You're giving a bizarre and a-historical weight to the concept of "art criticism".

The bottom line is that the discussion of "Games as art" is one of the most pretentious and self-masturbatory practices that modern gamers involve themselves in. No other "art" in the world has needed the validation that the games industry, and gamers have.

You state that like it's some kind of fact. I believe you couldn't possibly be more wrong.

MOST people view the world through the media they are presetend with. That's why white people who have never met any black people assume that somehow black people are all like the black people they see on TV. Or how the artist who worked on Watchman, an englishman, said that he took teh assignment so that he could draw New York. He had never been, but only seeing it through tv and movies, he thought it was this magical land. Largely the same as how people in the US view England, or better yet, Japan.

My Japanese Art History class saw the shunga images in person at LACMA's Pavilion for Japanese Art. They weren't on display for the public. We were taken to some back room and they had the prints in these locked shelves. Everyone had their minds blown. We had to cover our mouths when we approached the prints to make sure no one accidentally spit on them.

@DonutFever

The "mewling quim" bit is actually in the midst of a pretty solid character development scene for Black Widow. Whedon is relatively great when it comes to the development of female characters, and I would not even argue that his use of the phrase indicates any sexism on his part. It merely highlights the profound sexism of our patriarchal* society. (* - Oh no, I used another word that will trigger (OH NO AGAIN!) the @Darji crew.)

Black Widow is a good character told very well by action movie standards.

Yea, it has. There have been a ton of forms of expression that we view as art today that haven't always been viewed that way. (Clunky wordy, I know, but I think you get the point.) For instance:

• Theater had a pretty bad reputation in the Elizabethan era. Hell, I think it might have even been banned at one point.
• Novels weren't taught at prestigious British universities because professors didn't believe they had any intellectual merit.
• Film didn't start off with its good reputation. Quite the contrary, although I don't remember enough specifics to elaborate further.

I have to imagine part of why these views changed is because there were people arguing against it like is happening with video games. The only difference is who is doing the arguing (although that may inform the quality of the arguments).

Good thread OP.

I studied English at school and there would always be a group that would take a moral angle to anything, or throw it out because it held something objectionable in the text. An author does not endorse everything he puts in a novel and even if he did and was ignorant, there is something to learn. When we read Heart of Darkness there was always a group that would just say it was worthless because the racism in the novel, failing to see how it is demonstrated as wrong and how it is subverted in the tone of the novel.

I feel the same way even about Orson Scott Card. I hate his politics but when I listen to Rebel FM and they say fuck Enders Game and don't pay to read it if you're going to, that's ridiculous to me. It doesn't make his work any worse or make it so he shouldn't profit or get credit. My point too is that everyone has skeletons in their closet and issues. Protest Card but then send money to others who very possibly have their own issues you don't know about.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm well aware of the fact that other artistic endeavors have had periods where they weren't considered art. I'm saying that no other industry has had to obscene need for validation that video games have.

Blame it on the internet, or blame it on the fact that many gamers have inherent social problems that ride alongside their passion for gaming, but no other industry has sat around whining about not being taken seriously in the same way the games industry has.

The bottom line is that even the most talented renaissance painters on earth didn't think of their work with the vomit inducing self-awareness and post-modernism that the games industry and "game critics" does.

If you like games where women have large breasts... play those games. If you don't, then don't. But whining about how you want to play those games and have people admire you for your passion for "art" and "beauty" is just... ugh. Get a life already.

@video_game_king: Heh, different chromosome? Biology was about 10 years ago for me. Oops.

@rick_fingers: That's totally his MO, true. But he was already targeting a perceived (and somewhat accurate) flaw in her guilt at her past indiscretions. There is no hint that Black Widow feels weak for being a woman or is sensitive to such things. Doesn't seem like a necessary addition.

But see, this is exactly what the OP was railing against. And somehow The Avengersis still cool even though we are talking about it. Weird.

@artisanbreads: I feel like it's less about rejecting something because it does something wrong and more about acknowledging that it did. Heart of Darkness is a very interesting story about the depravity of man. I love the image of the Man of War ships firing cannons into the seemingly empty jungle. Such futility.

It also propagated the noble savage trope where the characters of color were magical and inhuman. It was written in a time where its racial politics were pretty advanced, but it still stumbled.

It's true that it stumbled and if such a depiction were to happen to day in a film we would note its objectionability.

It's just as bad to justify mistakes as it is to focus on them exclusively.

@kierkegaard: my argument comes back to intention. Loki absolutely says something horrible and insulting specifically to women (as is the use of the word cunt, though of course you can argue prick, dick, etc are equally degrading to men, depending on where you come from) in his verbal attack on Black Widow. I'd also argue that, based on the patriarchal (awwww sheeeeeet) society Loki and Thor seem to come from, looking down on women seems to make a certain amount of sense (in not hugely familiar with Thor, so correct me if I'm wrong and they are a race of super progressive space Viking gods)

He then gets his comeuppance, both from her and then as a whole. While there is not a specific moment of "ahah I taught you a lesson for saying that to me," you still get the bad guy who says and does horrible stuff getting punished for his actions.

I would argue that that is a positive outcome, because it fundamentally shows that Loki is wrong.

Dishonest art is incredibly common. Adolf Hitler hired many, many artists to depict Aryan strength or virtue. Arno Breker, Adolf Wissel, Josef Thorak, Sepp Hilz, and many others created hundreds of gently pornographic or idealized pieces to replace Van Gogh's, Picasso's, and Modigliani's.

While I believe a lot of people overreact to perceived injustices in art--every Mario story is a retelling of the original, so relax a bit--art does carry the spirit of the artist. If the artist has a rotten heart or if their primary "inspiration" resembles a large check, the art hasn't a good soul.

Re-read this when you're not in your early twenties.

Easy target; he filtered art so incredibly thoroughly. But I am slightly disappointed I had to be that guy.

I think blatant sexism, racism, ect. are all completely fine in movies, tv, video games, whatever. If you don't like it, don't buy/play/watch it. Simple as that.

If you're offended don't play/watch/read it.

The fuck is the problem? The thing that gets me is people getting offended at super stupid shit. This whole sexism thing is just the latest craze.

Remember when RE5 was coming out? Everyone was freaking the fuck out cus the game was "super racist" because you were killing black zombies in Africa.....Thats like getting mad you're shooting Italian people in a mobster game.

People are just over sensitive I think.

@jazgalaxy: I certainly haven't seen anything that I could call the industry sitting around whining about not being taken seriously, unless you consider arguing about whether or not video games are art to be whining.

I also don't see how that argument would be pretentious and masturbatory. This stuff's not gonna figure itself out, you know.

Your argument essentially breaks down to "I don't want a fictional bad guy disrespecting women." You really don't see the problem with that logic?

Yeah this seems about right.

Sex sells. Always has, always will. I believe in equal civil liberty, pay according to ability and planned parenthood. I really don't think women are being oppressed by video game characters having big jugs. I'm progressively getting sicker of this topic. Topic after masturbatory topic that all sounds like something from a 100 level college course. Spare me.

I did say "a game about punching things and opening chests", but I guess you could easily miss that.

Exactly do not force change but rather try to add new thing. Which menas new games, new IPs. If you wnat to do something go into this industry and make these games.

First: Looking at anything through a moral lens is bad, since moral value judgments must always claim to be absolutely and universally true, which is impossible (and even if it were possible, it would be impossible to verify).

Second: Yes, aesthetics are separate from morality. I have already given two examples of this. Here's another: in the Abrahamic religions, it is warned that what is most beautiful and pleasurable in life is often also what is most evil (since Satan's entire goal is to tempt you from the path of God). Morally abysmal, but aesthetically sublime -- a paradox if aesthetics were governed by morality.

Third: Yes, sexual attraction and romantic love are absolutely necessary in order to fully appreciate and celebrate beauty. Throughout history, men have risked their lives to gain a beautiful woman's hand in marriage, or to have an affair with one married to another man etc. -- at times men have even started wars over women they desired for fuck's sake. Hell, in primitive societies, they still sometimes do! That is the power of female beauty when seen from the perspective of a man. And even if we ignore history, even if we ignore societies apart from our own, all we have to do is look at how much money, time, effort and pain people in our modern civilization are willing to go through to find an attractive partner. We don't even have to do that, really: anyone who has ever been in love should be able to realize it. You'd have to be blind, stupid or asexual to deny it.

I can't tell if you're being a dick or not, but in my defense, I took that to mean "any generic game" rather than this one specific game.

Oh dear god, there is just so much fucking stupidity condensed into this one statement.

@video_game_king: Then it should be very easy for you to explain why.

One such reason would be that it makes it impossible for us to act against horrible atrocities, since we've essentially blinded ourselves to them. For instance, if the Prime Minister of Britain announced his plans to round up immigrants into concentration camps, the only way I could take action against it would be through a moral lens of "that's a terrible thing to do, you asshole".

Second, some bodies of work absolutely demand that we view them through a moral lens. What the hell becomes of Uncle Tom's Cabin when we hinder our ability to read it from a moral perspective? Or Telltale's The Walking Dead? Or, to go back to your own example, anything in the Bible? By saying that their primary perspective is illegitimate, we needlessly make it that much harder for them to create any sort of meaning.

First, you literally just made a moral statement about morality. You are apparently some form of extreme nihilist or relativist. Have fun with that. I believe it is universally true that we should be nice to each other and respect every person for their differences, especially their intrinsic differences. Why? Because we are all humans who deserve to be treated as choice-making beings.

Second, you reject moral absolutism and then use a particular religious doctrine to justify your belief.

Third, no one--not feminists, not me, not anyone--is arguing against sexual attraction. We are arguing against directly connecting the idea of weakness, frailty, and objecthood to a person's gender. Sex is fucking great. So is attractiveness. That's not the issue here.

@video_game_king: You really must have a lack of imagination if that's the only action you think you could take against it. You could say: "British society would be much worse if we killed the immigrants for reasons I will now list". Or, if you are a British citizen: "I and others very much like having the immigrants here and we will not vote for you in the next election". Or: "We will strike/leave the country and let it collapse". Or why not a more violent approach: "We don't like your plans and we will collectively come fuck you up." That's just four examples -- there are countless possibilities. You don't need moral value judgments to oppose something.

Moral.

Moral (words and actions can both amount to a moral judgment).

Moral.

All of them moral.

@kierkegaard said:

Now you are just intentionally misinterpreting what I write. When I say it's "bad" to make moral value judgments, of course I don't mean it in the sense of morally wrong: I am saying moral value judgments are by necessity nonsensical, since there is no practically or theoretically possible way to verify their accuracy.

I am not supporting the religious morality for fuck's sake, I am using it as an example to demonstrate that a person's moral beliefs and aesthetic judgments are separate.

If you read the thread you will see that there are posts by several people to which that part of my post is very much an appropriate response.

@video_game_king: They are not moral in the least. "I like having immigrants here" is no more a moral statement than "I like eating yoghurt".

@SpaceInsomniac

You are just ignoring my entire point in order to create a strawman out of one piece of it have fun with that. :)

@Icemael

What if I think the immigrants do make it worse and I do not like them being here and I think it would be more aesthetically pleasing if they were all burned alive starting at the feet?

Why are aesthetics or even personal preference acceptable lenses through which to view events and ideas? (Both of these, by the way, are social constructs just like morality.)

@icemael:

How are you arguing that the Prime Minister shouldn't do these horrible things to people? "We should have more immigrants here" is a moral statement, for it is telling somebody how the world should be, which is at the heart of what morality is. If we remove our ability to look at anything through a moral lens, then we remove our ability to tell others how the world ought to be, and, therefore, our ability to act upon those thoughts.

@groverat: What do you mean, "what if"? If you think the immigrants are a bad thing and would enjoy seeing them burned alive, then that's what you would be in favour of.

Personal value judgments are "acceptable" because they're only real, honest value judgments we can make.

It is a moral statement if you say "We should have more immigrants here, that is what is right and good and that's the end of that". It's not a moral statement if you say "I like having the immigrants here, and here are reasons why you might want it, too" or "I like having the immigrants here and I will fight you to keep it that way".

Okay, how about this slight alteration: Your argument essentially breaks down to "I don't want a fictional bad guy written in a way where he is disrespecting to women."

Would that be fair? If not, why not? "Strawman" only applies if you cannot refute an argument to explain why that isn't your point of view, and you're the one who brought up the Avengers example in the first place.

Are these statements not all to the same end? Is not an action a form of statement? You are still viewing this problem through a moral lens (this is bad because it gets rid of the immigrants that I like) and trying to affect it. You cannot try to change this dilemma without a moral lens of some type.

Most people view the world through whatever reality they're presented with, not merely 'the media'. As in, people can tell the difference between fiction and reality, and they judge things based on reality rather than fiction.

I don't understand why you decided to pick white people out, but in your example, those white people are going to be more influenced by how people in the real world talk about black people rather than how a single work of fiction talks about black people. In your world, people associate (American) blacks with criminality because there are movies with black criminals. In the real world, people associate blacks with criminality because they're over-represented in crime.... and this leads to fiction being created that reflects reality; movies with predominantly black criminals. In your world, Boyz N The Hood invented Los Angeles gang violence and people saw it and decided to make it reality. In the real world, Los Angeles gang violence invented Boyz N The Hood and people saw that it was consistent with reality.

Your Watchmen example would work if most media about New York wasn't already based on the reality of what New York is like. There's a reason why when you see something in a movie that seems completely out of place or incorrect, you think the writer didn't do the research, not that it must be true and reality is wrong. And let's face it, the Watchmen guy probably did his research based on photography and non-fiction, not merely watching Woody Allen movies.

Straight up, do you believe that we shape our lives to conform to what we see in art, or do you think artists shape their work to conform to what they see in life?

@video_game_king: They're not the same, because only the first claims it to be the absolute truth that the presence of the immigrants is a good thing.

Here's an example you might understand: if a caveman is hunting a deer in the forest, he doesn't have to claim that it is wrong for the deer to want to escape and survive in order to justify thwarting its attempt to do so. Similarly, the deer doesn't have to claim that it is wrong of the caveman to hunt for food in order to justify trying to escape.

Congratulations: you've just summed up ethical egoism, which, again, is a form of morality.

We've all killed hundreds of thousands of pixel men in video games. We've taken their lives, with no remorse, and we call it fun.

Why is that not a problem? Why are there not groups saying we are all psychopaths who don't value human life? I'll tel you why, it's because these "people" are animations on screens and mean absolutely nothing. This shouldn't, and doesn't, change when it's a book, movie, or painting.

When a video game's goal is to kill people (the goal of most video games), that does not mean it was created and enjoyed by murderers. When a game's goal is to save a love interest, that does not mean it was created and enjoyed by sexist.

I hate these dumb arguments. I literally have pretty much stopped playing video games, because the community has been ripped apart by nonsense.

We are all truly unwashed and bathe in our ignorance. We cast clouds where there should be none. We rain on parades of justice by watching from the sidelines. If we could make decisions that matter, we would make them on someone else's dime.

Then we arrive at some variant of the paradox of fiction: characters in games have moved me to emotions stronger than I have felt for those around me. We can extract from this that it is indeed possible to care and feel for these collections of polygons made manifest upon the screen. With this, how do we justify the horrible crimes we have committed within these fictional worlds? One could say that it was the protagonist directly responsible for this, but I do not believe most gamers would honesty believe that. The trend I see is the player usurping another's identity and achievements as their own.

I'm honestly trying to figure out if you're joking.

People absolutely conform to media. There's copious amounts of psychological research and tons of books written on the concept.

I don't know what world you think you live in where everyone is perfectly self aware and a critical thinker who makes rational decisions, but in reality... no. That doesn't exist. Fox News is the only evidence you should need.

@video_game_king: No. Not claiming that someone shouldn't do what they're doing is not the same as saying they should do it. There is no absolute "should" or "shouldn't" -- that's the point.

You keep using 'media' so as to confuse the subject. We're talking about fiction, not news, not non-fiction. Fox News is not fiction (well...). People do not fit reality to conform to fiction, they fit fiction to conform to reality. When they see fiction that in no way resembles anything they've experienced in reality, whether directly or indirectly, they see the fiction as flawed, not that their understanding of reality is flawed. This holds true even in fantastical settings, even Middle-Earth is expected to have a consistent, internal logic, even if there are differences between it and ours.

And whether or not that some people are critical thinkers or not in no way means that life imitates art rather than art imitates life. Your proposition is the one that playing violent games create violent people, rather than violent people take interest in violent games; that our lives imitate our art rather than our art imitates our lives.

@icemael:

Your example still relied on should, which means it relied on some type of morality. Both are acting in the preservation of their own lives, making it the center of their moral systems in that particular instance. Without a moral lens, we can only see the world as it is, free of our own desires and wants (as those amount to shoulds as well).

Arguing, got to love it sometimes...

@video_game_king: No, you are confusing aesthetic judgments with moral ones, and have been all along. Here's an aesthetic value judgment: "I find yoghurt delicious". Here is a moral value judgment: "It is a universal truth that yoghurt is delicious". If you can't separate them there's no point in talking to you.

This is a statement of what is.

This is also a statement of what is. There is no moral judgment within that statement. If that was a moral judgment, then it could be said that "It is a universal truth that the sum of the lengths of two sides of a triangle must be greater than the value of the length of the remaining side" is a moral judgment, too. Yet there is nothing within that statement telling me how I should live my life. Morality does not deal entirely with universal truths. That is not at the heart of ethics. It does not logically follow from "It is a universal truth that yogurt is delicious" that I should eat yogurt; however, the phrase "One should eat things that are delicious" does lead to that end, at least when combined with the previous statement. You need an evaluative aspect for morality to work. Without it, you are simply left with the world as it is, unable to change it.

@video_game_king: While the feeling you had were real, the people and reasons behind them are artificial. I think that is were the separation occurs, because while they might impact us, we do not impact them.

Thus, us killing them does not matter, nor do they feel offended when they are represented as weak. Hell, they don't even feel pride when they are shown to be strong, so why is there an outcry when certain parties are "misrepresented" in fiction?

We should not fight these fake battles, they only lead to fake results. There is no such thing as feminism or racism in these fictitious worlds unless the artist says so. The problem I have with what seems to have become the face of these arguments is that everyone is trying to project problems onto things that don't have them.

I would argue that there are at least some people that have it the other way around. See Hyperreality. The Disneyland example explains it pretty well.

Isn't the whole point of video games directly against that? We aren't but mere spectators, but active participants in these conflicts.

By that logic, there's no reason this shouldn't be on TV.

Roland Barthes, do your thang.

@video_game_king:

I don't know how to properly quote on this forum so sorry in advance.

We are impacting pixels, images, and sound. These things are not real and have no real world impact. That is what you are not picking up, you need accept that video games are not real, period. They may depict real events, or look realistic, but they have no direct affect on the real world.

This is obviously a racist cartoon. I agree it should never be shown on TV, but I do not agree with the sentiment that the characters are having there feelings hurt by being drawn in racist caricatures. That is the point, the characters have no feelings outside of the script.

What I meant was that sexism is not a problem in the Mushroom Kingdom, because the creators did not choose to incorporate it. If we are going to separate the author from the story, we also have to separate the story from the real world. It stands as its own piece of literature, that is really the only fair way to asses it.

This is not an argument that can be fought in a few paragraphs. Racism exist, sexism exist. These two things do not always exist where people think they do. You can not project your own thoughts onto another person's and state them as fact, that isn't fair. You can't say that Mario is sexist if the creators never intended it to be. At that point, you are making things up about something that doesn't even exist.