Games As Art: Media's Double Standard
In San Francisco last month, a student magazine was banned from circulation by an art institute, allegedly over a story involving videogames. In the story, three African-American men address each other in vulgar street slang and then go on a spree of rape and murder. At the story's end, the three men are revealed to be videogame characters played by three white middle-class boys. It's a statement against the use of racial stereotypes in videogames. Without having read the story, it sounds to me like something that needs to be addressed.

The student's teacher, Robert Ovetz, was fired when he protested the book's removal. According to him, the library wasn't even allowed a copy for its archives. (Note: The school has now, a month later, relented).

Curiously enough, California State Senator Leland Yee has jumped to the defense of the teacher and the publication. He sponsored legislation last year that criminalized censorship of college media last year. But in 2005, he also sponsored legislation that essentially censored videogames, which was struck down last year as a violation of Constitutional rights.

Then we've got the Slamdance flap. Now, my opinion of the game in question is not very high. And I'm apparently not alone in my opinion. But even those who dislike the game and feel it's a pretty poor representative of gaming OR art have taken exception to its removal. Initially, I thought that it was a result of pressure from sponsors, and it seemed like an act of survival for the festival. But with Slamdance's president claiming its removal was on moral grounds, and not a result of sponsor pressure (I still don't believe that), this is setting a dangerous precedent.

As expressed by N'Gai Croal:

'It's almost impossible to imagine that a festival bold enough to show movies like "Neo Ned" (a fictional romance between a neo-Nazi and a black woman who believes that she's Adolf Hitler reincarnated), or "Forgiving Dr. Mengele" (a documentary about a Auschwitz survivor's decision to forgive her former oppressors) would have knuckled under so easily if the object of its backers' ire was not a game, but rather a film like Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" or Gus Van Sant's "Elephant."...

'This is a recipe for the continued infantilizing of a young medium whose potential, for all of the compelling works already released, still remains largely untapped.'

In other words, the message from Slamdance is that games are not as deserving of serious artistic consideration as other media (specifically, film).

We now have a total of six games that have withdrawn themselves from the competition in protest (and one SPONSOR, which is even more interesting). Together with SCMRPG, this represents half the finalists originally chosen for the competition. This is a hard decision for many of them, as it's a chance for exposure, publicity, and critical acclaim that very few indie games ever receive. They aren't doing it because they think Super Columbine Massacre RPG is a good game - several have the same general opinion as I do, that the game is of poor quality.

They have sacrificed this opportunity on the principle that computer gaming is a an actual art form, a medium of expression and communication just as important and with as much potential as any other, and should be treated as such. The courts in the U.S. have recognized this so far in the last year. But it's slow being recognized as such by journalists, politicians, the general public... and the very people who are out there who are leading the fight to promote freedom of expression in other media.

Including Slamdance.

The double standard is no surprise, and it accompanies the creation or increasing popularity of any new medium. And I wouldn't really expect John Q. Public to start taking any new medium seriously until it has gotten around to proving itself in some way. However, I would expect the crusaders trying to protect or promote artistic expression and freedom of speech to be a few steps ahead of Mr. Public. Instead, Senator Yee and Mr. Baxter have reinforced the double standard, showing clearly greater respect towards older media.

In an interview at NextGeneration.com, Danny Ledonne (author of Super Columbine Massacre RPG) said, "Of course there is a double standard. This is all-too obvious. Michael Moore wins Oscars for his Columbine film. Gus Van Sant wins the Palm d'Orre at Cannes for his Columbine film. Danny Ledonne's videogame on the very same topic is kicked out of Slamdance. All three have critical content that looks at the possible causes for the shooting. One of them happens to have 16-bit graphics and a modicum of interactivity. One of them is called a 'videogame.' So there you go. "

John Brownlee of Wired.com today posted an interesting thought experiment, which he's wrapping his head around these issues in preparation for a more in-depth article. He asks a series of questions taking the negative view: IF games are not as valid a form of expression as other media, what makes it different? Since interactive entertainment includes all of the features of film, music, and the written word (after all, you can include movies, music, and text in games), then it MUST be the interactivity that sets it apart (a view espoused by famed movie reviewer Roger Ebert). This is also the feature that many politicians, lawyers, and journalists use to justify why games are more dangerous than other media.

Brownlee's next question is this: "If interactivity is what makes games less deserving of the right to be a medium of free artistic expression than other mediums, what are the repercussions for the future of art, which — with the evolution of cheap technology — continues to become more interactive in nearly all of its forms?"

Where do you draw the line? I've played a handful of videogames in the past which have had less interactivity than some major motion picture DVDs. Do movies on DVD lose their status as art, or do games with few interactive options magically become art?

I think the conclusion is obvious. If anything, the artistic potential of games is so broad that we have had a very difficult time harnessing it. The silver lining of all of this is that the debate may get some real attention. And maybe --- just maybe --- we may see this double standard start to dissapear.

In the meantime, I think Slamdance is going to have to consider carefully its position on games before deciding whether or not it will include the "Guerilla Game Developer" competition in future years.

Also, following indie games have withdrawn from the competition in protest, and I'd like to encourage folks to take a look at them and spread the word. They gave up a rare opportunity to take a stand. Not all are currently available, but at least some of the judges (many of whom are also indie developers) have found them worthy by way of their innovation or artistic merits:

* Braid
* flOw
* Everyday Shooter
* Toblo
* Once Upon a Time.
* Book And Volume


(Vaguely) related grousing:
* Do Games Matter?
* More Weigh-Ins On Super Columbine Massacre RPG
* Super Columbine Massacre RPG Too Hot For Slamdance
* Congressman Matheson Defends Anti-Videogame Bill

.

Labels: Game Announcements, Indie Evangelism, Politics

- posted by The Rampant Coyote @ 3:51 AM (Permalink)