"Games Now Legally Considered an Art Form in the USA"
ngon master
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/109835-Games-Now-Legally-Considered-an-Art-Form-in-the-USA
Can we now stop trying to ban them?
The US National Endowment for the Arts now considers videogames eligible for artistic funding, legally recognizing them as an art form.
The "games as art" debate will likely continue raging for years before videogames reach complete cultural acceptance, but at least one important organization now officially considers games art: The US Federal Government. Or, rather, the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) considers games art - which technically amounts to the exact same thing.
For those not familiar with the NEA, it is a US government organization-slash-program which funds artistic projects around the country which will "enhance the public good." If you're an artist who wants to make a beautiful sculpture for a public place, for instance, and you don't want to sell it commercially - but you would like to continue eating - you can apply for a grant of up to $200,000 to make your work of art. There are all sorts of regulations and scrutiny in the application process, but that's the basic idea, anyway.
The NEA opened its application doors this week for 2012, and announced that it would be changing its criteria for what counted as art. Most significantly for our chosen pastime is that the category formerly known as The Arts on Radio and Television will now be known as The Arts in Media. It will include film, television and radio artistic projects, but will also add satellite-based and internet-based media (as opposed to just landline-based broadcasts) and, you guessed it, interactive media:
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. (Emphasis ours)
Of course, any developer who wants federal funding for his or her next game will be competing with filmmakers, TV producers, radio stars and now internet productions too. Still, it means that an aspiring game-maker with an idea for an artistic game - which would have to be available for free, mind you - might have a shot at making it without being beholden to a larger publisher.
Naturally, this wouldn't just be the AAA-style of game that we're all accustomed to. Not only is $200k laughably small to the sort of money that goes into your average Call of Duty or Portal, the NEA only offers grants to projects which it deems for the public good. It's a safe bet that whatever game projects it approves - if any - will likely be different from what we see on shelves at GameStop.
But really, whether or not this grant will fund the sort of games that you and I would play for fun in our free time is ultimately irrelevant. What matters is that the NEA now officially considers videogames worthy of artistic merit, which is pretty damn cool.
Can we now stop trying to ban them?
Replies
Yes. Thank you.
Still...Great news, a step forward I spose.
I don't want video games to just try appealing to the biggest audiences.
Unlucky!
Having a game where you blow off the nads of a terrorist, vs the one where it teaches kids about sex are two opposite and yet prime same base example. Anyone recall the game Privates?
Wouldn't this totally qualify for the grant ?
[ame]
Yes it would, but at the same time, they need to explain very clearly what his will serve as and how it can teach something to the audience through it's art.
It's very iffy and all, but generally, under a Government Body, your subsidized 'artwork' needs to carry weight more then average art out there, which then raises the question if that's all worth it for 200K.
For example, until to-date, I have yet to see a single example of a game or movie which thought eco-friendly attitude to the audience without blaring it in my face like a trombone of it's period, the last show I watched which actually had subtlety in it's message was the gritty 90's version of Sonic The Hedgehog, unlike that Ted Turner Turd, Captain Planet which had mixed useless messages.
I'm over thinking this maybe, but one thing is sure, this will show big studios that sometimes having a small team of capable guys on a budget will come up with creative solutions to expensive problems, and I hope they can take cue from this.
http://www.nea.gov/grants/recent/11grants/11AAE.php?CAT=Access&DIS=Artists%20Communities
Does anyone actually value this guys opinion anymore?
Just because his opinion differs from mine doesn't mine I'll cease to value it.
Sorry, but while the guy does believe in good things, and usually I agree with him, sometimes, his blinded guardian like stance on certain things don't work. While I abhor 3D in movies, in I think they have a potential in games and could work.
Also, I didn't know who he was until he spoke on how games can never be art, and after some digging, I think half of the reason he is famous for is both insulting to me as a movie-goer and himself also as individual.
Yes, his opinions differs, and someone shouldn't stop valuing another persons opinion just for this, but this doesn't change the fact that his unmoving and rigid stance aren't helping.
The reason for example, in the case of naked ladies, "The Birth of Venus" is warranted as art is because it brings a message and and idea to the table that at least, on some level, provokes a thought even to the most jaded individuals, even if it's a cliche of a naked lady.
In the case of games, we have much more going on, the ambiance, the environment, the characters and the most important one of them all, the gameplay mechanic and how it marries them all together in the world itself. That is a difficult road to overcome, something which the movies and artists had about between 100 to 2,000 years in perfecting...games, have barely more then a couple of decades under the belt.
I agree with Pior about Thatgamecompany. I definitely look at Journey as something that could be viewed as contemporary art. Mostly because it's all about the experience and interaction with no established goals laid out.
Although, I do get the feeling that whatever is created with this grant may have a hard time being recognized by both the art world and the gaming world. It always seems like both parties usually think they're not worth each other's time. I hope I'm wrong though, it might just be me being pessimistic.
so... at what point have games NOT been art?
And the interesting part is that historically a lot of the painted art made was on commission and never intented to be art in the sense we see those works of art today.
Something becomes art if the viewer or interacter thinks it is, same has happened with games.
In this context the term "Art" is not referring to the webster's definition. The best way to put it, I think, is to consider the art world the topic refers to as a different form of entertainment like games, books and movies. It just happens to be called Art because there are not many other descriptive terms for it.
I don't really think this topic needs to fall into the whole "what is art" discussion.
We've had government funding available to games for years in Australia. I'm trying to decide whether this is some kind of useful precedent that'll help us beat our own government into getting their shit sorted on the whole R-rating debacle and start treating games and more importantly their makers with some damn respect.
They better recognize foo!!!!!!
http://americanart.si.edu/exhibitions/archive/2012/games/winninggames.pdf