Try our new beta!Click here

DragonKnight (User)

  • Contributor
  • 10 bubbles
  • 9 in CRank
  • Score: 184290
"Respect is not something to just be given. It is the result of accepting principles as worthwhile."

I Don't Want Games To Be Art

DragonKnight | 760d ago
User blog

You might be reading that title and taking issue with my saying that. After all, if games can be considered art, then games can have all kinds of themes and expressions that they wouldn't be allowed to have if they were simply a form of entertainment right? Yeah, that's true, but at the same time games being judged as art presents far too many problems and headaches.

I am with each and every one of you that thinks that gaming should be able to explore mature or dark themes. That developers should be allowed to have a vision for a story, characters, setting, or whatever they want and be able to fully explore and realize that vision. So why don't I want games to be art?

The answer is "Because people will forget that games are about fun and escapism."

That's right, they will.

Nowadays a game can't be made without being torn apart by social justice warriors shouting "I'm offended" if someone isn't represented, or is represented in ways they have a problem with. A developer needs to cater his/her vision to the politically correct social agenda of the day, or else said developer will be labelled as homophobic, racist, sexist, misogynist, ageist, genderist, etc.. etc... etc....

A developer makes a fantasy game where a female character has unrealistic proportions and little to no clothing, and somehow that's offensive and impacts real life.

A developer makes a game where a white protagonist kills scores of people who are any other race but white, and that's racist.

You have an RPG with a relationship system set up in it? Better make sure that same sex relationships are an option or you're a homophobe.

Want to make a platformer based on medieval times where a knight saves a princess from a dragon? You can't do that because that's sexist. Who the hell are you to suggest that a woman needs saving from a dragon? Give that princess a sword and let her rescue herself because she doesn't need a man regardless of the fact that he's a trained knight and she's an untrained princess.

Hell, you can't even name a trophy/achievement the way you want to anymore because you'll be castrated online by a volley of hate speech because you're somehow anti *insert special interest group here*

This is why I don't want games to be considered art. Games being considered art opens the floodgates of all the idiot people in the world looking to use the medium for their social justice platform. It opens the door to the people with too much time, and too little self-esteem, to find something to complain about.

The kinds of attacks these developers get over fictional characters or themes designed for entertainment would be considered felonious hate speech if you changed the target from a game developer to a gay person, or a woman, or a non-white man.

It's to the point where leeches can successfully make money off of this trend by playing the victim and claiming "I'm just trying to make all things equal."

So no, I don't want games to be art. I don't want games to be art because in a world of these complaints, games like Skyrim exists where the choice of who you want to be is never better represented, and yet how much do you want to bet that the majority of people that play Skyrim DO NOT play as the virtual representation of what they consider to be the most ideal, non-offensive character to be?

How many of you initiated a man to man same sex marriage in Skyrim, even if you were homosexual yourself? How many of you women fully clothed your female character in Daedric Armor, completely hiding her whole appearance to make her almost entirely nondescript? How many of you instead fall into the traditional archetypes we all see instead?

I don't want games to be art because in a world where games are art, a female artist that designs female characters with the aforementioned unrealistic proportions (and yes, they do exist) get to either hear that they did so because they were forced to, which insults their vision and talent, or are part of the sexism problem, which insults them as people.

I don't want games to be art because games as art seeks to foster shame, artistic oppression, and fear.

How many times are we going to have to see an article written about how this virtual character is sexually objectifying women and is degrading because of it? A fictional character who has no impact on reality.

How many times are we going to have articles written insulting developers from different cultural backgrounds as being "teenage boys" because their designs don't measure up to the politically correct Western bullsh*t ideals that social justice warriors want every single piece of design to live up to?

In a world where games are art, we see less focus on games as escapism and fun. Absolutely none of us started playing video games because we thought they were art. Absolutely none of us started playing videos games looking for Shakespearean storylines (which hilariously would be attacked by social justice warriors if it were written today), characters with more depth to them than any real person ever had, or the darkest of themes.

All of us started gaming because we wanted to do something fun, and gaming looked fun to us. We continued gaming because we continued having fun with it.

Do I want games that explore every possible theme, and can be as dark as any book or movie? Of course I do, but I don't want it at the expense of fun and if I have to accept the ceaseless crying of people placing far too much stock in the impact of fictional worlds and characters.

Games will never truly be considered art unless developers can feel free to express themselves HOWEVER THEY WANT. That means allowing them to have female characters with boobs the size of an exercise ball, men as big as a tank, with themes so dark or disgusting they provoke all kinds of emotions (and you know you've seen movies that are FAR worse than any game in this department), and be able to have all of these things without developers being constantly insulted and attacked because that's what they wanted to put in the game.

Games are games, and they are meant for entertainment first and foremost. They have always been about escapism and fantasy. Stop trying to attach the real world to the fictional worlds and characters of video games.

Lukejrl  +   760d ago
Awesome !! now can we just have a developer say it, or a publisher.

People really have nothing better to do with their lives than to find fault with others, however real or perceived, and take up a crusade. The Extremists might use terror to bully people into thinking what they want, the suburban nutjob uses the internet to bully. And everyone is a victim unless they think like they do.
ShadowReaper14  +   757d ago
Last thing I'm gonna say. Without ARTISTS games wouldn't exist.
#1.1 (Edited 757d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
LostDjinn  +   760d ago
Dragon, you've put some effort into your blog so I'll pose my response as a question. Do you think it's the fact games are art or that the observer is to blame for the current state of things? After all it's the leveraging of said games by people for their own agenda that leads to the points you've listed. How is being art or not going to change that?

Edit: for editing and stuff.
#2 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
SweetIvy  +   760d ago
Absolutely, in fact it's not because they are art, but because they are a mass product.
The more independent and niche the games, the lesser the constraints.

Erotic and porn ART do exist (Sorayama or Manara are prime examples), so, for example, it's certainly not because games are considered an art form that showing a boob is such a no-no :).
DragonKnight  +   760d ago
I think it's both. Sure, people are responsible for their own observations and what they choose to do with said observations, but then you have to consider the idea that people complaining about games when they are solely entertainment only would not be taken seriously and likely looked down upon. Most would say "you know it's just a game right" and dismiss complaints immediately. Games as art falls under critiquing of art, meaning people can accept others looking for hidden meaning in the games and call into question the mentality of the creators. That's why people then have the "courage" to start complaining about things that don't exist.

The classic example is using books. If a book was simply something you read to pass the time and that's how everyone saw it, then when an author says "the curtains are blue" people would leave it at that. But books are consider forms of artistic expression, so whole classes are devoted to analyzing books and people say that blue curtains symbolize depression when that had nothing to do with what the author meant.

So, in summation, games as art allows for the idea that they can be criticized as art which just allows people to come up with ridiculous complaints about things that literally never crossed the minds of the developers and really shouldn't be a problem. Did you ever see anyone complain about the way a character looked in a game pre-PS1 days?
memots  +   758d ago
Seem like people around here like to click disagree on everything you post..

I actually loved your blog. I think its spot on but we could add to this that game are not alone in this criticizing world we live in.
Hell people can't even post picture of their kids having fun without someone questioning their parenting skill.

I sent the link of your blog to a bunch of friend and got a good talk about it. Thanks !
Bimkoblerutso  +   754d ago
It simply doesn't make any sense.

Whether you want to acknowledge that games are art or not, entertainment is still subject to personal experience and all the subjectivity that that entails. You cannot dictate the way people interpret things simply by denying it's categorization as "art."

That's why I can make a statement like: "The Avengers was a much better movie than Catwoman." Because everything is still at the mercy of personal taste and subjectivity.
Fireseed  +   760d ago
WOW! Just... wow.

So you want games to have the freedom to explore various different thematic issues, BUT you don't want them to have any of the responsibility? You want games to "just be about fun" but if one particular group doesn't enjoy your brand of fun they must be a "social justice warrior."

Heck at one point you actually propose a question without giving data and answer said question as if we were to believe you had ANY data;
"How many of you initiated a man to man same sex marriage in Skyrim, even if you were homosexual yourself? How many of you women fully clothed your female character in Daedric Armor, completely hiding her whole appearance to make her almost entirely nondescript? How many of you instead fall into the traditional archetypes we all see instead?"
Idk dude how many people DID do that, cause if you're trying to insinuate that the majority of us picked a archetype whit male barbarian, or scantily clad woman, then you'd be sorely mistaken. Cause while I don't believe their is any statistical data on it released by Bethesda themselves, I'll still one up what you did by basing it on the fact that none of my friends picked anything even remotely resembling what you think the majority of us did.

But their in lies the fault to your thought process and why I'm SO glad you're not a developer. Games are fun, because they are fun TO ME. That TO ME is the important part, like you said video games are escapes. But they should be escapes for EVERYONE. If my friend Karl found serenity in the idea of playing as a gay Argonian in Morrowind, while he was struggling with his sexuality. Then I think Bethessda owe it to a small group of their players who love what they do to add an option to include them in the fold. Maybe even if it doesn't have any in-game implications but if for nothing else than to say "Hey welcome to video games kids of all kinds, you are welcome here."
DragonKnight  +   760d ago
Way to COMPLETELY miss the point. I always enjoy people like you that come into a discussion and it goes right over your head so you lob an accusation at the person initiating the discussion. It's hilarious.

First paragraph: Responsibility? THEY'RE GAMES! Games have one responsibility, to be entertaining. That's it. Do you lodge a complaint against Hasbro because Monopoly doesn't have Compton in it and under represents black ghettos of the United States? After all, it's a real estate game right? Surely it has the responsibility to represent minorities and low income housing beyond 2 squares right?

No fool, this isn't about people enjoying "my" type of fun. This is about people forgetting that games are ABOUT FUN in the first place. A game exploring a dark theme isn't doing so to make social change or commentary. It's doing so because the developer thought you, the player, might enjoy said theme.

Second paragraph: You mock the fact that I asked an open ended question by answering it in the fashion you mock? I'm to believe you have friends to begin with, and then I'm to take your word on what they chose because, hey you're trustworthy right? AND you also make the assumption, outright, that what you believe are my perceptions are wrong based on literally nothing but the fact that you think they're wrong. You yourself said there is no data, and yet I'm wrong because of your friends. I hope to god you're not a politician, but you'd be immensely over-qualified for that job. I asked questions, I didn't make statements that needed verification, learn the difference.

Final Paragraph: Subjective fun doesn't require all-inclusive representation. A paraplegic who wasn't always so may have once found football to be fun to play and still enjoys watching it, but the NFL can't accommodate that person to actually play football. Your friends struggles with his homosexuality isn't the responsibility of Bethesda or any developer to represent in a game. They do so at their own discretion, not because you demand that they do so because you want to feel better about yourself.

You don't find a game that doesn't represent you fun? That's your problem, not the developers. Find something that IS fun for you. Developers have a responsibility only to make an entertaining product, and you can't please everyone. Expecting them to represent every special interest, and to ensure that that representation is entertaining, is to expect a design by fan committee system that NEVER works. The Simpsons can showcase it for you the best, since I'm certain my reply still went right over your head.

In the episode "The Itchy & Scratchy & Poochy Show" of The Simpsons, children are brought into a focus group and shown Itchy & Scratchy episodes to see what it is they like, and what they dislike.

At the end of the show, the proctor asks the children "How many of you would want Itchy & Scratchy to deal with real life problems, the kinds you have to deal with every day?" All the kids raise their hands.

Then he asks "And how many want the show to be just the opposite and involve robots and magic powers?" They all raise their hands.

So, confused, the guy says "So you want a realistic, down to earth show... that's completely off the wall and swarming with magic robots?" And they all say yes, with Milhouse adding "And you should win stuff just by watching."

This frustrates the studio owner who is watching behind the two way mirror who says "You kids don't know what you want, that's why you're kids, because you're stupid."

And that's what a design by fan committee would make gaming into.
#3.1 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(20) | Report | Reply
Noobz1  +   760d ago
Always ready to attack. It's no wonder you will ever be able to simply move on. Game creators can make any game they like. Why don't you take the time and make your own game or do you just enjoy being a critic about everything and enjoy conflict with others?

Your a very hostile person who seems to think he is better than most and always wants to be right about everything.

Stop being so serious about everything. Gaming can be fun but that usually happens when your able to be open minded and not take everything so seriously.
DragonKnight  +   760d ago
See, only here to discuss me. I wish I could say that I was flattered, but quite frankly your attention isn't sought so I suggest you take your own advice and move on. My reply was to Fireseed, who started his own offense against me, not to you. Good day.

EDIT: Interesting. Joins 5 days ago, comments littered with insulting the people of this site, and I'm the first "target" of the users focused attention. Common themes from people who can't seem to stay away from the site, a.k.a. dupe accounts or people that came back after swearing they were "done with this sh*tty fanboy site."
#3.1.2 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(18) | Report
Bundi  +   759d ago
Did you have to call him a fool though? Honestly. He made excellent points.
s45gr32  +   759d ago
But that's the problem with movies like saw were were the people complaining about it nowhere to be found and when it comes to rap music or hip hop with scantily real life scantily women is ok, tv shows like jackass is ok. Unfortunately games are still perceived as toys or for little kids that is the problem the movie director, music artist, even the people behind tv shows can do whatever the hell they want and allow themselves to express freely for example a clockwork orange is regarded as a great film despite rape scenes, nude scenes, etc. Unfortunately game developers cannot express as freely as possible.
Noobz1  +   760d ago
I don't really understand the focus of the author. He goes on and on about how games are supposed to be fun and be like they were 20 years ago. I have news for you, those games still exist. The difference is we have a much broader selection of titles to choose from now.

So instead of sharing his enjoyment of games he does enjoy what does this person do instead? He attacks pc gamers, he hates anything to do with Microsoft and especially their consoles because they threaten Sony. Which at the end of the day is the only thing he seems positive about.

This for and the blogs within it will never be taken seriously anyways. Not when a major portion of its community is wrapped up in controversy all while arguing with one another. Acting like fanboys in the process.

Games can be as fun as they used to be if you stopped being so negative and stopped being such a hater.

We can have games that are art. We can have games that are simple like Fez, we still have the Marios the Halos, the Gran Turismo games coming out but we also have games as art now too like Gone Home or Beyond Two Souls. But what we also have now more than ever are a bunch of whiners who seem to complain about everything.

The author is stuck in a rut. Someone who is just overly negative and you find these people all the time in every forum. I think it really is an escape for them because they are not happy with themselves or how life is. So they constantly comment on forums looking for others they can relate to.

I enjoy my video games and maybe you would too if you stopped bring so serious about everything. Post about things you enjoy, stop arguing with everyone and be more positive. If you stopped being such a hater you'd enjoy games more and life in general.

Now the question is will the author take the time to read my reply or will be dismiss it because he doesn't like what he reads
? I bet he is the type that enjoys one way conversations so that his opinion is heard louder than all the rest.
#4 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
DragonKnight  +   760d ago
You got your wish. If your objective in reading a blog is to A)Tell an author what they should be writing about, B)Dismiss the entire blog because "past games still exist" and C)Dismiss the blog because you want to bring up irrelevant comments that you didn't like elsewhere on the site, then you need to simply leave because you don't want to discuss the blog, you want to discuss the author.

People write about what they want to write about. What gives you the right to try and tell them they need to write about something else because you don't understand why they are writing about something, or don't like what they are writing about? If you don't like it, don't read it and spare everyone the time of having to read your irrelevant, off topic responses. Thanks, and have a good day.
#4.1 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(15) | Report | Reply
Noobz1  +   760d ago
Admit it, all you care about are those that agree with what you say. Your not here to have 2-way discussions with anyone that objects to your views or disagrees with you.

What you fail to acknowledge is we can have games that are art and games that are pure escapism. How do I know this? Because it is happening as we speak. But you seem adamant on focusing on your views of how things are. Technology has allowed the medium to grow. We can now use emotion to further games into art. Artists can also replicate real surroundings. This all adds to the immersion of games.

So why can't we have both? Why can't we have games that are art AND games that are purely made to have fun and be an escape? The answer is we can, you just want to keep the focus on complaining about something.
DragonKnight  +   760d ago
You've been here but a week, so unless you're going to admit that this is a new account for an old member just so you can have a go at attacking and insulting people, this site, etc... then you have no place to make a claim that you know anything about me.

If all I cared about is people that agree with what I say, I wouldn't write a blog on a site where people could disagree with what I say. I'd pull an Anita Sarkeesian and just upload YouTube videos with the comments disabled so no one could disagree with me.

The problem with people like you is that you either don't like, or can't fathom, that a person would respond to another that disagrees with them. You can't fathom, or don't like, that people generally don't approach attacks made against them in a positive or neutral light.

What you consider to be discussion is people talking about what you want them to talk about, how you want them to talk about, and responding "ok" to any responses made to the original discussion.

And now you're moving the discussion into the irrelevant, making the assumption that I am talking about game technology and immersion when that's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the fact that games being art makes stupid complaints about games gain traction when they have literally nothing to do with the intent of the developer in making the game. I'm talking about people who think they have the right to complain about their special interest group either being poorly represented, or under represented in a game and insulting developers because of it.

If games were only seen as entertainment, the way they used to be, these complaints either wouldn't exist or be entirely ignored by the larger industry. But today, we have these complaints starting to change visions and creating a scene where the right of artistic expression ends where the right to not be offended begins. In other words, political correctness and social justice agendas are permeating the development scene.

Don't believe me? Look up Anita Sarkeesian's involvement with Mirror's Edge 2 and the rumours suggesting that EA is forcing the developers to incorporate her ideas into the design of the protagonist.

Thankfully for me, at least in dealing with you, I'm out of bubbles. That means your continued focus on me instead of the actual issue that the blog discusses can be met with silence by me. Unfortunately it means that people who actually want to discuss the blog won't receive any replies from me, but it is what it is.
s45gr32  +   759d ago
The author is talking about all these sensitive people that oppress game developers for having same sex relationships, killing non-white people, ultra violence, nudity, female characters with hardly any clothing, muscular men, etc inside the games. In contrast when it comes to film, tv shows, and music these same people are nowhere to be found that depict the subject they are complaining about. Is a real issue that needs to be solved and game developers should be allowed to express their vision as freely as possible.
TransientDreamer  +   760d ago
Basically what you're saying is: a few people complained about a few things and thus I think all developers everywhere should take their ball and go home.

That is the worst possible suggestion you could make.
DragonKnight  +   760d ago
To that, I respond with this.
SilentNegotiator  +   760d ago
Pfft, "art"
Like that word means anything these days.

Games can be art, not be art - it won't change anything either way.
#6 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
ShadowReaper14  +   757d ago
Are you kidding me without art there would be no video games everything in a video game is art. Down from the character to a tree. All being designed by who people with design skill. People that say video games are not art are ignorant and don't have the slightest idea what art actually is.
SilentNegotiator  +   757d ago
"Fine art" would be more accurate to the frame of the discussion.
-Gespenst-  +   760d ago
Well there will always be games to cater to that for you. In fact, most games these days cater to that for you, it's not like you're lacking choice. You're acting like you're underepresented and marginalized, but that's not really true. The debate about games as art has been ongoing for a very long time, but that doesn't mean there have been a ton of artful games. We're only really starting to see that.

The fact is that games have an enormous potential as an art form, and it would actually be criminal not to explore that. Art and culture are important and they're also a force for change, not to mention for the broadening and enriching of people's minds. It seems pretty silly to deny such opportunity.

Some people want to play games that are more thoughtful, and some people want to make games that are more thoughtful. I think they all should be encouraged. Non-art games aren't going to go away.
#7 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Blacklash93  +   760d ago
Umm... whether they are or aren't art doesn't change much about what you have issue with. The only way for that to be accomplished would be to get rid of all narrative context, dialogue, characters, character designs, ect. Basically, reducing videogames to bland and generic pixels with no content that can be even remotely related to real-life sensibilities.

Do some people complaining on the internet bother you that much? I don't mean to sound disrespectful, but that's really not any better than getting worked up about controversial videogame content. It comes with the territory. The film and music industries still march on despite it.

Developers still express themselves in diverse and controversial ways. Quiet's design is still what it is, games like Senran Kagura are still made, there are still plenty of RPGs that don't have homosexual options, games are still only upping the ante with violence over time, and the "save the princess" story is still popular, ect. I've still yet to see an official rulebook of limitations, here.

Sorry, but this is a really poor and petty argument.
#8 (Edited 760d ago ) | Agree(14) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
s45gr32  +   759d ago
I like the blog
isarai  +   759d ago
OK here's the thing though, just because a game can be considered art does not mean that ALL games have to be considered art just like not ALL paintings or songs are considered art. I for one do want games to be a respected artform because then it allows more freedom and less controversy which is only good for a medium. This acknowledgement also means more people will become interested in creating games leading to more trained and skilled directors/designers. You know how awesome it would be having a game made my world class writers, and cinematographers?

Also, and most of all it means the medium will be better preserved for future generations, and to me that is SEVERELY important.
mydyingparadiselost  +   759d ago
#11 (Edited 759d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
Welcome2Die  +   759d ago
Great blog!
Wenis  +   759d ago
Good read, and I agree with many of the points. Everyone always has something to complain about, and its a shame they're complaining about our precious games now and trying to force them to change into something they shouldn't be. I too just want to play and have fun.. but its difficult to do so when certain aspects of the game are littered with social agendas.
DCfan  +   759d ago
Great read.
I agree with everything you said. Part of the problem is that people take everything too seriously these days.

I also dislike where gaming is headed with the "Ultra-realism" and mature stuff. I miss arcade games like Crazy Taxi and Jet Set Radio, Dragon's Crown was a fresh air for me.

I also need to mention how developers feel like to make a game with realistic graphics and emphasize on the story and forget the gameplay. Most of my beloved games have shitty stories to non-existent (Ninja Gaiden)

If i wanted a good story, i'd watch a movie. Developers tend to forget that nowadays.
e-p-ayeaH  +   759d ago
Everyone as diferent tastes that´s why we have many genres of games and everyone should understand that.

The Last of Us wasnt everyone´s favorite 2013 game for a reason.
#14.1 (Edited 759d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
e-p-ayeaH  +   759d ago
Art is just a term it really wont change the videogame industry one bit.
_FantasmA_  +   758d ago
This seems more about games being politically correct. There wasn't much about are in there. You seem like an Xbox fanboy in your comments I've seen, so I'm guessing you don't want rich stories and deep gameplay worthy of making a game that is worthy of being more than just a game. You want brainless bro shooters. And if thats what you want, you can have those kinds of games. Doesn't mean artistic games can't exist.

One thing that seems weird to me is when games insert a black guy or a woman in situations where they wouldn't be in. Putting a minority (I'm a "minority" myself) in a game that is trying to be historically accurate or just so that the NAACP doesn't cry really pisses me off. There are hardly any brown (latino and arabian) or yellow people in games, but they never make any noise so we always get a black guy or a strong woman.

Why can't their be weak women? Why not mixed characters to satisfy at least 2 people. If game is trying to be accurate then use whatever sex or gender is appropriate instead of trying to force it on us. If a game like GTA takes place in a fictional Los Angeles, then there should be a an Asian or Latino character. If a games is set in New Orleans or a time when woman were not equal citizens, etc, then make it realistic. I also would like to see characters not being stereotyped. Anyone can be a jock, nerd, loser, gangster, etc.
coolbeans  +   758d ago
Others have touched upon stuff here, but I might as well chime in:

That first question is not the right one to ask. Taking away a rather honorable term, the way I see it, like 'art' to describe any video games wouldn't make this minority of rabid SJWs that'll insult any developer on site for not pandering to them just wander off and be contented with every videogame they play that could have questionable material present. Even without that term, it's still a medium in which themes, character arcs, character images, etc. would be examined and placed in a greater context, something that criticism across various mediums has done for decades and decades now. Despite certain people questioning if rap music has now devolved into a "modern-day minstrel show" from its politically-grounded roots based on oppression from authority you could easily spot around the early 90's, it's still trucking with a lot of garbage anyways.

The idea of a creator creating what he/she wants without fear of censorship or bullying is correct, but that shouldn't mean it's a one way street for creators to be free of criticism--yes even the hard questions or harsh examinations that may rustle your jimmies. It's the same tune with your idea of games exploring the same kind of stuff movies and books have done, while still being just all about the past-time, in order to dodge the responsibility that accompanies any medium that's able to engage someone beyond just being a fun plaything.


I guess this would just translate into NYEWM for you, I guess.
#17 (Edited 758d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
coolbeans  +   758d ago
*That second question, I mean
LostDjinn   758d ago | Immature | show
-Gespenst-  +   755d ago
"The idea of a creator creating what he/she wants without fear of censorship or bullying is correct, but that shouldn't mean it's a one way street for creators to be free of criticism"

This is sort of contradictory. If we're admitting that the artist should be allowed to do whatever they please, then surely any criticism thereafter is nullified. What you're saying is pretty much this: Let artists do what they want, and let people criticize them, but at the end of the day, the criticism doesn't matter. What does that criticism MEAN if you're adhering strongly to the idea that the artist should be allowed to do what they want? Surely such criticism just bounces off a primary assumption such as that?

Criticism should surely work towards actually delineating exactly what the artist OUGHT NOT do, rather than just being completely ignored. There certainly are instances where an artist displays utter ignorance, and they should have their attention directed to that fact.

If you're going to assume that the artist's vision is the most important part of the equation (implied by how you said they shouldn't have to worry about censorship and bullying), what kind of criticism can even make a dent in that? The assumption you're making is heavily weighted in favour of the individual and makes no allowances for a larger community. This is something I see in today's world a lot. There has to be a balance - you have to admit some authority on the part of the critical audience, or else it's an empty gesture to say "oh yeah you guys are free to criticize if you want (not gonna listen though derp)." There is a great imbalance in favour of the individual in this global social order, and it's not a good thing, especially considering that history is a thing, and also that we live among 7 billion other people. You can't just pretend that others don't exist. This is an implicit assumption within such an individualistic understanding of the artist. I think I do kind of agree with you, but I'd modify the constraints (well, the lack of constraints) you put on the artist, and of course, there's a big difference between being subversive in a positive fashion, and just being an ignorant, narrow-minded, self-indulgent oaf. I would encourage critical battling when it comes to the latter.

Read my comments on this article too:

I'd also invite you to read my personal blog, but I'd be wary about posting it here, publically, lest it invites the letter bombs of the N4G community.
coolbeans  +   754d ago
"This is sort of contradictory. If we're admitting that the artist should be allowed to do whatever they please, then surely any criticism thereafter is nullified."

Far from it, actually. A criticism has the opportunity to be presented in a structured manner as a way to inform an artist of questionable material in which it's up to him/her/them to grow from and become a more enriched artist(s). If going about attempting to actively suppress said artist's opinion like in the form of DDoS attacks on their site, constant shaming via public venues/emails/etc., or using some higher authority (like corporate or political power), you're engaging in a self-damning method to challenge said artist's expression.

"What you're saying is pretty much this: Let artists do what they want, and let people criticize them, but at the end of the day, the criticism doesn't matter."

That's a VERY, VERY brave interpretation of my words, and one I don't particularly appreciate you prying in there. Criticism ALWAYS matters. Even in seemingly-innocuous facets like that Hitman: Absolution nuns' trailer, challenging the past norms of gaming has demanded developers have to think more about the purpose this or that ultimately serves to the game.

"What does that criticism MEAN if you're adhering strongly to the idea that the artist should be allowed to do what they want? Surely such criticism just bounces off a primary assumption such as that?"

The same thing it's always meant: analyzing the faults, either technical or otherwise, of an artistic work. I'm rather intrigued by your second question. You think just because an artist is given the reins to their work means that any honest faults perceived will just bounce off of them, knowing full well their work is always tied back to them?

"The assumption you're making is heavily weighted in favour of the individual and makes no allowances for a larger community."

When did challenging the perceived faults of an artist's work turn into being a "non-allowance" for the larger community? Judging by your response, the basis for your comment seems to be weighed on the notion of every artist only thinking about themselves and not the world around them, making any critical responses be a mere inconvenience to them. Knowing some, I understand their willingness to absorb greater understanding or act in unselfish ways when creating their self-expressions.

You're right about one thing though: I'm heavily in favor of the individual. Because that's honestly how I think it should be. You're free to PM me your personal blog if you want.
-Gespenst-  +   754d ago
"Criticism has the opportunity to be presented in a structured manner as a way to inform an artist of questionable material in which it's up to him/her/them to grow from and become a more enriched artist(s)."

I agree with this, but I feel it's a little bit too individualistic. The individual can't be the measure of all things here. Criticism also has the function of better integrating the individual artist in his community - of making him understand the unwarranted offense he or she might be causing or the glaring errors he or she might have made. It's not just a learning process for the individual, there is a social component too; an element directed entirely at the satisfaction of the offended or those who could be offended or hurt by the material. All of this isn't some smorgasbord for the individual artist, and the individual doesn't exist in isolation - the individual particpates in a community, and even more so when they decide to enter their creative work into that community.

I was also assuming that by "censorship" you were one of these people who for example see the whole gender and race debate as a giant censorship campaign, which is why I saw your leading statement as contradictory. There is of course a difference between censorship and learning to live among others, having social and cultural responsibility, and being socially, culturally and historically conscious. Censorship involves the promotion of ignorance and the suppression of knowledge, whereas, at the best of times, current social debates are concerned with actually informing people of the knowledge THEY are ignoring and which they are being insensitive too - a kind of broader cultural censorship in which they are complicit when they put out a non-socially conscious piece of work.

If we're on the same page with all that above, then I think we mostly agree with regards to the statement of yours which I saw as contradictory. If not, then we're not. The fact of the matter is that we live among 7 billion other people, and it's important that we try to foster as much solidarity as possible. One of the ways to do this is to be more inclusive in our art and in our cultural production - to have a component in our work that isn't fully introverted and self-absorbed, but to reach out beyond the confines of our work and our minds to others. We have to adjust our language such that everyone can fit in the world without being marginalized. The individualistic conception of the artist is old and hackneyed - it's not like the individual is all that exists, so why don't we start acknowledging that fact? We're living in times where this kind of responsibility is extremely important. Rampant individualism is driving us apart as people - their needs to be a significant communal counter-balance. Artists aren't obliged to contribute - no one can really be forced into it - but they'd be doing the right thing if they did, and I also believe that if they didn't, there'll be serious repercussions in the future.
coolbeans  +   754d ago
"I was also assuming that by "censorship" you were one of these people who for example see the whole gender and race debate as a giant censorship campaign, which is why I saw your leading statement as contradictory."

Oh, certainly not. I always try to use words that stay true to their definition, not the knee-jerk reactionary BS some gamers have used to corrupt its meaning. There has to be an outside force with power that can come in and actively suppress that expression outright, or through subtler means like financial purposes (soft-censorship), not just some random challenging their view with presenting a different worldview.
ShadowReaper14  +   757d ago
Umm well considering you have to take art classes in college to create video games which btw are under the art majors I think pretty much explains what it is. People who do not know how hard art is and think it's just draw this draw that. Uhh try drawing this and try drawing that. It's beyond harder than you think it is. So this guys opinion is not only wrong it's ignorant to say that video games are not art. Without "art" there would be nothing exciting. Every building every character made,every level,every map every weapon made in video games is an art. And bringing up sex and wether some is gay or not has nothing to do with art. Art is not only someone's expression it's creating something that doesn't exist in any other way besides coming out of ur head. Art is in every video game wether you want to except it is up to you.
#18 (Edited 757d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
CrossingEden  +   756d ago
As someone who actually takes this classes and goes to an art university, I was definitely not convinced in any way by this blog, games by definition ARE art, just from the sheer amount of effort it takes to create them. But then we have pseudo intellectuals who come in and say that they are not art/don't want to be art.
ShadowReaper14  +   755d ago
Thank you. For being someone who understands. Some people are just ignorant fools. This man's blog had so many irrelevant facts such homosexuality and women. What does that have to do with video games being art? Plus whats wrong with videos games being art? Why is this man so butt hurt about it? Art is awesome. It's freedom to do what our hearts desire.
TSE1130  +   755d ago
Lol, you should know that all "video games" require the "visual arts"...

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login