Fox News Ignorantly Attacks NEA for Classifying Games as Art
202 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;29997979]You're point being, from what I've gathered, spending 600 billion dollars of tax payer money on military weaponry is fine, but spending 1% of the tax budget on art programs is a disgusting waste of money if some of the money is given as a prize.[/QUOTE]
The idiot conservative has bad opinions? wowzers
Call of Duty shouldn't get federal funding, and not because it's violent, but because after MW1 it's a horribly shitty reskin of a shitty game.
Did you even read the article
[QUOTE=MachiniOs;29989452]Seriously can't Fox news be done for this? Isn't there a journalism standards body?[/QUOTE]
There was a court case a while ago, basically the verdict was that they could just make shit up, and they didn't need to be truthful.
[editline]23rd May 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=Sourcream&onion;29999919]Call of Duty shouldn't get federal funding, and not because it's violent, but because after MW1 it's a horribly shitty reskin of a shitty game.[/QUOTE]
Oh wow.
[quote]Someone is probably in an argument right now about how the government is using taxpayer dollars to fund Call of Duty, and that simply isn't the case.[/quote]
Proved that one right.
Actually Reagan's administration (ugh) made some legislation that meant journalists didn't have to be truthful anymore. I can't remember the name
EDIT: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine[/url]
[QUOTE=Android phone;29997931]I'm not sure if anything would get through to you even if I argued with you for thousands of years, you seem so irreversibly brain damaged I would honestly be surprised if you could put 2+2 together, I'm done here[/QUOTE]
The first thing I do when I see your avatar is reach for the dumb rating.
[QUOTE=JLea;29999972]Actually Reagan's administration (ugh) made some legislation that meant journalists didn't have to be truthful anymore. I can't remember the name
EDIT: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine[/url][/QUOTE]
No, it wasn't regarding being "truthful" but rather having to give equal airtime to opposing viewpoints. Fairness Doctrine was repealed under Reagan as an "unnecessary" burden on free media.
It helped for the most part fuel the rise of talking heads and really sensationalist topics in the media such as this one with out an interjecting opinion from the other side- save of course the "moron" they might bring on and chew out.
You can still get sued for libel and/or slander, though. What never has been a requirement though is accuracy and research. Even back at the advent of press you always had papers that chose to go for sensationalist nonsense and twisting facts without looking up
Now with the Fox piece- this is a common formula they follow. Find something the "Real" American hates- violent video games? Check. Find a government agency that some how ties into it. NEA extending Art grants to video-game development projects? Works fine. US gubmint wasting your hard earned tax-dollars on the next violent video game that kids play like Call of Duty? You got a Fox story roaring to go.
And of course like the escapist piece said- it's hardly true. Fox is relying on people not even knowing how grants work or to what the NEA is offering them to. I work in research over on my campus and you can see professors (or their aids) busily preparing grant proposals to the relevant federal or private departments in order to fund their research. It's the same for any one needing funding for their programs- including the arts.
NEA recently expanded the possible candidates for the grant programs to include video gaming design. Some universities have been expanding greatly into 3D modelling and the like and the NEA feels that some of them can warrant artistic expression- so they allow these people to apply for grants too.
Now in regards to the "Piss Christ" thing posted earlier- the artistic piece it self wasn't made possible by the NEA. It won in a contest which received funding by the NEA. Misinformation by directing attention by one supposed instance of the 'taxpayers' money being wasted on something- particularly something that can be contrived as disrespecting religion or America. It ignores of course how many other things NEA grants have made possible- school and university courses in theater, bands, orchestra, writing, painting, sculpture, etc. to help people explore their talents. Or to host contests to let them compete and gain some recognition. Considering the future, why not "video games" or more appropriately computer-based arts?
There are a lot of people who otherwise might not find a venue to express their abilities.
Now if you want a case of your "taxpayer" dollars funding games, why not look at "America's Army" or what ended up becoming Full Spectrum Warrior? This is of course discounting simulations that aren't made public. Sometimes military guys are brought on as advisors and experts in designing games too. Where's Fox blasting that? Or is the DoD free of the vile nature that "liberal" institutions such as the NEA brings?
In regards to Video Game being Art or not, I recall a piece from Roger Ebert- hardly the wingtard material that fills Fox- that also echoed that Video Games aren't "Art".
[url]http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html[/url]
I think however video games can be art, so I don't share the views of Ebert. I'm just pointing out it's hardly something unique to them.
woah woah except ebert actually had a point don't compare him to fox
[QUOTE=MercZ;30001665]In regards to Video Game being Art or not, I recall a piece from Roger Ebert- hardly the wingtard material that fills Fox- that also echoed that Video Games aren't "Art".
[url]http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/04/video_games_can_never_be_art.html[/url]
I think however video games can be art, so I don't share the views of Ebert. I'm just pointing out it's hardly something unique to them.[/QUOTE]While he didn't fully redact that statement he did end up agreeing that games [i]may[/i] be a form of art after taking a look at Shadow of the Colossus.
[url]http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html[/url]
[QUOTE=Political Gamer;30001800]While he didn't fully redact that statement he did end up agreeing that games [i]may[/i] be a form of art after taking a look at Shadow of the Colossus.
[url]http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2010/07/okay_kids_play_on_my_lawn.html[/url][/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=thisispain;30001769]woah woah except ebert actually had a point don't compare him to fox[/QUOTE]
I know- what I was saying in that part of the post is though that the whole "video games isn't art thing" isn't really an argument unique to Fox. It's been said by others- Fox just warped into their usual drive against wastes of "taxpayers' dollars" articles that people eat up (ex how can CoD be art?). I'm not sure if you guys haven't gotten them before, but I used to have an annoying friend who'd send me those emails that were filled with "LOOK AT THE STUFF OUR GOVERNMENT IS WASTING OUR TAX PAYERS $$$$ ON ", usually exaggerated statements about Planned Parenthood clinics, some cultural awareness program, "luxurious" minimum security prisons, some thing being dedicated to an "anti-American" (in my particular email, it was about Cesar Chavez), and so on. That cheap, sensationalist bullshit was really the stuff I was trying to point out more in my post.
[QUOTE=Android phone;29995042]I don't understand what you just said
[url]http://gyazo.com/505f8b2131bfaa5abcfc4f4757263903.png[/url] is offensive and socially unacceptable
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/de/Piss_Christ_by_Serrano_Andres_(1987).jpg[/img] is offensive and socially unacceptable
one of the "artists" got $15,000 for their "work", but what makes one of them not art
or not worthy of $15,000
what makes one of them worth $15,000
I can't begin to comprehend how you people can have such shameful double standards[/QUOTE]
You know, even if you just declare everything you don't like as not art surely you can see that the medium, at least, is capable of producing art to your standard and should be funded because of that? Also, if we limit funding of art to what is socially acceptable I think we lose a lot of really worthwhile insight that you just can't see.
Even though the article seems very biased, I agree.
[QUOTE=DesumThePanda;30008131]Even though the article seems very biased, I agree.[/QUOTE]
All in all, the video pretty much speaks for itself.
"Yeah, yeh, yeh, yeh so my point is blah blah." What a idiot.
[QUOTE=amute;29997091]Can you put your head in a microwave pls?[/QUOTE]
Can you shut up? every post you make is to mindlessly insult people with opposing views to you!
Maybe don't say dumb things next time? lol
[QUOTE='[sluggo];30018474']Can you shut up? every post you make is to mindlessly insult people with opposing views to you![/QUOTE]
Saying Fox is inherently unbias and them evil leftist networks are next to propaganda, is in itself, the epitome of stupidity.
That avatar of yours is really ironic
[QUOTE=Android phone;29991358]humanity was founded on this?
[img]http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/piss_christ.jpg[/img]
that piece is called the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ]'piss christ'[/url]
it was funded in part by the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts]national endowment for the arts,[/url] which pours tax money into "art"
can you come up with one single reason why I should have my money forcefully taken away from me and sent towards this[/QUOTE]
Okay, so because you don't understand or like more modern forms of art, it's shit and shouldn't be funded?
Yeah, you want to know why the government funds these things? Not all art is commercially viable or meant to be. And it shouldn't all be. Art shouldn't just be about making money, and the only way art gets sponsored outside of commercial investments is from, the government, artist run foundations, and grant foundations. They do this so that art doesn't become a for profit business, that people can still explore their artistic visions without being stopped by the monetary market for art.
[QUOTE=Android phone;29991358]humanity was founded on this?
[img]http://howcanpeoplebesostupid.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/piss_christ.jpg[/img]
that piece is called the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ]'piss christ'[/url]
it was funded in part by the [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Endowment_for_the_Arts]national endowment for the arts,[/url] which pours tax money into "art"
can you come up with one single reason why I should have my money forcefully taken away from me and sent towards this[/QUOTE]Being perfectly honest here: I think that the Piss Christ looks pretty neat in that picture.
Never knew that a sea of urine could [i]literally[/i] cause a golden glow, and methods aside that kind of effect seems fitting for a work featuring a holy figure.
I didn't bother sharing my opinions nor explaining my feelings on any of the art he posted, simply because android phone is artistically retarded. And proably thinks the renaissance was a waste of time (They should have focused less on art, and more on killing people)
I think PissChrist is a neat concept. There's lots of symbolism in it, plus the concept is unique. Using urine to create an intresting colour and lighting scheme. I kinda wish they used a better name for it, though.
Honestly, Android picks out the less sanitary pieces of art, probably because he's a 12 year old who goes EWWW ICKY, when he's posed by something. OMG URINE IS SO GROSS. Grow the fuck up, android, you piss just like the rest of humans. It's dirty water that is being stored in your body.
[QUOTE=amute;30021069]I didn't bother sharing my opinions nor explaining my feelings on any of the art he posted, simply because android phone is artistically retarded. And proably thinks the renaissance was a waste of time (They should have focused less on art, and more on killing people)
I think PissChrist is a neat concept. There's lots of symbolism in it, plus the concept is unique. Using urine to create an intresting colour and lighting scheme. I kinda wish they used a better name for it, though.
Honestly, Android picks out the less sanitary pieces of art, probably because he's a 12 year old who goes EWWW ICKY, when he's posed by something. OMG URINE IS SO GROSS. Grow the fuck up, android, you piss just like the rest of humans. It's dirty water that is being stored in your body.[/QUOTE]
I wonder how he'd feel if he could see the paintings made of his own shit by one artist. It really doesn't matter what people "think" art is. Art is so subjective, wide, varied, and says so many different things, no one definition of it can ever fit.
while i dont want to see any funding go to art, i dont think games should be discriminated against. its just another case of the generation before refusing to recognize a artform. the same happened with movies.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.