some of what the author was trying to get across.
Once you can see a video game more as a delivery platform for a story and less as a child's toy, it's fairly simple to grasp.
Well, I think it is anyhow.
Meh.
repressed much? they've been called art since they were first created. and sickos have wanted to molest children and murder people for thousands of years, not just since they've gotten computer screens.
My other sig is a knife wound.
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 children in games (no one wants to be accused of making a child killer simulator). I walked away feeling slightly jipped, because there were no negative consequences. So yeah, such censorship, even a self imposed one can have an impact.
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.
I personally dislike video games that are excessively and gratuitously violent and offensive; but neither do I think laws should be passed concerning censorship. Just stick to the rating system... and steer the violent or offensive video games more towards the 'M' or 'AO' ratings. Not that that stops kids from getting a hold of them, but at least the people who care about content have an easy way to decide whether they want the game or not.
ASCII art of pens!es
You're taking violence and sexual imagery to be at the pornographic end of the spectrum (See the Saw movies for what's commonly been called gore pornography). It is entirely possible for violence, or sexual activity, to be metaphor or allegory. It doesn't have to be just the literal represented act.
You're limiting your scope for interpretation on purpose, I feel.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
It may not be "graphic" by modern standards, but I think that in 1960 it was pretty jarring to see (offscreen mostly, albeit) a nude woman stabbed 40 or 50 times and then watch her blood run down the drain. In the context of this discussion, I think that qualifies as about as graphic as it gets. And in the context of the entire film (no spoilers here, but c'mon people... it's been 50 years!) there's a sexual element to that that just can't be denied.
After all, we all know that it would not have been possible to have such mature artistic works like Lord of the Rings, Atlas Shrugged, The Count of Monte Cristo, The Brothers Karamazov, and Casablanca without the addition of explicit sexual imagery. And it's clear that such immature games as Half-Life, Zork, Monkey Island, System Shock and Civilization were kept from becoming true works of art by not containing pornographic content.
.
Seriously, this article is a joke. You want a mature game? (And I use the word "mature" in its ordinary meaning, not as a synonym for "titillating"). Write good stories. I just finished Thief Gold (again), and was easily able to dismiss the clunky late-90's-style graphics and immerse myself in the fantastic story that unfolds for the player throughout its 13 missions. I'm starting Thief 2 now, where the storytelling got even better. Compare that with Crysis - while visually gorgeous, it told a very tired, worn-out story. (I get to play as a space-marine? With futuristic weapons? Wow! And I'm fighting aliens who are coming to earth? Amazing!)
.
Gamemakers: I'm not looking for more violence. Really, I'm not. Shooting bad guys is fine, but I don't wistfully dream about a future game where I'll be able to murder housewives and their children. And I'm not looking for more sexual imagery in my games. I want a story, with a beginning, plot development, and an end. I don't want an open-ended game where I have to create my own story because you were too cheap to hire good writers - I want you to pay what it takes to get some writers to write a fantastic tale that I can immerse myself in. Don't make it pornographic. Don't make it a blood-fest. Just make it compelling. Then you'll have a mature game.
I would say that violent and sexual imagery are the primary reason for the degeneration of art in the modern world.
I'm sorry, art has degenerated in the modern world? WTF gives you that idea?
Sounds to me like your thinking is clouded by survivorship bias. The only reason you consider old art "good" is because the crap is long forgotten. Similarly, a hundred years from now, I guarantee you, most people will forget Scary Movie ever existed, while Apocalypse Now will be considered a great work of art.
So get the stick out of your ass and relax. The world of art is fine. It doesn't need you to defend it.
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 instincts. Any thug or whore can do that.
Oh, and my spouse is a professional fine artist, and I move in artistic circles as a consequence. I know a lot more about the history of art and the mechanisms by which a modern artist makes a living than most non-professionals, thanks. Perhaps you ought to stick to arguing your point and refrain from accusing people of ignorance from a position of ignorance.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I think you make a good point...
I also however believe that "thinking of the children" should include making them be aware that the world is for and run by adults. They don't need to have their childhood necessarily ripped away, but trying to lull them into some self-entitled, overly-pampered, completely unrealistic understanding of the world- where everyone is special, nobody is ever mean to anyone else, and there's no such thing as sex of any kind, including distinguishing that people have different body parts- simply because they're children is cruel and abusive.
It's not helping the children if we remove everything a parent might not want their child to see from their sight. What helps the children is leaving these things right where they are, and then having a loving parent work to put these things in context for a child so they can begin to understand the world and their place in it more effectively.
While sex and violence are a part of many art pieces, they are not part of all of them, and I would venture to say not part of most of them. The purpose of contemporary conceptual art is to make people feel a certain way or explore new ideas, not about being edgy. I do not usually like Art that has the sole purpose of being edgy. Artists who take the time to create something that makes the viewer feel or think something meaningful is better by far than art that simply shocks the viewer.
Also, saying that video game censorship is impeding them from becoming art is like saying that the movie rating system is keeping hollywood movies from becoming art. The very idea that these huge commercial video games would ever become art is just plain silly. On the other hand, there are more venues to distribute indipendent video games then there ever have been and some of these games are becoming more artistic. I haven't played one that I would consider high art yet, but I have played some very creative games that are moving in that direction.
The perception is that video games are for kids. As is the case for every medium, parents will decide that they do not want their kids seeinig certain images or hearing certain language regardless of the artistic intent or value of those images or words.
You can disagree all you want, or poke fun at the "Think of the Children!" syndrome, but you can't fight human nature.
Aside: The quest for video games to be accepted as art would acquire more credibility if people heard about it in some context other than attempts to include explicit sex and violence.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What a coincidence, I just post a journal pointing out that some mods are idiots, and an anonymous troll gets modded "insightful". OK, troll, I'll bite (I have to).
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.
Free Martian Whores!
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.
While I'm against absolute censorship (with a few extreme exceptions), I am very much for the creation of reliable tools that enable people and families to make informed decisions to control what kinds of material they interact with.
Fortunately, the internet has stepped up and done quite well at being the kind of tool I see as being effective. If you want to know what kind of material is in a game/movie/song/book/etc. there are sites or blogs full of reviews on whatever you're looking for.
Case in point, my wife and I recently ditched cable (and by not keeping up with the digital TV switch even local broad cast TV). Honestly, we couldn't justify the cost given how little we ended up watching it and how much inanity there was in many of the shows. Plus, news is better online or on the radio and neither of us are into professional sports. So now we just use Netflix/Redbox or watch shows online. Since what we're watching is not live, there are tons of reviews on the internet of exactly what kind of content (or lack thereof) is in the movie/show. So now we end up watching exactly what we like to watch and our TV watching experience is much better. Interestingly, we've found ourselves watching more independent films than blockbuster films.
Of course, this means we're a season behind the live TV viewing. But being up on all the latest shows isn't socially important to us so we don't care.
I feel there's plenty of information out there for people to be in control of what they watch if they take the time. Hopefully, more sites will pop up that are focused on providing an organized way for people to make informed decisions about their media viewing/listening/reading so you don't have to pour through random blog posts all the time.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
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 ignorance in the subject. The one thing artists successfully do over and over again throughout the ages is destroy whatever definition and rules society tries to hold them to.
"...drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconcieved by the artist."?? What about furniture music?
You also completely missed my point..."drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconceived by the artist." is in fact considered SPECTACLE by just about anybody who didn't like that particular work.
You see deciding something as spectacle or not is a perspective...it's an opinion. Where you see violence or sex simply for their own sakes, others may not...it's not up to you to decide what is art for the rest of the world...now I'm not saying everything out there is good...most of it is crap...but that's the way it always is.
The Rite of Spring caused a riot within the first 3 minutes of it's first performance...people were throwing chairs. It was most certainly considered spectacle by the people who were infuriated by it...now it's considered one of the most important works of the 20th century by composers and dancers alike.
What's really funny, is that we in fact agree for the most part on art in general...I just don't think I'm qualified to judge what is art and isn't...you on the other hand seem to think you can recreate the world in your own fascist image of what should be acceptable and not.
I am a strong opponent of censorship, but I wonder if society might want to be more careful with games than we are with other media. Reading or watching Lolita seems much less dangerous a thing than playing Humbert Humbert in a FPS environment. And where will we be in 20 years, when your NeuroPlug(tm) makes the gaming experience almost indiscernible from reality?
Ask me about my sig!
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.
Because Hollywood has proved it's impossible to be creative without the of crutch showing boobies and gushing head wounds.
You know what's sad? The fact that there is very little creativity in the game market, and censorship has absolutely NOTHING to do with it. But go on and continue believing that the Man is keeping you down by not letting you exercise your most base urges and calling it "creativity". Is there room for _good_ games that might not be appropriate for all audiences? Of course. The example I would suggest is "System Shock" and its sequel. I'm sure there are many others, but I am also they are still uncommon, among a sea of mediocrity, just like (surprise! surprise!) games that are suitable for all ages.
Is censorship really stifling creativity? That's complete nonsense. If you can't do something creative without having to resort to sex and violence and other topics unsuitable for a general audience, then guess what? You're not going to be creative with them either... you'll just sell more because sex and violence, etc, sell on their own. Again, look at Hollywood. Censorship may stifle specific projects that may or may not have merit, but suggesting it's stifling creativity in general is an extraordinarily lame assertion.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
They certainly can. Ever seen "Apocalypse Now?" "Eyes Wide Shut?" "Psycho?" Picasso's "Guernica?"
One of these things is not like the other....
Seriously, Eyes Wide Shut was terrible.
But your point about that violence and sexual content can be a critical part of art still stands.
Video games are censored because people believe that children should not see this and games are for children after all. Last I checked you stopped being a child when you started attending school and had to interact with others. A majority of 10-14 year old kids know more about life then most adults sexually and this is age is getting younger as time goes on. So if people in general would come to the realization of this then the other thing we would need to take care of is irresponsible parents. Also you have the people that for some reason believe that games are the cause of murder. I'm open for some ideas for this 'delusion' of people.
Personally, I shy away from games and movies that prominently feature tits and blood because they are almost always low quality.
However, saying that art needs to be censored to be good is just totalitarian nonsense. Yes, good films were produced in Nazi Germany, but Germany has produced far more great films after the Nazi era. Yes, good films were made in fascist Italy, but Italy has produced far more great films since abandoning fascism. It is possible to make great films despite censorship, but no one rational claims that great films are made because of censorship.
Yes, but it isn't overt. You never saw the victim's breasts or anything, she was covered.
That's a far cry from today where you have movies like say... Swordfish, where Haley Berry just puts down a newspaper and her tits are out there in plain sight.
"Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
If you don't want to be stifled do what every other fringe artist does, open your own studio, peddle your stuff on the web, etc. There are plenty of outlets available for any artist to produce whatever they want. Of course the difference here is that the money stream it produces might not be there. Oh well, its all about the art anyway, right?
You're expecting me to defend "Swordfish?" I couldn't do that as a director or a nerd. Gratuitous boobs *and* stupid computing? No thanks. It's enjoyable cheese, but that's pretty much it.
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.
Despite not being much of a GTA fan, my experience with the series so far has been that the developers have a pretty decent sense of humor and throw in a lot of small jokes. I think you're seeing a deeper meaning that isn't there in this particular case.
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
So, one needs to include violent and sexual imagery to be artistic? That got to be one of the most ignorant arguments I've ever heard.
dB Masters
Dismissing something as an art form simply because it's violent or erotic is just ignorant.
There, fixed that for ya. One of my instructors was fond of saying "I don't know what I like, but I know what art is." He also said on numerous occasions "there's less here than meets the eye".
Free Martian Whores!
Exactly what time period in the history of theater (dramatic arts, where these things primarily occur) were the plays being written not rife with violent and sexual imagery?
You don't know what you are talking about. Art hasn't degenerated in the modern world, it's the same as it ever was.
Americans have so many deep issues with their sexuality that whatever we're doing is obviously very far from working.
A friend and I were discussing this a few weeks ago: if we had sex in public, showing real, normal, healthy sex and making no effort to hide it from our culture's children, how would they be different? Does making sure that sex only takes place behind closed doors help anyone? How? How exactly would you, as a middle-school kid, have been scarred if your parents had occasionally made sweet loooove on the dinner table after dessert?
Serious question here: does anyone know of any research into whether sexual content is actually harmful to anyone? Helpful? Scarring? Enlightening? Erotic, obviously, but let's ignore that one for now, and references to xkcd #598 are unnecessary :) I'm seriously interested in controlled studies on this topic, but anecdote and speculation (and puerile comments about the previous paragraph) could be fun too if you're really sure you're witty.
"The biggest problem with communication is the illusion that it has taken place."
I don't buy games because they're art. I buy them because they are fun. Art games are rarely fun, and fun games are rarely art.
Welcome to Slashdot, the only place where a comment that focuses on "cockslap" gets modded Insightful.
And this related to the comment you posted to HOW?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Ico
Creative video games are, well, creative video games. Innovative game play and a rich playing experience make for a good video game, not more blood, guts, and T+A.
A good game is a good game, regardless of it's rating.
"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
Art is supposed to provoke thought and open the mind, not close thought and rouse the base instincts.
I know a lot more about the history of art and the mechanisms by which a modern artist makes a living than most non-professionals, thanks.
Since you know more about art than I do, could you please explain how (counter-)propoganda from WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam, the Soviets, N. Korea, and so on is supposed to "provoke thought and open the mind, not close thought and rouse the base instincts"?
All those propoganda posters and leaflets may not have been considered "art" at the time,
but I can't imagine you'd argue they aren't now and that it hasn't become a style of art since.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Don't forget the Japanese EOCS banning the depiction of rape in Japanese video games. The suppression of art is going on there as well as here.
And that makes you a puritan moron.
Sure, because we all know that slasher flicks and porn are the highest artistic form of cinema...
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
They're not art. They never were, and just because they're old doesn't change that. They're historical artifacts.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
When the media and the masses think of violent/sexual video games and their affects on society, they are really thinking about children. No one cares what an adult plays for a video game. For you parents out there, whether your child is playing a violent/sexual video game or looking at the female form labeled "art" its all the same.
You think I'm a fascist because I want to have some respect for things that have merit and have them not lumped into a category with a bunch of crap. By your definition, and by popular definition, if I take a dump on a stage and stick a flag in it, that is an artistic endeavor no different from painting a masterpiece. I think you do this because you don't wish to be held to any standards. I think you hurt us all when you do this. If it's fascism to oppose your position, then I support fascism.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
This just in...
The rhyme scheme and number of lines specified in a sonnet format stifled Shakespeare's artistry, the Comics Code killed all creativity and relevance in the comics industry, and censoring the word "hell" from the title of the South Park movie kept Trey and Matt from making the title to "Bigger, Longer, and Uncut" obscene and graphic.
Reality fail. The only thing that can effectively censor actual artists is medication. ;^)
--
Toro
[C]ensorship of violent and sexual images and themes in video games is precisely what inhibits video games from maturing artistically beyond a nascent form.
Right. Because no great art has ever been created under a regime that censors violent and sexual imagery.
Theses like these are nonsense. Yes, a lot of great art bends social rules. Shocking as it may seem, though, it is possible to create magnificent works of art without pushing social envelopes. A lot of great art came out of patronage systems and commissions, where it had to be actively sponsored by a ruling elite. It was art by rules, and much of it was magnificent. (Mozart, anyone?)
I've defended the artistic possibilities of games before, as have most people, but the Tech Report article paints with an awfully broad brush. Not all games are art, nor are they intended to be. Of the games that employ violent and/or sexual imagery, I'd venture to say that only a tiny fraction of them are doing it for artistic reasons. Mostly, they're trying to sell copies of otherwise fairly inferior titles to a male audience. (I'm not being snobbish here--I find a lot of that imagery as appealing as the next male, but most of it is straight-up marketing, and doesn't pretend to be art.) And plenty of games with real artistic value have managed just fine without any sex or violence at all. While I don't think we should shy away from those themes when the project warrants them, I think ranting about the Hays Code in the era of Manhunt and Grand Theft Auto is ridiculous.
Bullshit. If you need sex and violence then you're not particularly creative. Certainly either can be a crucial part of a story and add to that experience, but it certainly isn't the end all and be all of creativity. I don't understand this obsession with "mature" themes, like gamers and developers alike are trying to prove they're mature in the most immature way possible. And let's not kid ourselves, developers are making their games more violent and adding more sex not because of some creative need, but for the simple reason that it sells.
Technologically gaming certain has progressed to an impressive degree over the past few decades. But in terms of quality of storytelling, outside of a handful of exceptions I actually think we've regressed. Unfortunately, the game industry is taking Hollywood's approach to entertainment which means it's appealing to the lowest common denominator.
If fail to see the connections the author is trying to make. Japan's high concept games, for example, have come about independently of anything else the industry might be producing. Ironically, most high-concept games are light on violence. Games like Fallout 3 or Bioshock are not art and certainly not intellectual. Well, they're the Hollywood version of profound thought, which means they aren't very deep at all.
I think too many people are trying to rationalize why they play violent or sexual games and expect non-gamers to understand and accept it. The fact is that many people are turned off by that sort of thing. People play these games because they get a rise out of them, it's titillating. And that's perfectly acceptable. I'm not suggesting adults should be banned from playing these games. In fact, I sometimes enjoy them myself. My problem is with people making ridiculous justifications for their existence and somehow suggesting that they're necessary for the advancement of art.
And interestingly, sometimes people are their most creative when they're limited in some way. When they're free to do whatever they like it's like they don't know what they want and the end result is crap. Again, I'm not endorsing censorship. I'm pointing out that people can be creative if they wanted to be, but it doesn't make for a profitable business model. More esoteric games in Japan occasionally enjoy success there because culturally they're more open to that sort of thing. Unfortunately in the US, where your average gamer needs everything to exude attitude and menace such games rarely get any attention. But then that's what we've got indie gaming for.
*Sarcasm tag* Yes depicting the rape of obviously child like characters is truly art and should not ever be stifled. */Sarcasm tag*
Ok, not that I'm in favour of censorship, but the implication that violent and sexual themes are the only roads to maturing artistically is nonsense. Games are not stifled because they are being prevented from going down those roads- you as an artist are limited if you can't dream up any other avenues for growth or originality than only those two. I for one truly hope that video games have more directions in which to grow rather than just becoming more violent or sexually explicit.
Hooray! Let's all condescend each other!
Psycho and Guernica are both nonviolent portrayals of violence. You do not see blood splashing the walls of Guernica. You do not see the gore spurting from open wounds in Psycho. You see the confusion, turmoil, death, and suffering in one, and you see hands and murky water in the other. Censorship, in moderation, does not harm art. If that's what you think, then you do not understand art. The purpose of art is not to impress people. It is to conjure emotion and capture the ethereals, like beauty, horror, and greed. Human emotion peaks in its anticipations and reversed expectations, not in deliveries (think about how exciting Christmas eve is vs. Christmas for kids, or sitting in a very scary amusement ride, waiting for it to start -- or how the awkwardness in "The Office" compares to punchline-ridden sitcoms). Current trends in most... ahem... "art" is the cheap thrills from reversed expectations -- shock value. However, we've grown so accustomed to that, it's expected, and no longer shocking. Its overuse has turned it into, (if you'll excuse me), schlock value (I'm so sorry).
Most censorships don't bar conjuring this expectation -- the hope of seeing her nipples, the killer approaching his prey, despair, crescendos, sexual tensions... in fact it tends to force lesser artists into approaching the higher emotional marks.
If our current media's censorship is too much for you to depict your "artistry" then you are nothing but a cheap thrills vendor. Show some elasticity and flexibility or seek a different medium -- otherwise join the 9-5's.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
near impossible for me to acquire a Neo Geo developer's license and kit.
Why bother, when you can get all of the tools for Windows game development for free, not to mention that Linux has a long history of free tools.
For one thing, most machines that run Windows or untivoized Linux are connected to a tiny monitor. It's hard to fit two people holding gamepads around a 17" monitor, let alone four. Most TVs are still SDTVs, and most people tend not know that PC-to-SDTV adapters exist. Even owners of HDTV sets don't immediately recognize that the D-sub input on the back of a TV is for connecting a PC, or they don't have a spare PC to put in the same room as the TV.
For another, games that run on one person's PC might fail to run on someone else's PC. Correct me if I'm wrong, but Windows doesn't have a "lot check" procedure to verify that your app isn't relying on undocumented behaviors of the platform.
Go back and look at renaissance art, then. Heck, go back to Greek and Roman art. There are boobs and penises everywhere. Paintings of nudes. Sculptures of nudes. Paintings of orgies. Drawings of orgies. Sex and nudity is everywhere - the censorship of nudity is mostly a modern thing.
And what, exactly, is wrong with nudity? We're born naked, after all, and we're stuck in the skin we're given, no matter how much we cover up. No, I don't think we should all run around naked - nobody wants to see CowboyNeal nude, but why make a fuss about it?
In 50 years Halle Berry will be old or dead and the technology forgotten, so who knows? Maybe people will look passed the inanity of Swordfish and see it in a more artistic light (yeah, even I doubt that, I'm just sayin'). Even Halle might look back and say damn, I looked good!
Art is a communicative effort.
If that's the case, most art fails miserably. Ask any two art lovers what an artist was trying to communicate with a given work and you'll get two different answers. This ambiguity is often even valued by art lovers. Any poetry lover will tell you that what a poem means to you is more important than what the author was actually trying to convey.
Personally, I find technically excellent artisanship to be be more beautiful and compelling than any pretentious fine art crap.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
You did that way better than I could have. I was gonna tell him to stfu and provide him with a url that has the goatse images. 'course that would've prolly started another artistic debate. :-)
"Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hit man or a video gamer"- Jack Thompson
Censorship doesn't stifle creativity; It enhances it. Throughout history you'll find instances of art being what it is because of the threat of censorship. It's the artists job to find the taboos of the day and push them. Mr. Tambourin Man was code word for drug dealers, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds is about LSD, Star Trek was set in the future because Roddenberry couldn't tell the stories he wanted to without it. Pretty much any significant piece of art has pushed some boundary. I don't know why people now feel there should be an anything goes attitude about art - it practically kills the art of it. What's so artistic about 90% of video games involving some kind of killing of another living creature? It is that way not because game developers are artists and are pushing the boundaries but because it sells. Games and movies have become so homogenized that we should be questioning their validity as an art form. 90% of games and movies are sequels or spin-offs of other franchises off different mediums, why are we still considering such a homogenized structure as an unquestionable artform?
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
anyone find it interesting that one of the most prolific "game" publishers in history is "Electronic _Arts_" ? i really think that we should abandon the labe' of "Game" much the same way that "Comic" has now become "Graphic Novel" Art has always has a struggle against the "establishment" Comics needed to become Graphic Novels to legitimize them as "art". Sin City comes to mind as art that while extremely violent and excessive, is accepted by society as art. Would a forthcoming game like the Last Guardian be considered art by most gamers? undoubetdly. and the development team at ICO would certainly deserve that status, if they released their work as an "Electronic Novel" or "Digital Theatre" the public might see it as art too. are all games art? not anymore than all doodles are art, but i've seen Van Goghs doodles in the Met in NYC so...
i wage a holy war against the apostrophe.
By your definition, and by popular definition, if I take a dump on a stage and stick a flag in it, that is an artistic endeavor no different from painting a masterpiece.
90% of a piece being declared art lies simply in the artist declaring that it is art.
Marcel Duchamp, for example.
Sure, there are those morality cops out there that insist on filtering out of society all the stuff that they consider 'bad'. But perhaps the dearth of violent and sexual (particularly the combination of these two) media is just a measure of societies distaste for such material. It may appear that the censors are more effective than they are (and I'm sure they'll claim victory for their efforts). But, as the Internet has demonstrated in the past, if there's demand for something, people will route around the censorship. Using the market size for such content as an indicator to measure its acceptance as 'art' might be misguided.
Both the 'artists' and consumers might be bypassing the extreme stuff just because they don't like it.
Have gnu, will travel.
The profit motive stifles artistry in video games. Not censorship.
Censorship wishes it had the same negative impact the profit motive does.
And I didn't even need to write a 1500 word essay.
Your post is hard to understand. Instead of using that kind of silly phrase, you could have just said "And how is that related to the comment you just posted?". That would have been more efficient.
Games are ART!
A video game is art because it is a work that is derived from imagination. A work designed to "Pull" the interactor into its world in the same fashion that a painting, book, or movie is designed to do. Just because it requires some technical knowledge to "Paint/Write/Produce" such a tapestry, does not mean that it's not true art. Additionally in the same vein that "Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder" so are games reviewed and judged. Not everyone likes the Mona Lisa, Star Wars, and Final Fantasy 7, however there are enough (by percentages) that have seen or played them to warrant recognition greater than that of a normal work. Each are an example of an artistic creation that was designed to attract the attention of its audience.
The real question is how far should art be allowed to go. The movie industry has pushed the idea that graphic smut in a film is part of their art, and this has been allowed to continue to a level to which it is near impossible to watch a current movie that does not contain some sexual reference/imagery at some level.
Here are some examples of art. You tell me if they would all receive unbiased opinions.
Mona Lisa(painting) = The Simpsons Series(tv) = Final Fantasy 7(game) = Lord of the Rings(book&movie).
A crucifix upside down in a bottle of urine. (generally considered cool)
Mohammed with a bomb painted on his head. (generally considered anti-islamic)
Obama being shot at by a white guy in a KKK getup. (flat out considered antagonistic racism and grounds for a call to the secret service for some hidden room torture)
Based on that list alone you can see that all art is not equal. And there are good reasons why it is not equal. The next question... who should be allowed to decide what art gets to make it and what art does not?
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.
Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaag
I always thought of art as something that expresses the human experience. While a large bulk of that IS emotion, I don't know if I'd go as far as to say that emotion is the entirety of human experience.
I also don't think that everybody's idea of art is identical. In this way, a person could create something that he himself doesn't consider art, yet another person does. Why should intention be a barrier to what can be considered art?
I remember a Simpons episode where Homer, trying to assemble a fancy grill, ends up completely destroying it in his frustration. A random person sees this and believes it to be art. While in some way you could see this as the Simpsons making fun of art, it also could be considered art because it's almost a concentrated expression of frustration.
I think a better example of game-devs not seeing themselves as artists (nor wanting to be) is the lack of style in most games. Most modern games go for a boring gray-brown "realistic" palette, and try for realism as much as possible, and most games, game-play wise, are boring cut-and-paste jobs from previous successful games in their genre, with perhaps a single added gimmick to sell themselves as better than I-XVI in whatever series.
Games as story telling is equally as trite, these days.
In short, there is no real innovation (outside of realistic-style graphics), and without innovation you have no real creativity.
There as some examples that go against this, Like Katamari and the studio who made No More Heroes and Killer 7.
But comparing games to Hollywood (as we are apt to do), we can see this mirrored there. You have your large, pretty, summer blockbusters and romantic comedies, taking the lionshare of the market. With a small niche of David Lynches, and Stanely Kubriks (I would have thrown Tim Burton in there, but he's been doing formulaic crap for awhile now, as well).
Most art is like this in the modern consumer market. Look at music, 90% of it is consumer grade pap, and 10% of it is made by genuine musicians (as artist). Design is in the same space too, with 90% being Ikea/Crate and Barrel crap, and the rest being filled by little botique markets. I could go on.
We have the illusion of things being more "artistic" in the past, because all of the formulaic crap is quickly forgotten, and all we remember is the unique or innovative. Games will be the same way, and already somewhat are. You remember Duke Nukem, but can you remember what was the big Tom Clancy/WWII game of five or six years ago?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
I agree that "expresses the human experience" is a better way to look at it than simple emotion. Another way to look at it is that art expresses something internal to the audience - they recognize something in it that connects to their internal experience of being human.
I also think that for something to be art, there needs to be some sort of applied, creative intelligence behind it. A beautiful sunset can be profoundly moving, but whether it is art is a theological question. Similarly, a child crying in the supermarket is not art, even though the child is conveying emotion to an audience. Though the child may be intelligent, there is no creative process behind the exhibition.
The overall effect and meaning of an artistic work, as experienced by the audience, is not always intentional. It might be vastly different than what the artist intended, and (as you said) the artist might not have been thinking of art at all. But there must be some personal intent present behind a work to qualify it as art. Even in the case of Homer's grill, he did something more creative than simply throwing the parts in the trash.
I suppose that what a person considers to be art will be based on that person's perspective on life, and so we're bound to have a variety of definitions.
Well, 90% of visual art is advertising.
What was once cutting-edge avante garde is now considered trite.
Free Martian Whores!
" I believe that games require much more teamwork and collaboration. [...] This prevents the explosion of games and relegates us to a set number right now."
I believe tower defense is a new genre created by the little guys (those who are not in a big company ). IÂve played them most in flash games and mobile phones
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.
Violence and sexuality in art are tools which can be used for whatever ends the artist wants.
(no argument about games from me -- I think a lot of violence etc in games is essentially for marketing purposes, not for any "artistic" purpose)
We live, as we dream -- alone....
flamebait, really? Could someone please explain this to me?
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
That is objectively true.
Art is not simply spectacle.
It can be.
Art is about drawing the focus of the audience to consider a certain perspective that was preconcieved by the artist.
Sometimes, not always.
Oh, and my spouse is a professional fine artist, and I move in artistic circles as a consequence.
Well, there's the problem that's biasing your perception. Your use of the term "fine art" is a real giveaway. That term is largely obsolete, and people who are serious about the study and philosophy of art don't use the term anymore, except satirically.
... and then they built the supercollider.
You really have no idea about art. Nothing about art requires it to be "good" or enjoyed by your standards. Some of the most notable works of art were offensive to the audience.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Amazing so when I was a kid a was playing computer art not games. Now if only I had thought to tell my dad that.
Granted I haven't read all the posts...but I'm not seeing this being brought up, the fact that there are plenty of "art games" already in existence and are being displayed and played in galleries and on the web all the time. So in regards to this article, it seems that this is less about if games are art but more about the fact that because "video games" are already being assumed to follow certain processes (which have been mentioned numerous times in previous comments...ie the film comparison) and distribution paths that this issue arises. Museums and galleries are in a sense "safe houses" where creations are freed of censorship, for the most part,(and in a sense the internet falls under this category...which is where many art/conceptual video games exist) but as soon as you mass distribute anything to the public you lose those protections. I'm glad that people are mentioning the intention behind creation factor too. In regards to the use of violence or sexuality, in my mind it really comes down to the intentions behind their use...is it for creative expression or to make a sale? Which is, and has been a major argument within the art world. It's kind of like comparing Thomas Kinkade with Performance Artists for example. One is largely created for an audience with profit in mind (mass produced/marketed video games) and one is for experience/expression (free video games/interactive installations motivated by creative expression that in many cases can never be sold) Both are considered forms of art but are regarded differently based on the intention behind their conception.
Days since ShieldW0lf claimed the Iran riots were a "black op imposed from without": Six
Evidence cited by ShieldW0lf: None
Number of confessions made by ShieldW0lf that he made it up: 23
Why don't you stop stalking me you filthy, insane bitch? You planning on printing my slashdot history and bringing it with you to court again?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
Background -- see other "color" revolutions
Some information I linked from other places. Courtesy of Lew Rockwell, Paul C. Roberts and others. It is just a taste of the evidence. Some skill in reading between the lines is necessary.
At this stage of the game, to not realize what is going on is a mark of foolishness or outright malevolence. People of this ilk always claim to want evidence, but what they really desire is to delay and to destroy the intellectual capacity of those who notice the fraud (as if that word were sufficient to explain this usurious system we live in).
-------------
1) First some reality:
Story lead (Jun 15, 2009): The election results in Iran may reflect the will of the Iranian people. Many experts are claiming that the margin of victory of incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was the result of fraud or manipulation, but our nationwide public opinion survey of Iranians three weeks before the vote showed Ahmadinejad leading by a more than 2 to 1 margin -- greater than his actual apparent margin of victory in Friday's election.
Telling points: The breadth of Ahmadinejad's support was apparent in our preelection survey. During the campaign, for instance, Mousavi emphasized his identity as an Azeri, the second-largest ethnic group in Iran after Persians, to woo Azeri voters. Our survey indicated, though, that Azeris favored Ahmadinejad by 2 to 1 over Mousavi.
Much commentary has portrayed Iranian youth and the Internet as harbingers of change in this election. But our poll found that only a third of Iranians even have access to the Internet, while 18-to-24-year-olds comprised the strongest voting bloc for Ahmadinejad of all age groups.
The only demographic groups in which our survey found Mousavi leading or competitive with Ahmadinejad were university students and graduates, and the highest-income Iranians. When our poll was taken, almost a third of Iranians were also still undecided. Yet the baseline distributions we found then mirror the results reported by the Iranian authorities, indicating the possibility that the vote is not the product of widespread fraud.
Some might argue that the professed support for Ahmadinejad we found simply reflected fearful respondents' reluctance to provide honest answers to pollsters. Yet the integrity of our results is confirmed by the politically risky responses Iranians were willing to give to a host of questions. For instance, nearly four in five Iranians -- including most Ahmadinejad supporters -- said they wanted to change the political system to give them the right to elect Iran's supreme leader, who is not currently subject to popular vote. Similarly, Iranians chose free elections and a free press as their most important priorities for their government, virtually tied with improving the national economy. These were hardly "politically correct" responses to voice publicly in a largely authoritarian society.
--- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/14/AR2009061401757.html
2) Story lead (Jun 29, 2008): The Bush administration told Congress last year of a secret plan to dramatically expand covert operations inside Iran as part of a long-running effort to destabilize the country's ruling regime, according to a report published yesterday.
The plan allowed up to $400 million in covert spending for activities ranging from spying on Iran's nuclear program to supporting rebel groups opposed to the country's ruling clerics, veteran investigative journalist Seymour Hersh reported in the New Yorker magazine.
--- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/29/AR2008062901881_pf.html
3) Neocon Kenneth Timmerman day before elections (Jun 11, 2009):
Quote: And then, there's the talk of a "green revolution" in Tehran, named for the omnipresent green scarves
Seven days.
25 confessions to lying.
One desperate attempt to deflect with a false play at victimhood.
One confession to being furious at being made to face your own dishonesty.
Even collectively, this is weak stuff you've got. Furthermore, it's very US-centric of you to assume that the problems of an anti-US government must automatically be the result of American interference, as if we were the only factor that could possibly influence matters.
Do you on the other hand have any information pointing to the fact that the election was anything but regular (i.e. implying the usual scheming of an election but overall resembling a 'normal election')? The only thing that I've seen that is even remotely interesting is the so-called statistical proof that it was rigged. On a side note, I'd like to see such a statistical approach run against previous elections, especially over in the USA.
Also, I don't think the parent poster simply implied that it was only US groups behind the alleged revolution or that somehow because Iran is having a problem that their detractor is behind it. Rather he stated somewhat cryptically (his first phrase) that historically the colonial powers have been behind numerous such situations in locations where their only interests were and are strategic control and resources.
No. And I made no claim that would require such information. I have merely pointed out the lack of support for the "riots are Americans' doing" claim. It is entirely possible that a)the elections were legitimate, and b)the riots occurred without any outside influence.
Fair enough. Most of the protesters were/are probably legitimate, but I still find it quite likely that a large part of the initial movement and/or leadership was driven indirectly by so-called black ops by foreigners.
The argument whether video games are "Art" is fundamentally equivalent to whether movie making is "Art"; which I believe at this point, is generally considered "Art". The analogy works in that as in there are crappy movies (depending upon personal taste and what you define as entertainment and art) which holds true to video games.
I believe much what is at issue is that there is a large number of parents who take issue with some video games, but do not want own up to the parental responsibility of simply saying "No"; they would rather make it illegal than face their kids saying "But Bobby gets to play (insert whichever sexually provocative or violent game title you wish)." And then holding their ground that whatever it is, is off limits to them. This may be a bit tough with what happens at friends houses, but if you pay attention, you'll know what's going on.
Greg