Alright, there is a big stink right now because SCRPG! Was invited to be in the Slamdance Game Festival and subsequently removed from the roster due to pressure from…well, that depends on who you ask. Whatever. It’s out and people are pissed. But a good kind of pissed, because I’ve mostly read very thoughtful ruminations on the matter. I downloaded the game, but haven’t played it yet. I don’t know when I’ll get around to it, since kind of the whole point is not whether it is “Art” but whether works that don’t receive universal approval deserve to be seen. And the answer is…depends. An artist can create whatever he likes, and can try to show it to whom ever he likes, but that doesn’t mean venues created to show works of that nature are required to show that particular piece. If they are footing the bill, it’s up to them. However, in the case of the Slamdance Festival, I think it was in poor taste to invite SCRPG! to join the festival, only to slam the door in its face (no pun intended, I swear to God) when trouble was brewing.

John Brownlee has post over on Wired Blogs concerning the topic and asked for replies to several questions surrounding the issues of censorship and creative responsibility. I’ve cut-n-pasted said questions and how I responded:

1) Are games less valid a form of artistic expression than other mediums of art?

I'm tired of this "Are games art?" debate. Art resides within the viewer, not the medium, nor even within a specific work. A painted "work of art" may move some people and leave others unaffected. My perception of art will not perfectly overlap yours, nor will our perceptions perfectly align with anyone else's. Concerning your question: It is fruitless to try to decide which forms of art are stronger than others, as they all possess differing strengths.

2) If so, why is that? What is the defining quality that makes games — a medium ostensibly more interactive than any other form — less deserving of the right accorded to other art, which is to convey emotion and comment upon truth as an artist sees it?

I think that people judge games under the assumption that have already shown all that they hope to offer in terms of emotion and message. I greatly disagree with this, as I believe games will continue to evolve over the next several decades.

3) If it's interactivity that makes games less deserving of the right to be a medium of free artistic expression than other mediums, what are the repercussions for the future of art, which — with the evolution of cheap technology — continues to become more interactive in nearly all of its forms?

The solution to this quandary remains to be seen, but I'm excited by its prospect. The challenge of an artist delivering his message through a game, while allowing the player freedom of choice, is truly daunting, but imagine how powerful the results will be once the hurdle is overcome.

4) If games are merely harmful because they are offensive or insensitive, should they be banned?

No. The definition of "offensive" and "insensitive" varies wildly from person to person. No one has the right to prevent me from experiencing the art I choose to observe, even if I will not enjoy it. Games that have no redeeming qualities will quickly fall by the wayside.

5) Who determines whether or not a game is offensive?

The viewer. And he has the right to express his opinion, but God damn him if he subverts others' ability to experience the game themselves.

6) If art that is offensive is banned, what sort of art would we be left with?

Pokemon.

7) Let's assume that games actually are harmful to its audience. If that's true, is free artistic expression worth more to a free society than a human life? How many lives is it worth?

How many lives was the invention of the automobile worth? How many lives was the invention of the airplane worth? It is not in our nature to avoid new frontiers, even if risk is involved.

8) If the answer is "a game designer's right to free expression isn't worth any number of human lives," doesn't it follow that we should prosecute game designers for works that can be proven to be harmful to even a single person?

Do we prosecute writers? Filmmakers? Painters? Doesn't the idea of doing so seem ridiculous? Life in such a climate would be bleak indeed.

9) If game designers can be prosecuted for their work, why should writers, musicians, film artists, be exempt? Examples: J.D. Salinger prosecuted for the death of John Lennon.

See above.

10) If artists can be prosecuted for work that results in other people's deaths, shouldn't they also be prosecuted for inflicting psychological trauma on individuals? After all, one begets another.

Human beings are often weak, malleable creatures. A dangerous person does not become so because of television or music or games. They may influence his specific actions, but in their absence, he would simply find inspiration elsewhere.

11) Since an artist's desired emotional or philosophical resonance with his audience is unpredictably wrought, what sort of safeguards would we put on art to determine whether or not its release would be harmful? Would a government review body be required? Would we input art into a computer and have it run statistical analyses on it?

This sounds less like a question than a statement about the absurdity of such a course of action.

12) At the end of the day, if artists are held accountable for the trauma (whether physical or mental) inflicted by their work, what sort of art would survive?

Even if held accountable, artists would still create and share their works. That's what makes them artists.

-Jason