Games Now Legally Considered an Art Form (in the USA)

[scorptatious]

Spongebob approves.

 

[No_Remainders]

Right, now, can we PLEASE stop talking about it?

 

[Diablo2000]

Now we can always run into the "But were are a art form, bitches!" every single time someone make a fuzz about some game.

 

[Lyri]

I don't think it's as much about being considered art as it's about getting some sort of recognition of the value as a serious part of society.

What's so serious about games?

 

[Kahunaburger]

The question now is, how will this effect the Supreme Court case. I mean, if the NEA thinks that games should be considered a valid art-form, what will that say if the Supreme Court decides to side with California? Even more worrisome, if the Supreme Court still does side with California in light of this, what will be the effect on other art forms, like literature and film? It could set a worrying precedent... This could be very good, or very bad.

I think that the NEA decision will probably be good for the CA case because of precedent, but I'd have to do some actual research to know for sure. It's highly unlikely that censorship of video games could be used as a precedent for censorship of art in general, however, because there are prior court cases protecting artistic expression.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Grand Theft Auto?

No, a game showing the depressing boredom and fear of criminality, not just treating it as another theme for a TPS in a sandbox.

What's so serious about games?

Think of almost any thread where someone is asked about something in media effecting them, 5/10 times you've got someone taling about Aeris dying, for instance or another moment in a game where a character someone was invested in has effected them for real, made them cry, laugh, etc.

Games can be serious.

 

[OldAccount]

Fantastic! What's that Mr. Lee? You don't think games matter? Well the goddamn federal government seems to disagree with you! *proceeds to party*

 

[CosmicCommander]

Oh, great! Now games can steal taxpayers money!

 

[Dango]

Can I get a hell yes?

I still don't really get why everyone thinks games have to be art.

I don't think it's as much about being considered art as it's about getting some sort of recognition of the value as a serious part of society.

You know that's the first convincing argument I've heard so far.

I just don't think we have to force ourselves into another medium in order to be accepted.

 

[binvjoh]

I don't think it's as much about being considered art as it's about getting some sort of recognition of the value as a serious part of society.

What's so serious about games?

Some games provide very serious and thought provoking experience.

I'm not saying all games need to go this route, nor that not being "serious" diminishes a game's value in any way, the same is true for any artistic medium. What I'm stoked about is that this seems like a step in a direction were said games can be judged and held in the same regard as some movies and books are today and not merely ignored as "just games".

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

So...does this mean that videogames would also automatically be considered protected speech now?

 

[Weskerbot3000]

great this now means that pretentious dicks can now shit up the game industry as if the movie industry wasn't enough for them

 

[BreakfastMan]

The question now is, how will this effect the Supreme Court case. I mean, if the NEA thinks that games should be considered a valid art-form, what will that say if the Supreme Court decides to side with California? Even more worrisome, if the Supreme Court still does side with California in light of this, what will be the effect on other art forms, like literature and film? It could set a worrying precedent... This could be very good, or very bad.

I think that the NEA decision will probably be good for the CA case because of precedent, but I'd have to do some actual research to know for sure. It's highly unlikely that censorship of video games could be used as a precedent for censorship of art in general, however, because there are prior court cases protecting artistic expression.

But if video games are now considered artistic expression, and the court sides with CA, could that not set a precedent for censoring other forms of artistic expression (NOTE: I know very little about the legal system, so I might be wrong)? I agree with you that it will probably be good for the CA case, but I am still concerned... We have not heard anything yet from the SC about the case, so I guess we will just have to wait.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Oh, great! Now games can steal taxpayers money!

It's about time!

 

[KingofallCosmos]

Does that mean that games can now be as brutal as we want? All for art's sake, off course.

 

[binvjoh]

I just don't think we have to force ourselves into another medium in order to be accepted.

I agree 100%. I'm very excited about what the future of gaming may look like and it is steps like these that can start to provide the foothold for this medium to start/keep growing in it's own unique way.

 

[Kahunaburger]

The question now is, how will this effect the Supreme Court case. I mean, if the NEA thinks that games should be considered a valid art-form, what will that say if the Supreme Court decides to side with California? Even more worrisome, if the Supreme Court still does side with California in light of this, what will be the effect on other art forms, like literature and film? It could set a worrying precedent... This could be very good, or very bad.

I think that the NEA decision will probably be good for the CA case because of precedent, but I'd have to do some actual research to know for sure. It's highly unlikely that censorship of video games could be used as a precedent for censorship of art in general, however, because there are prior court cases protecting artistic expression.

But if video games are now considered artistic expression, and the court sides with CA, could that not set a precedent for censoring other forms of artistic expression (NOTE: I know very little about the legal system, so I might be wrong)? I agree with you that it will probably be good for the CA case, but I am still concerned... We have not heard anything yet from the SC about the case, so I guess we will just have to wait.

Basically, we already have laws and judicial precedent protecting artistic expression that the court can't overrule. If they did rule in favor of CA, they'd do so by arguing that games are not art despite the NEA's opinion vs. arguing that all art is possible to censor.

 

[Gigano]

Seems only to be a natural step.

It would be pretty strange to not assign interactive multimedia artistic merit, especially since it's largely composed of multiple other forms of recognized artwork (images, animation, music, script), also adding the factor of interactivity - arguably a venue of/for artistic expression in itself - to them.

 

[ramboondiea]

still think people give to much thought to the whole "games are art" although they can be, it sure as hell shouldnt mean they are have to be some thought provoking narrative. but its good to see that its recognised as a possibility.

also why is there a picture of edger?