24 ms·

NEA now making grants available for video game developers

24 points by primesuspect 15y ago

schmittz 15y ago
This is a huge mistake. I don't want to argue that videogames can never be art, but in general, no matter how good they look, they aren't (Radio is also highly suspect on this list). The problem is that "the arts" (in a more traditional sense) in the US are infinitesimally close to being criminally underfunded. Opening NEA funding to even more applicants will only further detract from more traditional applicants that should receive funding.
- joshklein 15y ago
  I disagree. How "good they look" is irrelevant; one can easily make the critique of famous painters, say, who have totally missed the bar on creating "good looking" painting, yet create harrowing or revelatory social commentaries nontheless. The same holds true for all these categories. I'm not going to attempt to define what art IS here, or what its purpose is, but I can say it must go beyond high art and aesthetics. There are games that challenge and expand our understanding of society across a number of different axes, the most recent and obvious of which being collaboration and socialization. Or look to classic games for incredible examples of storytelling (Kings Quest), making choices of morality (Ultima), and so on. And certainly there are radio programs that are art; Radiolab and This American Life come to mind, although those are already publicly funded.
  - schmittz 15y ago
    Ah, I didn't mean to imply video games must have an aesthetic to be considered art (I said this because, and you do have to admit, the prevailing attitude for those who believe they are art is that they are of a supreme aesthetic). I'm not quite sure what you mean by high art. The NEA is in a unique position to fund people who will probably fail, that is people who are challenging the current popular forms. Popular art directions can more easily get private funding and don't need as much public support. I agree that video games can do this, but when you're associated with a multi-billion dollar industry and building a product that can be replicated and sold by the millions of copies, it's hard to justify why you need public support to develop it. I LOVE This American Life, but I completely disagree that it is art. It is tremendous journalism, which reaches millions of people. I donate every year to keep This American Life running and every listener should too, because they are receiving a great gift of passion and effort in every episode. However, there are more than enough listeners to support the program if they each paid for the service they receive. I do not believe they need public funding and if they did, the NEA is not the organization that should be providing it.
- hugh3 15y ago
  It also makes the NEA look like a joke, severely in need of a budget cut. At a time when cutting budgets is (or at least should be) the number one priority of congress, sticking your head up to say "Hey, who wants some money to make video games?" is a really bad idea. It's interesting that the only areas of art in which really good stuff is stil produced are the areas of art in which things are done for profit, rather than as part of some scramble for government funding. The United States of America has produced many, many great artists and artworks over the past century, particularly in areas such as film, music and indeed (to a lesser yet increasing extent) video games. But as far as I know, no great work of art has ever been produced by NEA funding. Heck, I doubt that a work of art as compelling as Blazing Saddles has ever been produced by NEA funding.
  - schmittz 15y ago
    I disagree with you, public art can be very entertaining and challenging and of extremely great value. The problem is that the NEA has attempted to become so all encompassing that it no longer has enough direction or focus to support those that deserve it. Tilted Arc by Richard Serra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted_Arc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted_Arc) was derided for the very reason it was a success and unfortunately torn down, but as a work of art was phenomenal. More art of this caliber could be supported if the NEA got its act together.
- ataggart 15y ago
  >The problem is that "the arts" (in a more traditional sense) in the US are infinitesimally close to being criminally underfunded. Feel free to cut them a check then: http://www.nea.gov/support/index.html http://www.nea.gov/support/index.html
  - schmittz 15y ago
    Thanks for the link, but I don't think I will use it, because I would like my money to directly support arts that I think need support. As long as the NEA is giving money to video game designers and radio shows, I don't feel compelled to assist them. (This isn't contradictory with my previously stated belief). I normally agree that things are better funded privately. I think that organizations like NPR should be funded by the people who use NPR (if there's not enough of them to make it sustainable, why should it stay around). The problem is that this logic falls apart with the arts (some of them) and science. It's hard to get private investors to front money for scientific research that has no guaranteed result and it's hard to get people to fund artists to produce works that they don't automatically benefit from (e.g. fine artists, playwrights, composers). While the symphony that plays a work shouldn't be subsidized by public money, it can be difficult for new composers to demonstrate their talent without support. MM for artists and playwrights. That is why I believe very firmly that one of the most fundamental services the federal government should administer is funding the sciences and arts (along with self-defense and welfare).
    - fiblye 15y ago
      > it can be difficult for new composers to demonstrate their talent without support. It's no different for small, independent game developers. Many people with great ideas just don't have the means to express them through games since it's a very time-consuming process, and a little funding could push them to make their hobby more than just a hobby.
      - schmittz 15y ago
        I can see your point, but would argue there is a difference. Small independent game designers can at least approach studios for money to fund/produce their game. Composers, playwrights, and artists don't have an equivalent body to turn to. If you're not commissioned to make something, you can't sell your product basically at all.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
sedachv 15y ago
Can we have government funding for Free Software instead?
- Impossible 15y ago
  Afaik, this grant will still cover Free Software. The software would have to be an art piece, so you couldn't get funding for non-artistic work. The grant is pretty broad though, it covers web, mobile and general "interactive art" as well as video games.
OstiaAntica 15y ago
It is tragic that we are borrowing money from China for such utter frivolity.

24 points by primesuspect 15y ago

This is a huge mistake. I don't want to argue that videogames can never be art, but in general, no matter how good they look, they aren't (Radio is also highly suspect on this list). The problem is that "the arts" (in a more traditional sense) in the US are infinitesimally close to being criminally underfunded. Opening NEA funding to even more applicants will only further detract from more traditional applicants that should receive funding.

joshklein 15y ago
I disagree. How "good they look" is irrelevant; one can easily make the critique of famous painters, say, who have totally missed the bar on creating "good looking" painting, yet create harrowing or revelatory social commentaries nontheless. The same holds true for all these categories. I'm not going to attempt to define what art IS here, or what its purpose is, but I can say it must go beyond high art and aesthetics. There are games that challenge and expand our understanding of society across a number of different axes, the most recent and obvious of which being collaboration and socialization. Or look to classic games for incredible examples of storytelling (Kings Quest), making choices of morality (Ultima), and so on. And certainly there are radio programs that are art; Radiolab and This American Life come to mind, although those are already publicly funded.
- schmittz 15y ago
  Ah, I didn't mean to imply video games must have an aesthetic to be considered art (I said this because, and you do have to admit, the prevailing attitude for those who believe they are art is that they are of a supreme aesthetic). I'm not quite sure what you mean by high art. The NEA is in a unique position to fund people who will probably fail, that is people who are challenging the current popular forms. Popular art directions can more easily get private funding and don't need as much public support. I agree that video games can do this, but when you're associated with a multi-billion dollar industry and building a product that can be replicated and sold by the millions of copies, it's hard to justify why you need public support to develop it. I LOVE This American Life, but I completely disagree that it is art. It is tremendous journalism, which reaches millions of people. I donate every year to keep This American Life running and every listener should too, because they are receiving a great gift of passion and effort in every episode. However, there are more than enough listeners to support the program if they each paid for the service they receive. I do not believe they need public funding and if they did, the NEA is not the organization that should be providing it.
hugh3 15y ago
It also makes the NEA look like a joke, severely in need of a budget cut. At a time when cutting budgets is (or at least should be) the number one priority of congress, sticking your head up to say "Hey, who wants some money to make video games?" is a really bad idea. It's interesting that the only areas of art in which really good stuff is stil produced are the areas of art in which things are done for profit, rather than as part of some scramble for government funding. The United States of America has produced many, many great artists and artworks over the past century, particularly in areas such as film, music and indeed (to a lesser yet increasing extent) video games. But as far as I know, no great work of art has ever been produced by NEA funding. Heck, I doubt that a work of art as compelling as Blazing Saddles has ever been produced by NEA funding.
- schmittz 15y ago
  I disagree with you, public art can be very entertaining and challenging and of extremely great value. The problem is that the NEA has attempted to become so all encompassing that it no longer has enough direction or focus to support those that deserve it. Tilted Arc by Richard Serra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted_Arc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tilted_Arc) was derided for the very reason it was a success and unfortunately torn down, but as a work of art was phenomenal. More art of this caliber could be supported if the NEA got its act together.
ataggart 15y ago
>The problem is that "the arts" (in a more traditional sense) in the US are infinitesimally close to being criminally underfunded. Feel free to cut them a check then: http://www.nea.gov/support/index.html http://www.nea.gov/support/index.html
- schmittz 15y ago
  Thanks for the link, but I don't think I will use it, because I would like my money to directly support arts that I think need support. As long as the NEA is giving money to video game designers and radio shows, I don't feel compelled to assist them. (This isn't contradictory with my previously stated belief). I normally agree that things are better funded privately. I think that organizations like NPR should be funded by the people who use NPR (if there's not enough of them to make it sustainable, why should it stay around). The problem is that this logic falls apart with the arts (some of them) and science. It's hard to get private investors to front money for scientific research that has no guaranteed result and it's hard to get people to fund artists to produce works that they don't automatically benefit from (e.g. fine artists, playwrights, composers). While the symphony that plays a work shouldn't be subsidized by public money, it can be difficult for new composers to demonstrate their talent without support. MM for artists and playwrights. That is why I believe very firmly that one of the most fundamental services the federal government should administer is funding the sciences and arts (along with self-defense and welfare).
  - fiblye 15y ago
    > it can be difficult for new composers to demonstrate their talent without support. It's no different for small, independent game developers. Many people with great ideas just don't have the means to express them through games since it's a very time-consuming process, and a little funding could push them to make their hobby more than just a hobby.
    - schmittz 15y ago
      I can see your point, but would argue there is a difference. Small independent game designers can at least approach studios for money to fund/produce their game. Composers, playwrights, and artists don't have an equivalent body to turn to. If you're not commissioned to make something, you can't sell your product basically at all.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

sedachv 15y ago

Can we have government funding for Free Software instead?

Impossible 15y ago
Afaik, this grant will still cover Free Software. The software would have to be an art piece, so you couldn't get funding for non-artistic work. The grant is pretty broad though, it covers web, mobile and general "interactive art" as well as video games.

OstiaAntica 15y ago

It is tragic that we are borrowing money from China for such utter frivolity.