Art/Games/whatever

Why is it that everyone seeks to give games legitimacy by claiming them as art?

I think videogames can be a great outlet for artistic expression, but, for some reason, I just can’t see them as art. Really, I don’t want to.

I wonder why people continue to want to talk about whether games are art. :wink:

If games are officially recognized as art, we’re protected under the first amendment. At that point, judges can’t outlaw arcades, and we don’t have to spend so much time worrying about whether congress is going to make laws banning everything except Disney games.

The First Amendment protects more than “art”. When has Congress ever banned a form of expression J?

Probably for the same reason that paintings and sculpture and plays and movies and music and tea ceremony and EVERYTHING ELSE manmade in the world is considered art. To give them cultural legitimacy.

The First Amendment protects more than “art”. When has Congress ever banned a form of expression J?

Well, while Congress has never banned a movie (AFAIK), it was perfectly legit for state and local governments to do so until the early '50s, when the Supreme Court ruled that movies are an art form. Porno movies may still be banned in some parts of the country, I’m not too sure.

I think the point J is making is that Limbaugh, for example, said that video games aren’t “expression” within the meaning of First Amendment jurisprudence. If it isn’t expression, you can regulate it with an eye to its content. You don’t have to be “art” to get First Amendment protection, but everything we recognize as “art” is given protection.

Since most games are a little stronger visually than they are literarily, the comparison to the visual arts seems the most adroit right now. It would be nice if people could recognize a truly new category and decide it’s worthy of protection, but that’s not the way the law works. The law moves by analogy and increment. Giving a judge a clean handle like “art” may be helpful. Since First Amendment law is also informed by societal custom and mores, trying to be pervasive with the “games as art” message may also be helpful.

And, as a matter of sheer speculation, I think it’s crept in as the industry has sought more dignity and respect for its efforts. “What do you do for a living? I’m a painter. What do you do for a living? I’m a video game animator.” There’s probably still a respect gap - one that’s increasingly difficult to justify.

I love it when the lawyers are on your side. I wouldn’t have been able to defend myself that well.

In any case, if you wonder why the IDSA pays actual lobbyists in Washington DC to defend games, this is what they’re working for. As recognized expression, games no longer run the risk of censure, meaning we don’t necessarily have to kowtow as much to Joe Lieberman when he threatens congessional action to limit content in games.

So, when they classify games as art, who wants to make the first Canabalistic-Rape simulator?

We’re not quite out of the woods yet on the First Amendment issue. I think we’re very close (though I know IGDA committee people who disagree), but this appellate ruling in the St. Louis case (Limbaugh’s case) could be very big. They just heard oral argument yesterday, so we may have quite some time to wait for an actual decision.

Edit: When I say we’re close, I mean I think we’re close to getting a favorable court consensus. In some senses, this industry will never be out of the woods. Given the occasional flare-up surrounding books - clearly protected as a medium - I would expect this issue to be a lifelong battle for the industry.

Well, I was thinking of suspending a copy of Messiah in a glass vat of urine. It worked for Andres Serrano.

is chess art?

depends.

if you paid $500,000 for it, then yes.

sure, just glue sardines to all the pieces and take a shit on the board.

A game is a product, that contains art :)

I don’t think the government or anyone will every do anything to stop/hamper violent videogames like GTA 3 from being made. They make way too much money, and that’s what matters in the end.

[non PC speak] I wish someone would tell Joe Lieberman that and maybe he would shut his Yamika wearin’ pie hole. [/non PC speak]

So they can better justify their time spent with them. Compare spending 80 hours watching the entire Jerry Bruckheimer/Michael Bay videography with, I don’t know, reading the collected works of Shakespeare. One might impress chicks not named Sparky, the other probably wouldn’t.

If people thought some games were serious forms of expression, you wouldn’t sound like as much of a dork for being excited about collecting bugs in Animal Crossing. No, wait, yes you would.

I think videogames can be a great outlet for artistic expression, but, for some reason, I just can’t see them as art. Really, I don’t want to.

They’re commercial entertainment products, just like… well, most art that was created in our history.

They’re commercial entertainment products, just like… well, most art that was created in our history.

Just like everything else you hyoo-mans do. You smear pigment on canvas, you bang away at keyboards…

Self expression = art? No. The apex of any craft = art.

A game is a product, that contains art

That really demeans the work of very talented game developers; isn’t a wonderfully designed game (cf Chess, GTA3) an example of the acme of that discipline, regardless of the potential art it contains? Yeah, it is. Just like “The Seven Samurai” is art regardless of whether any of the actors’ performances should be considered art.

S

Well, I was thinking of suspending a copy of Messiah in a glass vat of urine. It worked for Andres Serrano.[/quote]

Am I the ONLY person who liked Messiah?