First we have to define what "art" is. To some art is the creation of a single authority over all else; in other words, art can only be created by a single person or a "leader" of sorts. To others, art is something that emotionally or intellectually ignites people to react a certain way. And to even more others, art is something that appeals to them positively.
For this sake of easiness, we'll go with the second definition. So now we have an objective opinion about what art is. So how does one differentiate between the logo of Cambell's Soup and ICO? Well, first we have to decide what kind of reaction each wants the audience to have. For the soup, they just want the audience to buy the product, for the game, they want the audience to experience the innocent relationship between a young boy and girl and the trust they develop over the course of the story. Blah. Or we could now turn the entire thing subjective by saying what is quality art and not.
That was a really weird tangent, anyway I personally think video games are art because they use creative and artistic talent to create experiences that are new and complex to any audience. It's a new medium and we've yet to express its unique traits enough for everyone outside the community to see it... Ugh, I'm boring myself. So here's an essay that I wrote a long time ago to a school newspaper. Have fun.
"All right, apparently a school newspaper group censored my letter to their editor and refused to publish my response in their next issue. Offended at the restriction of free speech and the uncalled for attack on a certain community, I decided to publish this as a video on the internet instead. Yes, because if one can?t whine about having personal problems in their school?s paper, then that person must whine about it anonymously on the internet.
Funnily enough, I never really had the drive to write a letter to the editor; I guess I never cared that much about a group of teenagers? opinions. Anyway, it has been brought to my attention that someone in the school has expressed a want to limit free speech in the form of video games. It?s gathered an unprecedented but not entirely unexpected amount of negative opinions about the subject in general. I thought rather than dispensing such bile all the time, it would be nice to sample some for a change and perhaps take the opportunity to respond to the slightly more valid arguments. So without further ado: Go Team Bigot!
?When walking through the halls, you are likely to hear or any other wartime game being talked about? This was brought out on a school night? This is just one example of how war-based video games are taking over?? I?m personally jealous of your hearing prowess since I can?t even listen to all the discussions that happen around me in lunchtime unless I take part in the exchange of witty banters, and even then I still wouldn?t. Though, I do understand your concerns about students staying up after midnight to indulge in their hobbies, we should remember that such activity happened in the first place because of parental consent. The game in question is M-rated; retailers won?t sell a Mature rated game to minors under seventeen. Odds are, the students were probably people that have already gotten used to being conscious at midnight; we aren?t two-years-old. And it should be noted that staying up after midnight is what a lot college students do. So imagine it as warm-ups. Also, isn?t there a class that specifically teaches about the war that the noted game is centered on? Oh, yes: Vietnam.
?Video game violence? can lead into the real world? I could never stare at a screen for hours.? I recommend that you do not watch Titanic, The Godfather, The Matrix, The Lord of the Rings, and Avatar in their movie forms since doing so requires staring at a screen for multiple hours. As for the video game violence leading to the real world claim, a recent study done by a university in Texas has found a correlation between violent video games and civic engagement. Yes, civic engagement; meaning voting and volunteering in your community. I think that?s good. And I personally think any media violence can lead into the real world if we?re not careful: Reagan Assassination Attempt (Taxi Driver), John Lennon Assassination (The Catcher in the Rye), and the Crusades (Bible). Guess which ones are taught here. Honestly speaking, if someone is not able to tell reality and ?unreality? apart, then they shouldn?t indulge in any media at all; violence is not mutually exclusive to video games.
?I witnessed three little boys? ?shooting? each other. What has happened to playing soccer? or less violent games?? The most popular video game series of all time is the Mario series; it?s not really violent. Additionally, Nintendo is thriving in their casual game support and is more successful than the über-masculine Sony and Microsoft consoles. And let me tell you a little secret here: There are these really popular genres of television shows called cop/detective and doctor shows, and I remember a war movie winning the Best Picture Academy Award which was called The Hurt Locker. We also must remember that some countries in the world, which won?t be named, have murdered their own soccer players for losing a game. Yeah, sports are definitely not violent. Another thing, from a news broadcast I have seen a year or so earlier, we are not as violent of people as we were during the early 20th century; violence has lowered since the advent of video games. Does anyone realize how to get rid of this ?shooting? game? Well, I think we should just get rid of armies, police, and the Second Amendment since they all support guns, which is the core element in ?shooting?.
?Children at a young age? should? handle problems verbally, not violently.? I agree. Yes, because saying things like ****** and ***** isn?t bad at all. Let?s move on. For the rest of the paragraph, I will say that even without video games, teenagers would still be misunderstood bastards that can?t consider other people?s opinions and angst about whatever stupidity exists in their lives. I call it the Caligula approach to life.
?I?m not trying to whine and complain?? Yes, you are. Earlier, the article actually said, ?I cannot deny I have? the popular game COD (Call of Duty) ? I did enjoy it ? which frightens me even more.? From what I can infer, this sentence means that enjoying violent video games is somehow wrong and immoral. And from the lack of anything else being criticized here, I suppose that you don?t think any other media can ever be as immoral. I don?t mind that you say that violent video games are bad, but at least stick to your ground or else you?ll seem like one of those people that will concede to any logical opposing argument. Or you can be called what everyone else wants to say: Hypocritical. If I said, ?All black people should die, but I?m not a racist,? would people say that I?m not a racist or a hypocrite?
?The whole issue here isn?t the amount of time on video games?? What did I just say about being a hypocrite?! "...but the type?bladiblah." Look, playing video games, reading books, watching movies, drawing pictures, etc. is perfectly fine. Do you really need to have some random teenagers or anyone with an authority, me included, say that whatever you do is bad just because they don?t understand what a new medium is like? Why don?t you roll over so they could stamp on the other side of your face? It is worth noting that whenever a new art form is taking a rise, controversy?s going to come along with it. If someone doesn?t understand it, then it?s plain and simple that they just don?t understand it. Remember those times when reading books, watching moving pictu?Oh, Christ! Why am I reminded those times when Elvis Presley and Monty Python were said to be corrupting our children?s values? I understand, new things are scary things that can go Abloogiwoogiwoo when you least expect it. But the thing is video games have been around for around fifty years! At this point, we should consider video games as a newish art form. Yeah, sure, it took about a few hundred years for everyone to consider reading as ?not devil-worship?, but we?ve learned by now, right?
?Ugh, I think the only way for video games to not constantly go into controversy is to have a new medium of art to take the heat instead. It?s probably going to be holographic 3-D pop idols or 3-D cereal; I?m looking at you, Hatsune Miku! On the other hand, once the video game community is off the hotpot, everyone can finally join hands, sing Kumbaya, and talk about how pulling through the dark times of controversy is just the rites of passage into being taken seriously as a form of art. This is why I want everyone over the age of fifty, by that time, to constantly try to cause controversy with whatever the new medium would be. Why should they get a break when everything else didn?t?
You know what, since everyone is so bent on the idea that violence in video games can lead to real world violence, I?ll say this. Eureka! I just found the correlation between video games and the rise in life expectancy. You see, when playing video games, you are less likely to run outside into the highway and get run over by a car or accidentally slice your hand with a kitchen knife. And you can?t fire real guns while playing video games. Oh my Buddha! That?s why people who live over a hundred years exist. It?s so brilliant and it makes perfectly logical sense! What are we to do with ourselves?! Oh, right. Let?s burn video games and see if real world violence continues. And now, I think I?m a bit too far off topic.
All in all, the article is just plain old messy. I couldn?t really see what the point of the entire writing was and the title had nothing to do with the message itself, since I thought the article was going to be about limiting free speech when I read the words in big font. This disorderly conduct made my own response disorganized... I don?t really know what else to say to that? Wait, wait, wait: Where?s the thesis?"
