Video games are OFFICALLY recognized as ART by NEA
 

Read more: http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/pos...#ixzz1LylkbNH3

and a more detailed artical
http://gaming.icrontic.com/article/n...e-an-art-form/
So The US goverment has offically recognized videogames as an art form. Not only that but they are offering grants on making video games!

I am so happy!

As a game developer: I don't really care. :P As long as people are enjoying them, what's it matter what they're called?

Because this opens a lot of avenues for more game development as well as funding, and you don't have to be a major publisher to obtain capital?

not only that but anything that is labeled as art essentially has first amendment rights (and even some subconscious privileges) meaning that games can not be labeled as obscene. Also eliminates the one complaint art has about video games, That they are to commercially invested to be considered art.

Art is a very prestigious title that means a lot to many different people.

I'm not gonna lie, I just read the thread title, and saw wall o' quote, and had to get my two cents in on the topic of games as art.


Funding is good though!

I'm kind of annoyed by this, it will just drain funds from other arts and I don't thikn the videogame industry needs it. Evena s the most indepedent videogame developer it is still seems that it would be so much easier to make a living than as an indepedent artist or sculptor or such like- your market is so much bigger, you make your product you can sell it infinite times, distribution channels are much easier and there are big companies that can pick up your work/you that don't exist for other arts. Unless they re massively increasing NEA funding I don't see it as beneficial.

Also people talking about videogames now achieving a title as "art"- there is no such title or category and if there was it wouldn't be decided by government funding boards.

Smarty, you might be a little off base here... From the "Arts" point of view, funding is more likely to go to small studios with fun, new, unique, artistic views for the games. We're likely to see more new studios and Gaming Professionals on the scene with a chance... Triple A major brand games are also very artfull but in the funding department, they are much more like a business product instead of an Artistic Expression

Yeah, Smarty, even a small budget indie title can take up to $50,000 to develop. While there might be a larger market, making a game is undeniably a more expensive endeavor than a sculpture or a painting. Even if you're doing what I'm doing, and just splitting shares of the profits, and everyone's going unpaid until release, we're still working without pay.

It's like, doing the same thing as an artist trying to make it their living, except that there are more people involved and it's more expensive when you have to pay people.

Woo, I'm classy now!
 

So, can I say that I take part in artsy/classy/ stuff now?

this is not for people wanting to make a living, this is for people that want to contribute to culture without having to sell their blood for rent money.

Think about it, this means people can now make games that aren't commercially viable. Games on political commentary, interactive teaching tools, games that are a fully immersive painting. If used right this can generate an entirely new art culture that we haven't seen since creation of movies

I like that they recognized it as art, but I'm with Smarty on the money. The size of the grants they're giving mean literally nothing toward financing game production. It's not enough to make a difference to making games that aren't commercially viable, so it's mostly just a waste.

Games need their own group like the NEA who give out fewer, but higher value, grants to people making artistic games.

why exactly? Nearest I can tell that 200,000 cap applies to all art, including movies that in the mainstream cost even more millions then video games. 200k is still more then alot of big indie games had to work with and many of them make a good artistic statement.

200k is definitely enough for a small indie studio to come up with something, if those are the amounts that we're talking about. As I said before, the average indie game costs something around $50k to make, I believe.

200k is plenty for an indie movie. You only need, what? Twenty, maybe thirty people? That's... 7-10k each. You can shoot the movie over a couple of months. That factors out to what... 30k salary for every one on the movie... minus maybe 10-20k for materials and shit, and you're still working out to everyone taking a few months off paid and paying for everything in the movie.

200k is MAYBE plenty for an indie game. But it's not really going to help them that much. You've got more people working on it, and you're talking one year minimum development time, plus various materials for everything from the VA and sound shit (renting a studio, possibly hiring VA, etc) to the art supplies for story boards and planning.

Indie games worked with less because they were done in people's spare time while they were doing other jobs, or by people who were supported by other titles in their indie line up.

The point of NEA is to toss 200k to a movie crew so that they can focus on their artsy movie shit for the full 6 months or whatever it takes to make it. Not to toss 200k to some people so that they can still only do it in their down time while working two jobs, and not really hurry along production at all.

Further, that's the maximum amount they drop. What's 10k going to do for an indie game?

Edit: It might be helpful over all, but it's not going to have the same impact on less time intensive arts. Plus you have to understand that making a game often involves making movies and what not within that game. It's just a much larger enterprise than any other media right now to create, because it incorporates every other media, much as movies incorporate paintings and sculptures and music, video games incorporate paintings (level design, story board, character design, etc), sculptures (again with the design shit), music, and full on movies, on top of the actual video game itself.

Still a lot. 1/5th of the total cost for free is quite a bit. And they can be made for less than $50k, that's just the accepted average.

No offense, but it really seems like you don't know what you're talking about in terms of how such a thing works, and more just don't want the money going to indie game developers, which is absolutely fine. But, if that's the case, you ought to just say so, rather than making up reasons why it won't help.


Edit: For example, if you have a crew of 30+ people working on your indie game, that is a very very large indie game. Retro Studios was only like 50 people, when it made the first Metroid Prime game. Not a -great- example, since it's not the rule, but it gives you an idea what can be accomplished with few people.

Double edit: A bit of info from Wikipedia on indie games.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indepen...me_development

Where do you get your costs? I've never heard of a game, indie or not, being developed by two people in under a year. That would leave them making 25k salaries if they just stopped and focused on their art and doesn't factor in the costs of everything else associated with it.

I mean, the contemporary AVERAGE game production cost is 20million. For a triple a title you're looking at 40 million easy. Some go over fifty million.

What are we factoring into the cost of this indie game production? Paying the team? Apparently not? Are we factoring in one time costs for buying production kits? Engines? Are we factoring in time costs?

I mean, I find it very hard to believe that 50k is the accepted norm for any game, indie or otherwise. Unless it's like... something made with game creator or some such with open source graphics.

Edit@YourEdit: Those are far far far from the rule, however. Having someone finish in a few days working alone, and those aren't the ones that really... do or get anything. I guess they could finance games like "I shot Andy Warhol" but those have such low overheads that it's pretty much pointless to do so. One guy can do it alone after work and it's not like doing a painting or shooting a movie, where you're going to 'lose your energy' part way through typing the sixteenth line of code or whatever.

This is the more common indie game scenario:

Publishing costs for an indie game are getting easier and easier to handle. For example, licensing for an indie game on the 360 is $99 for a license to publish 12 games, for one year, with a 30% cut taken from it. For the PC, there is literally no licensing cost, nor really any start up cost, as you've got plenty of compilers available for free. The only real licensing costs would be those of Steam, perhaps, and I'm not entirely sure what that entails.

And devoting full time to it, a team of two can easily come out with an indie game in a half year to a year. One of the reasons that indie game development might take so long is because they -can't- work full time on it, because they need money and are working a job to pay for the development. The only other option is try to hold out on what money you have, and hope that you don't run out and need a job before you publish.

A big difference between an indie game and a AAA multimillion dollar game is the scale, advertising, marketability, et cetera. If you're getting funded by a publisher, they want to know that they'll be making their money back on you. Generally how it works is you're paid at certain points throughout development, and then the publisher will get money from the sales, until they hit the threshold of, "Hey, we've made money, I guess you guys can have some royalties now". What that means is that the publisher has a vested interest in making sure that your game is marketable to the right demographics.

In an indie game, you don't have the publisher to please anymore, but generally will have to scale it down to something smaller and cheaper. Look at games like Bit.Trip.Beat. It's an awesome game, but also really really short. It's three levels long, and each level is what, ten minutes tops, if you play it through perfectly? Maybe less than that. I mean, you'll get way more than 30 minutes of entertainment out of it, because if you can beat it first try then you're absolutely amazing, but it's still a small scale thing. They didn't require an engine that someone else designed, or a ton of art resources or anything, they made do with the small budget, and made something awesome with it.


I dunno where I've gone/am going with this, it's 3 AM and I'm rambling. If I had something that I was trying to get at, I forget it, but I'd totally restate it here if I remembered.


Edit at your edit:
Bolded what I think is the important bit there. The costs incurred weren't development related, but instead the fact that it took so long to get developed. I'm not sure of the situation in developing Braid, but I'm going to assume that over those three years, he was working a second or third job to cover expenses. Because he couldn't devote full time to the game, it lengthened the development time, and more costs were incurred. It's a problem that builds upon itself, because time is literally also money, in development. If, for example, you have no sound guy, and a budget of $50,000. You can either choose to take a portion of that budget and buy a sound guy, or you can take a few weeks or months learning how to do the sound yourself, and push development back further, which will incur increased costs of living expenses. It's a tradeoff, but without the $50,000 budget, you have no choice but to just incur more costs by pushing back development, and have to pick up a job to pay for that, which pushes things back further.


Double edit: I'd like to continue this conversation later, if you want, but I really ought to sleep. Hopefully someone else can jump in and correct me if I've made any mistakes, or continue my point if I'm actually somehow right. :P

most indie games, nearly all smartphone games, and all games made before 1990.

yes, this is true for mainstream games, following quote is true about movies
Braid is not average, Braid is by indie standards insanely expensive.

World of Goo cost 10k, for example.

if its non-profit (which all games getting this grant must be) then there are engines available for free. Simple graphics are not hard to make, lots of people on this forum do it as a hobby. and if you are ok with 2D, you can just port in photoshop sprites. Sound effects, again lots free for things like this, there are people that do it for free just to get their name out there, and even paid its only a few thousand for multiple songs, all sound effects, and cost to add in voice acting.

If you are lucky voice acting is a non-issue and people working on it can do it. Even if not there are alot of amateurs that would be happy to help, flash movie community lives off them. Or you can just not have them, as someone that grew up in the 8/16 bit era you should know this first hand

As a point of reference, the game I've talked with some people about releasing sometime at the end of the summer probably has been in development for only about 3/4s of a year. We've just been putting spare time towards it whenever possible.

I'm with Smarty on this. The recognition is nice, but the money should go to less marketable arts. After all, who is more likely to end up A sculpter or an indie game creator?

I know some sculptors. I don't think those fuckers ever pay their rent. Just saying.

Both, actually.

Indie game creators either go broke and living off money they had saved up while getting no money and developing a game, or working themselves to the bones to be able to support themselves and make a game in the extra time they have because they love doing it. Pretty much the same as a sculptor who has no money and has to pick up a job while they do their sculpting in their off time, because they have no income from the sculpting.

The differnece between making a game will lead to a marketable product/job opportunities/bigger projects funding. None of these exist for the more marginal arts.

And with allt he discussion on costs regardless of what cost you put on making a game it is still going to be fuck loads more than supporting say a painter or a sculptor who only really needs a salary and materials. not a whole team of people, lots of computers lots of training/lots of outside work, funding for the million different parts that go into making a game.

And shit modern art- those painters only need one, maybe two colours of paint! And sculptors only need trash!

Okay, so I'm not the only one that feels like some modern art sculptures are just, "Okay, let's give this dude a bendable piece of metal, and see what happens", then?

I'd say that your argument (Costs-wise, at least) is a reason -to- give funding to game development: The costs are higher, and more money is more needed to create than for other arts (If we're calling games art. I honestly don't care too much about the label). And I don't really think, "Well, if you ever had money to start up your own expensive thing, you could get a job out of it later, whereas if these guys are doing their inexpensive thing, and they won't get a job out of it" is really an argument against giving money to game makers. They still need to start up, in order to possibly get discovered. And being picked up by a big development company for making an indie game is REALLY unlikely. Jobs as game designers are incredibly hard to get into, and for people to really create their own game that they want, an indie game is the way that they have to do it.

Like, making a great indie game is in no way a recipe for success, or to get yourself a job. Look at the Portal 2 ARG: People were complaining about having to play indie games, because "DUDE, INDIE GAMES ARE LIKE THESE THINGS THAT NO ONE CARES ABOUT, I CAN'T BELIEVE I HAVE TO PLAY THESE IN ORDER TO GET PORTAL 2". It's silly, but it's a stigma that does exist among "teh hardcore" gamers.


What I'm getting at is, making an indie game is really the only way for someone to make the game that they want to. If we're going to call games an art form, then we ought to make it available to people to make their art, which is more expansive and expensive than the other arts, and much harder to self fund.

Late on getting in the thread, but I think this is wonderful news for the gaming industry. This gives it more formal recognition and more excuses for funding.

Also if you go into game design you could legitimately call yourself an artist.

Totally and legitimately?


I'll be honest, I have a bit of a bias towards wanting funding towards games, insofar as I'm all, "You can't disagree with this with improper facts!", but I don't actually care about it too deeply, because my funding woes are nearly settled now, and the game is slated to be finished within the coming months. :P

Heyyy guys, you'll never guess which news outlet is being a manipulative asshole about this whole thing.

Seriosly, "Ping-Pong"? What-the-fuck.

Holy shit, I actually agree with Fox News and that other speaker and disagree with you.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH TODAY

(For the record Fox's insinuation that Call of Duty would be the type of game receiving the grants was petty, stupid and intended merely to inflame prejudiced viewers, but that bullshit aside, yeah I agree with their perspective on this one. We are simply in too much fucking debt to afford giving taxpayer federal grants to videogame developers. This is a perfect example of the kind of excessive spending the government should stop because it's not welfare benefiting the poor or regulations benefiting the environment, it's a fucking outright waste of cash.)

By that logic, we ought to cut ALL the arts grants. Unless they're allocating more money, because of this, instead of just reallocating what they have.

Yes, the eternal argument that making it a possibility to give money to somewhere else is automatically out of the purse of those who need it more.

I mean if we're going down that slope, there are a LOT of other places to save money from. Things like defense spendings, where we are actually talking such ammounts of money that would make a real difference. The possibility of 10 000 - 200 000 per game really isn't what is bankrupting your federal goverment.

It's not even spending. It's tax cuts and tax holes that are only available to the super wealthy, resulting in a loss of billions upon billions upon billions of tax revenue every year with no appreciable positive effect on the economy.

Edit: I mean there's lots of superfluous spending we could probably cut back on, and even more we could not so much cut back on as make more efficient so that more of it goes to where it's needed (and then we probably wouldn't need as much to achieve the same results) but none of it is going to help balance the budget as quickly as just properly taxing the rich, because most of it (defense spending included) actually does stimulate the economy as that for any government spending initiative there has to be people DOING whatever thing they are wasting money, which means more, usually near entry level, jobs. Which means a stronger economy. Which means more tax income in the long term.

So while one could balance the budget with cuts (and there are lots of cuts that can and should be made, like toward things such as the drug war or for profit prisons or off shore detention centers) it's really attacking the problem from the wrong angle.

I'd agree entirely with that logic.

Look, the problem is the United States is broke. Like I think a lot of us like to pretend the United States isn't broke because it's not affecting us personally, like it's not literally our own money in our own bank accounts, so we're like immunized from the depth and breadth of the problem.

Don't interpret my statement as some Republican Tea Party douchebaggery because ultimately I believe that raising taxes on the wealthy and cutting excessive military spending is the majority of the solution. The problem is even doing all that isn't going to cut our multi-trillion dollar deficit down. A halfway decent political leader would realize this and cut spending in other discretionary sectors.

I realize it's politically unpopular to say this, but the bottom line is, we can't continue to enjoy the degree of lavish federal spending we've taken for granted all these years. The bubble's going to burst. And logically speaking, if I seriously advocate that even despite our huge debt the United States should be spending more to regulate greenhouse gases or assist the poor through welfare programs, I have to accept the reality that cuts need to be made somewhere, and cuts to military programs or other programs "we wouldn't miss" alone isn't enough.

It's nice to live in a fantasy world where we could spend all kinds of money we don't have to support every pet project we'd love to see, but that's not the world we can afford to live in. I wouldn't cut funding for the arts in its entirety...I'm not saying I'd cut funding for the Smithsonian or NPR. But I certainly don't see the logic in essentially having taxpayers pay money to videogame developers to develop "Indie games." I love Braid and ICO and The Oregon Trail as much as the next gamer, but my personal preferences as a "gamer" shouldn't subvert national policy, and frankly great educational games will still be made even without federal grant money. And that same logic applies to other forms of art, such as music or movies. I love a great indie film or a documentary, but you can't possibly argue that federal money should be dumped in there when we're in this much debt.

(The problem with the Tea Partiers and the Republican party is that they'll harp on cutting too much discretionary spending and then refuse to cut the military budget or raise taxes on the wealthy. And then they'll attempt to cut spending we should view as mandatory, such as funding for the Environmental Protection Agency or to Planned Parenthood. But that doesn't change the fact that some of the discretionary programs they'd like to see cut actually should be cut, given the shithole of debt we're in right now.)

EDIT:
This is a deliberately overbroad interpretation of my argument and you know it. Nowhere did I mention military spending and I sure as hell support stringent cuts into military programs.
Furthermore, I never suggested that America's debt problems would be solved simply by cutting funding to videogames. That's facetious logic. It almost sounds like you're just trying to deliberately equate me to the Tea Party loons. My point is we're going to have to cut extensive amounts of spending in many, many sectors, and this program is merely an example of something that should be cut.

Cutting this alone certainly is insufficient, but cutting it and a multitude of other discretionary programs, most notably in our military budget, as well as raising taxes for the wealthy is all part of the short-term solution.

Once we balance the budget -- while spending considerably more than we currently are to combat Global Warming and poverty -- that would be an appropriate time to start discussing funding for discretionary programs again.

Hell no.
The US isn't broke.

It's got billions of potential tax revenue, like Krylo said. Did you know the budget cuts can be avoided if some of the biggest companies (oil, coal and the like) paid their taxes?

Like, there'd be money to spare to put into the national debt.

EDIT: Here, look at this:
http://understory.ran.org/wp-content..._2533x1380.jpg

Well, I wasn't actually saying that, though maybe I wasn't clear enough.

What I meant was: Those 62 billion can be used to cancel out the 32 billion cuts.
The surplus can go to the national debt, though it'll be only a pinprick compared to what's needed.
After that, you can do a reassessment of what, exactly, needs cutting. (which is a cycle, really, but those 62 billion, annually, will help a great deal.)

People talk about cutting the military spending so that they can give more grants and things.
But the US ilitary is simply a giant performing art piece.

Yeah but that's kind of exactly my point.
I wasn't trying to say "Look, let's cut funding for the arts instead of raising taxes on the wealthy or taxing corporations or cutting funding for the latest military drone." The Republican Party is essentially saying that, but they're douches.

I'm saying that if you're really a Democrat who's really concerned about the threat of global warming or preventing poverty or providing universal healthcare, you can't simultaneously advocate increased spending into "mandatory" regulations and then also say "Let's fund all these other discretionary programs, including these lovely grants for video games" when we're in that much debt. Simply saying "we'll tax the wealthy and corporations" to justify excess spending is a ludicrous and unrealistic argument because as noted in the above chart the entire energy industry doesn't make sufficient revenue to cover the national debt. Again, I think part of the problem there is that a lot of people don't quite fully appreciate how massive a number "14 trillion dollars" is.

A decent Democratic politician is going to raise taxes on the wealthy, slash military spending, increase GHG regulations, fund renewable energy resource development, fund universal healthcare and fund welfare programs. But that same politician is going to have to cut more than just programs that are politically "unpopular" with liberals in order to ensure fiscal responsibility. If Democrats are unwilling to do so, they merely play into Republicans' hands, as Republicans can then dismiss them under the stereotype of the idealist who simply spends too much and who has no realistic conceptualization of what government funding can and cannot do.

Now, I suppose you could argue that Democrats shouldn't agree to reduce spending into discretionary programs unless the Republicans agree to cut military spending and raise taxes, and you'd be technically right. Unfortunately, that kind of political deadlock is only going to prolong and exacerbate the national debt. The Republicans deserve the blame, sure, but that doesn't change the fact that we're wading into a very deep pile of shit.

I just love how the tags include, terrible, bias, and unbalanced

but that whole interview was stupid. It amounted to
"video games are art"
"no they aren't"

neither side really said anything

Hey Snake, how about the top 10% of wealthiest people? They pay about 70% of the taxes and hold about 90-95% of the total wealth.

Now, with our progressive tax system they should be paying about three times as much as the bottom bracket and around 1.5x of the next couple, of their income.

What this means is that they should be paying about 30% more money than they currently are. This would be roughly a 21% increase in federal tax revenue over all.

Current tax revenue, just on income taxes, is 2 trillion, total revenue is about 5.5 trillion.

That's another four hundred billion if we JUST fix their income tax rates. About one trillion if we fix all their taxes.


Now, what would happen if we were to say... add another tax bracket at about oh, 1 million and above that goes to fifty percent.

That's another roughly 19% total tax revenue. Doubling those numbers. That's 2 trillion in extra tax revenue.

Now let's say that we were to put government money toward reducing the unemployment rate instead of making cuts. Let's assume we can get people jobs that pay around 20-40k. There's are 307 million people in the US and an 8.7% unemployment rate. Assuming we can get them jobs that pay around 30k per year, enough to reasonably raise a family, every 1 percent we drop that is 3,070,000 people with jobs, each one paying 4.5k in tax revenue (15% of 30,000). JUST income tax, not counting property taxes or anything else.

That's 13.8 billion in tax revenue. Just for a one percent drop in unemployment.

Let's add the 62 billion increase from Melfice's thing.

Now let's drop the Drug war. That's a 16 billion dollar decrease in spending.


Now, let's add all that up, without touching any programs that anyone actually wants or needs:

YEARLY INCOME INCREASE: 2.21 trillion.

YEARLY BUDGET DECREASE: 16 Billion.

YEARLY DEFICIT: 1.5 trillion.

AMOUNT IN THE BLACK FOR THIS YEAR: 726 billion.

Number of years to pay off national debt: 20.

HOWEVER it is actually less than that, because I didn't calculate things like tax revenue increases over those twenty years, but that involves more knowledge of economics than I have.

Point is you're forgetting that it's not 14 trillion every year. It's 14 trillion over multiple years, and we don't have to cut or increase by 14 trillion to fix it.

Edit: FURTHER it is worth noting that I increased the Federal Tax Revenue by nearly 50%. Even if you CUT ALL SPENDING FOREVER you'd still take about 3 years to pay off the debt. More because the economy would crash like a motherfucker. Also worth noting is the actual tax revenue increase would be considerably higher than that with the property and sales taxes coming in from those people who got jobs, and we'd ideally decrease the unemployment rate by 4-6%.

You misinterpret. Your argument suggested that giving money to game developers through the NEA is something that shouldn't be done because that money could be better spent elsewhere. I pointed out that this is a type of argument that I think is flawed, especially in this case. Nothing more nothing less. Not my intention to imply you said anything else.

e: Also what Krylo said pretty well up there. That there are a lot of other places/ways to gain money. The defense spending was just something I pulled out of my head without much thought, it was only meant to be an example.

I am also totally against funding video games as art, but mostly because of this

Ugh. Yes, what we need is to provide excuses for someone to make some annoying Pitfall clone where every other screen is a text dump about the abortion debate, or something else equally "deep" that they don't feel the need to make playable.

Also, off topic (like the debt debate)
...Uhm, television?

I agree with the logic but to me, if painters, sculptors and film makers can, its only fair. Thats an argument on how NEA is unwise in what they fund, not on video games as an art form.

Nah, I didn't forget that.

I like your plan. I guess there's just something of a difference that needs to be distinguished between "what can realistically be achieved" and what I'd "idealistically like to see." It's the difference between what Democrats can privately hope for and what they should publicly lobby for and expect.

Furthermore, the mere fact that the tax increases and spending cuts that you've outlined would theoretically balance the budget within twenty years doesn't change the fact that there are other sectors you've left untouched where additional superfluous expenditures could be cut.

Finally, an element of my argument that you may have forgotten or misinterpreted is that I'm advocating substantial increases in spending into fields such as environmental regulation and healthcare, which would mandate further cuts in other programs in order to balance the budget. The 14 trillion dollar is daunting enough as it is, but it's even more daunting when you add to that the desire to spend hundreds of billions more each year to invest into clean energy, greenhouse gas mitigation and climate change adaptation costs.

Seriously my Advanced Environmental Law class calculated the projected costs for the state of Alaska alone to relocate thirty indigenous Inupiat communities threatened by erosion and flooding caused by global warming in the Arctic now, and it came up as $2.6 billion dollars. If you assume as my class did that global warming is going to become progressively worse and more serious, with devastating impacts on coastal communities throughout the world, then I think it becomes easier to appreciate my stance on cutting back on discretionary spending because the government's going to have to spend a fuckton of money just responding to climate change, and we can't seriously toss video game companies grants when that shit's going down.

EDIT: Said Alaskan Inupiat communities are not going to be relocated before they sink into the Chukchi Sea because Congress was like "fuck no, we're not providing federal funding for that." So it's just kind of frustrating when Congress is funding art projects but not funding any systemic approach to Climate Change adaptation and relocation.

I kind of want to see this go through just so we get a whole bunch of arthouse videogames that no one plays. Nobody watches arthouse films, nobody is going to play arthouse video games. They not really going to be like current videogames.
I'm waitingfor the videogame equivalent of Wavelength- which locks up your comptuer and means you can't cloe it or shutit down and you have to push a single key faster nd faster aand faster till it lets you go.
And halfway through a guy outside your house dies but if you go save him you have to start the game over again.

actually the giant flaw in Krylo's plan is you are taxing money from the rich. you know, the people that decide who gets taxed. Even if politicians themselves weren't rich, their families, friends, and lobbyists are.

You are putting "why this won't happen" in a discussion about what *should* be done. They are not discussing whether or not it will happen, because arguing that is pointless. Thus, bringing up "well it won't happen anyways" is besides the point.

I left a lot of sectors alone because I'm not an economic major and don't understand exactly where a lot of military spending goes. I have just enough knowledge to know dealing with that kind of stuff would just be all wrong.

Like pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan would cost an obscene amount of money for carriers and other transport and blah blah blah.

And I'm not sure what effects cutting military spending in general would have on tax revenue, because depending on where you cut/how you cut you could have people losing jobs equating to less tax revenue, and you could end up spending money to restructure organizations to be cheaper. It would no doubt be worth it in the long term, but would it be worth it in a 20 year long term? I'm not equipped with the numbers to really answer that.

And the same goes for cutting from other areas. Like public works, or art grants. I don't know what the full effect they have on the economy is. I could look up how much they cost us, but it's require significantly more research to figure out how many jobs they are creating, and how that money going in at the bottom is truly affecting the economy as a whole and how much extra tax revenue it's generating, and then compare the human costs vs the monetary costs and try to figure out what's worth it.

As such, I left a lot of areas alone.

ALSO just for simplicity's sake. The point was we could go almost 800 billion in the black ONLY cutting the drug war if we increased taxes on the rich. And honestly, we could probably afford to increase taxes more than that.

I think part of this should be figuring out what environmental practices are worth spending money on. For instance: I don't think I'd bother relocating those inuits. At most I'd spend some money telling someone they should probably move inland, and leave it to them.

You'd also have to ask yourself questions like "How many years to pay off the debt is acceptable?" and "Will I be spending 700 billion on these new environmental protections?"

And, moreover, "Could I somehow design environmental protections to MAKE me money rather than cost me money?" For example, rather than paying government money to help companies create more green plants, charge them an extra whatever percentage if they don't do it themselves.

Edit: Could even do this with more humanitarian concerns. Like charging huge tariffs on imports (even from US companies) on products made with slavery or in sweatshop conditions, which would increase point of sale cost for those products, which would decrease the company's profit, which would incentivize the companies to pay working wages and create decent working conditions even in third world countries, which itself would considerably cut into the amount of money they are saving by making things off shore and shipping them in, WHICH would incentivize more US jobs, which would create more tax revenue, all while actually MAKING the federal government money instead of costing them money.

I would.

Individuals who are forced to spend monstrous amounts of money to relocate their homes were by no means responsible for the global warming crisis. Punishing impoverished Inupiat natives for daring to have lived in coastal areas in the Arctic Circle for centuries seems grossly unfair, given they've left virtually no carbon footprint that contributed to the problem and given that the destruction of their communities is not something they could possibly have the financial resources to rebuild from. The average Inupiat family in those communities makes under $30,000 a year.

I guess my broader point is that it just seems ridiculous to me that we're comfortable doling out grants for entertainment industries while we're not doing the same for people who desperately need the money for far more noteworthy reasons. Our nation's discretionary spending is somewhat ludicrous, and the way Congress actually operates at times seems dysfunctional. We'll pay millions to build a new bridge with marginal value because it fits neatly into a preexisting grant program, but we won't pay the same amount of money to actually relocate a community in imminent danger of being washed away because no preexisting grant or preexisting agency exists to confront the problem.

TLDR: Congress is fucked up, the entire system is fucked, let's implode everything and start from scratch.

Also, I make under 10,000 a year. 30,000 sounds like being rich to me.
 

I see what you're saying, but 2.6 billion is a LOT more money than 161 million (NEA's entire budget). And the arts aren't as ephemeral as it's so easy to think. Societies are measured by their art, and their art has a symbiotic relationship with their growth.

You would have to completely defund the NEA 20 times to pay for that community. It just doesn't make sense to even compare the two in any way. The spending toward NEA is so miniscule that it's hardly even a bleep on our government spending.

Like yeah, if it was a matter of "We can spend this 200 million relocating people, or funding the arts" well I guess relocating people, but defunding the NEA will do absolutely nothing for anyone.

Arts are essential to society. They increase happiness which is essential to productivity. They encourage the flow of ideas and education which is also essential. Opposition to repression ovften arises from the artisic communities- they have historical always lead the flow of ideas and political reform.
You can't just cut that off

Oh c'mon now, there's a pretty huge difference between "being against the arts" and "being against federal funding for the arts in the specific times of economic debt and recession."

Also, I never suggested I'd support complete eradication of all funding for the arts, I just don't think videogame companies should be receiving that funding. And yes, I suppose I would prefer that money went towards addressing other needs, if forced to make a choice.

this is fair enough but why are video games less deserving then say, a film

These are times when they are perhaps more than necessaryl These are times when represion and corruption rein. And as Krylo has pointed out the tarts is cheap as fuck for the value it provides.

But the funding won't be going to videogame companies. Film funding doesn't go to movie studios.
Im against videogame funding for reasons outlined earlier but that doesn't mean you should cut arts funding.

I wasn't poo-pooing the "Video games as art" argument, I was poo-pooing the "Only things that 'address' the 'deep' issues are Art" argument.
There have been quite a few games like that. That Penn and Teller "Real Time Road Trip" game for instance, and I remember watching a Youtube review of a game where the developer had made it so that the final boss required the player to press the A button 65,000 times to defeat it. Also, I guess I Want To Be The Guy is nigh-functionally unplayable, and is definitely unmarketable.

But I'd support all of those games over some game that (thought it) had something to say about, I dunno, the immigration issue. I like the ability of high-art experiments to go to the outer limits of what is endurable, if only because it allows someone to be influenced by it later and refine it into something more palatable and enjoyable.

Otherwise we'll just end up with the videogame equivalent of the masses of "Aloof/disaffected middle class whites with relationship problems" that clog up film festivals.
Heh.

Kicking back, and thinking about what I said (during a bout of "OH SHIT NIGHTKIN KILL IT!" (Fallout New Vegas)), I said stupid things.

I meant to say more, and more logical.
Basically more what Krylo said, exactly like Krylo said it.

Just figured I'd throw this out here. You're free to laugh at me, Snake.

Again you would hope that the funding board are better than that. And Idon't know what film festivals you go to, the arthouse/indepedent film field is incredibly deep and the "middle class with relationship problems" is just sort of the most visible bit of it because journalists don't like to watch films exploring what happens weh film characters start to realise they are in a film and use the ability to pick up hot chicks.

no there fucking isn't. especially when complaining about federal funding for the arts is, scale-wise, like bitching up a storm over paying 1.09 for a bagel instead of .99 just after you bought a 250,000 dollar sportscar you fully intend to replace in a year.

art is fucking expensive. I shoot digital photography as a student, which is by far one of the cheapest methods of photography, and I still run up my budget for travel expenses and printing fees. I have friends who regularly spend over two hundred dollars just for a single photoshoot for props, travel, and space, and that's counting the fact that the models are fellow students who are doing it for free.

This is such a complete misinterpretation of my argument that I don't even know how to respond to it, because I'm arguing both against the price of the bagel and the purchase of the sports car in your hypothetical.

But if I were to play around on your terms, I'd say this: America just bought the damn sportscar, right? And it was a mistake, so now we're $250,000 dollars in debt. We shouldn't have purchased the car, particularly if we weren't receiving enough income (federal equivalent: taxing the wealthy) to justify the cost.

So we simply can't buy all that many bagels anymore because we're in exorbitant amounts of debt. Being fiscally responsible means we have to measure the weight and the utility of each bagel we buy. It's not completely unimaginable that someone who was watching his money under such circumstances would say "No" to purchasing the bagel that was aesthetically pleasing but wasn't very nutritious, as opposed to purchasing the bagels that contained the nutrients necessary to ensure you had healthy meals.

(Like seriously it's a little annoying that so many of you seem hellbent to interpret my position as one against videogames or against art, like I'm some Neanderthal who takes deliberate joy in depriving artists of their income. That's not my position. If you'd like to have an actual policy discussion that's cool with me, and that was essentially Krylo's approach and I enjoyed that, but merely telling me off for "hatin' on artists" is kind of silly.)

Being against federal funding for the arts is pretty much equivalent to being against the arts though. Cause that is a pretty significant part of arts funding and it's pretty essential to the health of the arts. Cutting it is going to seriously impair artistic expression.
Especially in a recession where private donors are few and far between.

Also its a policy game. If you give in on all the small battles, you give ground on the arts, you give ground on welfare because you're in a recession then you lessen the impetus for major change-people willthink it is ok because we are spending less on these small things, they think belt tightening can fix things.
It can't-you need major change if you want to fix things and fiddling around by cutting lightly funded and essential areas distracts from this need and lessens its feeling.

Using the example above it's like thinking that buying the sportscar was ok, you'll just cut out the bagels from now on.

Like I totally understand your position and where you are coming from, I just think that you shouldfight the big battles.
I also think that arts funding is essential and cutting it will cripple artistic output but that's not even a necessary argument in this case.


But I'm sure funding videogame art will bring us closer to videogame sex which is really what everyone wants so we shouldn't be against it.

there is no evidence there is any additional spending. From what I've read its just that they are expanding who is eligible. I saw no mention of additional funding going to NEA, so really its not even about paying $1.09 for a bagel instead of 99 cents, you are essentially complaining that they now offer 99cent danishes too.

They aren't increasing spending at all