Games Now Legally Considered an Art Form (in the USA)
- Thread starter John Funk
- Start date
More to avoid the kiss of death that is the AO rating. That and California is trying to restrict sales of MA games. So, less directly censoring games and more indirectly censoring them because of a fear of lost sales. Being recognized as an "official" art form would prevent this MA sales nonsense.Dango said:
Verlander said:
The UK can censor art and speech, movies, games, books etc. regardless if they know the mediums or not if they deem it too "offensive". Manhunt 2 was banned by the British Board of Film Classification. Other parts of Western Europe do it too; Germany turned Team Fortress 2 characters into robots that leak oil, and Command and Conquer armies were visually edited to make them all cyborgs. Australia does it all the time as Yahtzee laments.mad825 said:
No game has ever been banned in the US.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/leicestershire/6767623.stm
Also, my 3D animation degree is a fine arts degree, same as yours.
I thought "dumb fat Americans" were the only ones to have a superiority complex and short, selective memories who don't bother to learn about other countries before speaking.
I can see only the legal value here, as in art is a slightly different category, but still nothing too important.
So wait.
Is the argument now going to be whether the game is beneficial and enhances society? cause I foresee many traps to be set around that argument.
Is the argument now going to be whether the game is beneficial and enhances society? cause I foresee many traps to be set around that argument.
To be honest, this is what went through my mind as well. I've never really understood why the government feels the need to fund any sort of artistic endeavor, with money taken from someone who didn't necessarily want to give it in the first place, towards a cause that doesn't really effect said person.CosmicCommander said:
I mean, I'm happy we're finally gaining some protection and legitimacy and all that, but still, it's always struck an odd nerve with me.
Took them long enough. Glad it happened near an election so as to take the wind out of the election season anti-videogame sails. Well, for as much as it could, that is.
I don't see how games can't be considered art anyway. "Art" is any form of human expression that does not relate to survival, therefore cannot be difined by opinions of others.
People get confused with art vs high-art all the time. This just had to remind them that art includes video games
People get confused with art vs high-art all the time. This just had to remind them that art includes video games
It doesn't work that way; first of all, there is no such thing as an "official" art form under US law. All this NEA thing did was open up a grant to a few more people. Second, I'm going to repost the miller test. The miller test looks for:RedEyesBlackGamer said:
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts/describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
As you can see, the merits of the medium as a whole aren't taken into account at all; any case to censor a piece of media has do be aimed at that example and that example only. The supreme court case really has nothing to do with this form of censorship, and it would be the upset of the century if they didn't rule the California law unconstitutional.
Creativity and art are part of a healthy and free thinking society. Only .003% of the national budget goes to fund the arts, so it's not like they're making away like banditsWolfEdge said:
For example, American creativite thinking has decreased for the first time since they started measuring it.
http://www.newsweek.com/2010/07/10/the-creativity-crisis.html
