Slashdot Mirror
US Government Recognizes, Funds Video Games As Art
Kilrah_il writes "The National Endowment for the Arts recently published their criteria for next year's Arts in Media grants. One of the key changes is the inclusion of video games as works of art. 'Projects may include high profile multi-part or single television and radio programs (documentaries and dramatic narratives); media created for theatrical release; performance programs; artistic segments for use within an existing series; multi-part webisodes; installations; and interactive games. Short films, five minutes and under, will be considered in packages of three or more.' For those who worry that game companies will try to get a grant for a commercial game, notice that the grant is only for non-profit organizations."
I would never have supposed the arts agency had it in them!
I think the vast majority of art that is produced using grant money is stuff that only a very small percentage of the population enjoys or appreciates.
With this, I think that might change.
I should get me one of them arty grants. I play video games all the time.
Is this the year of linux games? With finding from "The National Endowment for the Arts" ;)
So does this mean that the market will be flooded with angsty platformers written in XNA in hopes of a cashout?
I think you mean "US Government Foundation Recognizes Games as Art; Tax Payers Fund Videogames as Art".
Perhaps now I can finally get funding to remake Leisure Suit Larry.
notice that the grant is only for non-profit organizations."
You mean like the National Football league which makes billions of dollars a year and is a 501(c)6 designated nonprofit organization?
Art does not need taxpayer subsidy. It needs talent.
http://www.americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/
The same country that recognizes ketchup and potato chips as vegetables now recognizes game as High Art.
This will suuuuuurely end the debate once and for all!
Nouvelles de jeux et technologies en français. TC
The changes allows them to give grants to those developing games. They haven't actually issued any yet as far as I can tell.
There's hardly a shortage of video games out there. Given the deficit problem we already have, why should we be spending money to produce a good that is already being produced in massive quantities, particularly a good that only the well off (who can afford high end PC's or expensive gaming equipment and subscription) will be able to take advantage of?
Isn't this essentially just forcing people to purchase games that aren't selling on their own merits?
Given the terms of the grant, I see them having trouble finding appropriate projects to fund. For that reason, I can't help worrying that this all could go down poorly.
On the one hand, sure, they're going to give these grants to smaller, actual "indie" development groups. But on the other hand...
If I'm reading this right, they're looking for indie developers that are set up with good PR and exposure. There aren't that many of those, are there?
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.
Is it any surprise we have a staggering budget shortfall?
I'm sure my tax dollars will pay the principal and interest on the loan to China that funded the "turd in a glass" art too.
I give up.
Okay, I know that there are some video games that have originated in other nations that were made partially with government grants. The problem is that I can't find any citations! Anyone remember some of these?
My mind is saying Syberia and The Longest Journey were partially funded by grants from Norway and Canada but I can't find citations. I'm pretty sure that France also has a grant for video game development.
I really like what the guy who wrote this article had to say: "Government Says Video Games are Art....Yeah, Thanks" In short, that's great and all, but we already knew games were art. We never needed your approval in the first place, and anyone who still doesn't agree (*cough* Ebert,) well that's your loss. (Except he said it a lot better in the long version.)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Well I guess now that the NEA has slapped down Ebert's pronouncement that video games are not art he'll have to reverse his opinion. http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html
not-for-profit endeavors?
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
They aren't exactly known for their discerning nature. Maybe wait for some organization with some respect to memorialize video games before declaring vindication.
Art for art sake is not covered. It has to be for carrying into execution the foregoing powers. So the Army making a shooter to promote enlistment is covered. A non profit making a game where you cure aids isn't.
Oh, you joke.
Nethack, as itself? Almost certainly not. Nethack, reskinned to immerse the player in an artistic or cultural situation? With a sufficient advertising budget to convince people to actually play it? That might pass and, depending on the situation or scenario you present, it might even be worthwhile.
As a further example, remember that any game which would be suitable for this grant doesn't even necessarily have to be playable, just evocative. Consider the innocuous-seeming board game Train , which was pretty much designed to make you want to stop playing most of the way through the first time and never to try it again. That one didn't just hit its mark, it kicked it in the kielbasa. To its detriment, some people failed to realize that the board game was villifying the original event, and instead chose to hate on the board game for celebrating it.
You cannot truly appreciate Dilbert until you read it in the original Klingon.