Something went wrong. Try again later

Icemael

This user has not updated recently.

6901 40352 8 161
Forum Posts Wiki Points Following Followers

Sexism, racism and moralization in art criticism

In recent years there has been a trend of moralization in video game criticism, particularly concerning gender inequalities, but also race and sexuality. Dragon’s Crown is only the latest subject of this kind of criticism: before it we've had Tomb Raider, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Bayonetta and so on and so forth. A lot of people are pleased with this, but the truth of the matter is that this is a degenerative and harmful trend – something that becomes most obvious if one imagines applying this kind of criticism to historical works.

Should the Iliad have points docked for being sexist? Would Dracula cease to be a masterpiece if the vampires and Renfield were black, while the rest of the cast remained white? Are we supposed to quit admiring the works of all the great painters throughout history on account of the inequality at display in their art? Would the paintings of Sir Leighton be better if they depicted more black people? Is Rubens' Rape of the Daughters of Leucippus worse because contemporary morality condemns its subject matter? Or Gérôme's Slave Market in Rome?

The notion is absurd. Moralization has no place in art criticism: the only value judgments of relevance are the aesthetic ones. Is it beautiful? – That is the question. Subtracting points in an art review because the work isn't “equal” enough is as ridiculous as subtracting points in a food review because the dish contains meat and therefore required the death of animals. There is nothing wrong with “male gaze” – on the contrary, it is only through the perspective of a man (or a lesbian, I suppose) that female beauty can be fully appreciated and celebrated. Nor is there anything wrong with male power fantasies, weak women in need of help, or any of the other things feminists object to in games. As for the lack of the opposite perspective: as unfortunate as it may be for those who are desperate to see more depictions of helpless, sexualized white men being rescued by strong women or overweight black transsexuals or whatever, artists (whether painters, writers, filmmakers or video game developers) have no collective obligation to provide this, nor indeed much aesthetic motivation, as the introduction of more strong women, blacks etc. has no inherent value and – contrary to what some seem to think – certainly doesn't help an art form advance faster. Classical painting and literature would not have been better or evolved more rapidly if the old masters included more minorities in their works, and neither will video games.

Furthermore, it is absurd to look at an artist’s depiction of a woman or black and claim that it’s representative of his view of women or blacks in general. “He created female characters that need rescuing, so clearly he thinks all women are weak and helpless” and “He created a black character that speaks in a stereotypical manner, so clearly he’s an ignorant and hateful man who thinks all black people are like this” – these are absolutely ridiculous conclusions to draw, and suggesting that developers (or the players who enjoy their works) are misogynists or racists based on depictions (or non-depictions) of women and blacks in games is stupid, disingenuous, or possibly both.

Shinji Mikami put it well in a recent interview: “Games are not really a time for morals, they're entertainment, so if you want more morals, you should go to someplace like a school. We're making entertainment.” Words to live by for any remotely serious critic or developer.

173 Comments

177 Comments

Avatar image for darji
Darji

5412

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By Darji

here is some quote from the Saints row 4 guys to the question why they have dildos in their game. think it fits perfectly in it.

"I think of this along the lines of motion pictures," Boone said.

"I just can't imagine Hollywood suddenly deciding that movies like The Hangover shouldn't come out because it is immature. Sure, it may not win an Oscar, but it sure is funny as hell and amazingly entertaining. People won't all feel the same way about that movie as I do, but that doesn't mean the movie shouldn't be made."

http://www.gamespot.com/news/saints-row-iv-developers-respond-to-dildo-weapon-criticisms-6412418

So who cares if Dragons Crown is immature and people are getting offended by it? Just don't buy it. It is really easy. This and every other entertainment industry serves a market. They are not here to make ethically statements or leave some social commentary in their games. Some are just dumb fun. An author, artist or director has the right to do whatever he wants and whatever he fellls will sell. No matter if its racist, sexist, brutal, funny, erotic or whatever.

No one has the right to stop him. You can discuss and have an own opinion but that about it.

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

@video_game_king said:

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.

No, since moral judgments are value judgments, and that is a mathematical proposition, not a judgment of value. Furthermore, the traits given in the definition of "triangle" make it a logical necessity that the sides relate to each other in that way, whereas there is nothing in the definition of "yoghurt" that makes it a logical necessity that it tastes good or bad.

Yet there is nothing within that statement telling me how I should live my life.

But it is: it is telling you what your evaluation of yoghurt should be. If we accept it as true, you are wrong if you eat yoghurt and dislike the taste.

Morality does not deal entirely with universal truths.

It absolutely does: that's what separates it from aesthetics. "Killing is bad" (universal, consequently moral) vs. "I don't like killing" (subjective, consequently aesthetic).

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.

Morality is evaluative, but not all evaluations are moral.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

By claiming that it is a universal truth, you are saying that it is a logical necessity, since there are no circumstances under which it can be false.

@video_game_king said:

Yet there is nothing within that statement telling me how I should live my life.

But it is: it is telling you what your evaluation of yoghurt should be. If we accept it as true, you are wrong if you eat yoghurt and dislike the taste.

How? Mind outlining the step that takes us from how things are to how we should act? You seem to conflate logical validity with moral validity, when the two are completely separate.

@icemael said:

@video_game_king said:

Morality does not deal entirely with universal truths.

It absolutely does: that's what separates it from aesthetics. "Killing is bad" (universal, consequently moral) vs. "I don't like killing" (subjective, consequently aesthetic).

I said "entirely", as in "it deals with these things, but it doesn't exclusively deal with these things". And doesn't your definition exclude personal, subjective morality systems which people craft for themselves?

Avatar image for liquidus
Liquidus

993

Forum Posts

29

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 10

Edited By Liquidus

I'm just gonna say I basically agree with everything you said and I'm getting sick of art criticism and social criticism getting all mixed up. If you're condemning a game based on its portrayal of women or a minority group, then you are being a social critic. If you're saying a game sucks based on the fact that the gameplay is shit, then you are being video game critic. If you wanna criticize a game based on its morals then go ahead but leave that as a side note or entirely out of your proper review.

Avatar image for azurath
Azurath

352

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

YOGHURT

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

Edited By Icemael

@video_game_king said:

By claiming that it is a universal truth, you are saying that it is a logical necessity, since there are no circumstances under which it can be false.

Here is what I am saying: I cannot, working only from the definition of yoghurt, create a logical proof that yoghurt is delicious. If I claim it to be an absolute truth that yoghurt is delicious, since there is no necessary connection between that claim and the definition of yoghurt, the claim can be refuted while the definition of the word "yoghurt" remains exactly the same. Whereas with a triangle and Pythagoras' theorem, the theorem can never be refuted unless the definition of "triangle" changes.

@video_game_king said:

How? Mind outlining the step that takes us from how things are to how we should act? You seem to conflate logical validity with moral validity, when the two are completely separate.

For fuck's sake dude, if I say that it is an absolute truth that yoghurt is delicious, then I am saying that if you eat yoghurt, your evaluation of its taste (and evaluating something IS AN ACTION) should be positive. I am telling you that if a scenario arises where you have yoghurt in your mouth, you should act a certain way. What is hard to understand?

@video_game_king said:

I said "entirely", as in "it deals with these things, but it doesn't exclusively deal with these things". And doesn't your definition exclude personal, subjective morality systems which people craft for themselves?

A moral evaluation is precisely an evaluation that claims to be accurate outside of the purely personal, subjective sphere. The kind of system you speak of (i.e. one that doesn't make any such claim) wouldn't even work on the most basic level. It would be self-contradictory and absolutely nonsensical: "I should do this, but at the same time you may be right to say that I should not do this". Either one of them is right and the other is wrong (i.e. there is an absolute "should" or "shouldn't", as in morality), or neither is right (as in amorality). You can't have an in-between.

Avatar image for joshwent
joshwent

2897

Forum Posts

2987

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 4

Edited By joshwent

So... anybody win yet?

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

Edited By Icemael

@video_game_king said:

What? This makes absolutely no sense.

It makes perfect sense, but just forget about it -- it was an aside and has no real bearing on the morality discussion.

If I say "It is a universal truth that yoghurt is delicious", I am saying "anyone who claims yoghurt isn't delicious is wrong", which means I am saying "you should find yoghurt delicious" (since if you do not, you are wrong).

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King

@icemael said:

@video_game_king said:

How?

If I say "It is a universal truth that yoghurt is delicious", I am saying "anyone who claims yoghurt isn't delicious is wrong", which means I am saying "you should find yoghurt delicious" (since if you do not, you are wrong).

Where's morality come into this?

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

@video_game_king: Here's a question for you: what is the difference between saying "If you come across a poor man is it right to give to him, and wrong not to" and saying "If you eat yoghurt it is right to judge it to be delicious, and wrong not to"?

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King

@icemael:

Logically right versus morally right? In fact, doesn't morality stress that we do what's right in spite of reason (or at least in spite of self motivation)?

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

Edited By Icemael

@video_game_king: But neither statement has even the pretense of any logical basis. So what is the difference? And what does "morally right" mean (since it has no relation to logic)?

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King

@icemael:

For something to be morally right is for it to be the action one should be compelled to take under that system of morality. But I do fear we are severely digressing from the original question: how would you tell somebody not to do an immoral act without any sort of moral perspective whatsoever?

Avatar image for extomar
EXTomar

5047

Forum Posts

4

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Edited By EXTomar

There are plenty of experiences and stances that have no moral baring. There is nothing "morally right" or "morally wrong" with the various objective and subjective qualities of yogurt. There is still value in discussing "yogurt" but it just has no "moral value".

Avatar image for kierkegaard
Kierkegaard

718

Forum Posts

4822

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 2

@icemael said:

@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.

@kierkegaard said:

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.

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.

Aw, c'mon. You really didn't respond to my defense of moral absolutism about universal fair treatment of other people? Really? That was, like, the meatiest thing in that post. Sigh. Okay. Fine.

All that matters here is that defense of bad art is a waste of time. Dragon's Crown has some cool monster designs and I like the painterly style, but, as the Polygon review appears to say, it looks like NPC females are all objects of lust, imprisonment, or helplessness. That's shitty, yo. It adds nothing and detracts plenty. Just like Shakespeare's insulting depiction of the Jewish people in The Merchant of Venice, it is okay to like what is strong (tragic arc) and dislike what is weak (he's a hateful, duplicitous, vengeful money-grubbing man). Art is complex, as is our response to it. Why limit that response?

Avatar image for donutfever
donutfever

4057

Forum Posts

1959

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 35

@liquidus said:

I'm just gonna say I basically agree with everything you said and I'm getting sick of art criticism and social criticism getting all mixed up. If you're condemning a game based on its portrayal of women or a minority group, then you are being a social critic. If you're saying a game sucks based on the fact that the gameplay is shit, then you are being video game critic. If you wanna criticize a game based on its morals then go ahead but leave that as a side note or entirely out of your proper review.

I don't really agree with this. every part of the game colours your experience. The first thing Jeff said about Dragon's Crown was "That game is boob city", because it was a notable part of the game for him, and one of the main things he took away.

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

@video_game_king said:

how would you tell somebody not to do an immoral act without any sort of moral perspective whatsoever?

You don't, because there is no such thing as an immoral act: there are only acts that you like and acts that you don't like. I have already given several examples of possible ways to stop someone from doing something you don't want. Here's another, and a clever one too: convince him that what he's doing is immoral. You don't have to subscribe to a moral code to exploit other people's belief in it, a fact understood by many Popes of the past: they cared little for Christian morality, yet were more than happy to use the belief of others to further their wealth and political power.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

@video_game_king: This is an extremely simple and unrealistic example, but let's say a Christian is about to kill me, so I say "Remember how in the Old Testament it says 'Thou shalt not kill'? You'll got to hell if you go through with this!" and then he goes "oh, right" and decides not to kill me. I don't have to subscribe to a system of morality to do that -- I just have be willing and capable of deceiving the guy.

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

By the way, I have a vague memory of having a lengthy discussion with @video_game_king about the problems of morality years ago. I'd try to dig it up if I could be arsed.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King

@icemael:

What, then, if you did not know the belief system to which your murder subscribed?

Avatar image for justin258
Justin258

16685

Forum Posts

26

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 11

User Lists: 8

@snail said:
@video_game_king said:

@snail:

Probably should have specified that we were talking about Dragon's Crown at some point and not all games in general.

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

I don't think this is actually about Dragon's Crown, or even video games in general anymore.

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

@video_game_king: I could try to a) lure it out of him, or b) take a suitable system I know of (or invent one) and try to convince him of its validity.

Avatar image for video_game_king
Video_Game_King

36563

Forum Posts

59080

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 54

User Lists: 14

Edited By Video_Game_King

@icemael said:

take a suitable system I know of (or invent one) and try to convince him of its validity.

Wouldn't that be judgment through a moral lens? Genuine or facetious, it is still the same thing.

Avatar image for jazgalaxy
JazGalaxy

1638

Forum Posts

2

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

@jazgalaxy said:

@brodehouse said:

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?

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.

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.

I'm not confusing the subject at all. You are making the assertion that people can tell the difference between fact and fiction by critical analysis, and I am saying that is false.

Fiction isn't "based on reality", fiction is fiction. It's a created sense of reality. And when that created sense of reality is marketed as ACTUAL reality, people believe that what is false is true.


This is how advertising works.

I mean, you can argue all you want, but these aren't new ideas. This is why companies spend billions of dollars on advertising.

When rappers rap songs about how many stacks of bills they have, how many beautiful women want them, and how many police officers they've killed and then say "I'm just telling the truth". Shock! They are not telling the truth. But people THINK they are. THat's why that infographic of how much rapper say they are worth vs. what they are actually worth made such a huge stink online a few weeks ago.

Avatar image for icemael
Icemael

6901

Forum Posts

40352

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 20

User Lists: 20

Edited By Icemael

@video_game_king: I wouldn't actually be making judgments though, just pretending. And even if it could be argued that I would, in a sense, be looking at things through a moral lens, you know perfectly well that that's not what I was referring to way back when we started this, just as if I were to say "don't write stupid stuff" you would know perfectly well that I wasn't referring to satiric writing where one only pretends to be an idiot.