next »

[Paul Eres]

"Art Games". And why not "Art Music" or "Art Movies"?

those exist too. art music and art film are both real things, and predate art games.

Really?

Is there any definition of what it is?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_film
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_music

[Alistair Aitcheson]

I think getting into a whole "games as art?" discussion is missing the point really. This looks like an excellent opportunity for developers. If they think their project may be eligible it's well worth checking out what funding could be available to them, and how to apply. Thanks, Frabberjabber, for posting the link

[Paul Eres]

what would really be useful is a list of games that have gotten this grant (if any) and words from the people who developed those games as to how to go about it -- simply posting a link isn't particularly helpful because we don't know what type of games (if any) they're willing to fund

i do believe that belgium gives grants for this sort of thing, tale of tales mentioned being funded partially by these types of grants

[frabberjabber]

what would really be useful is a list of games that have gotten this grant (if any)

This is the first year the grant has been available for games. Until now, it's been for art in radio and television; now it's for art in media. I guess my hope in just posting the link was that someone would apply for and win a grant and then we could have a better idea what the judges are looking for. I'm really sincerely curious about what the NEA thinks about video games and what they can be convinced of.

And please, please forgive me for starting the art game fight again.

[Klaim]

I agree that the discussion is steril when talking about "art" of anything.

What I don't like is just to specify that some games or whatever have to be "art" to be worth being selected or something. I find it just strange.


Anyway, at least it's a good thing that the medium get official reconaissance.

[Paul Eres]

i don't really find it strange. if you pay taxes, wouldn't you rather know your money is going to fund games that are unorthodox or culturally significant in some way, or an experimental game, rather than your money going to fund another FPS or something, even if the latter is more fun to play? i mean, assuming you had to choose where the money goes between the two (you might prefer to fund neither). it seems like a better value for the money to fund experimental games, since sometimes experiments lead to new developments.

[Klaim]

i don't really find it strange. if you pay taxes, wouldn't you rather know your money is going to fund games that are unorthodox or culturally significant in some way, or an experimental game, rather than your money going to fund another FPS or something, even if the latter is more fun to play? i mean, assuming you had to choose where the money goes between the two (you might prefer to fund neither). it seems like a better value for the money to fund experimental games, since sometimes experiments lead to new developments.

In my point of view, experimental or "different" games are not bound to to "good" game. The games that are good and experimental are rare. That said, that don't help at all in this discussion.

I agree that it's better to fund the games that will be categorized "art games" than to fund another industry-style game.

[Paul Eres]

if i'm interpreting you right, you don't believe games that are interesting, but not good or fun, should be made? i don't really understand that position; if a game isn't good or fun, just don't play it, you don't have to. it can still contribute in other ways to the development of the form. art games can be good or interesting to game designers or videogame theorists but boring or stupid to normal players, and that's expected, even

there are a number of games which aren't particularly good, but are historically important for their experiments or innovations, which other games later took and made into much better games. for instance, wolfenstein 3d, or dune 2, or star raiders

i think it's perfectly fine to make a game for experiment's sake, not intending it to be popular or fun, but just to see what the results will be from such a game, to see if anything interesting comes out of the experiment. that's part of what arts funding is for, to encourage games like that so that the form will progress, not to make individually good games

[Leroy Binks]

This grant appears to be for non-profit orgs?  Or units of local government, or tribes?  Not individuals?  I don't know of any indies who have set themselves as nonprofits, units of local government, or tribes ...

How the hell do you spend $200,000 and be non-profit?  and they wonder why America is broke.  I would rather see easy to get business start-up grants for $50,000 or so and get people working together and truly paid to do this than just give money to an art project than helps no one but the artist.

[adam_smasher]

...an art project than helps no one but the artist.

Note that it's $10,000 up to $200,000. I imagine if the cost isn't justifiable, then the grant won't go near that upper limit. And, please, seriously consider the costs of making a game, even a small indie game - living expenses for a small team of people, renting out a workspace maybe or a recording studio (for sound/music), hiring freelancers for art/music, cost of equipment/materials, software licenses, perhaps the material costs associated with engineering/building an installation if the game does something physically unique, advertising, etc. Not all of these would be necessary, necessarily, and of course an indie game can be made on the cheap in some dude's garage in their spare time. But if we're really serious about moving the medium forward, supporting the sort of people who are trying to do just that is a good idea - especially if it frees them from market pressures and the tyranny of the majority.

...and arts funding has absolutely nothing to do with why America is broke. A country like Germany spends far, far more supporting the arts and their finances look much better than the US', thank you very much.

[Alistair Aitcheson]

I find it a little hard to see what there is to complain about here. The NEA has a budget to finance artistic endeavours, and has decided to extend this to digital projects which may include video games.

To suggest that they're excluding non-"art games" seems a little silly in that respect, as this is money that's being given to fund artistic endeavours, not to fund "good video games". It's like complaining if a grant from the department of education isn't being given to non-educational games. The NEA's objective is to promote art and culture, not to fly the flag for a specific medium.

[Leroy Binks]

Millions of people flock to the Mona Lisa.  Millions of people listen to Mozart. Millions of people read Vonnegut. and Millions of people played Myst.

All of these thing are both artistic and popular and were not subject to the tyranny of the majority. Likewise, just because something is popular doesn't mean it isn't relevant art. 

I concede that it says up to $200,000 and that the expenses can run very high, but I cannot justify "extracurricular" gov. spending in a time of need and 9% unemployment. All I was saying is that these should not be "non-profit" endevours but give talented game makers a chance at a career.

@Alistair umm... why would you allocate money for education onnly to spend it on something else and NOT complain?

[adam_smasher]

The NEA, in this case, is the National Endowment for the Arts. No relation to the National Education Agency.

Picture a Venn Diagram - there is a circle for "art" and a circle for "commerce" and they overlap. There is indeed worthwhile art with commercial appeal. Doesn't mean that art without it isn't worth supporting. Anyway, suppose that Da Vinci came along and said he needed $10,000 to paint a picture of some lady (probably more - he took nearly 17 years to paint it). Without knowing how things turned out, would you have given it to him, or would you have said that it was a waste of money?

The NEA costs the US about $150 million. By comparison, the DoD costs around $650 billion - nearly 4500x more! The extension of the Bush tax cuts is costing America $3.3 trillion dollars. The NEA helps artists create works that enrich culture; fills American museums with innovative works that bring in tourists, and yes, money; I'm also skeptical about your claim that making a successfully funded work of art wouldn't help people get jobs (isn't Rohrer making a DS game or something?). The DoD mostly builds weapons and kills people. In the grand scheme of things, is the NEA really all that wasteful? Are its benefits really not worth the - in fact - relatively minor impact on the US budget?  You could slash it 22 thousand times over and still not equal those tax cuts.

And it's not as though the US doesn't do anything for small businesses either. I can't find any numbers at the moment, but I strongly, strongly suspect that the amount of money that goes towards them absolutely dwarfs what goes toward the NEA.

[Leroy Binks]

The NEA, in this case, is the National Endowment for the Arts. No relation to the National Education Agency.

I thought alistair was just making a general statement that seemed like a bad example.  And you're right.  In times of lean all things should be cut.  We don't need to be involved in foreign wars when we cannot support our life at home. We shouldn't be in Libya, we should have finished Iraq years ago, and occupation of Afghanistan is a no win situation.  Billions of dollars each year in each country that doesn't make a new job, a new home, or fix problems at home.

That being said, the NEA should not be a gov. agency.  If you want to support the arts, and many people do, you can give to many NGOs that run their organizations better than have the gov forcibly take tax money from all of us.  Hell, the governmen never ceases to take money from us and schools are being forced to cut music programs. they are ill equipped to run things.  The gov. should build roads, bridges, schools, protect us, control the borders, and keep the wheels of commerce turning.  Thats's about it. Sorry, but there are too many ways to support non-profits than through the gov.

(and Da Vinci had better hope all the people of the countryside had enough to eat before he came and asked to borrow money to paint a picture  )

[Paul Eres]

america is not actually 'broke' exactly -- it has a higher GDP than any other country. it has a large national debt, the largest in the world, but as a % of its GDP, that debt isn't that large -- the US debt is about 100% of the GDP (meaning if you put all the money the US made into paying the debt, it would be paid in one year). that's a lot lower than some other countries, which have debts up to 2000% of their GDP -- even japan has a debt of 200% of its GDP (so japan owes twice as much as it makes in a year, the US only owes as much as it makes in a year).

i'm against useless spending on principle too of course, but there's spending that's a lot more useless than this. consider that we give billions a year to farmers *not* to grow food -- we actually pay farmers if they grow less food than they could grow. that's a pretty stupid use of money, no? if you have land that could be used for farming, but isn't, you're  paid a lot of money every year not to grow food on it. next to that, a mere 150m for the arts is peanuts; individual farmers are often paid millions per year (depending on how much land they don't grow food with). the US uses the lowest % of its budget on arts of pretty much any industrialized country in the world (and it shows -- the US people are often considered most anti-art and anti-intellectual of any people in the world).