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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.